What happened: After 11 hours, the Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit brought yesterday’s hearing to an end by placing a temporary injunction against the immediate removal of the head of the Shin Bet and urging the sides to compromise.
- The court instructed that no moves be taken aimed at ending Ronen Bar’s tenure such as announcing a replacement or an acting director. However, the court stated there is no problem with the cabinet interviewing potential candidates for the job.
- The court gave Bar and Prime Minister Netanyahu until after the Passover festival to submit affidavits in support of their factual arguments.
- In his closing remarks which discussed compromise, Justice Amit noted “sparks of willingness” from the cabinet secretary (representing the government) and the attorney general. Amit said, “We are giving them until after Passover to reach a creative solution to the extent possible. We encourage as much dialogue as possible.”
- Justice Daphne Barak-Erez concurred, saying, “We are not obliging and not taking a position. We are allowing you to submit something jointly.”
- The third judge Justice Noam Sohlberg (considered a conservative) said, “You all know how to be creative and quick when need be, and how to bear the overriding interest in mind.”
- The start of the hearing was interrupted by some spectators – including a bereaved father whose son was killed fighting in Gaza – heckling the judges and arguing that they had no authority. The bereaved father was removed from the courtroom.
- The firebrand Likud MK Tally Gotliv was also removed for repeatedly interrupting the proceedings. Her outburst led the presiding judge to temporarily suspend the hearing and asked court security guards to remove all spectators “to allow all sides to make their arguments without fear.”
- Following the ruling, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying it was “puzzled” by the decision. Adding, “It is inconceivable that the cabinet should be barred from removing a failed Shin Bet director from office only because an investigation has been begun that does not pertain to even a single minister.”
- The chances for compromise are considered slim. In one suggestion, Justice Barak-Erez suggested waiting to fire Bar until the investigations into the Qatargate and the leak of classified documents to the German Bild tabloid have been completed, adding that “Once those investigations have been completed, there will no longer be a conflict of interest,” she said.
- Attorney Amir, representing the government, rejected this, “That is a dangerous message. Every Shin Bet director will know that if he wants to keep his job forever, all he has to do is open an investigation.” Justice Amit called that a conspiracy theory “that ascribes ulterior motives to the entire world.”
- When faced with the judges’ ruling urging further dialogue, the lawyer representing the government compared the situation to divorce hearing, “forcing a husband and wife to stay together.”
Context: The government’s attempts to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet represents the latest clash between the government that argues it is exercising its authority and the legal establishment that sees its role as defending the gatekeepers.
- Recognising the danger of a potential constitutional crisis – in which the government rejects a court order – the judges urged the sides to compromise.
- The government’s perspective is that they represent the elected leaders and are within their authority to dismiss a civil servant (even a senior figure) if they no longer have confidence in them. The firing of Bar comes after all the other senior security officials (including the IDF Chief of Staff, head of southern command, head of military intelligence and others) who were in charge on October 7th have all left office.
- The Attorney General Baharav-Miara (herself facing a similar challenge – the government is looking to remove her) wrote to the court saying that, “The decision to terminate the tenure of the Shin Bet director is fundamentally flawed, tainted by a personal conflict of interest of the prime minister because of the criminal investigation into his associates.”
- It was Bar who initiated the investigation into the Qatargate scandal with the prime minister’s inner team.
- Having taken responsibility for the Shin Bet failure on October 7th, Bar has publicly called for a formal state commission of inquiry into the massacre, a move rejected by the government. The Shin Bet’s internal inquiry also flagged failures of the government’s policy in the years preceding the Hamas attack.
- It was revealed earlier this week that Netanyahu allegedly requested that Bar intervene in the prime minister’s corruption trial and have it postponed due to security challenges facing the country, and the personal security threat he might face. As a result, the Shin Bet recommended holding the trial in an underground facility in the Tel Aviv courtroom.
- Bar, who did not attend the hearing yesterday also wrote a letter to the court that was appended to the attorney general’s letter. Bar wrote, “The implications of advancing proceedings to end my tenure, which are being done hastily during a sensitive period, while criminal investigations are underway regarding the prime minister’s associates, without a proper proceeding and an itemisation of the allegations, and without giving me a fair chance to respond to the allegations, effectively delivers a clear message to the entire chain-of-command in the General Security Service (Shin Bet) and to the future directors of the Shin Bet that if the political echelon comes to dislike them, their termination will be immediately on the table.”
- Bar also addressed the Qatargate investigation in his letter, writing: “It is my job to ensure that the clear public interest that stems from the severity of the allegations, which is to reach the truth in this sensitive, complex and important issue, is enacted.”
- In response the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement, “The lack of confidence in the Shin Bet director that was created for the prime minister and all the members of the cabinet – without exception – did not stem from a question of personal loyalty but, rather, stemmed from a lack of confidence in his performance after his decisive role in the October 7 debacle in which he chose not to inform the political echelon, and from a string of incidents that undermined the professional confidence in him afterwards.”
Looking ahead: The temporary injunction prohibits the cabinet from taking any action that ends Bar’s service (that they had sought to end tomorrow), but allows the prime minister to interview candidates to succeed him.
- The cabinet and the attorney general are now due to inform the court by April 20th on an agreed date to end Bar’s tenure.
- Netanyahu is thought to be considering the option, suggested by Justice Minister Levin, of immediately boycotting Bar.




