Israel's Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Gil Limon, responded on Sunday to Justice Minister Yariv Levin's demand that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara abstain from dealing with the Sde Teiman video leak affair.
Limon wrote to Levin in a letter: "Your letter is an attempt to unlawfully interfere with investigative and enforcement processes. It is not within your authority to take the enforcement powers in question away from the Attorney General."
He adds that "you have no authority to direct the Attorney General and the enforcement authorities subordinate to her not to deal with matters that are in their authority and responsibility."
"In light of the characteristics and importance of the investigation in question, it is being handled by the heads of the law enforcement establishment - the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, and the head of the Israel Police Investigations and Intelligence Department. The investigation is progressing quickly, per the recommendations of the enforcement and prosecution officials. Any attempt to interfere with the investigative process impedes its progress," Limon concluded.
Minister Levin responded: "I reject outright the Attorney General's statement. Miara appears to have a serious conflict of interest, as the letter clearly shows, and must refrain from handling the investigation. If she claims that she was not involved at any stage in this matter, she should state it clearly. The fact that she did not write this in her letter is clear evidence of a conflict of interest.”
On Saturday, Justice Minister Yariv Levin sent a letter to the Attorney General demanding that she refrain from handling any matter related to the Sde Teiman affair. The prohibition includes the investigation into the leaked video, the alleged obstruction of justice, and the alleged interference in judicial proceedings connected to the case.
Levin also barred the Attorney General from intervening in the appointment of an acting or replacement Military Advocate General following the forced resignation of the outgoing officer.
In his letter, Levin stated that the restriction is based on his authority under Section 23A of the Civil Service Law, which allows assigning matters from an official with a conflict of interest to another state employee. According to Levin, the prohibition applies not only to the Attorney General herself but also to all her subordinates.
“This restriction stems from your personal involvement in issues under investigation in the Sde Teiman affair, and from the high likelihood that at the very least your testimony will be required,” Levin wrote. “It also arises from your alleged personal involvement and/or that of your subordinates in acts of obstruction and interference with judicial and investigative proceedings following the leak, including allegedly providing false responses to the Supreme Court.”
Levin accused Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of misleading the Supreme Court when her office stated on September 16, 2025, that the investigation had been exhausted and there was no basis for continuing criminal proceedings over the leak, given the low chance of locating the source.
He questioned: “How did you know to write in the Supreme Court response the background to the video leak ten months before the Military Advocate General herself admitted that this was the motive for the leak? Clearly, this question requires an investigation and a factual inquiry - including of you personally.”
Levin added that it must be examined whether the Attorney General or her subordinates met or spoke with the outgoing Military Advocate General, ordered any questioning, or deliberately avoided such steps. “What did you know about the affair? It is self-evident that neither you nor your subordinates can be involved in examining these questions or any related matters,” he wrote.
He concluded: “You allegedly chose to submit this response to the Supreme Court without exhausting the options for a professional report, including consultation with the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism. You seemingly prevented the Court from being exposed to the truth about the enormous damage worldwide caused by the defamatory leak of the video.”