Photo credit: www.cbc.ca
The head of Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, has claimed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to remove him were driven by a desire for personal loyalty rather than professional performance. In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, Shin Bet’s chief, Ronen Bar, stated that his refusal to comply with the Prime Minister’s requests—including surveillance of Israeli protesters and interference in his ongoing corruption trial—was at the heart of the dismissal effort.
Netanyahu’s office responded to Bar’s allegations, labeling the affidavit as “full of lies.” The Prime Minister’s attempt to sack Bar sparked widespread protests and was halted by the Supreme Court, which heard arguments from political watchdogs and opposition lawmakers asserting that the dismissal lacked legal grounding.
Critics argue that such actions contribute to the erosion of Israel’s key state institutions, threatening the very underpinnings of democracy. Bar’s leadership has come under fire from Netanyahu’s Likud party, which accused him of undermining the government’s authority and turning Shin Bet into an instrument of a so-called “Deep State.”
In defense of his decision, Netanyahu cited a loss of confidence in Bar, linked to the agency’s failure to prevent the deadly Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023—a day that marked an unprecedented escalation in violence. However, Bar contended that the campaign to oust him had begun well after this tragic event, pointing to various incidents from late 2024 to early 2025 as triggering factors for Netanyahu’s actions.
Bar Accuses Netanyahu of Interfering in Intelligence Operations
Among the incidents Bar mentioned were investigations into the leaking of classified military documents to the public and inquiries probing potential connections between Netanyahu’s aides and Qatar, as well as Shin Bet’s own shortcomings in addressing prior warnings related to the October attack.
Bar also highlighted his refusal to endorse a request from Netanyahu that would have sought to curtail his testimony in the corruption case currently dominating the Prime Minister’s agenda. Netanyahu, who maintains his innocence, began his testimony in this lengthy trial in December. His office denied any claims that he sought the postponement of such proceedings.
Moreover, Bar suggested that Netanyahu’s demands for Shin Bet to take action against anti-government protests reflected a troubling trend in the Prime Minister’s interactions with the agency.
In rebuttal, Netanyahu’s office claimed that Bar’s affidavit substantiated their view that his leadership was deficient, particularly regarding the events of October 7, emphasizing that this justification alone warranted his removal. They also contested the notion that the bid to dismiss Bar was an attempt to disrupt investigations into the so-called “Qatargate” scandal, asserting that the investigation itself was a means to stave off the dismissal.
Amidst these swirling controversies, Bar acknowledged Shin Bet’s failure to prevent the October assault and indicated he would be willing to resign prior to the completion of his term. The Supreme Court is yet to reach a definitive ruling on this matter after hearing arguments from various stakeholders who claimed that Bar’s proposed dismissal was not only procedurally flawed but also riddled with conflicts of interest.
Source
www.cbc.ca