Before beginning this post, I want to note that there is a great deal we don’t know about this case thanks to the Israeli police’s pressure on the victim to maintain silence. But here, I’ll say what I know and then speculate about what I don’t know when I think there’s enough independent evidence to do so.
We know that an anonymous Israeli blogger calling himself Eishton (“Newsman” or “Paperman;” perhaps also a play on “Bibiton,” a derisive reference to Yisrael HaYom) was “invited” by the Israeli military police for interrogation, at which he was presented with unspecified “violations” of the law he’s alleged to have committed. At the end of his first interrogation there was debate among the authorities about whether to continue his remand or release him. He was released, but not before he was forced to sign a statement promising not to divulge the content or nature of his interrogation or the charges against him.
For that reason, he has been unable to comment in any detail on what happened to him. Haaretz’s Barak Ravid has written about this. Since Ravid is usually a conduit for the Israeli political establishment, I’m guessing he was leaked this story by someone in the PM’s office or the like:
…I am now under investigation by the Military Police and the Israel Police. In the past two days, several posts have been written about this in the blogosphere, and now in Haaretz too, with speculations about my situation.
1. I’m not in custody. I was detained for questioning, at the end of which the policemen had an argument about whether or not to release me. I was released with an “invitation” for another interrogation and…
2. I was made [ed., or “forced”] to sign [an agreement] prohibiting me from speaking about the content of the interrogation. If I violate this (illegal) demand, the list of things I am accused of at the moment will have another offense added, and in addition (it says on the page I signed) the state will confiscate money/property from me, and that is something that I cannot afford at the moment (this, in addition to the financial damage that has already been caused to me, and about which I also cannot talk.)
2. I wish to apologize if what I said left too large an opening for interpretations (beyond the sock that’s currently shoved in my mouth). Beyond several humiliations, the financial damage, and the stress, I have not been physically hurt and I am not currently in custody. I thank everyone for their concern, and the two journalists who set up free initial consultation with Jacques [or Jack] Chen for me, and I want to thank him for the this initial direction. (To journalists — there’s no point in pestering him. This was only an initial consultation and he does not represent me. Beyond that, there’s attorney’s privilege, and beyond that — he also doesn’t know whom he was advising.)
My anonymity is important to me. In the past it was also important to me in order to prevent what I’m going through right now, but our State is light on the trigger with orders — and the [web host] companies providing us with services do not fight to protect our information. But other than that reason, which has become a thing of the past, there are other reasons that make me prefer anonymity.
The blog tends to update every few days. If this pace of updating is not interrupted, I ask that you do not investigate further nor try — at the moment — to understand the nature of the investigation, because I do not want the police to use this opportunity (on purpose or by chance) to leak or expose my name, especially as I have not yet been charged and there is not, in fact, any public interest in doing that. If and when this becomes possible, I will explain the subject of the investigation myself. Even so, if their demand for a gag has any foundation (and we’re arguing about that right now), even if someone does investigate the subject, they will not be able to write about it in the media (and if the police sees fit to leak information while gagging me, I will see that as a signal that there is no foundation for the gag and it will not remain unilateral.)
The police want something more. They will not get it from me. Excessive exposure will only make it harder for me to do so [tell them what they want], and beyond hurting me (more interest in the matter might turn the barks into bites), it would substantially harm others.
Thanks again for the interest and concern, but my intention was solely to set up an insurance policy in the event I’d be arrested or the site shut down, and not to try — at the moment — to open the subject. This is not the first time Eishton has been detained, and interrogations — stressful as they may be — are something I know how to handle.
I will try to resume writing…tomorrow.
(translation: Dena Shunra/Richard Silverstein)