The Lod District Court on Wednesday upheld an order requiring Omri Assenheim to hand over raw interview footage to police in connection with the “Bild” and “midnight meeting” investigations – ruling that while the journalist was entitled to challenge the order, the needs of the criminal probes outweigh his claim to journalistic privilege.
In a detailed decision spanning more than 20 pages, Judge Sharon Galler rejected Assenheim’s appeal against a lower court ruling that compelled him to provide Israel Police with all unedited materials from a three-part interview with Eli Feldstein aired on KAN in December.
The footage was sought as part of two intertwined investigations that have roiled the Prime Minister’s Office in recent months: the so-called “Bild leak case,” involving the leak of classified documents to the German newspaper Bild, and the “midnight meeting” case, which concerns alleged efforts to influence or obstruct the fallout from that leak.
The case placed the court squarely at the intersection of two weighty public interests: the independence of criminal investigations and the protection of a free press.
Assenheim – backed by the Israel Press Council, the Journalists’ Union, and KAN – argued that compelling disclosure of raw materials would inflict structural damage on investigative journalism, erode trust between reporters and sources, and create a chilling effect that would deter future whistleblowers from speaking.
Police countered that the broadcast segments were an edited product and that only the full, uncut recordings could enable investigators to properly assess discrepancies between Feldstein’s televised statements and his versions in interrogation.
Galler rejected the broader policy argument that journalists should be categorically shielded from such orders. Recognizing an absolute protection over all journalistic materials, she wrote, would effectively create a sweeping immunity that Israeli law does not recognize.
Instead, she reaffirmed that journalistic privilege in Israel is relative – primarily designed to protect the identity of confidential sources and materials that could expose them. Here, she noted, Feldstein’s identity is public, and he chose to grant the interview openly, aware of the potential legal consequences.
In a significant procedural point, the court said that even though the law doesn’t clearly spell out a right to appeal orders like this, a journalist who isn’t a suspect – like Assenheim – is still allowed to challenge the decision in court when he’s personally ordered to hand over materials.
But when it came to the substance of the case, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the state.
Galler accepted the prosecution’s argument that the raw footage is both relevant and necessary to advance the investigations, particularly given Feldstein’s central role in both affairs.
She rejected the suggestion that a supplementary interrogation conducted after the broadcast – which addressed only the “midnight meeting” affair – could serve as a substitute for reviewing hours of recorded conversations.
The order limits disclosure to police and for investigative purposes related to the two specified cases.
The ruling lands amid a widening legal storm surrounding the Prime Minister’s Office.
Bild leak case: Feldstein charged, Urich pending
The “Bild affair” centers on the alleged leak of classified documents to the German tabloid. Feldstein, a former spokesman in the PMO, has already been indicted in that case, while a decision regarding Yonatan Urich – a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – remains pending, according to court filings.
The separate “midnight meeting” investigation was opened after Feldstein’s televised remarks raised questions about potential interference in the handling of the leak investigation.