A High Court of Justice hearing on Thursday brought to a head the escalating confrontation between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and the judiciary over who will lead the investigation into the Sde Teiman video leak.
Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and Justices Yael Willner and Chaled Kabub presided, and by press time, a decision had not been issued.
At issue were two intertwined petitions that raise the same fundamental question: Does Levin have the authority to select the figure accompanying the investigation, and is his appointment of retired judge Josefh Ben-Hamo is legally valid?
The dispute is rooted in the July 2024 footage of IDF reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility and in the allegations of obstruction of justice that followed.
The video surfaced publicly in August. Earlier this month, former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted she authorized its release and resigned.
Ordinarily, the prosecution would oversee such a probe. But Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, and other senior officials had all participated in the initial investigation, during which Tomer-Yerushalmi’s involvement went undetected, forcing the A-G to recuse herself. Baharav-Miara repeatedly proposed that Aisman lead the renewed inquiry.
Levin, however, sought to appoint his own figure. His first pick, retired judge and Judicial Complaints Investigator Asher Kula, was struck down by the court due to conflicts arising from Kula’s current role.
Earlier this week, Levin turned to Ben-Hamo, telling Civil Service Commissioner Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz he could not find anyone who met what he called the court’s “impossible” criteria.
To satisfy the requirement that the appointee be a serving civil servant, Levin designated Ben-Hamo to a temporary state position. Petitioners promptly challenged the move, and Amit froze the appointment.
Representing Levin, attorney David Peter defended the minister’s authority and argued that the Attorney-General’s Office – recused from the case – cannot advance a legitimate position. He urged the court to lift the freeze and dismiss the prosecution’s brief, filed on Wednesday.
The justices pushed back. Willner said the sole relevant question was whether Levin located someone who genuinely met the court’s criteria: “He couldn’t – that is, in my opinion, the only relevant factor here.” Kabub questioned how exhaustive Levin’s search could have been “if it only took three days.”
Attorney Tomer Naor of the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the NGO behind one of the petitions, drew comparisons to a previous case in which the government claimed there was only a single viable candidate, when, in reality, the search had narrowed from the outset to one person.
The court’s conditions require the appointee to possess significant criminal-law expertise and institutional distance from both the prosecution and the Attorney-General’s Office.
Ben-Hamo lacks criminal-law experience
Petitioners argued Ben-Hamo meets neither standard: he lacks criminal-law experience, was made a “state employee” solely for the appointment, had previously weighed running for mayor of Tiberias with Likud backing, and thus raises the very political-proximity concerns the court sought to avoid.
Peter countered that government legal advisers reviewed every step and found the process proper, again challenging the attorney-general’s interpretation.
Willner reminded him that the court had already outlined two paths, compromise or full compliance, and that the minister must demonstrate that Ben-Hamo satisfies the criteria, not merely that the process was reviewed.
Attorney Ran Rosenberg, arguing for the Attorney-General’s Office, rejected the government’s reading of the “senior civil servant” requirement, saying “senior” refers to substantive experience, authority, and a functioning staff, not just a Civil Service Commission designation. By that standard, he said, Ben-Hamo simply does not qualify.
Naor added that if someone outside government can be appointed ad hoc and declared senior retroactively, “then theoretically, we are all potential senior civil servants.”
Attorney Idan Seger, representing the Israel Bar Association, warned that accepting the appointment could set a precedent enabling political influence over criminal inquiries well beyond the exceptional circumstances of this case. He noted that Ben-Hamo’s contract, the decisive document, has not yet been submitted to the Court or released publicly.
The hearing drew a packed audience, including two of the “Force 100” reservists indicted in the Sde Teiman abuse case and Likud MK Tally Gotliv. When several spectators shouted at Amit, “You’re a criminal!” they were removed. Amit warned against “disturbances and threats to the legal process.”
At the close of the hearing, after the courtroom had emptied, Amit instructed court security to escort the attorneys out of the building, adding that “the courthouse hall is not a place for demonstrations.”