Political earthquake: Netanyahu takes off the gloves in battle with Shin Bet chief
Never before has a dispute between two of Israel’s most powerful men escalated so dramatically.
The rare and intense public exchange between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the head of the domestic intelligence service Shin Bet (equivalent to the FBI), Ronen Bar, has reached a new peak in recent days. The Supreme Court is serving as the battleground where it will be decided whether the government can dismiss Bar.
Netanyahu accuses Bar of initiating the so-called “Qatar-Gate” affair solely to prevent his own dismissal. Bar, on the other hand, emphasizes that the investigations began before it was known that the Prime Minister planned to dismiss him. Bar sees the intended dismissal as an attempt to sabotage the investigations, which could potentially incriminate Netanyahu himself.
In a sharp affidavit to the Supreme Court, Netanyahu went further: He quoted from secret security consultations – including sessions of the security cabinet – and presented an uncompromising portrayal aimed not only at strengthening his own position but also at deliberately undermining Bar’s credibility.
Disclosure of protocols: An extraordinary crisis of trust
Never before has the dispute between two of Israel’s most powerful men – the Prime Minister and the top official responsible for domestic intelligence, counterespionage, and counterterrorism – escalated so dramatically. What began as a professional disagreement has long since turned into a bitter power struggle, where the issues are truth versus lies, responsibility versus deflection.
In his statement, Netanyahu accuses Bar of being a “serial liar” who grossly neglected his duties before the October 7 massacre. While Bar insists that he warned of Hamas’s plans in time and alerted the security apparatus, Netanyahu counters: Bar spoke of “medium and covert readiness,” deliberately avoiding escalation – a serious miscalculation, as the day of the attack showed.
Netanyahu also accuses Bar of failing to warn local security officials or the organizers of the Nova Festival, let alone the Defense Minister or the Prime Minister himself. Bar simply did not recognize the extent of the threat.
Battle of versions: “Deceptive, out of touch with reality”
With his statement, Netanyahu pursues a clear goal: to convince the judges that it is a matter of competing versions – without a solid basis for Bar’s portrayal. This could not only relativize his own responsibility but also create a legal basis for Bar’s dismissal, which the Supreme Court has so far blocked.
According to media reports, Bar is already considering stepping down in mid-May. The sharpness of Netanyahu’s attack could accelerate this step.
At the same time, Netanyahu portrays Bar as a politically active security chief who – contrary to his own statements – advocated for maintaining the ceasefire with Hamas. According to Netanyahu, Bar opposed targeted killings of senior Hamas leaders like Salah al-Aruri and even described Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar as a “sober leader.”
Attempt to ward off personal accusations
Bar meanwhile accuses Netanyahu of urging him to take illegal surveillance measures against leaders of the anti-government protest movement. The Prime Minister vehemently denies this and emphasizes that he has always acted within the law. Rather, it was Bar who failed to curb violence and incitement in the context of the protests and to ensure the protection of elected officials.
However, one point from Bar’s accusations remains undisputed: Netanyahu demanded that in the event of a constitutional crisis, the Shin Bet chief should follow the Prime Minister’s instructions and not the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
On incitement, surveillance, and legal violations
Ronen Bar responded in the evening with an official statement: All information contained in his affidavit is correct and supported by numerous documents. He accuses Netanyahu of taking facts out of context and deliberately distorting them. Particularly serious is Bar’s reference to Netanyahu omitting crucial operational instructions from October 7 in his portrayal – including the clear directive to pass on Shin Bet’s assessments to the Chief of Staff and the Prime Minister’s military advisor.
Bar reiterated that the responsibility for the strategic miscalculation regarding Hamas lies primarily with the political leadership – that is, with Netanyahu himself, who long supported the policy of “calm in exchange for concessions.” He renewed his call for an independent state commission of inquiry to thoroughly investigate the causes of the failure – free from political influence.
The puzzle of the Supreme Court: The affidavit as the last trump card?
The central question remains how the Supreme Court will evaluate the accusations and counter-accusations – and whether Netanyahu’s disclosure of secret protocols will be considered legally permissible and politically appropriate, or as an overstep.
The conflict reveals a deep crisis of trust between the political leadership and the security apparatus. When the Shin Bet chief is publicly defamed as a “liar” while the Prime Minister is in return accused of manipulation, more is at stake than just personal vanities: It concerns the foundation of Israel’s security apparatus and the public’s trust.
The power struggle could not only seal Ronen Bar’s fate but also significantly influence Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future. One thing is clear: Joint action in one of the most dramatic crises in Israeli history seems hardly possible between these two key players.
On the way to a decision
It is hard to imagine that the rift between Netanyahu and Bar can still be mended. Whether the legal dismissal of Bar succeeds or whether he resigns prematurely remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain: The consequences of this bitter dispute will extend far beyond the personal fate of the two adversaries – affecting the relationship between political leadership and the security apparatus, public trust, and possibly even the course of Netanyahu’s own corruption trial.
At the same time, the question arises whether the protocols published by Netanyahu are not only selectively presented – and whether Bar will in turn present documents proving that he advised combating the Hamas leadership while it was the Prime Minister himself who held back.
One thing, however, cannot be denied: In one of the most dramatic moments in Israeli history, two of the most important actors stood on opposite sides of the barricade. In the end, the question remains: Whom will the judges – and the public – believe?
And the breach of trust between Netanyahu and the Shin Bet chief once again underscores the urgent need for an independent state commission of inquiry to clarify the true causes of the Oct. 7 failure – beyond political interests. Netanyahu has so far prevented such a commission – and it does not look like that will change.
Yet, this escalation of personal conflict and the media-effective dissemination of secret protocols could ultimately lead to the investigation of October 7 and the path to truth being permanently damaged. What the Israeli public deserved above all was for all facts to be first presented to an independent, impartial commission – free from political influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment