ACRI submitted a petition to the Supreme Court yesterday (13.3.05) on behalf of journalist and researcher, Gershom Gorenberg, against the IDF Archive. The petition demands that Mr. Gorenberg be granted access to the archive material that he requires for his area of research, and that the information contained in the archive be made available to anybody who requires it, as long as its disclosure does not present any realistic danger to the security of the state. The court was also asked to cancel the sweeping limitations that are included in the regulations that govern access to archive material, and to order the authorities to publish the regulations and criteria that determine which archive material is to be withheld from the public. Finally, the court was asked to prohibit the archive authorities from including, as part of the “security considerations”, issues such as: potential damage to the image of the state, or of public figures, or the potential for causing political conflict. The petition, which is directed against the Director of the IDF Archive, the committee in charge of certifying researchers to access the archive, and the Prime Minister (who dictates the regulations by which the archive is managed), was submitted by ACRI Attorney Avner Pinchuk.
Gershom Gorenberg, author and associate editor of the Jerusalem Report, is currently writing a history of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories in the decade after 1967. For research purposes Mr. Gorenberg applied to the IDF archive for the status of “certified researcher” a year and a half ago to gain access to material relevant to his field of research. His request was denied, and he was even prevented from seeing the indexes or lists of the relevant files in the archive. He was informed that the material he requested is restricted for 50 years, and that no deviation from this period of restriction is permissible. Upon the recommendation of the archive’s Director, Mr. Gorenberg submitted a renewed and more limited request that focused primarily on political and policy issues, and less on military and security concerns. This request was also denied, with the stipulated reason being the “sensitivity” of the material. Additional requests that were submitted by ACRI were also rejected. Mr. Gorenberg was informed by the archive Director that, “all material related to the subject of settlement in the occupied territories is part of a very problematic domain of discussions and contact with Palestinians”. She added that, “these are very sensitive and problematic subjects and I am sure that you would not want to be the one to disclose them”.
Attorney Pinchuk notes in the petition that this case is not an isolated incident, and that a review of State Comptroller’s reports reveals a dismal record of the archive’s management which includes: discrimination between researchers who have requested access to material; unjustified denial of access – for security or other reasons – to archive material; and the imposition of bureaucratic obstacles and other phenomenon that were also made apparent in the case of Mr. Gorenberg.
Attorney Pinchuk makes clear that the central focus of the petition is freedom of information, the constitutional right to know, and that the serious limitations placed on access to the archive material limits freedom of information for both researchers and the general public. This fact results in a perversion of historical research, the collective memory, the cultural and political legacy of Israel, and undermines public democratic debate on issues relating to politics and security. The archive officials, he further emphasizes, arrogate to themselves the power to determine what is good for the citizen to know, and thus – what is good for the citizen to think. He also notes, that even though the Minister of Defense issued an order 17 years ago to shorten the period of classification to 30 years, security related documents are still subject to automatic and arbitrary classification for 50 years, and in fact many documents remain classified for even longer. The State Comptroller, the petition states, warned in a report published in 2000, that the principle by which the archive authorities in charge of restricting information work is “not to disclose documents unless there is no choice” – which contravenes the prescribed method of running a professional archive.
Attorney Pinchuk further challenges the “certified researcher” arrangement, according to which the archive authorities decide which researchers are allowed access to the materials in the archive. He claims – following past claims by the State Comptroller – that the archive does not treat all researchers who submit requests equally, and that in practice this arrangement has converted the legal right to know into a privilege that is extended solely to members of the security apparatus and researchers that are favored by them. The State Comptroller even discovered that archive official restrict access to documents, not because they are classified, but because, “in the official’s opinion the material was not necessary for the research subject”. The petition further adds that in 1977, the State Archivist determined that the regulations instituted by the GSS result in a situation whereby, “those who are awarded access to archive material are limited, in too many cases, to those who are connected to the ”establishment” in its most limited sense; public servants and those close to them” . Moreover, from the moment that a researcher is defined as “certified” he is forced to agree to archive officials having control over his research, including sections whose source is not the archive.
Attorney Pinchuk also emphasizes the fact that, the right to know is a basic legal right that should be related to just as seriously, or even more so, as freedom of expression. He further notes that restricted permission to access material results in the creation of informal channels for the passage of information, and leads to the formation of “pirated” information that is directed solely to groups or individuals holding positions of power in society. The open flow of information, he adds, is also a guarantee of security: a country that works in the dark looses the faith of its citizens, and the democratic regime is weakened. Restricted access is also likely to result in unchecked leaks, and even undermines public supervision of state authorities. The restrictions on the right to access the archives should be as limited as possible, and a classified period of 50 years is unreasonable and disproportionate. Preventing access to information, merely because it is liable to provoke political debate, the petition further adds, is illegitimate and tainted by a hidden agenda. It is precisely because the information is vital to the public debate of issues that relate to the state’s very existence, that the IDF Archive should act with the utmost caution before deciding to restrict access to it.
last updated : 22/03/05
