The High Court of Justice heard petitions on Tuesday morning against the government’s dismissal of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, in a case that has the potential to plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.
As the audience filled in, bereaved father Itzik Bonzel yelled, “Who are you defending? A man who failed on October 7?” His son, St. Sgt. Amit Bonzel, was killed in fighting in the Gaza Strip in December 2023. Audience members yelled, “Shame!” and “You don’t have the authority!”
Itzik was then escorted out of the courtroom, a rare occasion. “What’s going on here?” said Likud MK Tally Gotliv, “How can you kick out a bereaved father?” Itzik was brought back in right as the hearing began.
“This is an unprecedented government decision,” Chief Justice Isaac Amit said at the start of his remarks.
Gotliv yelled at Amit during his remarks. He requested that she stop, and the two scuffled. He issued two warnings to her, in another rare occasion in the High Court. “Members of Knesset are immune!” she said. “Your immunity doesn’t stand here,” he replied.
The judges and legal teams agreed to condense the two types of arguments in one hearing on Tuesday: Whether the court has the authority to hear the case, and the arguments of the case itself.
Adv. Zion Amir explained that the decision is based on a “lack of trust, one which doesn’t create the space for a productive work environment.”
He continued, “You, the judges, are being dragged into a unanimous decision by the parliament.”
Justice Dafna Barak-Erez: “Even if the government agrees on something, it is still bound by the laws,” meaning to fire Bar by the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee.
Amir continued, “This is a political petition.”
“This entire hearing is quite simple: Bar said more than once that he is responsible and he is leaving his position – and he is clinging to legal thorns,” said Amir.
Before Amir could continue, Bonzel interrupted from the audience, “A court that I respect is asking whether he was fired in the right manner. Our children are lying in the Mount Herzl Military Cemetery. This man [Bar] said he was responsible – you don’t need to be even discussing this! Bar cannot be trusted.”
Solberg replied, “We feel your pain.”
Amit said, “This has to be the only court in the world where this is allowed to happen,” and called for a break.
How will the High Court rule on Ronen Bar’s firing?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed Bar of his intention to fire him on March 16, citing a “lack of trust,” while Bar said the reasons for firing him were baseless.
At the heart of the matter are questions of conflict of interest on the part of the prime minister, due process or a lack thereof, and a broader disagreement of what a functioning democracy looks like and where the power splits fall. The case will be before Chief Justice Isaac Amit, Deputy Chief Justice Noam Solberg, and justice Dafna Barak-Erez.
Ordinarily, the figure representing the government would be the attorney-general, as the figure that leads the government’s legal system and the state’s public prosecution. Part of that position is curbing the government’s actions when they are not in line with the law.
In this case, Attorney-General Gali Baharav Miara warned that Netanyahu’s move was illegal and will present arguments against the move. She therefore approved for the government and Netanyahu to be represented separately – by attorneys Zion Amir, Yinon Sartal, and Nir Lazar.
The petitioners will speak first, followed by the attorney-general. The Knesset will present next, followed by the government representatives, after which the petitioners will have a short time to respond. The petitioners are composed of eight different groups.
The petitioners will argue that Netanyahu has a conflict of interests in the firing, as the Shin Bet is currently investigating two affairs that involve figures close to the prime minister: The leaked documents affair, and ‘Qatargate.’ The two main suspects are former aide Yonatan Urich and former spokesman Eli Feldstein.
The government would respond that Bar should have been fired for his role in the October 7 massacre intelligence failure and that he should have followed former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi in resigning after his agency’s probe into the failures was released last month. It would further say that the conflict of interest lies with Bar, not Netanyahu, that he wanted to avoid the dismissal and so the cases were opened.
Another issue will be due process: Does the firing of the Shin Bet head need to go through the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee? This person’s appointment is one of seven senior positions that get approved through this committee, but it is not clear if the same applies to their dismissal. The law isn’t clear; there are a few government decisions on the matter, but they are not clear. When there is a series, chronologically, of government decisions, the later ones override the previous ones. So, when Netanyahu dismissed Bar in March, that decision overrode the others.
The attorney general would argue that due process would require the dismissal to go through the committee, while the government would argue the opposite.
Another issue is personal responsibility and trust. The petitioners would argue that the Bar’s position is not what is considered a personal appointment; it has an independent status, and so if he is to be fired, there has to be a good enough reason – a lack of trust is not enough.
The government would argue that Bar should have resigned out of a sense of personal responsibility for his role as intelligence chief during Israel’s worst intelligence failure and that when he didn’t, the government stepped up.
It is hard to measure trust and how much is necessary for a symbiotic work relationship. Netanyahu said in recent weeks that his lack of trust in Bar began on October 7, 2023, when he didn’t call the prime minister to warn him of the Hamas attacks. A few months ago, Bar called on the government to establish a national commission of inquiry, an issue that is seen as purely political and out of Bar’s realm of influence, which is how the government viewed the move.
The hearings will also touch on a much broader issue, which really shells out the heart of the debate: What elements of democracy are subdued or gained by either side? The petitioners would argue that if Bar’s firing goes through, it would set a precedent and could potentially affect the loyalties of the next heads of the agency – who would be loyal first to the prime minister, as opposed to be loyal to the agency’s values and Israel’s protection.
The government would argue that in a democracy, majority rules, and a government decision that passed – it stands; Bar can be fired because the government decided that he would be. Furthermore, if the court were to block the dismissal, that would be a breach of the separation of powers between the different state bodies. The court would force the government to work with an intelligence chief it does not trust, but the court would not have to carry out the consequences of such an act.
The hearing will be live-streamed. In the court of public opinion, the more the government can convince the public that this is all a ploy for Bar to stay in his position, it will have gained the legitimacy to perhaps ignore the High Court ruling if it comes to that. This would lead Israel straight into a constitutional crisis.
On the other hand, the moment the public believes that the government is ignoring the ruling, the larger the pushback will be on all fronts. But, if the government can convince the public that this was all illegitimate, the more leeway it will have to push boundaries when it comes to obeying the ruling.
However, there is a lot of middle ground before that line is crossed; the High Court has many tools at its disposal to prevent Israel from getting to that point, because it wouldn’t be able to flat-out deny the dismissal without risking the government’s very existence.
This is a developing story.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.