Q&A: Examining Claims Concerning Shin Bet Investigations
Examining Claims Concerning Shin Bet Investigations
Question
Happy holidays.
As is known, lately reports have spread that Shin Bet investigations are being conducted against various parties. There are arguments on both sides regarding whether these investigations are justified, at least based on the information exposed to the public.
My question is: how can one decide which side is “right” (maybe neither is)?
The arguments sound reasonable on both sides, but perhaps you have some kind of rule of thumb that usually helps determine whether the claims are justified? Maybe the facts being presented are not actually facts => and then the conclusion is void?
Here is the story as described by a respected journalist.
An X user (formerly Twitter) named ‘Eran Cherpak’ wrote:
“It’s terribly simple. A Shin Bet employee is forbidden to remove classified material from the organization. Even if he really thinks it fits the right-wing whining narrative about the deep state.
And journalists, by the way, are forbidden to possess this information. For details: Uri Blau and Baruch Kara.”
And in a later tweet he wrote: “If you called Anat Kamm a traitor and supported the investigation and conviction of Uri Blau, spare us the crocodile tears and eye-rolling about the end of democracy.
It’s exactly the same thing.”
His arguments sound plausible on their face, but do they actually have substance? Is it really “exactly the same thing”?
How should one examine these issues?
Thanks in advance.
Answer
I don’t have a rule of thumb, because the judgment depends on the facts and the circumstances. My rule of thumb says that first of all, everyone is lying and/or stupid. That’s completely clear. Especially when they make analogies between cases. It’s almost never correct.
If and when there is a trial, that will provide a better indication. And again, don’t judge from media reports about the verdict, but from the verdict itself.
But by listening to the arguments of the sides, many times you can quite easily spot how they are lying or distorting things.
And finally, there is neither any need nor any ability to form an opinion in the early stages, like reports about some murky affair that is “especially grave,” and the like. Just ignore it.
Discussion on Answer
Doesn’t the obvious systematic pattern of selective enforcement מצד “rule of law,” which has almost become its logo, and whose chances of being accidental are like the chances of a watch appearing by accident in the desert, teach us who the good side is and who the villainous side is?
Just for example, Anat Kamm and Uri Blau published materials, and the person who passed them on leaked them to the press. That’s not like leaking to a prime minister, even if it’s legally forbidden. But of course among our self-righteous cousins, the law is sacred and binding—as long as it’s supposed to apply to the other side.