Firing the Shin Bet chief: The hurdles

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has notified Israel Security Agency (known as the General Security Service or Shin Bet) head Ronen Bar that he intends to propose a resolution to dismiss him at the next government meeting, on the grounds that he has lost confidence in him. The announcement has raised a political storm, and brought condemnation from the opposition. It also raises many questions about what the procedure will look like and how simple it will be to fire Bar, if it is possible at all. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has already told Netanyahu that such a decision cannot proceed without the factual and legal basis for it being examined, and warned that the position of head of the Shin Bet Is not a position of personal trust in the service of the prime minister.

The law does not specify a proceeding for dismissing the head of the Shin Bet. Section 3 of the General Security Service Law states, “The government may terminate the term of office of the head of the Service before the end of his term,” and sub-section 5 states that the head of the General Security Service will be dismissed if he is convicted of a crime “that because of its substance, severity or circumstances he is not worthy of being appointed head of the Service or of continuing to serve in that capacity,” but that is as far as it goes.

Can the head of the Shin Bet then be dismissed through a simple decision of the government? “A government decision is sufficient to end a term of office,” says Prof. Adam Shinar, associate professor at the Harry Radzyner Law School at Reichman University. “Of course, however, the rules of administrative law apply to such a decision.” That is to say, the decision has to pass the tests of reasonableness, avoidance of conflict of interests, a factual basis, and so forth.

Prof. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, adds, “There exists a practice of legal consultation on any important government decision.” And what about this particular decision? “Even before a decision is made, it is questionable whether the government can act in this context at all, because there appears to be a conflict of interest here,” he replies. “First of all, the Shin Bet is currently conducting an investigation of people in the prime minister’s bureau over the matter of Qatari involvement. Secondly, from the Shin Bet’s inquiry there arises a claim of responsibility of the political echelon for the October 7 disaster, and the suspicion arises that dismissing the head of the Shin Bet is an attempt to silence that claim.”

Should the Attorney General be involved?

In late February, the Deputy Attorney General for public and administrative matters Adv. Dr. Gil Limon responded to a question from Adv. Gilead Sher about the possibility of dismissing the head of the Shin Bet. Limon explained that this was a decision for the full government, but that since it was a matter of dismissing the head of a security arm, the decision would have to have an evidential basis that would justify it, to be free of extraneous considerations, and to abide by the rules of administrative law. “Therefore, to ensure that the process meets the required legal and substantial guarantees,” the political echelon must present this basis to the Attorney General before proceeding with the decision.

How far does this bind the government? “It’s to do with the importance of the decision, and not necessarily with the fact that it concerns a security organization,” says Prof. Cohen. “For all that, for some time there has been a tendency in the present government of ignoring the Attorney General’s opinion.” Prof. Shinar says that the executive arm is bound by the instructions of the Attorney General. The report of the Shamgar committee that examined the 1997 “Bar-On – Hebron” affair (in Netanyahu’s first term) states: “The government is not the executive authority in that sense, and it is therefore determined that the government would do well to comply with the Attorney General’s instructions. If the government acts contrary to the Attorney General’s instructions, the matter will in any case be tested in the High Court of Justice if a petition is filed.”

In appointing the head of the Shin Bet, there is a requirement to consult the advisory committee on the appointment of senior officials. Does that also apply to his dismissal?

According to Shinar and Cohen, it does not. We would add that, according to an article by Dr. Assaf Shapira for the Israel Democracy Institute, the committee is an advisory body the decisions of which are not mandatory, and it deals only with ethical questions and not with other matters. All the same, if Bar is dismissed, the appointment of his replacement will have to go through this committee, and according to legal precedent there would have to be very special circumstances to make an appointment contrary to its opinion.

If Bar is dismissed, there will presumably be a petition to the High court of Justice. What will the government have to prove?

“The government will mainly have to show that the decision is not tainted by a conflict of interests and extraneous considerations,” says Shinar, making clear that he has in mind the “Qatar-gate” affair, which the Shin Bet is investigating. It will also have to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable and that the government “properly balanced the competing considerations.”

Cohen’s response is similar: “The questions before the High Court of Justice will be whether the government acted on the basis of the material facts (the lack of trust between the prime minister and the head of the Shin Bet, and the latter’s responsibility for the disaster), or whether it also took account of an extraneous consideration: the investigations. In addition, the question will be whether the government acted reasonably in weighing the various considerations.”

To what extent is removing the head of the Shin Bet precedent-setting?

No Shin Bet chief has ever been dismissed before. Two did, however, resign. Avraham Shalom resigned in 1986, after being accused of ordering the execution by Shin Bet operatives of two captured terrorists who attacked bus number 300 on the coast road, and organizing the subsequent cover-up. Carmi Gillon resigned in 1996, just a year after he was appointed, following the Shin Bet’s failure to prevent the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. If Bar is dismissed, it will be unprecedented. Prof. Cohen says that, for this reason, “no set practice has developed in this context” and there is no written procedure for it.

Is the Shin Bet supposed to “protect democracy”?

This claim, which has been heard a great deal recently, is based on “the purpose of the Service and its functions” defined in section 7a of the General Security Service Law, which states: “The Service is charged with preserving the security of the state, its democratic mode of government, and its institutions.” This means that there are two aspects to do with democracy: the democratic mode of government, and the institutions of democratic government.

Published by Globes, Israel business news – en.globes.co.il – on March 17, 2025.

© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2025.