A Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) reservist may be indicted on suspicion of conveying classified information and attempting to transmit classified information, Israel Police announced on Friday.
The reservist, who served as a unit deputy head, will be subject to a hearing before an indictment can be made.
According to police, the secrets leaked to the media harmed national security interests, and it is suspected that the secrets were passed to journalists Amit Segal and Shirit Avitan-Cohen, as well as MK Amichai Chikli.
Within the leaked documents, there were internal Shin Bet materials, including the agency’s document on the “Kahanist infiltration” into the police, which was passed on to Chikli and Segal.
“Given the serious suspicion that a service employee removed classified information in a way that endangered security, an internal investigation was immediately launched,” the Shin Bet announced.
The investigation, conducted by the Exposure Team of the Department for the investigation of Police Officers, has reportedly shown that the suspect approached other journalists with classified information.
Chikli called to label the suspect a 'whistleblower'
Chikli asked the state to recognize the accused officer as a whistleblower. The Likud, of which Chikli is a member, further defended the suspect.
“A Shin Bet officer who felt the organization under Ronen Bar had become a political body was arrested and interrogated in Shin Bet basements,” the Likud wrote.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t comment but retweeted the Likud statement.
Attorneys Ori Korb, Sivan Russo, and Noy Katz represent the former Shin Bet deputy.
“Our client passed on information of immense public importance to bring it to public attention while ensuring that no secret information or material that could harm state security was transferred,” the attorneys stated, adding, “the Shin Bet’s internal review ended without findings.”
The statement also claimed “draconian measures were used against our client”, including “arrest on the eve of a holiday and denial of access to legal counsel,” and further emphasized their clients’ “full cooperation from the outset.”