Israel’s High Court pressed the warring sides in the Sde Teiman video leak controversy to strike a deal over who should lead the criminal investigation, after a marathon hearing on Tuesday that highlighted both political tension and legal ambiguity.
Justice Yael Willner urged the parties to “deliberate until white smoke comes out,” pleading with them to settle the dispute rather than force the court to impose a decision. “We implore you from the public’s perspective to reach an agreement,” she said, acknowledging the charged political atmosphere surrounding the case. “We will wait for you here until five o’clock, until six o’clock, seven o’clock and even later. Just reach an agreement.”
The judges gave the opposing sides until 5 p.m. to agree but indicated they would continue waiting into the night if progress was being made. Among the options Willner floated was authorizing the court to appoint either a serving or retired district judge, or even a retired Supreme Court justice, to supervise the investigation.
She also suggested entrusting the probe to the Israel Securities Authority or the Israel Competition Authority. These alternatives underscored the court’s growing skepticism toward both Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s move to install State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara’s insistence that State Attorney Amit Aisman lead the case.
Willner’s comments signaled that the court is unwilling to endorse either camp’s proposal outright, reflecting frustration with what it sees as overreach on both sides. “The problem is that as ombudsman there is a clause in the law which says he can’t do any other job, either directly or indirectly,” she remarked, a point echoed by Justice Alex Stein.
The judges also questioned whether Levin had exceeded his authority by invoking Clause 23 of the 1959 Civil Service Law to appoint Kula — a move Justice Gila Canfy Steinitz described as “certainly intervention” in the justice process. Willner challenged Levin’s attorney, Zion Amir, to cite a precedent for such use of the clause, but none was provided.
At the same time, the bench pressed Baharav-Miara’s team on its own potential conflicts. Willner questioned whether Aisman could truly serve impartially, given his previous involvement in discussions concerning the military advocate general’s internal review. She further noted that if Baharav-Miara herself had a conflict of interest in overseeing the probe, that conflict might extend to her authority to appoint Aisman in the first place.
The dispute stems from the explosive leak of a video allegedly showing IDF soldiers abusing a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility. Former military advocate general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi has admitted authorizing the leak and is now under investigation for breach of trust, abuse of office, and obstruction of justice.
Following that revelation, Levin stripped Baharav-Miara of her oversight role, accusing her of a conflict of interest, and named Kula to take over. Baharav-Miara initially refused to comply but relented after the Justice Ministry’s own legal adviser found her conflicted. She then appointed Aisman instead — setting off the current standoff.
The court observed that both appointments carried legal and ethical problems. It warned that Kula’s dual position could undermine judicial independence, since as ombudsman he holds authority over judges who might later hear cases he initiates. But it also raised doubts about the propriety of the attorney general’s delegation powers, which are not explicitly grounded in law.
The broader fallout has deepened political fault lines across Israel. Levin and his supporters accuse the legal establishment of targeting soldiers and defying elected officials, while critics contend the government is exploiting the affair to weaken an already embattled attorney general and erode judicial independence.
By Tuesday night, the judges’ plea for compromise remained unanswered, leaving open whether the opposing camps would heed Willner’s call — or whether the High Court itself will be forced to resolve the explosive dispute.
{Matzav.com}
