In the matter of the 32-year-old Netanyahu collaborator, the contours of a possible new political and judicial scandal are emerging. By revealing (false) information to the media, the aide would have contributed to derailing the negotiations regarding the prisoners and stepping on the accelerator of the conflict. Lapid attacks: the prime minister is “incompetent” or “complicit.”
Jerusalem () – A new political and judicial scandal is looming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over whom a trial is already looming with accusations of corruption, fraud and abuse of power currently “frozen” due to the position he occupies – which provides a penal shield – and the wars in Gaza and Lebanon. The matter is especially delicate, because it indirectly affects the Israeli hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas in the Strip and the ongoing negotiations – with a double link to the conflict – to try to free them, while the street demonstrations of their families continue. And it is thanks to the protest campaign that, somehow, this last issue has also come to light in all its magnitude.
According to reconstructions of these hours, Eli Feldstein, a member of Netanyahu’s staff and former collaborator of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, was arrested for revealing information that could have harmed the hostage negotiations. Apparently, he provided two media outlets – the English newspaper Jewish Chronicle and the German tabloid Bild – with an alleged Hamas plan held by the Israeli government. According to the information – which later turned out to be false – the Palestinian group targeted by the war in the Strip would have wanted to transfer to Iran the people kidnapped in the attack on October 7, 2023 through secret tunnels to Egypt.
The objective of this leak – whose lack of foundation forced the British newspaper to withdraw the article and interrupt collaboration with the author – would have been to corroborate Netanyahu’s thesis about the futility of negotiations with Hamas. And that, on the contrary, it was necessary to accelerate the scope and intensity of military operations in a context of escalation of the conflict, transferring responsibility for the failure of the negotiations to the Palestinian group that controls the Strip. From this point of view, it is worth remembering how the Israeli army itself, the day after the publication of the articles, denied the veracity of the news, attributing the information to a low-level Hamas official about a strategy – that of the transfer of hostages along the Philadelphia corridor – obsolete and unreliable.
Despite the denials, the press articles were picked up by Israeli newspapers and were widely echoed, and Netanyahu himself cited them in security committee meetings insisting on the need to intensify the war. In the investigation initiated by the Shin Bet (the intelligence agency for internal affairs) and which lasted two months, the responsibilities of the spokesman for the Prime Minister’s office Eliezer Feldstein and three other people emerged, who are also under arrest but whose names they are kept secret. The suspect – and the others investigated – face sentences of up to 15 years in prison; However, the general attention is focused on the prime minister and the doubt about how much he knew about this whole matter that, inevitably, was decisive for the failure of the hostage negotiations and the intensification of military operations.
Feldstein, 32, was an officer in the army’s spokesperson unit and acted as press liaison for the Netzah Yehuda religious battalion and the division stationed in the West Bank. According to the Ynet news site, he was also an operations officer in the IDF spokesperson unit, the first Orthodox to hold this position. After being discharged from the army, the native of Bnei Brak – a city east of Tel Aviv – worked for a brief period as spokesman for the head of Otzma, Yehudit Itamar Ben Gvir.
Except for the name of the “mole” and a few other details, most of the elements of this matter – with unforeseeable implications – remain secret for security reasons, while the Israeli government downplays its importance, stating that it will have no repercussions on the war. And about the political future of the coalition that runs the country, even if it ends up fueling the discontent of the families of the hostages over whose fate, once again, the government leadership and Netanyahu himself seem to have “played” to pursue their own interests. . The suspicion, or perhaps more than a suspicion, is that the ruling circle has acted to disrupt a possible agreement on the hostages in order to continue, and reinforce by opening the northern front in Lebanon, the military campaign.
Among the most critical voices that have emerged in recent hours about the “Bibileaks” scandal, the nickname by which the Israeli prime minister is identified, is that of the opposition leader, Yair Lapid, for whom the head of the Executive is “incompetent.” “or “accomplice” in a serious “security” matter. In any case, he attacked in a joint press conference with the leader of the National Unity Party, Benny Gantz, “he is not qualified to lead the State of Israel in the most difficult war in its history.” Commenting on the revelations of the Rishon Letzion court, which had revealed the name of the main accused (Eli Feldstein) revealing his identity, Lapid then harshly criticized the prime minister’s attempt to defend himself, stating that he has “no influence or control over the system that directs.”
“This case,” continued the opposition leader, “came out of the prime minister’s office and the investigation should verify whether it was not at the request of the prime minister himself. And if Netanyahu was aware of the secret information transmitted to the newspapers, he has become “complicit in one of the most serious crimes against security.” [Y] if he didn’t know that his close aides were stealing documents, operating as spies in the IDF [ejército israelí]”Forging documents, exposing intelligence sources and passing secret documents to foreign newspapers to stop the hostage deal, what does he know?” Lapid concludes.
Add Comment