Prosecutors issue Q&A paper on PMO documents leak case to combat ‘misinformation’

In an irregular step, the state prosecution publishes a Q&A document relating to the charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Eli Feldstein, accused of harming state security by leaking classified security documents to the media.

It says it is doing so “in response to questions and allegations in the media and public discourse regarding the Feldstein case, as well as widespread misinformation propagated by those with vested interests.”

A few excerpts:

“Why investigate this leak when others have not been?”

The prosecution says: “This is not a typical ‘leak’ to the media,” with Feldstein and the second suspect, a non-commissioned officer, “accused of intentionally creating a direct channel that bypasses the military system responsible for examining and transferring information to the political echelon, without either of them being authorized to do so.”

“The Intelligence Directorate cannot accept a situation in which highly classified, raw, and sensitive intelligence is removed from the system without oversight of where it ends up,” it says. “The information published in Bild was obtained through a secret intelligence tool. Security officials determined that revealing the existence of this tool, its capabilities, and how it is used could seriously harm Israel’s security interests, particularly in intelligence collection and protecting intelligence sources that save lives.”

“Journalists argue that bypassing censorship by publishing information in foreign media is a common practice.”

The prosecution says: “If such a practice exists, it is undoubtedly unacceptable. In any case, each instance is examined individually. In this case, the military censor completely prohibited the publication of the information, even after it was published in foreign media, indicating its extremely high sensitivity.” (The censor often allows local media to quote foreign reports even when it cannot itself publish information.)

“Why did Feldstein face interrogation by the Shin Bet as though he were a terrorist rather than by the police?”

The prosecution says: “Typically, investigations of offenses that harm state security are conducted jointly by the Shin Bet and the police. The Shin Bet is responsible for the security-related aspect of the investigation. Feldstein is not being held in ‘Shin Bet dungeons.’ Once his Shin Bet interrogation ended, he was detained in a Prison Service facility.”

“Why is Feldstein accused of intending to harm state security? He believed he was acting in the state’s interest, not against it.”

The prosecution says: “Firstly, Feldstein published the classified information not to benefit the state but to influence media discourse. However, his intentions are not the basis for the charges against him.

“The Penal Code establishes the ‘foreseeability principle.’ In offenses requiring the defendant’s intent to cause harm, the principle states that if an individual foresaw a near certainty that their actions would result in harm to state security, they can be convicted, even if they did not intend the outcome or if it did not actually occur.

“In other words, the motive for Feldstein’s actions is irrelevant. What matters is that Feldstein should have foreseen the potential consequences of his actions. His awareness that the military censor prohibited publication of the information demonstrates that he understood the likelihood of harm to state security.”