Israel’s Supreme Court has announced that details may now be released concerning the abduction of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum. Tennenbaum was abducted by the Lebanon-based terror movement Hizbullah on October 15th 2000.
Two months after the abduction, Tennenbaum’s family asked the District Court to issue a gag order banning the media from publicizing the circumstances of his abduction.
The Israeli daily Haaretz and Israel’s Channel 10 television station appealed one year later demanding the removal of the gag order, and eventually the District Court concurred. The family immediately appealed this decision in the Supreme Court.
The details released so far reveal that Tennenbaum was persuaded by an associate to participate in a business deal in Abu Dhabi to wipe out his large debts. He was then abducted or strongly encouraged to travel to Lebanon where he was captured by Hizbullah with the collaboration of a member of a prominent Israeli Arab family and the son of a notorious Middle Eastern drug lord. He was reportedly also involved in a drug deal.
The Supreme Court has publicized some of the factors accounted for in reaching its ruling.
The premise on which the District Court originally decided to issue the gag order was that publicizing the story may pose a threat to Tennenbaum’s life or wellbeing, which infringes the individual’s right to dignity and liberty. The family contended that the Hizbullah believes Tennenbaum was a Mossad agent in Lebanon, and that publicizing something contrary to this may renew the interrogation against him and harm him. This claim was later refuted by the court, although Hizbullah leader Hasan Na’srallah did indeed say that Tennenbaum was a Mossad agent, immediately after the abduction.
The District Court needed to weigh both freedom of speech and the basic right to life and wellbeing. “In a situation where these two principles coincide, without the possibility of balancing out the two principles, the right to life and wellbeing will be given precedence over that of freedom of speech and freedom of information,” the court ruled.
The District Court ruled on October 9th 2003 that the media could report details concerning the circumstances of Tennenbaum’s arrival and abduction in Lebanon.
The family appealed to the Supreme Court for fear that publicizing the story would harm not only Tennenbaum, but also the impending prison exchange deal, in which Tennenbaum was supposed to be released together with bodies of other POWs, in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including Mu’stafa Dirani and Sheikh ‘Ubeid.
The proposed deal sparked a public debate because Ron Arad, an airman missing since 1986, was not to be included in the deal. Some believed the Israeli concession was too heavy a price to pay for Tennenbaum’s release.
The respondents, Channel 10 and Haaretz, opposed extending the gag order claiming the details of the case are pertinent to the public debate concerning the prisoner exchange. They contended that the fragmented information known to the public could not enable an in-depth discussion of the deal and the concessions it involves.
The respondents added that although the right of life and wellbeing does indeed take precedence over freedom of speech, there is nothing to prove that the announcement will harm Tennenbaum or national security and to justify the gag order. Tennenbaum’s abductees, they claimed, are undoubtedly familiar with Tennenbaum’s story. Furthermore, they claimed that some facts concerning the abduction were already publicized in Israeli and foreign media.
The respondents contended that the real reason the family opposed releasing information on the abduction was their fear that embarrassing details of his private life will be made public, subsequently swaying public opinion against Tennenbaum in the exchange deal.
The Supreme Court agreed that there is indeed nothing to prove that the publication will endanger Tennenbaum’s life. Furthermore, the court saw no reason to believe that publicizing the story would impede negotiations with Hizbullah on the prisoner exchange.
The state of Israel did not take a stand in the case. This fact was used in favor of the respondents since the state has no interest in publicizing anything that will foil the negotiations.
The appeal of Tennenbaum’s family was rejected and the story was released to the press.