It appears Argaman believes he is still a coordinator within the organization and views the prime minister as a target to control by threatening to expose information he has gathered about him to ensure compliance. In a democracy—and Israel presumably still is one—this cannot be tolerated. In a state governed by the rule of law—and Israel presumably still is one—Argaman must be investigated by police.
Argaman said in the interview that he has significant information about the prime minister but refrained from revealing it. However, he said he would disclose it "if I conclude the prime minister has decided to act unlawfully." The phrasing used by the former Shin Bet chief might be confusing, but it’s crucial to clarify why he should be summoned for investigation.
One might mistakenly understand Argaman meant he would reveal this information if the appropriate legal authorities determined Netanyahu was acting unlawfully. But no, he stated he would reveal the information if he, Argaman, in his subjective judgment, decided Netanyahu was breaking the law. In other words, whenever Argaman chooses, if Netanyahu as prime minister does something he dislikes, he will reveal compromising material about Netanyahu that could harm his reputation.
Where does this kind of threat sound familiar? Of course, from the Miki Zohar affair. In November 2020, Zohar, the current minister of sports and culture, was summoned for police questioning after saying in an interview that if then-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit did not resign and cancel the indictment against Netanyahu, additional recordings of Mandelblit would be revealed.
These recordings, which had been exposed previously, included Mandelblit saying former State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan "has me by the throat." These recordings were in the possession of then-Bar Association chair Efi Nave and clearly not in Zohar’s possession, making it an empty threat. Argaman’s threat, on the other hand, is loaded since he admitted in the interview that he possesses kompromat about Netanyahu.
If Argaman’s threat is aimed at preventing Netanyahu from breaking the law—something he is not allowed to do—then the offense of extortion by threats wouldn’t apply. However, this is not what Argaman said. The law states: "Anyone who threatens a person in any way with unlawful harm… to their reputation or livelihood, with the intent to intimidate or annoy them, is liable to three years' imprisonment." In the more severe offense of extortion by threats, it adds that the threat is made "to compel the person to do or refrain from doing something they are entitled to do."
If Argaman’s threat is aimed at preventing Netanyahu from breaking the law—something he is not entitled to do—the offense of extortion by threats wouldn’t apply. But as mentioned, this is not what Argaman said. He threatened to reveal the information whenever he decided Netanyahu was breaking the law, even if Netanyahu was doing something he was "entitled to do."
In numerous rulings, the Supreme Court has established that the offense of threats is a behavioral offense. Therefore, it is unnecessary to prove the threatened party—in this case, Netanyahu—subjectively felt threatened. The threatening nature of Argaman’s statement must be assessed from the perspective of the average person, meaning an objective standpoint. There is no doubt anyone who listened to Argaman understood he was threatening the prime minister with the exposure of information that would, at the very least, harm his reputation.
However, the law, as well as Supreme Court rulings, added an important criterion: "unlawful harm." This means it must be asked whether, apart from the threat, it would be permissible to disclose the type of information Argaman threatened to reveal. If the information is legally permissible to disclose and the disclosure is neither criminal nor constitutes a civil offense, then the offense of threats wouldn’t apply. Shin Bet chiefs are privy to highly personal information about Netanyahu, as they oversee the organization responsible for securing the prime minister's family, even within their home.
Should the information in question prove to be of this nature, the offense of threats would certainly apply, as publishing such information is prohibited. For example, if the information is classified or other information a former state employee is prohibited from disclosing. If it is public information that is permissible to disclose, the offense wouldn’t apply. But, and this is a significant "but," how can one know what kind of information it is without summoning Argaman for police questioning? It is hard to believe Miki Zohar was summoned for questioning while Argaman wasn’t, right?
Let us assume the information Argaman threatened to reveal pertains to Netanyahu's misconduct as prime minister—why did he keep it to himself for so long when it is important for the public to know? Are there other important public matters Argaman is hiding from us? And what is the reason for his concealment? Some might say Argaman explained this in the interview: to preserve the intimacy between a prime minister and Shin Bet chief. This rationale is insufficient, as the very act of giving the threatening interview has already caused harm. So the reason must be different.
Speak, Argaman, speak. Let us understand what you have hidden or what you have threatened.
