The Knesset Constitution Committee met on Tuesday for an oversight meeting over the interrogation of journalists last week in connection to the “Qatargate” case.
“Qatargate” is an investigation into suspected Qatari influence on figures close to the prime minister, involving the Gulf state’s alleged efforts to improve its image among the Israeli public.
An Israeli businessman, Gil Berger, admitted in a recording published by KAN last month that during 2024 he had funneled payments to Eli Feldstein from Jay Footlik, an American working as a lobbyist on behalf of Qatar, while Feldstein was working as the prime minister’s spokesperson on military affairs.
As part of his work, Feldstein facilitated interviews for Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief Zvika Klein, following a trip by Klein to Qatar for journalistic purposes. Klein was accompanied during his trip by Footlik.
Klein was summoned to give open testimony at Lahav 433 on March 31, but his testimony turned into an interrogation under caution. His cellphone was taken from him. Three other journalists, Shirit Avitan Cohen (Yisrael Hayom), Suleiman Maswade (Kan 11), and Nir Dvori (Channel 12), were summoned the next day to give open testimony as well.
Klein released from house arrest
Klein was put under house arrest and released on Thursday. In ensuing interviews, Klein said he was stunned by the investigation and maintained that his trip to Qatar — during which he became the first Israeli journalist to interview the Qatari prime minister — was fully transparent and adhered to professional journalistic standards.
Deputy State Attorney Alon Altman said during the meeting that he was “very cautious when approaching situations where this [journalistic] privilege might conflict with the need to uncover the truth during an investigation.”
According to Altman, open testimonials of journalists require the approval of the head of the Israel Police’s investigations department; interrogations under caution require Altman’s approval, which, if given, usually includes limitations; and if the investigation includes violating the journalist’s immunity, special permission is required and in some cases the approval of a judge.
Altman refused to discuss Klein’s specific case, and what approvals were issued in order interrogate him under caution and confiscate his cellphone.
Adv. Haim Vismonsky, head of the cyber division within the state attorney’s office, Israeli criminal law differentiated between seizing a cellphone and accessing its content. The law permits seizure of a cellphone for six months without a specific warrant. However, law enforcement officials cannot access the contents of the cellphone unless given specific permission by a judge. Even if the suspect permits that investigators access the contents of his or her phone, a judicial warrant is still necessary, save for extraordinary circumstances.
Committee chairman Rothman urged caution
Constitution Committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman said during the meeting, “If you cannot speak about the case, then don’t talk about it. But you cannot selectively take from the case what suits you when the Attorney General issues a statement about what is being investigated.” Rothman was referring to a statement by the Attorney General’s Office on Thursday, which included the suspicions against Klein.
“We were constantly warned that reforming the judicial system would turn us into a non-democratic state, but a country where a journalist is investigated and you did not approve, or you refuse to answer whether you approved or not—that’s not just a ‘deep state,’ it’s ‘deep fake,’ because you are deceiving the public by releasing biased information,” Rothman said.
“The fact that you are not providing answers to the public speaks loudly and clearly, and when those responsible for enforcing the law and preserving freedom of expression in Israel behave in this manner, citizens have every reason to be deeply concerned,” Rothman said.
In a statement on Thursday, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara wrote that “the law enforcement system places utmost importance on ensuring freedom of the press.”
“Therefore, the enforcement policy, which has not changed, aims to minimize situations where journalists are asked to give testimony. In any case, testimonies are collected with great caution to uphold freedom of the press,” the A-G wrote.
“The investigation into allegations regarding the promotion of Qatar’s interests by the Prime Minister’s advisers necessitates collecting open testimonies from journalists. Without gathering testimonies from journalists, it will not be possible to clarify the relevant facts.
“The journalists who have been summoned and are expected to testify in the case are not suspects and are not being questioned about their sources.
“The journalist who was questioned under warning in connection with the case [Klein} was initially summoned to provide an open testimony and not as a suspect. During the testimony, significant suspicions emerged that the journalist, alongside the Prime Minister’s advisers, was part of a mechanism receiving benefits from Qatar in exchange for promoting its interests.
“In this context, the decision was made to proceed with questioning under warning, focusing on the matter of receiving benefits from Qatar.
“This does not harm the aforementioned policy regarding journalists,” the A-G concluded.
