Yet another nail in the coffin of Israeli democracy will be hammered by the nation’s attorney general, who announced that the State will prosecute one of Israel’s most distinguished investigative journalists, Uri Blau, for his reporting in Haaretz about the top-secret IDF documents leaked to him by Anat Kamm. Never, as far as I know, has a journalist been charged with a crime for publishing such leaked documents. There will be Israeli advocates who will attempt to use arguments of strict legalism saying Blau violated a law and therefore must be prosecuted, etc., etc. But by the attorney general’s own admission this case is one of revenge against a reporter who’s gored the ox of the intelligence apparatus one too many times with his sharp, incisive and damaging reporting of stories of outrages perpetrated by the generals and intelligence agents.
In a startling admission apparently made with the approval of the attorney general, a senior government lawyer told a right-wing columnist why the government was pursuing Blau, but not Haaretz itself or it’s publisher, Amos Schocken:
“…I [Mati Golan] got a phone call from [deputy Attorney General] Raz Nezri. He said he was calling me because I’ve written before about the problematics of not having Haaretz and Shocken put on trial. Alongside the decision to try Blau, Nezri said, the Attorney General decided not to prosecute Haaretz. Why? Nezri confirmed “Haaretz acted inappropriately when it backed and sponsored Blau’s stay abroad”, but “we thought it was more correct to go for the precedent-setting move of prosecuting a journalist for retaining stolen documents, and not a move against Haaretz for obstruction of justice…
Uzi Benziman goes even farther in the online media criticism journal, 7th Eye:
The announcement [of Blau’s prosecution] derives from [the State’s] anger that he has insulted Shabak investigators because earlier in the case he agreed to return secret documents to the Shabak, but did not return all of them. Shabak cannot stand lies.
Except its own. It’s darkly ironic that Shabak take such umbrage at Blau’s impudence in lying to it when this agency lies both to detainees, lawyers and the public with equal impudence. How does the Shabak or government make a serious claim regarding Blau’s ethical lapses when they violate such norms regularly?
I’ve written about Yuval Diskin’s public comments that Blau “stuck his finger in his agency’s eye and twisted it” when he not only published a top-secret IDF document, but a photograph of the document itself. This effrontery the agency could not stomach. Though he continued by claiming there was no motive of vengeance or settling scores, as Benziman notes, this is precisely what the attorney general’s prosecution reveals.
Can you imagine that there is an Israeli journalist who advocates that the publisher of a competitor be thrown in prison because he published a story based on top-secret IDF documents? Israeli defense reporters do this virtually every day. They are leaked top-secret documents and information that the generals WANT the public to know. But when a reporter writes about such a document that IDF doesn’t want the public to know about, only then does it become a criminal offense.
Make no mistake, this is the criminalization of investigative reporting. This is the State saying you may report what we wish you to report and nothing more. It’s not quite there yet. But I note the absolute cowing of the Israeli media in the face of the Dirar Abusisi story, which I offered almost a score of Israeli and foreign journalists before it broke widely. To this day, there are major aspects of the case not yet reported within Israel. Why? Because journalists are patriots? That’s what Yossi Melman once argued to me. But I don’t buy it. And even if it’s true, this means journalists are subordinating their obligation to their profession to their obligation to the State. An unwelcome state of affairs in any so-called democracy.
Not to mention that very few Israeli journalists have come to Blau’s defense. You’d think there would be thundering editorials in all but the most right-wing publications. There are none. You’d think columnists would rally to Blau’s defense. With only rare exceptions, they haven’t. Partly, this stems from jealousy at the audacity of Blau’s stories; partly it stems from a desire for self-preservation. Only the protruding nail gets clobbered by the hammer. Those journalists who keep their heads down and don’t threaten the established order or consensus will continue to have access to their cherished intelligence sources who dole out leaks to them at their pleasure.
One might easily argue that this is a case of legal double jeopardy since Blau has already signed a plea deal through which he returned all top-secret documents in his possession (not just those offered him by Kamm) in exchange for being allowed to come back to Israel and not be charged. Now the State has changed its mind and thrown the plea deal out the window and decided to go full steam ahead with a prosecution that makes a mockery of due process and fair dealing, not to mention commits a grievous violation of press freedom. It does so based, according to Dimi Reider, on the unsupported claim that Blau hasn’t returned ALL the documents in his possession.
