Court authorizes the publication of
the "secret document" on IBA journalist
& former GSS agent Raviv


The full text of the protocol
(Hebrew & English)


Israel's Media Watch (IMW) Director, Yisrael Medad, comment's

Comment (II)
by Israel Media Watch

Israel's Media Watch (IMW), whose complaint against TV reporter Eitan Oren is the subject matter discussed in the previously banned-for-publication Justice Ministry document, expressed its satisfaction over what it termed the "right of the public to know".

They expressed affinity with the sharp criticism directed at the position taken by Elyakim Rubinstein and noted that they find it hard to believe that Rubinstein could continue to fulfill his position as the State Attorney.

"By attempting to cover up the shameful deliberations conducted by the top echelon of the most senior law enforcement officials in the country, Rubinstein lent himself to the trampling of justice and caused harm to the rule of law", said IMW Director, Yisrael Medad. "These officials, through irrelevant considerations and their own personal interests, sought to subvert the due legal process by avoiding presenting an indictment against Oren.  Rubinstein attempted to use his authority simply to protect those in the State Attorney's Office.

Medad complained that Israeli's media is consistently misinterpretating the document's contents and misleading the public on the issue of the apparently illegal activity undertaken at the time by a TV reporter in acting in collusion with GSS agent Avishai Raviv.

Medad stated: "IMW will be petitioning the Supreme Court next week to reverse the decision of State Prosecutor Edna Arbel with the object of pressing charges against Eitan Oren for breach of trust and deception."




As a public service, IMW views the following article from Arutz 7 News service,, November 11, 1999 - 2 Kislev 5760,
as in the interest of visitors to our web site.
Arutz Sheva News Service
Thursday, November 11, 1999 / Kislev 2, 5760


The military censor decided early this afternoon that the now-famous "Raviv-Beinish" document may be published in full.  The announcement came only minutes after the Supreme Court nullified the restraining order it had previously issued regarding the document.  Harshly criticizing Atty.-Gen. Rubenstein for the way in which he attempted to prevent the paper's publication, Justice Eliyahu Matza said, "There is absolutely nothing in the paper relating to national security."  Justice Dalia Dorner said that she understood that the protocol could be embarrassing to the State Prosecution, but advised the Attorney-General, "Why don't you climb down from your high ladder?"  The judges said that the Attorney-General has no authority to cite national security considerations to prohibit the publication of a document.

Hon. Matza noted that in any event, the document was no longer secret, since "people from Beijing to Mexico had read it over the internet."  The document is a protocol of a May 1996 meeting (seven months after the Rabin assassination) that was attended by Justice Ministry and General Security Service officials.  The topic at hand was whether or not to agree to an indictment of Raviv and/or television journalist Eitan Oren, who screened a staged initiation ceremony of a fake right-wing extremist group.  Chezi Kallo, head of the Jewish Branch of the GSS, is quoted as saying that if the GSS had reined in Avishai Raviv earlier, Raviv might have told the organization what he knew of the intentions of Yigal Amir, thus preventing the assassination.  The document also states that former State Attorney Dorit Beinish gave her approval for Raviv to entrap an otherwise innocent person at Bar Ilan University in order to provide a cover for Raviv's GSS activities. 

An English translation of the document can be viewed on Arutz Sheva's website:

Arutz-7's Haggai Seri reported from the Supreme Court today:  "At first, the judges appeared to be impatient with the petitioner, journalist Yoav Yitzchak, who appeared in court without a lawyer.  Suddenly, however, they changed direction.  Judge Matza turned to Atty. Dror Fogelman, representing Atty.-Gen. Rubenstein, and said, 'What kind of national security is there in this document?!'"  Fogelman said that in any event the Prosecution was planning to permit the publication of the document.  The judges also criticized the Atty.-Gen. for threatening whomever publicizes the document with a prison term. 


Journalist Yoav Yitzchak - who filed the original suit in the Supreme Court demanding the paper's publication - and Likud MK Michael Eitan, who took a leading role against Rubenstein's decision to forbid publication, welcomed the Court's ruling.  Eitan said that the State Attorney's office attempted to hide its role in the provocative activity of Avishai Raviv.  "This document shows that there was a 'dirty deal' between the State Prosecution and the GSS not to try Raviv so that he would not tell all about the instructions he received from the GSS," Eitan said. 

Chezi Kallo, who was quoted at length in the document, said that the protocol distorts his statements.  MK Eitan reacted: "Good, let them start blaming each other.  I call upon Kallo to join me in my call for a general investigation, and then the entire truth will emerge." 

MK Tzvi Hendel called upon Prime Minister Barak to establish a public commission of inquiry to investigate the State Prosecution for its role in approving Avishai Raviv's incitement against the right-wing with the purpose of "delegitimizing it and causing it to be reviled by the public."

Publication of the "secret protocol"

The hebrew version is just here ! (click)

The English Version

 Unofficial translation of the Document

Document dated June 16, 1996 File 403
Summary of a Meeting on the Swearing-In Ceremony of the Eyal Organization
Meeting Date: May 2, 1996

In attendance:
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 State Attorney's
5. N. Ben-Or - Head of the Criminal Division in the State Attorney's Office.
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 Y. Rodman

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 reporter.

A-G: Perhaps some disciplinary action can be taken against him?

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 operating...
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 open.
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 reveal secrets.

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 won't help.

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] proceedings.

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 [against him].

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 approach].

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.

The hebrew version is just here ! (click)


IMW is a registered non-profit organization whose major aim is assuring the ethical and fair conduct of the Israeli media. 

Return to Home Page
Return to
List of Papers
Return to "GSS Agent-provocateur Avishai Raviv" list

This page hosted by GeocitiesgeocitiesGet your own FreeHome Page