Two senior Prime Minister’s Office officials questioned on Sunday in connection with the Bild leak affair appealed the restrictive conditions imposed on their release, arguing that the measures are disproportionate and unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
Tzachi Braverman, chief of staff at the Prime Minister’s Office, and Omer Mantzur, a PMO spokesman, filed appeals on Monday against decisions by a police officer to release them under a series of restrictions. Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court Judge Menahem Mizrahi set a joint hearing on both appeals for Wednesday morning.
Braverman, Mantzur, and former PMO spokesman and media adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Eli Feldstein, were called in for questioning on Sunday following a televised interview Feldstein gave to KAN last month that reignited scrutiny of the case.
During the questioning, police seized two mobile phones belonging to Braverman. Both Braverman and Mantzur were released later that day, subject to restrictive conditions, pending further investigative steps.
The timing is particularly sensitive, as Braverman is Netanyahu’s nominee to serve as Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. It remains unclear how the restrictions may affect the government’s plans regarding his appointment.
Bild leak probe: new claims implicate Netanyahu aides
The affair centers on the September 2024 leak of a classified military intelligence document outlining Hamas’s position on hostage negotiations, which was published by the German tabloid Bild. The publication was widely cited as bolstering Netanyahu’s public argument that only increased military pressure would secure the hostages’ release.
Feldstein was subsequently arrested and later charged with passing and holding classified information and with obstruction of justice. A reservist in military intelligence who allegedly supplied the document, Ari Rosenfeld, was also arrested.
In a lengthy interview aired on KAN late last month, Feldstein made new allegations about the internal handling of the leak, claiming Netanyahu was aware of and supported efforts to use the document to shape public opinion - contradicting official statements that the prime minister learned of the leak only through the media.
Feldstein also described pressure from senior aides to blunt early scrutiny of the leak, including an allegation that Braverman suggested he could “shut down” the investigation - a claim Braverman and the PMO have strongly denied.
According to Feldstein, Braverman summoned him to a meeting in an underground parking lot at the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv and asked him to leave his mobile phone behind.
Feldstein further claimed that, during a subsequent conversation in a car, Braverman warned him that the IDF’s information security unit had opened an investigation that extended to the PMO.
Mantzur’s lawyers have argued that even if Feldstein’s account is accepted in full, Mantzur was not present for the conversation in question.
Feldstein’s interview renewed public controversy surrounding the affair and contributed to additional criminal inquiries, including a separate police probe into whether Braverman sought to interfere with the investigation.
Police conducted a face-to-face confrontation between Braverman and Feldstein.
After roughly 12 hours of questioning, Braverman was released late Sunday under several restrictive conditions, including a 30-day ban on contact with those involved in the affair, a 15-day ban from the PMO, a 30-day travel ban, and a personal recognizance of NIS 5,000.
Braverman’s defense described the conditions as “extreme, rare, and disproportionate.”
In his appeal, attorney Jacques Chen argued that Feldstein’s interview was given while criminal proceedings against him were ongoing, a circumstance that “raises questions concerning the obstruction of investigative and judicial proceedings.”
Mantzur was released under a 60-day travel ban, barred from entering PMO offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for 15 days, and prohibited from contacting anyone connected to the case.
Attorney Eli Perry wrote in Mantzur’s appeal that his client was summoned for questioning and informed that investigators intended to interrogate him on suspicion of obstruction of justice.
The appeal argues that the investigation rests entirely on Feldstein’s “contrived and unfounded version” of events and that, even under Feldstein’s own account, Mantzur was not a participant in the alleged conversation.
“There is no minimal evidentiary basis for reasonable suspicion, no grounds for arrest, and, in any event, the threshold conditions for imposing restrictive measures are not met,” the appeal states, urging the court to cancel the conditions.
Perry further argued that the authorities could have imposed significantly narrower measures, as is customary in similar cases.
“Release conditions are not a sanction,” Perry wrote. “They are a targeted tool intended to prevent concrete concerns. Where no concrete concern exists, there is no basis for imposing conditions.”
He added that the travel ban, in particular, lacks any logical connection to the alleged conduct, which occurred more than a year ago and has been widely reported in the media in recent weeks.
Perry practices at the same law firm as Amit Hadad, who represents Yonatan Urich in the affair, as well as in the “Qatargate” case, and also serves as Netanyahu’s defense attorney in his ongoing criminal trial.
The renewed focus on the Bild leak has unfolded alongside continued developments in the so-called “Qatargate” affair, a separate investigation in which Feldstein is also a central figure. That case concerns alleged undisclosed contacts between senior figures in the PMO and Qatari-linked actors, as well as questions over whether political, media, or strategic messaging efforts were advanced without proper authorization or transparency. Feldstein has denied wrongdoing in that matter.