Government leaks have been a constant feature of Israeli politics since the state was established. All of the country’s prime ministers suffered from this problem, and some even played an active role in leaking. However, it would seem that the current war has taken this phenomenon to new heights.
Recent revelations from the security cabinet meeting about the Philadelphi Corridor have shown not just the indifference of the government of Israel toward the issue of the hostages in Gaza, but also the non-democratic way in which decisions are made and the improper conduct of the security cabinet.
The security cabinet decision to support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor went against the opinions of the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), and the head of the Mossad. In other words, with the exception of former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter, the remaining ministers, who lack any defense experience, rejected the recommendations of senior defense officials (except for National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi, who is Netanyahu’s protegé).
Thus, the security cabinet – the primary government decision-making body – has effectively been taken hostage by Netanyahu. As Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer stated, according to a leaked account of the meeting: “The prime minister can do whatever he wants.”
The expected role of ministers in the security cabinet is to provide critique, raise concerns, cast doubts, and challenge every issue brought to the table. However, this security cabinet has devolved into a passive group that merely nods in agreement without voicing any objections.
Apparently, the only way to circumvent this situation is through leaks from security cabinet meetings. Consequently, security cabinet and full-cabinet discussions are leaked daily to an eager public. This public is left not only grappling with the embarrassment of the leaks themselves but also appalled by the shallowness of the discussions and the crude language in which they are articulated.
IT IS worth remembering that security cabinet meetings are confidential, and that anyone leaking from it is breaking the law. According to the 1968 Basic Law: the Government (Article 35a), the deliberations and decisions of the government and all of its ministerial committees (which includes the cabinet) regarding state security and foreign relations of the state are confidential, and their disclosure and publication is forbidden.
However, ministers seem happy to abuse the fact that they enjoy legal immunity, and the fact that no minister has ever been convicted for the crime of leaking. As noted, government leaks are not a new phenomenon in Israel; Netanyahu, however, excelled far and beyond all his predecessors. Notably, during Operation Protective Edge in August 2014, many believed that Netanyahu himself or his office was responsible for leaking a sensitive IDF presentation, which entailed significant security risks due to the confidential information it contained.
At the time, attorney-general Yehuda Weinstein refused to launch an investigation into the leaks. In response, then-MK Eitan Cabel and the Movement for Quality Government in Israel petitioned the High Court of Justice, which required Weinstein to justify his decision not to investigate.
Although Weinstein maintained his refusal, he conceded in his response to the court that leaking information from a security cabinet meeting is “an act forbidden by law,” and thus “in principle, it can be stated that a person who leaks information from a security cabinet meeting has, prima facie, committed a criminal offense.” Ultimately, the High Court of Justice upheld Weinstein’s decision not to pursue an investigation, thereby inadvertently reinforcing the culture of leaks in Israel.
Preventative measures taken
AT THE outset of the war, Netanyahu attempted to address the issue of leaks through several measures. These included imposing additional restrictions via the military censor and drafting a new law by the National Security Council to empower the Shin Bet to administer polygraph tests to those participating in security cabinet discussions.
While this idea had been proposed several times before, it has only been implemented in exceptional cases. Another approach involved requesting that the attorney-general warn journalists not to publish leaked information. However, this measure proved ineffective, as these warnings were perceived as mere threats intended to intimidate leakers and their recipients rather than addressing the underlying problem.
Leaking from security cabinet meetings during the war reached its zenith with the decision to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor. Ironically, ministers were asked to sign a special confidentiality agreement before this meeting to prevent leaks.
Leaks are often used to support and glorify the leaker’s position while discrediting opposing views. In the current context, leaking has become a primary tool for challenging the government’s uniform stance. However, this practice undermines the security cabinet’s ability to engage in effective discussions, as it is primarily aimed at swaying public opinion and garnering political advantages.
The Winograd Commission, which investigated the failures of the 2006 Second Lebanon War and released its findings in 2008, highlighted that “the danger of leaks extends beyond the damage caused by confidential information reaching the enemy. Leaking significantly impairs the ability to conduct open and reliable discussions in critical forums, potentially leading to serious weaknesses in Israel’s decision-making processes.”
Subsequent committees, including the Committee to Improve the Protection of Security Secrets led by deputy attorney-general Dina Zilber, have proposed various solutions to address the issue of leaks. However, none of these recommendations have so far been implemented.
Netanyahu, who has played a significant role in shaping Israel’s culture of leaks, is now grappling with the consequences of his actions. Clearly, this issue of leaks from the security cabinet should be added to the list of items examined by the state commission of inquiry that will eventually be established to investigate the failings of this government.
The writer teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a board member of Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.