The Supreme Court on Tuesdayruled that the identity of a man accused of infiltrating IDF command facilities in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack may be published, marking a significant shift in a case that has raised acute concerns over wartime security breaches at the heart of the military command structure.
The ruling relates to criminal proceedings underway at the Beersheba District Court against Assaf Shmuelovitz, who is charged with a series of serious security offenses, including aggravated espionage, unlawfully obtaining and transmitting classified information, fraud under aggravated circumstances, and unauthorized entry into military facilities.
According to the indictment permitted for publication, Shmuelovitz allegedly exploited the chaos that prevailed during the first days of the war to gain access to highly sensitive areas within the Southern Command, presenting himself as a reserve officer holding the rank of captain.
Prosecutors allege that he obtained classified operational material, documented it, and shared it with unauthorized civilian and military figures, none of whom were cleared to receive such information.
Since the indictment was filed in November 2023, the case has been subject to sweeping publication bans, imposed at the state’s request on the grounds that disclosure could endanger national security, expose sensitive operational methods, and risk identifying senior IDF officers involved in the investigation.
Over the past two years, the Beersheba District Court gradually eased the restrictions, first allowing a paraphrased description of the affair and later permitting publication of a heavily redacted indictment.
The defendant’s name, however, remained under a gag order, with courts citing both security considerations and the defendant’s complex mental health condition.
In December 2025, the district court ruled that the balance between secrecy and transparency had shifted.
Citing the passage of time, the de-escalation of hostilities, and a revised assessment by military information-security authorities, the court authorized publication of a detailed, court-approved summary of the proceedings – including the defendant’s full name – while staying the decision pending appeal.
Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz rejected Shmuelovitz’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s determination that continued anonymity was no longer justified.
The ruling emphasized the centrality of the principle of open justice, noting that while national security considerations may warrant exceptional secrecy, such restrictions must be narrowly tailored and periodically reassessed.
The court found no evidentiary basis for claims that publication of his identity posed a concrete threat to his life or safety, and rejected arguments that disclosure would constitute a disproportionate violation of privacy.
The justices also noted that Shmuelovitz’s name had already appeared in public judicial decisions in related civil proceedings, diminishing the practical effectiveness of maintaining anonymity in the criminal case.
Court limits disclosure of senior IDF witnesses’ identities
At the same time, the court partially accepted the state’s appeal, tightening limits on what may be disclosed about senior IDF witnesses.
While the district court had permitted publication of witnesses’ ranks alongside the first letter of their names, the Supreme Court ruled that for officers holding the rank of colonel and above, even that information could lead to identification and pose security risks.
Such witnesses may now be identified by rank alone.
According to the court-approved summary of proceedings, state-appointed psychiatric experts determined that Shmuelovitz was not criminally responsible for his actions at the time of the alleged offenses – a conclusion ultimately accepted by the prosecution.
Despite this, the defendant has elected to conduct a full evidentiary trial, seeking to establish that he did not commit the acts attributed to him.
The defense argues that Shmuelovitz acted with authorization, was exposed only to information he was entitled to access, and communicated with individuals who possessed relevant military backgrounds and security clearances.
Prosecutors dispute those claims, maintaining that he knowingly exploited systemic confusion during the beginning of the war to obtain and disseminate classified material.
As of early January, testimony from 21 prosecution witnesses had been heard, with two remaining before the close of the state’s case.
Shmuelovitz has been held in custody under hospitalization conditions, with courts periodically reviewing whether a supervised alternative to detention may be appropriate.