Maj. Gen. (res.) Avi Gil, who served as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's military secretary before, during and after the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre, publicly alleged Thursday for the first time that at least one official record from the morning of the attack had been altered inside the Prime Minister's Office. He identified former chief of staff Tzachi Braverman as the person allegedly responsible.
The allegations prompted calls across the political spectrum for an investigation. But the matter has already been investigated, and the case has been awaiting a decision by prosecutors for more than a year. With Israel approaching elections, no decision is expected for at least another month.
What exactly is Braverman suspected of doing, what did Gil reveal, and why has the investigation yet to produce a decision? Here is what we know.
Has an investigation been opened?
Yes. Police opened an investigation into Tzachi Braverman over suspicions that official records from the Prime Minister's Office had been falsified.
Braverman was questioned under caution in November 2024 and denied the allegations. His attorney, Jacques Chen, maintained that Braverman had acted within his authority to correct a clerical error in the records.
Although the investigation has been completed and the case transferred to the prosecution, no decision has been made on whether to file charges.
What exactly was investigated?
The investigation centered on suspicions that Braverman personally altered the recorded time of a telephone conversation between Netanyahu and his then-military secretary, Avi Gil, on the morning of October 7, 2023.
According to the allegations, the time of the call was changed from 6:40 a.m. to 6:29 a.m., an 11-minute difference during the critical opening moments of the Hamas attack.
Investigators examined claims that Braverman initially instructed a stenographer in the Prime Minister's Office to change the time recorded in the transcript. When she refused, he allegedly made the alteration himself.
The dispute concerns the official documentation of Netanyahu's communications that morning and the chronology of the information he received as the attack unfolded.
What is the status of the investigation?
The case was transferred to the prosecution for a decision approximately one year and three months ago. Since then, prosecutors have not announced whether Braverman will face criminal charges.
Despite renewed public attention following Gil's interview, a decision is not expected within the coming month because of the election period.
Former chief of staff Tzachi Braverman
(Photo: Ohad Zwingenberg)
The central question is therefore no longer whether authorities will investigate the allegations, but whether the existing evidence is sufficient to justify an indictment.
What did Avi Gil reveal Thursday night?
In an interview with Channel 12 News, Gil confirmed two reports previously published by journalist Nadav Eyal in Yedioth Ahronoth: the alleged alteration of records at the Prime Minister's Office and a warning about the possibility of war delivered by former Shin Bet director Ronen Bar.
Gil said he first became concerned during the war, when he learned that records and transcripts were being collected inside the Prime Minister's Office in violation of established procedures.
"During the war, while we were preparing the ground maneuver, I was approached and told that records were being collected in the Prime Minister's Office, contrary to regulations," he said. "I contacted the attorney general. At the height of the war, stenographic transcripts and protocols were being collected. I didn't want to accuse anyone. I wanted to stop it."
Gil said he asked the attorney general to formally clarify the rules governing access to the records.
He described a subsequent incident in January 2024, when a stenographer approached him privately and said she had been instructed by the chief of staff to change the recorded time of Netanyahu's 6:40 a.m. conversation.
"She came into my office, closed the door and told me," Gil said. "That says everything. She understood that it was unusual. I believe she was distressed."
According to Gil, the stenographer refused to make the change because the original computer record documented the conversation as having taken place between 6:40 a.m. and 6:44 a.m.
"She said, 'I'm not allowed to change it. The computer shows 6:40 to 6:44.' Those are facts, and they are not in dispute," he said.
The breach of the border fence on October 7
Gil questioned why anyone would seek to alter the documentation of a four-minute conversation from the morning of October 7, particularly months after the attack.
"The first thing I ask myself is why anyone is dealing with the stenographic record of a four-minute conversation on the morning of October 7," he said. "Who cares about it, and what was said in that conversation that made it so important?"
Gil said he had shared his assessments with the appropriate authorities but distinguished those assessments from what he described as an established fact.
"Someone was dealing with certain narratives. It was important to them to examine something that happened on October 7, sometime in mid-January 2024," he said. "This is changing a stenographic record, changing the truth."
