Unofficial translation of
Document dated June 16, 1996 File 403
Summary of a Meeting on the Swearing-In Ceremony of the
Meeting Date: May 2, 1996
1. Attorney-General [Michael Ben Yair]
2. Noam Solberg -Senior Assistant to the Attorney-General
3. Edna Arbel - State Attorney
4. Talia Sasson - Head of the anti-incitement unit of the
5. N. Ben-Or - Head of the Criminal Division in the State
6. Leora Chavilio, Senior Assistant in the Jerusalem
District Attorney's office.
7. Chezi Kallo - [direct GSS handler of Avishai Raviv]
8. G. Ben Ami - [GSS official]
9. Eli Barak - [Head of the Jewish Division of the GSS
after Carmi Gillon, and during the Ya'akov Perry era,
head of Perry's office.]
10. Ledor, Jerusalem District Attorney
Synopsis of deliberations on evidence 133/95 The
swearing-in ceremony of the Eyal Organization, a document
from 29.3.96 from Leora Chavilio; the summary report of
the Eyal swearing-in ceremony; document from 5.2.96 from
Attorney-General: We have all seen the videotape.
Anyone who was there, on location, could have understood
that this was not an authentic ceremony. Even the Shamgar
Commission explicitly noted this in its report.
L. Chavilio: I didn't notice that the inauthentic
sections were intentionally edited out of the video. I
see a problem with issuing an indictment against the
A-G: Perhaps some disciplinary action can be taken
C. Kallo: We are talking here about the handling
of a problematic agent.
The loss-benefit evaluation looks like this: He served as
our agent for 8-9 years. Within this time period, he
generally worked well, except for the last year. He
transmitted to us thousands of pieces of information...
During the last year, he lost control, and we were able
to nip the problem in the bud. He underwent an initial
investigation, and admitted [to his actions] We continued
to employ him. As for the story of the videotape [of the
staged Eyal swearing-in ceremony] - from our perspective,
this is a most serious episode. Our officials deliberated
on the matter, and decided that he was out of control and
that it was impossible to permit him to continue
But we establishednew rules of operation... and that he
would underergo psychological examinations. It was quite
clear to him that we wouldn't continue along the same
path, and that he would not receive immunity for crimes
he committed. In hindsight now, if we had gone ahead and
broken off our ties with him -maybe he would have given
us the murderer [of Yitzchak Rabin].
A court case against him would essentially be a case
against the General Security Services (GSS). We would
have to reveal all of our rules operation, something that
would cause serious operational damage. We have to
remember that our opponents pose some serious threats
today. During a trial, everything would come out into the
I don't remember any trial against a GSS agent that was
conducted behind closed doors. Great damage could be
caused - revelation of operational strategies, etc.
N. Ben-Or: The attorney who represented Avishai
Raviv will have a strong ideological bias, and it is
possible that he would join forces with extremist
elements, and that together, they would reveal secrets.
T. Sasson: They would do everything they could to
G. Ben-Ami: As far as his criminal intentions are
concerned: Did he intend to commit a crime? They
suspected that Raviv was a GSS collaborator and he had to
prove himself [to right-wing activists] He had to remove
all their suspicions that he was an agent. Dorit Beinish
gave approval for his activities next to Bar-Ilan
University, to incriminate someone else who would then be
caught. He had to protect himself. Any Defense Attorney
will call Raviv to the witness stand.
E. Barak: Raviv was part of a violent group ---
the fact is that they suspected him of being a GSS
collaborator. He had to, at all times, prove that he was
as "active" as them.
Ledor: We have to close the file "due to lack
of public interest." An
indictment [against Raviv] could seriously harm the GSS.
