Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara defended the decision to block Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from appointing a permanent head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), arguing that he is in conflict of interest due to investigations by the agency into figures close to him and in his office, in a response written to the High Court of Justice on Tuesday night.
New responses to the petition have until Sunday to be submitted by all sides, the High Court of Justice announced in a decision on Wednesday. They will be heard before the court on Tuesday morning by Chief Justice Isaac Amit, Justice Alex Stein, and Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz.
Conflict of interest in dismissing Ronen Bar
This stance aligns with the position of the A-G’s office since the process to oust Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar began around November and reached the High Court of Justice in April. It is also what the court itself concluded – that the investigations into Qatari influences over sensitive issues relating to security are too high-stakes to ignore.
The Shin Bet, along with Israel Police, is investigating two cases: “Qatargate,” where, allegedly, Qatari influences reached into the Prime Minister’s Office, and the “leaked documents” case, where, allegedly, classified information was leaked in a manner that endangered national security and attempted to sway public discourse on the hostages issue.
Another argument for a conflict of interest is the prime minister’s ongoing criminal trial, which the intelligence chief has some sway over.
The petition, filed this month by several families of the victims of the October 7 massacre, argued against the legal hurdles set by the court and the A-G on the appointment process, that the agency needs a chief now, and this need cannot withstand the legal impediments.
Netanyahu had proposed that IDF Maj.-Gen. (res.) David Zini be appointed to the role. He argued in an affidavit on Tuesday night that any barriers to this would constitute “security irresponsibility” and a “disconnect from national needs.”
The Attorney-General’s Office maintained – in the Tuesday opinion and in previous ones – that the issue is laden with conflict of interest and cannot proceed as is. It noted in its response that its legal involvement in such issues is sparse at best and that when it occurs, it is warranted.
It added that it has no interest in deliberately slowing down the process and even offered a correct and sound legal framework through which to secure Zini’s appointment, one that doesn’t involve the prime minister himself and ensures that the process is done in an objective manner. This framework was suggested a month ago.
“The prime minister is in a conflict of interest arising from his personal involvement in these matters, which should have precluded him from engaging in decisions regarding the termination of the Shin Bet head’s term,” reads the opinion.
She further argued that despite receiving warnings against pushing Bar out, Netanyahu proceeded to address the issue. However, the office did not have a similar conflict with Netanyahu’s ability to appoint a new Shin Bet head. In fact, the judges allowed Netanyahu to begin the appointment process even before their final ruling on Bar’s dismissal.
Nonetheless, the attorney-general maintained that the termination of Bar’s term and the appointment of a new Shin Bet head should be seen as a single concurrent event. “The processes cannot be divided due to the conflict of interest in which the prime minister finds himself. Therefore, the rulings regarding Bar’s dismissal are also applicable to the appointment of a new Shin Bet head,” reads the opinion.
The Attorney-General’s Office called on the judges to reject the petition and refrain from interfering with the decision to prevent Netanyahu from appointing the Shin Bet head.
Eliav Breuer contributed to this report.