The arrest of Yifat Tomer Yerushalmi, Israel’s former military advocate general, has drawn international attention not only because of the legal drama surrounding her case but because it reveals how information about the treatment of Palestinian detainees is managed, contested, and often distorted. The incident underscores a deeper struggle over truth and misinformation surrounding Israel’s military conduct in the occupied territories.
A Leak That Challenged the Official Narrative
Tomer Yerushalmi admitted to authorizing the release of surveillance footage from the Sde Teiman detention center, where Israeli soldiers were seen assaulting a Palestinian detainee. The detainee was later hospitalized with serious injuries. In her resignation letter, she stated that the decision to release the video was meant to counter what she described as “false propaganda” directed at the military’s law enforcement system. The footage contradicted months of official claims that Palestinian detainees were being treated humanely and in accordance with international law.
For years, Israeli authorities have insisted that their handling of detainees follows legal standards and oversight. However, multiple human rights groups and international observers have reported widespread mistreatment, including physical violence, overcrowding, and denial of medical care in detention facilities. The leaked video challenged these official assurances, providing visual evidence that contradicted the Israeli government’s narrative and, in doing so, exposed the mechanisms of control over public information.
The Machinery of Misinformation
This case illustrates how governments in conflict settings can use selective transparency to manage international perception. In Israel’s case, the state’s communication strategy around detainee treatment has relied heavily on portraying allegations of abuse as exaggerated or politically motivated. The release of the Sde Teiman video disrupted this framework by presenting undeniable evidence of violence against a detainee. Rather than focusing on the soldiers’ actions, official discourse quickly turned toward condemning the leak itself and questioning the motives of the officer who authorized it.
By criminalizing the act of exposure, authorities effectively redirected the conversation away from the abuse. This shift allowed the state to preserve its broader narrative of lawful conduct while discrediting those who challenge it. Such tactics are a form of narrative management that blurs the line between information control and misinformation.
The Political Stakes of Controlling the Story
The treatment of Palestinian detainees is not merely a domestic legal matter; it has become a symbolic front in Israel’s broader struggle for international legitimacy. Images of abuse or neglect directly undermine the government’s efforts to frame its actions as defensive and measured. Consequently, information leaks such as this one are treated not as contributions to transparency but as threats to national credibility. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the leak as one of the most severe public relations blows Israel has faced, a statement that reveals how reputational damage is prioritized over addressing the alleged abuses themselves.
The arrest of Tomer Yerushalmi also sends a signal to other potential whistleblowers within the Israeli military and government. By prosecuting a senior official who attempted to expose evidence of mistreatment, the state reinforces a culture of silence that protects institutional image at the expense of accountability.
A Final Note
The scandal surrounding Yifat Tomer Yerushalmi is about more than one leak or one detention center. It reveals how control of information can be used to sustain a misleading narrative about the treatment of Palestinians under Israeli custody. While the government seeks to portray its actions as lawful and transparent, the suppression of inconvenient evidence tells a different story. The incident underscores the role of misinformation not only in obscuring individual abuses but in shaping the very framework through which justice and human rights are understood in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
