Chapter 4: The Avishai Raviv Affair
Avishai Raviv was connected with the General Security Service as an operative from December 1987. During the course of his activity, which was considered effective, he was found engaging in activities which constituted violations of the law, including violence, and despite repeated warnings and cautions from his commanders, he did not cease.
In discussions with him it was made clear to him that he would not receive backing if he violated the law, but despite aggression, vandalism, conspiracy to commit arson, and various forms of harassment, criminal proceedings were not instituted against him except in one case, an attack on MK Tamar Gozansky. He also organized a "Night Watch" on the Jerusalem-Hebron road in which he and a group of friends dressed up as police officers, attacking Arab residents, frisking them, and more.
He later conspired against Arab residents of Jerusalem's Old City, breaking windows in their homes and cars. No legal measures were taken against him. In fact, quite the opposite, he was told more than once that the advantages of his activities outweighed the damages arising from his behavior, and that the problem with his actions was not essentially in committing the acts but in failure to report. GSS personnel had no doubt that Raviv would repeat these acts.
In 1990, he vandalized the road signs to Arab settlements in the West Bank. He was alter involved in the establishment of a group known as Fascist Zionist Youth (Nefetz). He was the central figure in the creation of a pseudo-military organization known as the Jewish Warrior Organization (Eyal), which subsisted essentially from the publicity Avishai Raviv acquired and television coverage. In 1991, Raviv published a racist letter against the Druze chair of Tel Aviv University's student body, and physically attacked MK Tamar Gozansky.
He incited a minor to injure Faisal Husseini, and in this context even filed a false report with his operators. The summary of a meeting with him on April 30 1992 states:
- Due to activities initiated by the above-mentioned operative, he was instructed that his duty in his relationship with us is not to initiate activity, but to delay, to hinder, and to report the activities of others.
- It was explained to the operative that due to his activities, we are "chasing our own tails" instead of covering activity.
- He was instructed and briefed not to initiate any illegal activities and that he must report his legal activities to the GSS in advance.
- The operative accepted the instructions and expressed willingness and agreement to act according to the briefing.
Comment:
- The operative's initiatives stem from his problematic character, and despite his agreement during the meeting, it can be expected that he will continue these initiatives occasionally.
- It is therefore necessary to maintain regular telephone contact with him and brief him to prevent such initiatives at each meeting.
The summary of a June 26, 1992 meeting with Raviv reads:
- In character, Raviv reported the establishment of Eyal after the fact. A serious discussion was held with him on this matter and on his habit of reporting events after the fact.
- I explained at length the problems stemming from post factum reports, that he could err as the result of seeing too narrow a picture, that he doesn't have legal back-up for things that are not coordinated with us, it represents a serious lack of discipline, and makes it difficult for us to direct him toward our important targets.
- As the subject (Avishai Raviv -"Globes") is a dependent type, I told him that after examining his file and in light of my acquaintance with him, it is doubtful if we can continue the relationship with him, while he engages in behavior for which we cannot take responsibility.
- The statements were presented in a grave manner, and I believe they did not fall on deaf ears. Nonetheless, in light of the subject's unique character, it is unlikely he will take them to heart in the long term.
Raviv persisted. He initiated violent activities in Hebron, he published posters, including one calling for refusal to serve in the IDF, conspired against the chair of the Kiryat Arba town council, whom he believed was too moderate, and his son, presented the media with a staged presentation of a "Kach" organization summer camp, created the name of new organization to be known as "Gideon's Sword", and published slogans calling for attacks on Mr. Domb, a Judaea and Samaria Regional Council activist.
On September 9, 1994, he attacked an Arab driver and filed a false report concerning the circumstances of the incident. He conducted violent patrols of Hebron, patrolling the streets accompanied by a group of minors he organized, carrying out acts of violence against Arabs upon whom he happened, such as beating an old man and overturning market stalls. He continued his relationship with the media to present "Eyal" as an existing organization and attained the assistance of the television media, which broadcast a fake induction ceremony, while anyone present must have known it was only a fake. His operators even assigned him to write slogans against the peace process.
On July 23, 1995, Raviv was seriously reprimanded. In that conversation, he admitted that he had initiated violent activities on several occasions, such as slashing tires, assaults, beatings, turning over market stalls, and beatings with brass knuckles, primarily in Hebron. In all the activities initiated by the subject, he took an active part, and it was noted that many Arabs were seriously beaten by him. Raviv added that during the activity, equipment owned by the participants is used, such as slingshots, dart guns, flare guns, a licensed gun owned by a friend, cattle prods, knives and brass knuckles. All this was done, as stated, without any report to his operators, and when asked, he denied any active role in the events.
Also during the reprimand, it became clear that Raviv had taught two minors to prepare Molotov cocktails and instructed them in carrying out nationalist activity. It also became clear in the discussion, that the subject made threatening phone calls. Due to this conversation, on the same day, an internal discussion was held, followed by several later discussions, on the problematic nature of his operations.
Concerning the photomontage representing the late prime minister in an SS uniform, the preliminary activity was carried out by two minors, without any connection to Avishai Raviv. However there is no doubt that it was Raviv who took the photo from them and transmitted it to the media, and his denials of statements by television correspondent Nitzan Hen were completely unbelievable. He recently initiated publication by a newspaper of a relationship between "Eyal" and the Hamas, and this report served the Palestinian Authority chair in his claims that there is a connection between the Hamas and right-wing extremists in Israel.
In conclusion, this agent brings reports, but also violates the law, knowing he is exempt from responsibility due to his backing from State authorities. His supervision by the GSS was ineffective, and in most cases, his supervisors knew only after the fact what had occurred, but repeatedly sufficed with mere warnings.
In the matter at hand, the Yigal Amir affair, Raviv was connected to him more than any other person in everything relating to the organization of student demonstrations and student weekends in West Bank settlements. Raviv helped Amir in the organization and accompanied him to these events. Raviv made scathing remarks against the prime minister, and claimed the "Law of the Pursuer" applied to Rabin, and it was therefore permitted to attack Rabin. (The committee heard testimony concerning a number of rumours.)
It is therefore puzzling that in Raviv's reports on Yigal Amir, he did not mention or even hint at Amir's well-known statements and his intention to attack the prime minister, which Amir expressed more than once to others in his circle of friends.
We are therefore discussing an agent whose behavior was extremely provocative, who was not properly controlled by his supervisors, who sometimes approved his involvement in extreme activities designed to increase his credibility in his surroundings.
His provocation, particularly everything connected with the physical injury of Arabs and the presentation of extreme, violent, political organizations, clearly constitute indirect but clear damage to legal, identified political organizations, which his supervisors could not ignore. It is possible that raising suspicions against the security services and the damage from such suspicions and their ramifications, was not given prior consideration.
Lack of control of the agent and the complete backing he was given, in that no criminal proceedings were launched against him except in the case of the attack on Tamar Gozansky, created the misleading picture of identical interests on his part and the part of his supervisors, which damaged and spoiled faith in the security services.
Any reasonable person understands that intelligence collection is essential, and that those who do it are not necessarily saints or pure-hearted. However, it is necessary to beware of provocateurs who exploit the backing they receive, due to malicious intentions or character flaws, and become the instigators of illegal and damaging or provocative activity, under the wing of the government. Such people are unrestrained, due also to the fact they know they will not be indicted. The entire State apparatus is responsible for the resulting damage, such as the creation of additional points of friction in Hebron or damage to faith in the GSS, which is labeled a clandestine organization dealing in political provocation.
The conclusion is that there must be effective supervision of agents, and they cannot be allowed independent initiatives.