High Court freezes firing of Shin Bet chief Bar until April 20, calls both sides to reach compromise

After a raucous hearing on Tuesday, which eventually had to be moved to a closed-door session, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued an interim order freezing the government's controversial dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar.

"No steps should be advanced, including announcing a replacement," the court stated. 

Notably, the Court did not issue a ruling on the matter itself, with the justices' comments focusing primarily on matters of procedure and calling on both sides to find a compromise before April 20, in a move designed to prevent a potential constitutional crisis.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement slamming the decision, after the Court’s interim order on Tuesday evening.

“The decision to delay the end of the Shin Bet chief’s tenure by ten days is puzzling,” the statement said. 

The legal dispute surrounding the dismissal of the head of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) once again highlights the deep political and ideological divides that have shaped Israeli politics in recent years.

These tensions reached a boiling point ahead of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, particularly during the controversial Judicial Reform debate.

At the heart of the current debate over the firing of Ronen Bar is not the government’s authority to replace the head of the Shin Bet, which all sides agree it has, but rather about the means of doing so, and the timing of the dismissal. 

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and those who petitioned against Bar’s firing argue that the dismissal was rushed, did not follow proper procedures, and appears to be motivated partially by the Shin Bet’s ongoing 'Qatargate' investigation into aides in the Prime Minister’s Office. 

The petitioners against Bar’s dismissal argue that the Shin Bet’s role in the Qatargate investigation, Bar’s outspoken support for the launching of a state commission of inquiry into the Oct. 7 events, and his apparent refusal to help Netanyahu postpone his court testimony in his ongoing corruption trial, are the real reason for the government’s decision to fire Bar. 

Another issue in the firing is that the government’s timeline for its loss of faith in Bar, which it claims came immediately following Oct. 7, appears to be contradicted by further testimony, in which it indicated that Netanyahu actually wanted to fire Bar during the Judicial Reform protests. 

For the petitioners, the fact that Netanyahu made several statements apparently praising Bar’s performance after Oct. 7, also calls that timeline into question. 

Meanwhile, the government argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu lost trust in Bar due to the Hamas invasion. They also say that subsequent leaks regarding discussions by the negotiating teams attempting to reach a hostage release deal, which appeared to cast Netanyahu in a bad light, can be traced back to Bar.

The government also argues that the High Court’s and the Attorney General’s attempt to prevent Bar being fired is an example of the judiciary and legal establishment’s attempts to prevent a right-wing government from governing as they see fit. 

Netanyahu’s office questioned the justices’ position that Bar should have been given a hearing before being fired.

It noted that when National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called for the removal of then-police commissioner Kobi Shabtai, the attorney general did not ask for the matter to be brought to the advisory Gronis Committee.

“Just nine months ago, when the National Security Minister sought to remove the Police Commissioner before his term ended, the Attorney General didn’t raise the need for a Gronis Committee hearing,” the statement by Netanyahu’s office said. 

Netanyahu’s office also claimed that any Shin Bet head who wanted to avoid being dismissed could open an investigation against a cabinet minister in order to remain in office. 

“The Attorney General’s goal is to prevent Ronen Bar’s dismissal by any means for as long as possible, using the excuse of an active investigation. It’s unthinkable that the Israeli government would be barred from removing a failed Shin Bet chief just because an investigation – unrelated to any cabinet minister – has been opened. On the contrary, such an outcome would allow any failing Shin Bet chief who wants to stay in office to launch an investigation against anyone tied to a minister’s office, thus preventing their dismissal. The Prime Minister will continue interviewing candidates for the Shin Bet chief position.” 

In its instructions on Tuesday, the Court also attempted to prevent the government from undermining Bar’s continued authority as Shin Bet chief until the matter is decided, saying,  "The Prime Minister and government are not permitted to deviate from standard working procedures in their professional relations with the Shin Bet chief and the Shin Bet, including issuing instructions to those under his command." 

The justices instructed the government and the attorney general to submit compromise positions by April 20, 2025. 

"Following a proposal during the hearing, and without expressing any stance – the Prime Minister, government, and Attorney General may submit a joint notice by April 20 if they reach an agreed resolution on the issue at hand, and it’s assumed they’ll make every effort to do so."  

The hearing began with interruptions from the crowds in attendance, with government supporters in the audience shouting, "You have no authority." 

After several interruptions the court moved the hearing to a closed doors hearing in order to proceed without further disruptions. 

The three justices primarily focused on procedural issues in the government’s decision.

They noted that the government failed to consult with the attorney general as to its reasons for firing Bar, the government also did not tell Bar why it was dismissing him when summoning him for a hearing, which prevented his preparation of a defense, and the government failed to consult an advisory committee, as instructed by the attorney general. 

In the Israeli government system, the attorney general is responsible for both advising the government and investigating the government. In most democratic governments, those roles are separate offices.

This fact has led to the current government often hiring its own legal advisor, and taking an adversarial position to the Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. 

In calling the sides to a compromise, the High Court appeared to be deliberately trying to head off a possible constitutional crisis, which could have happened if it had been forced to give a ruling which the government would be likely to reject openly. 

Even the conservative justice, Justice Noam Sohlberg, urged the government and the attorney general to refer the dismissal to an advisory committee. In doing so, the government would be in compliance with the attorney general’s original instructions and would avoid procedural issues. 

If the government adopts this route, it would present the committee with its reasons for firing Bar, explaining its loss of trust in his leadership. The committee, if convinced by the government’s arguments, could then approve the government’s decision to fire Bar, and Netanyahu would be free to announce a replacement as soon as he chooses a new candidate. 

Even if the government submitted its reasons to the committee, it has no legal obligation to follow the committee’s recommendations.

Meaning, the government could present its reasons for firing Bar to the committee, and then fire him, even if the committee recommended against the dismissal. 

For that reason, some political commentators believe that Justice Minister Yariv Levin is eager to bring the matter to a constitutional crisis in order to force a confrontation between the government and the High Court.

Levin has previously accused the judiciary of judicial activism and of behaving in a dictatorial manner, overriding the will of the people in choosing the government it desires.