Let us be clear, Uri Blau is no ordinary reporter and turning him into a convicted felon is no ordinary undertaking. Blau has unearthed some of the most damaging stories involving generals, politicians and their feudal dynasties that were published in Israel in the past decade. This would be the equivalent of the Justice Department trying Seymour Hersh for his reporting. Many have likened him to Julian Assange in terms of his breathtaking access to whistleblowers inside the belly of the beast. From the authorities point of view, if they can knock off Blau they will have struck a major blow for defanging the Israeli media. While there are other good reporters in Israel, ones who are courageous and principled, Blau has been in a class by himself. His downfall would be a tragedy of major proportions for Israeli democracy and the public’s right to know.
Benziman notes the critical importance of leaks to all democracies:
Israeli media serve their social purpose successfully only when journalists are able to obtain and publish leaks. And such leaks sometimes take the form of secret documents.
This prosecution reveals once again the inadequacy of the Israeli political system in the absence of a constitution or Bill of Rights, which clearly define the obligations and rights of citizens under the law.
Related articles
- Internal Security violated agreement with Haaretz to get to Anat Kamm (promisedlandblog.com)
- Smothering the “Dynamic Debate” in Israel (mitchellplitnick.com)
And yet, this is a surprise to you?
You’re expecting Israeli journalists to not only support breaking the law, but also damaging the state?
In other words, when a reporter writes about a document which he should not have legal access to unless specifically given permit, it becomes a criminal offense. Hmm yup. That is a very sound statement.
I seriously do not get it; are you extremely naive? This has nothing to do with patriotism. Would you say I am a patriot? Well maybe you would. I don’t define myself as one, and I still wouldn’t report on it. Do you know why? It’s illegal. (enjoy taking the first sentence out of context and making another attempt at ridiculing me)
Also, your personification of the IDF/Shabak/Mossad/Israeli gov. is amusing. From your stories it sounds like it’s always personal. Blau hurt the Shabak and made it sad, and now it must get back at him.
In any case, Blau broke the law in several cases regardless of the coverage of one particular document. What about the other thousand documents he illegally held, ran away with, and then refused to give back?
No, you self-proclaimed leftist who doesn’t seem to understand the principles he claims to espouse, I’m expecting them to be JOURNALISTS, loyal to journalism and the public’s right to know, & in real democracies a sacrosanct social mission. THe very fact that you don’t understand this & yet still claim in the domain name of your blog that you are a leftist indicates how deeply impoverished Israeli society & Israeli liberalism is.
No, not how it works. You can’t be given permission by anyone to hold a top secret document. If you’re a journalist & given it by the PM himself both you & the PM are breaking the law. Let me repeat since you seem to have missed the point: anyone who leaks a top secret document is violating the law. You can’t get permission to do so that makes the leak kosher. Because HE’S the PM & you’re his stenographer you get a scoop & a promotion. But when Uri Blau does precisely the same thing he gets prosecuted.
Of course it does. Yossi Melman himself says it in precisely these terms. If you’re a journalist & you wouldn’t report on it then you have no right to call yrself a journalist. I don’t know what you are, but not a journalist.
Did you not read the stories I linked. They both agreed that Shabak, Dichter & the attorney general took this extremely personally & that it is a personal vendetta against Blau for that reason. Why don’t you read before commenting. It would improve the quality of yr comments.
Using these same documents, Uri Blau has broken more amazing stories of Israeli corruption & malfeasance in the 10 yrs of his career than 10 other reporters would’ve broken in a lifetime. Kol ha-kavod lo. Long may he live & prosper.
The document leaked by Kamm and published by Blau gave details of targeted assassinations. These assassinations are also illegal, and arguably the Israeli public has the right to know if its military is committing criminal activities. Investigative journalism involves reporting on stories that some people would rather keep hidden. Without publicity, how can those responsible be held to account?
