Following a heated and lengthy hearing, Israel’s High Court of Justice issued an interim order on April 8 stating that Ronen Bar will continue to serve as head of the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) “until a further decision is made.”
While the order allows the prime minister to continue interviewing candidates for the role, it explicitly prohibits him from advancing any measures to terminate Bar’s tenure. This includes declaring a replacement, appointing an acting head, or undermining the authority of the current head. In doing so, the High Court essentially clarified to the prime minister that all steps he took in recent weeks to end Bar’s term are prohibited, and any such future actions would constitute a violation of the order.
Additionally, the order prohibits the prime minister and the government from deviating from professional protocols in their work with the head of the Shin Bet and the organization, including giving direct instructions to staff members within the agency. This aspect of the order responds to public statements by government officials expressing their intent to sideline or bypass the Shin Bet head, making it clear that such actions would also violate the court’s order.
The order further states that the prime minister, the government, and the attorney general must inform the court by April 20 if a mutually agreed-upon arrangement has been reached. In doing so, the judges signaled their hope for a resolution to prevent a constitutional crisis.
In light of yesterday’s heated hearing, several clarifications are in order:
A. The question before the court is not whether the government has the authority to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet; on this matter, there is no dispute. Rather, the question is whether the government exercised that authority lawfully.
B. In this context, the petitions raise two main claims:
A procedural claim: That the dismissal was made on vague grounds of “loss of confidence,” without a hearing, a factual basis, justification, or supporting evidence. Additionally, it disregarded the attorney general’s legal opinion and did not involve consultation with the Senior Appointments Committee.
A substantive claim: That the dismissal was tainted by conflicts of interest and improper motives, due to the progression of the investigation related to Qatar and in the wake of the Shin Bet’s internal report of the events of October 7.
C. It is important to clarify that the fact that Ronen Bar bears responsibility for the events of October 7—and that he has acknowledged this and said he would step down—is not relevant to the High Court’s discussion. As noted, this was not the grounds given by the government for his dismissal, likely because doing so would have triggered a broader debate about responsibility, in which the government’s responsibility would have come under scrutiny—something it wishes to avoid.
Finally, while the High Court of Justice has experienced heated debates in the past, yesterday’s hearing was truly unprecedented. Cries of “traitors” directed at former security chiefs (who required protection) and “you have no authority” shouted at the judges—along with the attacks by Knesset Member Tally Gotliv and Deputy Minister Almog Cohen against the judges—were all intended to disrupt the discussion and challenge the very legitimacy of the court itself.
