The High Court of Justice on Wednesday ruled that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the government violated their own set procedures - and its principles on conflict of interest - with their attempt to fire Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar.
Bar announced, after rounds of legal fights, that he would resign on June 15. This was not before petitioners appealed to the high court after the tumult of his firing, asking for considerations of timing and personal interests to be taken into consideration. A series of hearings and affidavits took place.
When Bar announced his date of resignation, conservative Justice Noam Sohlberg said, in the minority opinion, that the court did not need to deliver any ruling on the issues in dispute, and should’ve remained silent.
Justices disagree on publishing ruling, agree on analysis of case
Sohlberg warned that the court must avoid controversial issues that implicate the fundamental balance in the separation of powers between the judiciary and other branches of government - whenever it can avoid these issues.
In contrast, moderate-activist High Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit and activist Justice Dafna Barak Erez ruled that the government's firing of Bar was so problematic that the judiciary must make a clear declaration about it in order to avoid similar situations in the future.
All of the justices acknowledged that Netanyahu and the government have the power to fire the intelligence chief, but that the government's own prior decisions created a professional body to vet such decisions.
This would be the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee, responsible for ratifying seven senior appointments – five security-related, (IDF chief of staff, Mossad head, Shin Bet head, Israel Police commissioner, and Israel Prison Service chief), and two economics-related (Bank of Israel governor and his or her deputy). Part of the debate was whether, legally, this was the right forum. Wednesday’s decision laid that to rest.
Further, the High Court said that Netanyahu and his aides' connection to the “Qatargate” scandal, which the Shin Bet is probing along with the police, acted as a special, temporary limit on the ability to fire Bar, lest it appear that Netanyahu is trying to thwart the Qatargate probe.
While Sohlberg said no decision needed to be published, given that it was, he agreed with the other justices' analysis of the key issues in play, including that the prime minister and the government overreached in their attempt to fire the intelligence chief.
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara explained that this means that no action can be taken regarding the appointment of the next intelligence chief - until protocols are put in place to ensure that the process is correct.
The issue, at its core, is three-pronged: Netanyahu and the government in one corner, the attorney-general’s office in the other, and civil rights and society groups - in the form of the petitioners - in the third.
Netanyahu, in his affidavit submitted to the court, and the government, argued that the “breach of trust” with Bar, which they said began already on October 7, 2023, is unbridgeable, and so there is no productive way for them to work together.
A trusting and open professional relationship between the prime minister and the intelligence chief is essential for it to run smoothly. But, petitioners argued, if the issue was one of trust, and one that had been shattered for over a year, the timing of Bar’s hastened firing should raise the alarm.
They argued that the reason for the firing was not professional at all, but rather personal and political, and cropped up mysteriously close to the timing of the first security-related investigation into figures close to Netanyahu, the “leaked documents” case in November. This was a point Bar made as well in his own affidavit.
The attorney-general’s office is the legal interpreter of the law, and ordinarily would represent the government in this case. It so disagreed with the procedure that it took position against the government, arguing that the procedure was illegal.
Amit added that the government - and Netanyahu - need not meet the requirement they had to give Bar a warning hearing before firing him. He added that no specifications were made to Bar as to any failures in his performance, and that Bar was not given enough time to prepare a response.
On a Thursday night in March, the cabinet voted unanimously to fire the chief. The court froze the decision pending a hearing, the results of which concluded on Wednesday. A few weeks later, Bar was called in to defend himself, and didn't show, but he did send a letter, expressing shock at the manner of his dismissal, and concern for how the process was done and what it would mean for the independence of the next Shin Bet head.