There has also been outrage over the supposed illegality of Julian Assange’s actions, particularly in the USA, but you support Wikileaks. Do you see a difference between the two? Sometimes conscience requires you to break a law.
Shai, the fact that very few Israeli journalists have not sprung to Blau’s defense only describes the repressive climate in Israel, not the justification for publishing truths important to the public. Second, to wave the “legality”of press restraints and habitual censorship and embargoes at us as if challenging them were an affront to a citizen’s responsibilities is complete garbage. Syria does the same thing, but I doubt you approve in that case. Stop with the knee-jerk defense of the Shabak. It just makes you look like, well, a jerk.
Richard,
Obviously if a journalist is given permit to mention top secret material then he did not “leak” it, he was supplied with it. Journalists are not given permit to leak, they are given specific details which they may publish. That’s what makes it legal.
Frankly I don’t care much what Melman says. I’m sure some journalists wouldn’t illegally publish stories because they’re patriots, but to claim that all of them are is absurd.
Blau had had these documents for 10 years??
By the way, I never said I opposed whistle-blowing. Quite the contrary. The problem was that thousands of irrelevant secret documents were stolen by Kamm and held by Blau. It would’ve been A-okay with me if only the documents where violation of law is present were leaked, but such is not the case.
Vicky,
Again, that one document should’ve been published. My problem lies with the other thousand documents which he had no conscientious obligation to hold & refuse to give back. Also, I don’t really support Wikileaks. I simply enjoy reading its details because I’m a curious person. Most of the leaks serve no purpose and those are the ones I do not support. It’s the same problem I have with Blau.
David,
Breaking censorship (and in turn the law) to reveal an injustice and further breaking of the law is fine and in fact should be fully defensible by the law. However, breaking censorship by itself is not one of my values; I am not an anarchist and there is no purpose in that. And I wasn’t defending the Shabak, haha.
You have NO idea how journalism or leaking works. A politician or general has top secret information. He knows it’s top secret. He leaks it to a reporter. The reporter publishes it. They both technically broke the law. You can’t give a journalist a “permit” (whatever that means) to publish top secret information. There is no such thing.
The ironic thing about all this is that if there’s a gag order on a case like Abusisi & the Shabak leaks info about the case to a trusted journo hack in the Israeli media, then the Shabak has broken its own gag. But the gags aren’t meant for Shabak which is above the law or not subject to law mere mortals must observe.
Again, you have no idea how journalists work. They amass documents fr various sources. They necessarily don’t hold specific documents for 10 yrs. His career has lasted for 10 yrs. And yes, he like every other Israeli military correspondent has received top secret documents & info & leaked it. They ALL do it. Not just Blau.
So you’re Anat Kamm & you don’t precisely know what’s in the computer hard drive you’re copying but you suspect there are lots of potential misdeeds. How do you figure out which ones contain incriminating info? Do you stop & read every one & only take the docs that contain info on immoral acts? And if you do, why not put on the handcuffs right then? No, you take the materials you can find & you pass them on to someone who understands what he’s looking for. That would be Blau. That’s why he’s a military correspondent & one of the best investigative reporters in Israel. He knows what he’s looking for & can identify it.
But at any rate, Blau returned every secret document he possessed as part of plea deal. How do you justify further prosecution? Or do you feel it’s OK for the State to engage in a vendetta against reporters?
Then you haven’t been reading this blog, where I’ve featured about 10 amazingly revealing Wikileaks memos.
Do you not see any difference between a highly ranked member of the body that decides what goes through censorship and what doesn’t who “leaks” classified information and a random Joe leaking it? When the Shabak itself “leaks” something to the media it’s virtually the same as giving journalists a “permit” to publish classified material. And even when it’s done in shady (illegal) channels, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for Joe to leak stuff, too.
I don’t care about other documents. I’m talking about these two thousand. Has he had those for his whole career? No. The overwhelming majority of these documents should never have made their way into his hands, let alone be illegally held by him for any period of time.