He said he immediately documented the incident in a handwritten note to the attorney general.
"I didn't wait. We were between two meetings, and I sat down and wrote a note to the attorney general in my own handwriting, updating her on the matter," he said.
Gil described the alleged alteration in unequivocal terms.
"This is forgery. Factually, an instruction was given to change the time of a conversation," he said.
He also urged any future commission of inquiry, as well as the state comptroller, not to rely solely on written transcripts when reconstructing the events of October 7.
"I have one recommendation for the commission of inquiry that will be established, and for the comptroller: Don't settle for transcripts. Demand the original recordings."
How did Netanyahu respond, and how did his account change?
Netanyahu responded Thursday by accusing Gil of knowing about indications of an impending attack on October 7 and failing to wake the prime minister in time.
The accusation echoed similar claims Netanyahu has directed at former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, who has said he intends to sue the prime minister, and former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi.
In a statement issued through Likud, Netanyahu's party accused Gil of attempting to divert attention from his own failures.
"Tonight, Channel 14 revealed that Avi Gil is trying to divert attention from his personal failures that night with lies," the statement said. "Like others, Avi Gil knew about the impending attack and chose not to wake the prime minister in time."
According to Likud, at 3:55 a.m. on October 7, Gil received a text message from an intelligence officer in the Prime Minister's Military Secretariat describing several warning signs.
These included the activation of SIM cards in Hamas facilities in central Gaza and Khan Younis, the activation of Hamas emergency communications systems and unusual activity involving Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif.
Netanyahu
(Photo: DEBBIE HILL / POOL / AFP)
"Avi Gil did nothing with the information," Likud said. "Gil's interviews are attempts to obscure the simple and painful truth about his failure to perform his duties."
However, Netanyahu's latest accusation contrasts with a statement he issued in March 2025, when he defended the conduct of his military secretariat.
At that time, Netanyahu said an intelligence officer in the secretariat had received a message during the night of October 7 describing several warning signs, but also indicating that Hamas was operating normally and that the head of the IDF Southern Command would discuss the situation only the following morning.
"The intelligence officer immediately forwarded the message, word for word, to the military secretary," Netanyahu said in March 2025. "However, in light of the message's assessment that this was not an urgent event, he chose not to wake him."
The statement concluded: "Prime Minister Netanyahu has full confidence in the military secretariat of his office."
The difference between the two statements has become a central point of contention, with Netanyahu's critics accusing him of changing his account of the intelligence warnings and the actions taken by his staff before the massacre.
How have political leaders responded?
Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of attempting to rewrite the history of October 7 rather than accept responsibility for the failures that preceded the attack.
"The truth that emerged from Maj. Gen. Avi Gil's testimony is simple and indisputable: Netanyahu was warned and ignored it, and since then he has evaded responsibility, whined that no one woke him up and done everything possible to rewrite history," Lapid said.
"If he remains in office, there will be more October 7s, and our children will not be safe," he added.
Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman called for an immediate criminal investigation into Netanyahu and members of his office.
"I call on the attorney general to order an immediate investigation against the prime minister and his associates on suspicion of treason and conspiracy," Liberman said.
He also urged the IDF chief of staff to prevent any attempt to use the military for political purposes, accusing Netanyahu's camp of trying to change the public agenda immediately before the elections.
Democrats chairman Yair Golan described Gil's allegations as an extraordinary development.
"This is an earthquake. Maj. Gen. (res.) Avi Gil's testimony is among the most serious ever heard in Israel," Golan said.
"The blame and responsibility of Netanyahu for the massacre of 1,200 people and the abduction of 251 have never been clearer," he added, accusing the prime minister of committing a grave offense against Gaza border communities, former hostages and the Israeli public.
For now, the investigation into the alleged alteration of official records remains unresolved. Braverman has denied wrongdoing, prosecutors have yet to decide whether to file charges, and Gil's public account has renewed scrutiny of how Netanyahu's office documented the crucial first minutes of October 7.