|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Jerusalem — Government leaks have long been a fixture of Israeli politics, but recent developments suggest that the current conflict has elevated this issue to unprecedented levels.
Revelations from recent security cabinet meetings have not only exposed deep divisions within the government but also cast a spotlight on the increasingly controversial role of leaks in shaping public discourse and policy.
Security Cabinet Divided: Leaks Reveal Internal Strife
The Israeli security cabinet, tasked with making critical national security decisions, has recently come under scrutiny following leaks about its handling of the Philadelphi Corridor, a strategic border area.
These leaks have highlighted a stark divide between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security officials, raising questions about the cabinet’s decision-making process and the implications of such leaks.
In a recent security cabinet meeting, Netanyahu’s proposal to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor was met with opposition from key defense figures, including the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), and the head of the Mossad.
The only notable exception was former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter. Despite these expert opinions, the proposal was approved, showcasing a concerning trend where the security cabinet appears to be increasingly influenced by Netanyahu’s personal agenda rather than professional military and intelligence advice.
Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer’s leaked comments from the meeting, stating, “The prime minister can do whatever he wants,” underscore the extent of Netanyahu’s control over the cabinet.
This development suggests a significant shift from the cabinet’s intended role of critical evaluation and debate to a more passive and compliant stance.
Legal and Ethical Concerns Over Leaks
The frequency of leaks from the security cabinet has become a significant issue. Security cabinet meetings are confidential, governed by the 1968 Basic Law: the Government (Article 35a), which prohibits the disclosure of deliberations and decisions regarding state security and foreign relations.
The law is designed to protect sensitive information and ensure the integrity of national security processes.
Despite these legal protections, the culture of leaking remains pervasive. Historically, Israeli politicians, including Netanyahu, have been implicated in leaks, either directly or through intermediaries.
Notably, during Operation Protective Edge in August 2014, Netanyahu or his office was suspected of leaking a sensitive IDF presentation, a move that was criticized for endangering national security.
Attorney-general Yehuda Weinstein’s refusal to investigate these leaks, despite petitions from the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, highlighted a legal loophole that has allowed such practices to persist.
The High Court of Justice’s decision to uphold Weinstein’s stance further entrenched the culture of leaks by not holding any officials accountable.
Government Measures and Their Limitations
In response to the escalating issue of leaks, Netanyahu’s government has implemented several measures.
These include tighter restrictions from the military censor and a new law drafted by the National Security Council to authorize the Shin Bet to administer polygraph tests to participants in security cabinet discussions. However, these measures have had limited success.
The implementation of polygraph tests, although proposed several times before, has only been applied in exceptional cases, limiting its effectiveness.
Additionally, warnings issued by the attorney-general to journalists regarding the publication of leaked information have been largely ineffective, perceived as mere threats rather than substantive solutions.
Ironically, the decision to retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor, which saw increased leaks despite a confidentiality agreement signed by ministers, exemplifies the failure of these measures.
The leaks have not only exposed the cabinet’s internal disagreements but have also amplified public scrutiny and criticism of the government’s decisions.
Impact on National Security and Policy Making
The consequences of this leak culture extend beyond the immediate embarrassment and political fallout. The Winograd Commission, which investigated the failures of the 2006 Second Lebanon War, highlighted that leaks undermine the effectiveness of security discussions and decision-making processes.
This concern is particularly relevant in the current context, where leaks have exposed the cabinet’s internal discord and the potential risks associated with its decisions.
Subsequent committees, including the Committee to Improve the Protection of Security Secrets led by deputy attorney-general Dina Zilber, have proposed various solutions to address the issue of leaks. Despite these recommendations, implementation has been slow, and the problem persists.
The ongoing conflict and the sensitivity of current security issues have further intensified the spotlight on leaks.
As Netanyahu grapples with the fallout from these revelations, the broader implications for Israel’s decision-making processes and national security are becoming increasingly apparent.
Future Prospects and Recommendations
The current situation underscores the need for a comprehensive review of the measures in place to prevent leaks and ensure the integrity of security cabinet discussions.
A state commission of inquiry, focusing on the failures of the current government, should also examine the issue of leaks as a critical component.
This investigation could provide valuable insights into the systemic issues contributing to the leak culture and propose effective solutions to mitigate its impact.
In the meantime, the Israeli public remains exposed to the consequences of these leaks, which not only compromise national security but also contribute to a broader erosion of trust in government institutions.
As the conflict continues and the role of leaks evolves, addressing this issue will be crucial for maintaining the effectiveness and credibility of Israel’s security apparatus.