Oh, so because it’s inconvenient to do the right thing (only stealing documents that reveal immoral and illegal acts), that gives her the right to steal two thousand times what she should have? You said she “suspected there are lots of potential misdeeds” – you suggest that she had no idea whether any of these documents would even reveal any relevant information – that’s even worse. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I suspect that you’re hiding “lots of potential weapons” in your house, is it a-okay for me to break in? Maybe I should call in a group of “military correspondents” who know what they’re looking for and can identify it.
I never expressed opinion on further prosecution.
TEN! Out of how many so far released? *checks Wikileaks* That would be over six thousand. So around 0.1%. But let’s say there are many other Wikileaks memos warranting release – I doubt even 5% of them serve any purpose.
P.S. this comment may include awful formatting since I tried to nest quote blocks. Not sure if WordPress likes that.
Also about Wikileaks, they DO go over every single memo that they publish. And still the overwhelming majority of the memos they release has nothing to do with injustices or immoral acts. Do you support that?
I don’t know that to be true. In fact, they’ve only published a very small percentage of the memos they do possess & the ones they publish are usually on very important issues. You’d have to give me examples of memos you think are unwarranted for release for me to know what you’re talking about.
http://wikileaks.nl/cable/2008/09/08LIMA1507.html
Part of the reason the memos get released so slowly is because the Wikileaks staff goes over every single one of them. The XXXXXXXXXXXX’s are Wikileaks’ doing. They appear in the original memos but are removed as to not reveal the names of people who are still in service and relevant. I don’t remember where I’ve heard/read this but I’m pretty sure it was Assange himself who said it. Also, this memo also happens to be one that I don’t think is warranted for release.
Hi Richard,
Was wondering if you could provide us with a comprehensive list of Uri Blau’s most important scoops over the last decade and review the controversial implications of each? I think a thorough accounting of the magnitude/gravity of what he’s revealed about Israel’s security apparatus would put the utter travesty of this prosecution into bold relief.
Thank you much. (love this blog)
Here’s a short summary by Dimi Reider:
Here are my posts about some of these stories:
Cast Lead veteran t-shirts:
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/
Gabi Ashkenazi’s corrupt self-dealing as director general of the defense ministry:
http://www.haaretz.com/in-the-name-of-the-son-1.5135
Ehud Barak, another past chief of staff, engaging in similar self-dealing:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/ehud-barak-ltd-1.221318
Blau’s original story about Yair Naveh’s approval of targeted assassinations:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-ignoring-high-court-on-west-bank-assassinations-1.258296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29
Totally different circumstance. Judith Miller went to prison so as not to divulge her source. The IDF & Shabak already knew who Blau’s source was.
Now if the feds had prosecuted Miller for using top secret documents divulged to her by Libby or others, then it would be comparable, but it isn’t.
That’s right. The Miller case is much worse.
Blau was not forced to reveal his sources. This is the holy of holies of journalism, and Israel respects it, unlike the US. In the name of contempt of court, Miller was put under pressure to reveal her sources, and eventually was jailed for her refusal. Blau was holding a cache of original classified documents, which is illegal in itself (of course you can mock the illegality of this; but this law is far from being “undemocratic”). Nevertheless, he was offered a deal which no drug lord would have received — return illegal your illegal possessions, and be exonerated. He took it, but cheated (leaving some to himself). Legality aside, he was not a mench.
I do not like the idea of journalists being arrested; although it is important to maintain that they are not above the law. I would surely prefer to see Shocken being tried for obstruction of justice. This would be closer to the American “standard” laid in the Judith Miller case.
I wrote very extensively about the Miller case & you’ve got it all wrong. You should read my posts before assuming you understand the differences bet. these cases. She went to jail on behalf of Dick Cheney’s major domo, who was feeding the press lies that furthered the nefarious agenda of the Bush administration. There was no honor or principle there though I freely admit that Miller saw it differently.
Yes, of course it’s illegal to hold a “cache of classified documents” except for the fact that reporters, generals & politicians regularly do the exact same thing, but seem never to be jailed for it. What you dislike is the subject of what he reported. If he was reporting that proclaimed all was well in the Kingdom of Shushu, you’d have no problem w. his holding classified documents that reinforced this hasbarist narrative. If you say otherwise, I’d like to see you begin clamoring for the end of all leaks to the Israeli press & see how many people laugh till the cows come home at you.
