Israel is confronting two grave matters at once. First, footage that appears to show the abuse of a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman facility prompted arrests, investigations, and, this year, indictments of five reservists by an IDF military court.
Second, Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, until recently the military advocate-general, admitted to authorizing the leak of that footage to the media and resigned; she was later located after hours of searching on a Tel Aviv beach and is now under investigation.
Both can be true at the same time: suspected criminal abuse by soldiers, and a suspected criminal leak by a senior legal officer. Each demands a legal response, not a partisan one.
Important facts should frame the debate. The Jerusalem Post has reported that five reservists were indicted in February in connection with alleged abuse at Sde Teiman.
The Post has also detailed Tomer-Yerushalmi’s resignation after acknowledging the leak, followed by a wider probe into the circumstances of that disclosure. On Sunday night, she was found alive near Tel Aviv; the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court later heard arguments in the leak case, with the presiding judge expressing concern about obstruction.
Reckless political reactions
Political reactions have been rapid and often reckless. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that Tomer-Yerushalmi “acted against our soldiers” and “collaborated in leaks with antisemitic blood libels,” language that turns the military legal system into a political adversary rather than a component of command and accountability.
The same is true online. On Sunday night, as confusion spread, prominent voices on the Left added accelerants.
Protest leader Shikma Bressler posted, then deleted, a message asserting that “those who incited against [assassinate prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin now control the police” and that the same ideology “pushed the chief prosecutor to death,” concluding “may her memory be a blessing,” while she was actually alive, allegedly hiding evidence.
Tech activist Moshe Radman wrote that in the government, “there is no conscience and morality” and urged nationwide “soul-searching” that evening. Democrats MK Naama Lazimi attacked the police response as “a fully political police,” promising, “we will rise, struggle, and win.”
The Post’s analysis pressed the core question: Is Israel handling the Sde Teiman leak primarily as a political crisis rather than a legal one, and if so, why? This shouldn’t be a Left-Right argument, but unfortunately, it has become such.
The detainee at the center of the leaked video has since been freed as part of a hostage exchange, a development that emphasizes how quickly facts on the ground can shift while the legal questions remain. Was he purposely released without testifying? The implications here may be dramatic.
This newspaper holds four positions at once.
First, abuse of a detainee, if proven, is a crime and a moral failing that must be punished by law. Second, unauthorized disclosure of sensitive evidence by a senior official, if proven, is a serious breach that also warrants legal consequences. Third, leaders and influential voices bear responsibility to lower the temperature, not raise it, because mob rhetoric makes justice harder. Fourth, the judicial system and police seem to be treating people who allegedly committed the same crimes differently, according to their political affiliation.
There are practical steps to help Israel meet this moment. Government ministers should refrain from prejudging cases or assigning treachery to entire institutions. Law-enforcement bodies should communicate clearly, within legal limits, about the scope and status of the investigations. They should also treat every case equally, not be easier on those they know personally or feel ideologically closer to.
Media should distinguish between facts and allegations
The media should distinguish between verified facts and allegations and avoid treating legal process as a proxy for political competition. Citizens, including public figures on X/Twitter and other platforms, should resist absolutist narratives while the record is still being built.
Our country needs to keep protests lawful and in public spaces, keep rhetoric human, and let the courts do their work. The courts need to strive for objectivity. Otherwise, the state will trade the possibility of justice for the spectacle of condemnation and lose both.