Ahead of Thursday’s key hearing on who will lead the investigation into the leaked Sde Teiman abuse video and the alleged obstruction of justice that followed, the Attorney-General’s Office and Justice Ministry filed their responses on Wednesday, laying out the opposing positions.
The prosecution argued that Josefh Ben-Hamo’s appointment is invalid, chiefly because it fails to meet the conditions the court set for such a sensitive investigation, and that the entire appointment process is therefore flawed.
The underlying case concerns the leak of a July 2024 video showing IDF reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility, and allegations of obstruction of justice that followed.
The video became public in August. Earlier this month, former Military Advocate-General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted to authorizing its release and resigned.
A central requirement the court set was that the accompanying figure be a currently serving government employee. Since Ben-Hamo retired in 2020, he no longer meets that criterion.
Levin appointment blocked: Prosecution cites 'flaw'
Levin attempted to resolve this by appointing him to a temporary state position, but the prosecution said this maneuver was a “fundamental and critical flaw” and “completely disconnected from the identity outlined by the court.”
The court also said that the appointee must have extensive criminal-law expertise and be institutionally removed from both the prosecution and the Attorney-General’s Office.
In his appointment letter to Civil Service Commissioner Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz, Levin wrote: “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.”
Levin’s first nominee, retired judge Asher Kula, had already been disqualified by the court due to statutory restrictions tied to his position as judicial complaints investigator.
Levin wrote in response that the court had made compliance “impossible.” The prosecution countered that Levin’s letter included no details about the search process, who he contacted, or from which offices.
The prosecution further argued that the sensitivity of the case means Levin’s involvement risks introducing improper political influence into a criminal probe. This is an argument it raised earlier, but the court has already ruled that, in this specific situation, the appointment authority indeed lies with Levin.
Ordinarily, the prosecution would lead an inquiry of this kind. But because Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, and other senior officials took part in the initial probe, during which Tomer-Yerushalmi’s role was not detected, Baharav-Miara recused herself and proposed that Aisman head the new investigation.
Last week, the court ruled that both alternatives, Aisman and Kula, were invalid: Aisman due to the prosecution’s early involvement, and Kula because of statutory obstacles.
Levin’s response stressed that the appointment was conducted “by the book,” given the severity of the matter and the danger of allowing more time to pass without a properly appointed accompanying figure. His filing repeated the court’s own conclusion that neither Aisman nor the prosecution can handle the case, and asserted that Ben-Hamo’s appointment is therefore sound.
Last week, Supreme Court President Isaac Amit froze Ben-Hamo’s appointment after petitions challenged both the choice of candidate and whether the minister had the authority to make the appointment at all.