Ooooh, Uri wasn’t a mensch because he didn’t play nice with the Shabak, which of course always plays nice with its victims. Gimme a break.
You’re completely off yr nut. What, Arthur Sulzberger was tried for obstruction of justice in the Miller case? What are you talking about? The very idea of indicting a publisher in such a case would raise the exact howls of outrage in America that should be roused in Israel but aren’t.
Sure you do, when they gore YOUR political ox. When they are good boys then you don’t like them being arrested. But of course because they’re good boys & girls they don’t need to be arrested.
As to leaking secrets by insiders (generals), maybe the law should be revised as follows: [1] Any person with the legal right to declassify a secret document may do so by writing a declassification-ruling, naming the said document and reciting the reason for his power to declassify it, in a government-held and government-public (at the appropriate security level) declassification-list. [2] When 30 days have passed after such an act of declassification, but no earlier, anyone in the government may publish the document, but only by also publishing at the same time the declassification-ruling upon which he relies.
This ought to interfere at least a bit with opportune “declassification” and should also help by identifying who it was that declassified the document.
(As to who classified it in the first place, well, I’ll think about that.)
And as to “state secrets” documents which reveal that government people have broken the law, well — such documents should be conclusively deemed never to have been classified in the first place. IMO, here in the USA and in Israel.
your post on Yerushalmi disappeared. I hadn’t finished reading it. Can you put it back up?
Patience. As Arnold said: “I’ll be back.”
By the way, this is an interesting interview with Kamm.
She actually reminds me a bit of myself; particularly the part about the demonization of the settlers.
I am interested by her lack of self-awareness. “I have no explanation for what I did…it’s not something I would expect myself to do,” and, “The more I think how uncharacteristic this act is for me, the more I feel like banging my head against the wall.” It should not be about whether it was characteristic or uncharacteristic, it should be about whether it was right, and she seems very confused about that. Her characterisation of the occupation’s impact as ‘very complex’ and her rather weak description of it as ‘a problem’ suggest to me that she is trying to reconcile a ‘we’re/I’m-not-that-bad’ mentality with ‘I was right to do what I did’ (“My thinking was that I’m a party to something that is not right in essence, and that I need to have evidence”). There is a tension between the two ideas that is present throughout what she says. In this sense, she is not all that different from Israeli left-wingers who demonise the settlers. They do it as a way of self-absolution – “It’s all the settlers’ fault, if it weren’t for them everything could be better, it’s nothing to do with us” – and I get the impression that Kamm is attempting something similar. There are parts in this interview where she appears to apportion some blame to the system: “I have no doubt that I wouldn’t have done it had it not been so easy to do.” Then she claims ignorance, “Today I can say that at the time I didn’t understand the full meaning and the severity of my actions.” But this doesn’t fit with what she has said about gathering evidence. Evidence of what? If the military was committing crimes that she thought worthy of making public, she must have had some idea of what that military was capable of and what the penalties could be.
I don’t think that she is being deliberately disingenuous, just that she’s trying to navigate confusing waters. She’s in a bad situation, and I’m sorry to see her being vilified. I hope that her readiness to take responsibility for herself (“I should pay for it”) wins out over the tendency to make excuses.
“It isn’t a nice feeling, the espionage charge, but it has little relevance and there were two important soccer matches yesterday.”
This is the only place where I saw any resemblance between the pair of you. 🙂 Although substitute football for computer gaming.
Everything Anat Kamm says at this juncture must be considered in the context of the prison sentence looming over her. Anything she says could be used against her to lengthen the sentence. In fact, I’m amazed her lawyers would allow her to talk at all unless the deal has already been struck but not announced. I doubt she is being fully candid & frankly who could blame her? This damn national security apparatus puts people constantly in the position of having to lie about their true beliefs in order to hew to the proper political line.
A good point. I forget that not everybody is such an unqualified blabbermouth as I am.
I agree, but there does seem to be a lot of sincerity to it.