Court Rejects Prosecutors’ Request to Bar Urih from Being Near Netanyahu

He will be able to continue being near Netanyahu: A hearing was held this afternoon, Thursday, at the Tel Aviv District Court on the prosecution’s request to bar Jonathan Urich, the adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from the Prime Minister’s Office and from any security facility or place where secret information may be held. Hours after Urich was charged with a series of offenses, including intent to harm state security, in the case involving the leak of classified documents to the German newspaper Bild, Judge Ala Masarwa decided not to accept the prosecution’s request for now, and ruled that Urich may at this stage remain in contact with Netanyahu.

Attorney Amit Hadad, Urich’s defense lawyer, said at the start of the hearing: “For three and a half months there has been no hearing on Urich regarding restrictions. He speaks with the prime minister, manages the Likud campaign, and now they want to remove him again. What changed tonight? Let them say they are completely political, take off the masks and that’s it.” Hadad added: “He is leading the election campaign, he is in the Prime Minister’s Office, he is speaking with people involved. At 10:30 last night, a message was received saying they are requesting conditions. This was also leaked weeks earlier. Let there be an indictment, and then they will also request the conditions. Then we come in the morning with a strange new request, and a strange new indictment, and with witnesses who did not provide a version in the police investigation.”

Prosecutor Attorney Adi Arad said: “We would like to say that Attorney Hadad represents the respondent and prosecution witness number 80, the prime minister, in the cases of the thousands. We have not clarified the ethical issue with the Israel Bar Association, but we will turn to the Bar Association with an inquiry on the matter. Urich’s interest was to advance the prime minister’s media interests during the war, while there are hostages in the Gaza Strip, and to tilt things during the war. Urich’s conduct reflects a lack of boundaries and harm to state security, especially given his role and status.”

The prosecutor further said: “In his case, a significant grounds for obstruction exists, and in this context I refer to the facts of the indictment according to which he destroyed evidence, formatted the phone, after the arrest of Feldstein (Eli Feldstein, the former adviser to the prime minister, who is accused in the case of conveying secret information with intent to harm state security, note). In light of the close relationship between the prime minister and Urich, there is concern about coordinating versions. The prime minister’s refusal to testify in this case has the effect of benefiting Urich.”

At this point, Judge Ala Masarwa said, in light of the prosecution’s request to keep Urich away from the Prime Minister’s Office: “This is a bit strange. On March 15, when there was still no indictment, you agreed that he would return to the Prime Minister’s Office. I assume there was concern about obstruction. So if at the height of the critical moment you agreed that he would return, then today you are asking to remove him?” Prosecutor Arad replied: “Today the respondent is facing a significant indictment.”

Judge Masarwa continued: “Then there was concern about obstruction of the investigation, and today about the trial. Then you agreed he would return, I am exaggerating, ‘to the lion’s den.’ And now you agree he would return? After all, the concern about obstruction of an investigation is much more critical, immediate and extreme than a general concern about influencing the trial.” Arad responded: “We were forced then to agree out of necessity because there was no basis to extend the conditions when there was no expectation of when the next investigative action would take place, the prime minister’s testimony, because of the war. There was an understanding by the state that it could not extend the conditions again and again when the investigation could not continue and testimony could not be taken from the prime minister because of an objective obstacle. But even after that obstacle ended, and the war ended, the prime minister did not come to testify.”

At the end of the hearing, Judge Masarwa decided, as noted, that he was not currently accepting the prosecution’s request to bar Urich from the Prime Minister’s Office, and ruled that his current conditions, removal from certain places in the Prime Minister’s Office, would remain in effect, and that a follow-up hearing would be set where the evidence will be presented.