QATAR-GATE: What is 'contact with a foreign agent' - and why is Netanyahu so freaked out?

The massive media buzz surrounding the Qatar affair in the Prime Minister’s circle has prominently highlighted the criminal term “contact with a foreign agent” over the past week. On the surface, this seems to conceal dramatic or particularly intriguing espionage stories, but that’s not necessarily the case.

In fact, this term belongs to the category of security offenses. However, although many Israelis have been charged with security-related offenses of varying severity, convictions specifically for this offense are less common.

Among all those convicted of this offense in the past, in almost every case, the primary characteristic was that the accused initiated contact with a hostile entity from an enemy or hostile state.

The Meaning of the Term ‘Contact with a Foreign Agent'

The offense of contact with a foreign agent is formulated broadly and comprehensively to protect the state’s security and its sensitive foreign relations. There’s no doubt that many foreign states could endanger Israel’s interests in numerous ways.

According to the definition in the Penal Law: Anyone who knowingly maintains contact with a foreign agent without a reasonable explanation faces up to five years in prison. If a person attempted to establish contact with a foreign agent, visited their place of residence or work, or spent time in their company without explanation, they are considered to have maintained contact with a foreign agent, with the same penalty.

As for the definition of “contact,” court rulings have established that it doesn’t necessarily require a physical meeting.

However, if the accused proves to the court with a satisfactory explanation that they neither did nor intended to do anything that could harm state security, they will not be convicted of this offense.

An explanation that could justify contact with a foreign agent might be an official mission on behalf of the state. A chance encounter at a professional conference where an Israeli citizen meets an intelligence agent or diplomatic representative of a hostile state could also serve as an explanation to avoid conviction for this offense.

Such a risk in establishing contact can also exist when a foreign state attempts to influence decision-making processes or public opinion.

For illustration, the Qatari media channel, known for its wealth and financial capabilities, manages to influence every arena where there’s a conflict between religions, particularly when the Muslim faith is involved.

Alongside this, Qatar’s desire and need for attention to be at the center of Arab world events often lead to high involvement, which has sometimes cost it dearly in relations with countries like Iran and others.

However, over the past year and a half, several serious cases have erupted in the country involving the transfer of information to someone considered a representative of an enemy state, falling under more severe offenses like espionage or aiding it.

Legal Requirements to Prosecute Netanyahu’s Advisors

In tersm of the Qatargate affairs, in order to prosecute Yonatan Urich or Eli Feldstein, it will be necessary to prove they knew they were acting on behalf of a foreign state.

At this stage, the evidence points to the fact that the two were not in direct contact with Qatar but received their tasks from Qatar’s lobbyist, an American named Jay Footlik.

The central question is how much Qatar’s involvement and its clear interest accompanied (or backed) their working relationship with Footlik.

If it’s proven that the Prime Minister’s advisors knew Footlik represented Qatar on various issues, their legal situation isn’t good.

If it’s also proven they knew they were acting to advance Qatar’s interests, their situation will become even more complicated.

The Suspected Advisors Are Not State Employees

As the affair garners more media attention, various claims aimed at defending the suspects are published, but these claims do not exonerate them.

The claim that the suspected advisors are not state employees but rather employees of the Likud party or similar, and thus not considered public servants in the context of receiving bribes or breaching trust.

In fact, this is an erroneous claim because it’s not the entity paying the salary that determines whether someone is a “public servant,” but rather the role and authority they hold and their ability to influence a public interest or resource.

There’s actually a precedent-setting ruling in which a security guard at a government office was convicted of taking bribes to facilitate meetings for citizens, despite being employed by an external company. As such, acting in the public interest in the Prime Minister’s environment is the most important thing, not who pays the salary.

No Security or Other Damage Was Caused to the State of Israel

Another claim that might be raised is that no harm was actually caused to anyone, certainly not to state security, so the suspects should be acquitted.

In fairness, regarding this claim, suspicions of security offenses may not be relevant because, in practice, it involved managing economic projects with the Qataris,

Nevertheless, the reality in which someone so close to the Prime Minister maintains close ties with the state mediating negotiations regarding the hostages or Israel’s relations with Hamas in general is certainly flawed, and in legal terms, it’s close to fraud or a breach of trust.

Qatar Is Not an Enemy State

Another claim heard is that Qatar is not an enemy state since many Israelis maintain trade relations with it, so there’s reason to acquit the Prime Minister’s advisors from the suspicions.

In practice, legally speaking, although enemy states in the context of entry bans are defined only as Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran, the offense of contact with a foreign agent can still apply to Qatar if it’s proven that its representatives aimed to collect classified information about Israel.

Also, there’s no need for actual delivery of secret information to the foreign agent or actual harm to state security. The mere connection between the Israeli and the foreign agent constitutes an offense.

Innocent until proven guilty

This applies to the Prime Minister’s advisors, Yonatan Urich and Eli Feldstein. The Prime Minister himself was questioned and has addressed the affair multiple times, refuting all accusations against his advisors.

Indeed, Urich is one of the people very close to the Prime Minister for several years, and as an advisor, he worked for him very closely. It’s likely that he knows many confidential matters due to his close work in the most coveted office in the country—a fact that troubles Netanyahu.

The Prime Minister is proceeding cautiously. He stressed that Qatar is a complex state but not an enemy state. He didn’t stop at defending his close advisor Yonatan Urich but also launched sharp criticism at opposition leader MK Yair Lapid, State Camp leader MK Benny Gantz, and even revealed that the Shin Bet chief was invited to Qatar to receive a gift worth thousands of dollars.

The Shin Bet responded to Netanyahu: “During the World Cup games, a short professional work trip was conducted by the Mossad chief, Shin Bet chief, and Military Intelligence chief, along with operational personnel from the organizations, with the Prime Minister’s approval, to closely monitor the organizations’ activities and ensure the security of Israelis in the arena against terror threats. This wasn’t about watching games but a tour and a series of meetings, some held at the stadium during the World Cup games. Any attempt to paint a different picture is baseless.”

In any case, it seems this complex issue casts a shadow over the Prime Minister’s agenda, who finds himself repeatedly preoccupied and active in legal matters at the expense of managing the state.

Kikar HaShabbat contributed to this article.