Title: Israeli Security Officials Opposed to Investigative Committee Due to Fear of Exposing Operational Capabilities
Date: [Date]
Security officials in Israel, including the General Security Service, have expressed their opposition to the establishment of a government investigative committee aimed at examining the recent spies case. Their main concern is the potential exposure of operational capabilities, as revealed in a report by the “Main Edition” on Monday.
Despite the security officials’ objections, Justice Minister Yariv Levin will bring the proposal to the government for approval on Sunday. What makes this proposal particularly unusual is the inclusion of a clause allowing the committee to review pending cases as well.
The government was expected to approve the formation of the committee during its previous meeting. However, due to the opposition from the security forces, Levin’s proposal was rejected. Apart from the concerns about technology disclosure, the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, believes that the case was thoroughly examined by a previous committee led by Amit Marari, the Deputy Legal Advisor to the Government. They argue that the investigative tools used in the case should now return to the police to combat the increasing crime rate.
Adding to the intrigue, the Minister of Justice’s proposal contains an unusual detail in the exceptions section, granting the government investigation committee the authority to review pending cases. This raises questions about the government’s specific interest in these cases.
This demand for the establishment of a government investigation committee was first reported a few weeks ago by “Olan Shishi”. It is expected that retired judge Moshe Drori, a former vice president of the Jerusalem District Court and known for his harsh criticism of the prosecutor’s office, will be appointed as the committee’s chair. Drori is also known as a strong advocate for legal revolution in Israel.
In response to this news, police officials expressed their strong disagreement, calling the formation of the committee a “big mistake” following the publication of incorrect reports. They argue that such action would severely damage the work of cyber units and could potentially lead to resignations from those dealing with cyber operations. They highlight that Marari’s report had already cleared the police of any wrongdoing and emphasize the impossibility of establishing a committee based on “fake news”.
The establishment of the investigative committee remains a contentious issue, with arguments on both sides regarding national security, exposure of operational capabilities, and the need for further scrutiny of pending cases. As the proposal heads to the government for approval, political tensions are expected to rise as this contentious matter unfolds.
[End of Article]