We have to accept the GSS opinion on this. We close a lot
of files in this manner, due to a "lack of public
interest." The harm is clear - the trial would look
crooked. Holding it "behind closed doors" just
Ben-Or: I am bothered by the criminal aspect of
this - I am not sure that it won't end in a finding of
"not guilty." Then we will be in a strange
situation. This person was working in a problematic
situation. His involvement in Eyal was illegal. They didn't
allow him to bring television cameras. A police agent who
is commissioned to 'buy' drugs is not allowed to smoke
them himself, etc. When you're in the trenches, though,
it's difficult, and sometimes [an agent] will "give
himself permission" to break a law. Maybe he will
argue the defense of "necessity," maybe the
justification that he had to "earn the trust of
those around him." I don't want to make a decision
about his criminal culpability.
A-G: We see this as a serious matter. I don't
dismiss the damage to the organization [the GSS]. Even
the revelation of his code name caused great damage. But
the additional damage is relatively insignificant, and we
can make an effort to minimize it. It is possible to
conduct proceedings behind closed doors. The case itself
is very serious and there is a real public interest in
filing criminal charges. This episode shocked television
viewers and caused enormous damage, a virtual public
storm! I just don't see how we can avoid beginning [criminal]
Ben Ami: Another factor [that must be considered]:
The GSS ability to hire agents, and the organization's
handling of already existing agents. Our sources demand
that the Service ensure that they will not be revealed.
It will be hard [if Raviv goes to trial] to handle
present agents and hire new ones.
A-G: Sec.(b)(1); The whole trial will take place
behind closed doors. The Shamgar Commission was also held
behind closed doors. It is possible.
Sasson: Let's assume that there is evidence. The
television clip made an impression on me. We see from
Chezi Kallo's words what kind of damage [such a trial]
would cause to the GSS. I must work with the assumption
that there would be such damage. We have to weigh the
benefits [of bringing him to trial] against the losses.
It has to be evaluated in cold [objective] terms.
E. Arbel: From the perspective of the Attorney-General
and the State
Attorney's office: It is impossible to evaluate the
evidence when we know that what is available there does
not give an accurate portrait of what went on. The man
was an agent. We don't know what the true picture was at
the time. We can't know the clear details of the
situation until he gets up on the witness stand, and
maybe he will say that he was operating according to the
directions of the GSS. It is impossible to say whether
there is or is not evidence against him. The file [swearing-in]
was staged. The lines were not clearly demarcated for
Avishai Raviv. What would have happened if he would have
prevented the murder? With all the difficulties that this
[decision] entails, I am not sure that we can accomplish
our goal. With aheavy heart, I suggest we close the file
A-G: Section 4(a) - I don't see a problem with the
evidence. I don't see any problems in terms of his
criminal intent. It is impossible to close the case
without public exposure.
Ledor: Some time ago, we put together a format
that we could use for a situation in which we announce
that a file is being closed.
Arbel: It is simpler to defend the closing of a
file due to a lack of evidence; it is possible that he [Raviv]
wanted to convince them that he was "one of them."
I see a problem with this. And if there is a problem with
the evidence, it is easier to explain things [to the
public]. I don't have to wait and come to the Court for
it to say all this. My desire is to issue an indictment,
but the risk is so big. We can in fact explain this to
the Supreme Court; it's possible to defend [such an
E. Barak: In actual fact, during the entire time
that Raviv served as an agent for us, there were many
"incidents." He could very well testify about
the [numerous] cases in which we gave him directions. The
entire story of his service will be revealed, and there
will be legal difficulties. Even after the [Eyal]
television broadcast, they continued to employ him.
Sasson: A "lack of evidence" and a
"lack of public interest" together constitute
good reasons [for closing the file]
A-G: I don't want to be involved in closing the
file. I won't get into explaining. In any case, we have
to send a letter to the Israel Broadcast Authority in
which we express our bad feelings at the video clip [the
swearing in ceremony of Eyal]. We have to write something
against [TV reporter] Eitan Oren. I can't be involved in
this. Were I to be the only one to decide, I would issue
an indictment. But, as I said, I don't want to
be involved in this. I would like to request that the
issue be transferred over to the State Attorney's office,
that the State Attorney's office make a decision on this,
and issue a statement to the plaintiffs.