Netanyahu said seeking to outlaw publication of security cabinet leaks
PMO reportedly wants military censor approval for all defense-related content, while restricting what can be okayed; journalist union warns of chilling effect on press freedom
The Prime Minister’s Office wants to make it illegal to publish any leaked details from security cabinet meetings unless they are first approved by the military censor, according to a Tuesday report.
The unsourced report by the Kan broadcaster said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also wants to limit the discretion of the IDF-run censor in deciding what material can be reported.
Netanyahu has for years railed against leaks from cabinet meetings, including from the high-level security cabinet, with content seeping to news outlets that sometimes report discussions before the gatherings have even concluded.
The Union of Journalists in Israel panned the idea as a “glaring warning sign” of a threat to freedom of the press.
The reported move comes after the premier has recently argued that too many details of government deliberations are being shared with the press, in particular during the ongoing war with the Hamas terror group in the Gaza Strip.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara is expected to oppose the move as not being a fair legal solution to the problem of cabinet leaks, the report said. Baharav-Miara, who has often clashed with the right-wing government, is expected to focus on legal measures against those who leak the content, rather than those who publish it.
A meeting on the matter is to be held in the coming days.
The Union of Journalists in Israel responded in a statement that the proposal “to allow the prosecution of journalists for legitimate journalistic publications is a glaring warning sign on the way to a serious attack on the freedom of the press.”
It accused the Prime Minister’s Office of using security considerations during the war to promote “an anti-democratic proposal that has no equal in democratic countries and that will seriously harm freedom of the press.
“If the prime minister feels that there is a problem with leaks, let him deal with those who share secrets and not with the journalists who are doing their jobs,” it said.
In November, Haaretz reported that the military censor, Brig. Gen. Kobi Mandelblit, had complained privately that the prime minister and other senior government officials were pressuring him to muzzle some media publications without a valid security justification for doing so.
Then, in January, Netanyahu reportedly declared he would advance a bill requiring cabinet members and high-ranking officials attending discussions of national security issues to undergo lie detector tests, lamenting that there was “a plague of leaks” from such meetings.
It was not the first time that Netanyahu has called for such a measure against members of his own government, having made a similar call for legislation requiring polygraph tests during a previous government meeting in mid-November. He also reportedly required staff to undergo tests in 2022 amid leaks.
The reported move against cabinet leaks came as Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, of Netanyahu’s Likud party, asked the attorney general to order a probe of opposition Labor party MK Gilad Kariv on suspicion that he had leaked sensitive material from a classified meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
The meeting in question was held on June 13, 2023, during which Netanyahu gave a classified security briefing to the committee members. MKs were not permitted to bring their phones to the meeting but leaks from it were published in December.
A statement from his office said Ohana contacted the attorney general after ordering his own internal Knesset probe that apparently pointed to Kariv as the culprit behind the leaks.
“Given that various criminal offenses were allegedly discovered,” Ohana said, he asked Baharav-Miara to “immediately order the opening of an investigation for an in-depth clarification of the incident and prosecution, as long as the evidentiary picture does not change during the investigation.”
Ohana said that “refraining from taking all legal measures will encourage and incentivize more leaks from more meetings,” harming state security and hampering the Knesset’s role “in maintaining proper supervision of the government and its institutions.”
He warned that if leaks are not investigated, such institutions will not “share secret information in the future.”
The Attorney General’s Office said the request will be handled in the normal manner and a response issued in the coming days, Kan reported.
Media reports did not specify what information it was that Kariv allegedly leaked.
Kariv said in a statement that he welcomes probes of leaks from government and Knesset meetings, but that “as long as it is a political investigation, selective enforcement or an investigation aimed at terrorizing members of the Knesset, it will run into the steel wall of democracy.”
He said he would also contact the attorney general and ask her to probe “leaks from the war cabinet about attack plans in Lebanon and Gaza that endangered IDF soldiers, at the same time as the investigation concerning the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”
“If necessary, a petition will be submitted to the High Court of Justice for the Shin Bet to investigate the leaks that endanger soldiers’ lives,” he added.
Ohana previously instructed Knesset security officials to look into the leak and an officer was tasked with handling the probe. The investigation took statements from witnesses, gathered evidence, and reviewed security camera footage from the meeting, his office said in its statement.
The probe found that the only person who looked at the meeting minutes from which the classified material was gleaned was Kariv, who reviewed the documents twice.
The probe found that Kariv used a highlighter to mark sections of the protocol that were later published. The committee administration also confirmed that it was the only copy of the minutes from the meeting and that it was provided to Kariv without any markings, the statement said.
According to Ohana’s statement, the case file stated that “officials and security bodies who come to the committee share valuable security information. It would be fitting for us to provide them with an appropriate platform to support this.”
