Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly defended his close adviser Jonathan Urich on Monday, after Urich was accused of leaking a classified document to the German newspaper Bild.
“He did not harm state security,” Netanyahu claimed. But a close reading of the charges and accompanying security assessments reveals a far more complex picture.
Legal officials note that, while the prime minister does have the authority to approve publication of classified information—a point of contention within law enforcement, that authority is not unlimited. It does not include the right to endanger national security. Nor is the prime minister the one authorized to determine whether such a publication has caused harm. That authority lies with Israel’s security bodies—Military Intelligence, Shin Bet, Mossad and the Defense Ministry’s security division —whose evaluations are typically accepted by courts as objective evidence.
At the heart of the so-called Hamas document affair—allegedly leaked to Bild—is a serious allegation that its exposure could have revealed a classified Military Intelligence collection method used in Gaza. The document was obtained “in a manner prohibited from publication” and, according to the indictment against co-defendants Eli Feldstein and Ari Rosenfeld, the information was collected “using a highly classified tool.” Its publication, they argue, could have prevented further use of that tool in other operational arenas.
The indictment against Urich does not claim that actual harm occurred, but asserts that he intended to harm state security and that his actions had the potential to do so.
A security assessment submitted in the case warned that exposing the collection method could help Hamas decipher IDF intelligence tactics in Gaza—and endanger lives. This assessment was one of the factors that led Justice Yosef Elron to order the suspects’ continued detention in October. That detail was first reported by Ynet, which also revealed that the assessment was prepared by a senior IDF intelligence officer.
In legal terms, “harm to state security” is measured by an objective standard. That is, courts rely on assessments from the security agencies, which are treated as substantial evidence, but the defense is entitled to challenge them and attempt to undermine their conclusions. This principle applies even outside of criminal proceedings. For example, in 2011, Temple Mount activists petitioned the High Court to release the state comptroller’s report on oversight of construction at the site. The Shin Bet submitted an opinion warning that releasing the report would pose a real security threat. Similarly, the legislation banning Al Jazeera broadcasts in Israel relies on comparable security assessments warning of the network’s potential to cause harm.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
If Urich’s lawyers seek to introduce Netanyahu’s opinion in court to challenge the security establishment’s stance, the prime minister would be required to testify in person and undergo cross-examination. He would likely be questioned about his knowledge of the classified tool, how it operates, the origin of the leaked document, and how the information was obtained. It is doubtful that Netanyahu could claim detailed knowledge or hold any meaningful authority in this realm—certainly not enough to override the security experts whose domain this is.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara also stated that “Urich’s disclosure of the document posed a danger to national security and human lives”—even though no actual harm is alleged. The charge sheet notes that the leaked content involved “classified information vital to state security, disclosed by unauthorized individuals—some of whom intended to harm state security.”
In other words, the allegation against Urich centers on intent and negligence, not on actual damage. Netanyahu’s claim that no harm occurred does not address the legal framing of the allegations, which never assert that it did.
Urich’s legal team is expected to challenge the security assessment, but legal precedents show that this is a steep hill to climb. In a recent espionage case before the Supreme Court, for instance, a similar legal debate centered around a Shin Bet opinion, and the court ultimately sided with the security services. Netanyahu’s public backing may offer Urich political support, but legally, it is far from sufficient to override the security establishment or prevent a potential indictment.