Yoav Limor

Yoav Limor is a veteran journalist and defense analyst.

Protecting secrets isn't everything

A distinction must be made between the solid reasons for which the intelligence officer was arrested and the events that followed. Had the case been handled differently, many speculations and frustrations could have been avoided.

 

The case of the intelligence officer who died in prison should be divided into two: what he allegedly did, and what happened next.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Little can be said about the former over reasons of state security. The defense establishment often pulls the "state security" card to justify censoring information, but few are the cases in which things are as clear-cut and justified as they are in this case. Public and media curiosity is understandable, but it cannot take precedence over more important matters.

The latter can be spoken of, and here, too, it can be divided into two: the factual sequence of events as detailed by the military, and how the IDF, as a system, handled the case.

There is no argument that, given the grave nature of the officer's actions, his arrest and indictment were justified, as was the gag order placed on the case, as was the fact that he was released from the army – at his own request, which eventually led to his burial in a civilian, rather than a military, cemetery plot.

However, the way the military handled the case was grossly lacking and even amateurish.

Withholding information from his family was a mistake, as doing so would have spared them much frustration and anger. They have enough questions to deal with, too many of which will likely never be answered.

Past cases have proven that the IDF is always better off embracing the suspect and his family. Doing the opposite was wrong and the military didn't realize that until details of the case were leaked to the media. Too little – too late.

The way the IDF handled the media coverage of the case so far has also been appallingly amateurish. The iron rule in such cases is that you must control the narrative – not be controlled by it. But rather than taking the lead, the IDF found it was being dragged and it paid double the price for it: it lost control of the narrative and it has aroused natural suspicion on the part of any parent who now wonders whether his child might find himself imprisoned and made to "disappear."

In that respect, the IDF's statement on the case was an important, albeit late attempt to make things partially right.  It included all the information the military could release to make sense of the case and explain not only what happened, but what is being done so it won't happen again.

One key piece of information remains an enigma: what happened to the officer? Did he commit suicide and if so, how, or was he poisoned, as his family believes?

The toxicology report performed as part of the autopsy in the case should answer this question, but the results are not in yet. With all due respect to procedure, this is probably one of those times when information should be made available sooner, rather than later, not only to allay the family's concerns but to stop those stirring the pot in the way that could compromise state security.

The IDF must learn important lessons from this case. This affair is one of complete cacophony – handled by no less than six bodies simultaneously with only partial coordination: the technological unit in which the MI officer served, the Information Security Department, the Military Police, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the Military Prosecution, and the Military Censor.

Handling this case properly requires immediate streamlining and the setting of goals and objectives – both in the operational sense, in the legal field, and vis-à-vis the family.

In the long run, the IDF better understands it cannot afford to have a "Prisoner X." this is true in a democracy as a rule and it is doubly true in the age of social media. Were the military's Information Security Department less hysterical, less damage control would be needed, on the security and public levels both.

We can only hope that the IDF will exercise more transparency from now on. This does not mean that everything can be made public – on the contrary, the classified information at the heart of this case must be protected. But democracy has rules and they apply to those who hold the power as well.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Related Posts