Israel Police on Sunday filed appeals to the Lod District Court seeking to overturn a magistrate’s court decision that lifted most restrictive conditions imposed on Yonatan Urich, Omer Mantzur, and Tzachi Braverman, senior aides to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in connection with the Bild classified documents leak case.
A hearing has been set for Tuesday.
The appeals challenge a ruling by Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court President Judge Menachem Mizrahi, who sharply criticized the police investigation and ordered most of the restrictive measures against the three lifted. Mizrahi left in place only financial guarantees and limited no-contact orders with Eli Feldstein and Israel Einhorn for a period of 60 days.
In their filings, police argued that the magistrate’s court erred when it canceled restrictions, including bans on employment at the Prime Minister’s Office, broad no-contact orders, and, in Braverman’s case, a prohibition on leaving the country.
Investigators also requested a stay of execution, warning that the immediate removal of the conditions poses a concrete risk to the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
Urich, Mantzur, and Braverman suspected of serious security offenses
Police maintain that Urich, Mantzur, and Braverman are suspected of serious security-related offenses, including the delivery, possession, and destruction of classified information, some allegedly carried out with intent to harm state security.
According to investigators, the evidentiary foundation against the three remains substantial and was wrongly discounted by the magistrate’s court at this preliminary procedural stage.
With respect to Urich, police argued that Mizrahi improperly assessed evidence in isolation rather than as part of a cumulative picture.
The appeal cites encrypted Signal correspondence between Urich and Feldstein prior to the publication of the classified material in Bild, in which Feldstein allegedly referenced a source within military intelligence and discussed ways of circumventing military censorship.
Regarding Braverman, police contend that there is reasonable suspicion he sought to obstruct the investigation during an early meeting with Feldstein, shortly after the affair became public.
Investigators also argued that Braverman’s extended stay abroad following a televised interview in which Feldstein described the alleged meeting delayed key investigative steps, strengthening the need for restrictive measures, including a temporary travel ban.
The appeals further argue that Mizrahi improperly weighed the credibility of Feldstein – a central figure whose statements underpin the prosecution’s case – and discounted the investigative risk posed by lifting employment bans.
Police warned that allowing the suspects to return to sensitive government environments creates a heightened danger of obstruction, given their senior positions and the alleged relevance of those settings to the underlying events.
Investigators also challenged the decision to cancel broad no-contact orders, arguing that at this stage of the investigation, it is not yet possible to identify all potential witnesses or suspects. According to the appeals, imposing narrower, named-only restrictions undermines the ability to prevent coordination or interference.
Mizrahi’s ruling relied in part on the formal separation between the Bild affair and the so-called “Qatargate” investigation, which probes alleged ties between Netanyahu associates and Qatari-linked influence efforts.
Police argued in their appeals that while the investigations are procedurally distinct, factual overlap remains and must be considered when assessing the risk posed by lifting restrictions.
The appeals assert that references to material connected to Qatargate were not intended to improperly expand the scope of the case, but rather to provide contextual background relevant to evaluating the risk of obstruction and the seriousness of the suspicions.
Police asked the district court to reinstate the restrictive conditions pending a full hearing on the appeals, warning that without immediate intervention, the magistrate’s court decision will take effect and be difficult to reverse.
The Lod District Court is expected to rule first on the request to stay execution, before addressing the merits of the appeals themselves.