The government formally activated on Thursday evening the temporary appointment of retired judge Joseph Ben-Hamo to lead the investigation into the Sde Teiman video leak. The announcement from Justice Minister Yariv Levin formalized the temporary appointment he had already announced on Tuesday, granting Ben-Hamo the authority of attorney-general on the video leak itself, and regarding the obstruction of the investigation and justice that followed, prompting the investigation forward.
What remains to be seen is the High Court of Justice’s next move, as Ben-Hamo doesn’t completely match the criteria it laid out. What is likely is that petitions will be filed against the appointment, rolling the ball back to the court; one NGO submitted an urgent request to the court already on Thursday night to freeze the appointment.
Levin said on Thursday night, “Not only did the court prevent Kula from doing his job, but it set impossible standards for the criteria – it is impossible to abide by them.”
On Tuesday, Levin presented Ben-Hamo as his candidate, after a court hearing last week determined that Levin had the authority – in this specific case – to appoint an accompanying investigator.
The investigation is into the leak of a video showing the abuse of a Palestinian detainee by IDF reservists at the Sde Teiman detention facility in July 2024, as well as the obstruction of justice that followed. The video was leaked in August 2024, and earlier this month, former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted to authorizing it and resigned from her post as the investigation remains ongoing.
Levin appoints Ben-Hamo to lead Sde Teiman case
Levin’s original candidate was retired judge and Judicial Complaints Investigator Asher Kula. Ordinarily, the prosecution would lead such an investigation. In this case, however, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, and other relevant figures were involved in the initial probe into the leak – where Tomer-Yerushalmi’s involvement was notably missed. The A-G eventually recused herself from the case, proposing instead that it be picked up by Aisman.
At the court hearing last week, the prosecution argued that Aisman was a legitimate figure to lead the investigation, while Levin’s representatives argued that the whole affair had been tainted and must be led by an external figure.
The prosecution – as well as petitioners – fiercely challenged Levin’s appointment of Kula, arguing that it was a thinly veiled attempt to exercise political control over the investigation, and at a time and within a parliament that has marked the judiciary for attack. The court itself said that Kula was an invalid appointment due to stipulations in his position as Judicial Complaints Investigator. Petitioners added that the speed with which he was nominated was suspicious.
The justices provided Levin with conditions for his next candidate: one with extensive criminal law experience who is a currently serving state employee, and who is far removed from the Attorney-General’s Office and the prosecution. They further stipulated that the individual be a retired Supreme Court justice, a district court judge, or someone working for one of Israel’s economic regulatory bodies.
In his Tuesday letter to Civil Service Commissioner Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz presenting Ben-Hamo as his candidate, Levin explained his selection: he failed to secure the consent of a currently sitting judge. Levin wrote, “It should be noted that I examined the possibility of appointing a serving state employee, but this proved unfeasible due to the significant difficulty of finding a senior civil servant with the necessary legal expertise and experience in the relevant fields.”
The overseeing official will have a narrowly defined role as prosecutorial decision-making power will remain at the prosecution’s discretion. The appointed supervisor’s designated role will be to monitor, guide, and ensure the integrity of the investigation.
Earlier in the day, Kula told KAN Reshet Bet in an interview that desperate times call for desperate measures, and the court made the right call. “The judges are aware of all of the conditions and sensitivities surrounding this case – and yet three respected justices determined that the authority for the appointment indeed lies with Levin,” he said. “How much will we continue to challenge High Court decisions? We need to understand that this is the final word, that this is the decision!”
He added, “Personally, as a private citizen, I feel personally relieved... This is a grave issue of a conflict of interest by the attorney-general and the prosecution. This has to be investigated, and I hope the conclusions prove to be satisfactory.” He further noted that he only agreed to the candidacy after receiving all the necessary legal and procedural approvals. “I knew I was throwing myself into the line of fire with this, but I thought that if this is what must be done to put this dire issue to bed, I would do it,” he said.
On Thursday morning, NGO The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG) submitted a formal request to Baharav-Miara, Hershkowitz, and Levin demanding the cancellation of Ben-Hamo’s appointment. MQG attorney Rotem Bavli Dvir noted, “The High Court allowed the minister of justice a narrow and limited exception – and he is trying to turn it into a gateway for a political appointment for a criminal investigation. We cannot accept a situation in which someone who is required to protect the rule of law and handle a serious leak case chooses a candidate who is not a civil servant, has no criminal expertise, and has clear political affiliations. This is a sure recipe for serious damage to public trust in the law enforcement system.”
In the interview, Kula said, “My only goal is to restore and raise the public’s faith in the judiciary – that’s why I do what I do, along with my colleagues.”