Making sense of the Prime Minister's Office investigations

Over the past week, a number of investigations into the conduct of members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's inner circle during the war became public. Here is what we know so far.

By ELIAV BREUER NOVEMBER 10, 2024 14:30

PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a state memorial ceremony at the Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in Jerusalem last week, marking a year since the Hamas attack against Israel that took place on October 7/Simchat Torah, followed by the ongoing Gaza war. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

Case number one: Obtaining and leaking top-secret documents

The first and most serious investigation involves alleged leaking of state secrets for political gain. Reports on the investigation first broke on November 3.

According to information permitted for publication since then by Rishon Letsiyon Magistrate Court Chief Justice Menachem Mizrahi, a spokesperson for Netanyahu is under suspicion of obtaining top secret documents, altering them, and then leaking them to foreign press in order to stave off public pressure to go through with a hostage deal that could potentially have destabilized Netanyahu's government due to the opposition of his far-right partners to some of the concessions the deal entailed.

The investigation is being led by the Shin Bet. The spokesperson, Eliezer Feldstein, has been under arrest for over a week and was prevented from meeting with a lawyer until recently. Another four individuals, who are security officials, were arrested and interrogated as well. One of them was released from custody last week, and three others remain in custody. According to a number of reports, the security officials belong to a unit in the IDF's Intelligence Corps responsible for information security.

Mizrahi will rule on Sunday whether or not to extend the custody of Feldstein and the three security officials. He is also expected to rule on a request by Haaretz and other news outlets to allow publication of more details.

The documents in question were not published. However, they are widely believed to be linked to two publications from early September, in the German newspaper Bild and the British Jewish Chronicle. The first said, amongst other details, that Hamas was intentionally sowing internal division in Israel over the hostage issue and did not intend to go through with a deal. The second said, amongst other details, that hostages may have been smuggled out of Gaza into Egypt. The prime minister mentioned both reports in public statements.

The Jewish Chronicle (credit: WIKIPEDIA)

The two reports came out as public pressure against the prime minister and in favor of a deal peaked, after the bodies of six hostages had been located in southern Gaza after being executed just days before. Netanyahu insisted at the time that as part of a deal Israel could not compromise on its presence along the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border. The prime minister mentioned the alleged smuggling of hostages across the corridor as proof of this claim. However, security officials said they were not aware of any information supporting the claim, and the Jewish Chronicle reporter in question did not provide proof.

Case number two: Protocol tampering

The second investigation was officially acknowledged for the first time on November 7. The only information approved for publication, following media reports, was the following, "The Israel Police, Unit 433, is conducting a criminal investigation regarding events at the start of the war, in which a number of overt investigative acts have been taken."

More information was revealed in the Prime Minister's Office response to media reports, in which it acknowledged that the investigation was "directed at the prime minister's office."

According to a number of reports, the investigation in question relates to allegations that members of the prime minister's inner circle tampered with official protocols of National Security Cabinet meetings and other meetings at the start of the war. Channel 13 reported that one of the "overt investigative acts" was a "raid" of the prime minister's office on the evening of November 2.

Yediot Ahronot's Nadav Eyal reported in July that a "few months prior," the prime minister's then-Military Secretary Avi Gil had notified Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara that security officials had suspected that protocols of cabinet meetings and prime ministerial phone conversations had been tampered with. According to Eyal, security officials had found discrepancies between the protocols and the actual content of the conversations, including regarding "sensitive preparation" ahead of a "significant diplomatic occurrence." Eyal added that according to "senior figures in the political system," some of the war cabinet meetings were moved from the IDF headquarters at the Kirya, where they are recorded, to the prime minister's office, where they possibly are not.

---

---

The prime minister's office responded at the time that Eyal's report was a "complete lie," and that whoever is "familiar with the work processes knows that there is no possibility for such an act," since "all the meetings are recorded and transcribed as required by law – and therefore their content cannot be altered."

Eyal reported on Friday that the aforementioned "significant diplomatic occurrence" was connected to the ongoing cases against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and in the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague.

Haaretz reported in November of last year that Netanyahu's chief of staff, Tzachi Braverman, had requested classified protocols of National Security Cabinet meetings from previous years, allegedly in order to prepare the case that Netanyahu was not to blame for the October 7 Hamas massacre. According to the Haaretz report, Braverman also requested that government stenographers provide him with protocols of ongoing national security cabinet meeting protocols.

Shortly after the report, Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon demanded in a letter that National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegby collect any classified documents that had been exposed not according to protocol. Limon clarified that he was not aware personally of any such documents, but wrote that "claims have been made regarding the disclosure of confidential content from sensitive security discussions," which were held both during the war and prior to it.

Case number three: Blackmail

Channels 11 and 12 reported on Thursday, November 7, that IDF Chief of Staff Hertzi Halevy had received a complaint "a few months ago," that a senior member of Netanyahu's team had obtained "sensitive personal footage" of a "senior IDF officer" who until recently had worked in the prime minister's military secretariat. According to the reports, the complaint included the concern that the footage was being used to blackmail the officer in order to obtain "sensitive information."

Kan's Michael Shemesh reported on Sunday morning that the senior member in question was Braverman. Braverman denied the claims and threatened to sue Shemesh and Kan for libel.

As of yet, it remains unclear whether or not a police or other investigation has been launched on this issue.

 What remains unknown

Much of the details in the three cases above remain classified. However, two questions are especially important to understanding the events.

The first is whether or not the allegations are connected to each other. Was the alleged blackmailing of the IDF officer in Case Number Three done in order to obtain the classified documents in Case Number One? Is there a connection between the tampering with the classified documents in Case One, to the tampering with classified protocols of Case Two? The answers to these and other possible connections are important in understanding the scope of the actions at the heart of the investigations.

The second and perhaps most important question is whether or not the actions were committed at Netanyahu's demand, or whether they were initiatives taken by subordinates or other officials. The cases could develop into criminal indictments, and if the prime minister was involved, he may face new criminal charges – all while he is scheduled to take the witness stand on December 2 in his three ongoing criminal trials on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.