WhatsappRest assured, the High Court will eventually reject petitions against the move.
(March 30, 2025 / JNS)
It’s almost comical how nearly every attempt by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government to assert their executive authority is decried by the left and its legions as a perilous “constitutional crisis.”
Each instance is portrayed as an even greater attack on our democratic principles, our core values, our very national ethos. Once again, Israeli society careens down the perennial “slippery slope” toward nothing less than fascist tyranny—a slope that never seems to end as long as the right is in power.
None other than the High Priest of Israel’s legal oligarchy, retired Chief Justice Aharon Barak, wearily offered the direst of warnings that Israel is on the precipice of civil war. Over what?
Over the proposed dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, of course. Such a move by the Netanyahu cabinet would be tantamount to ripping apart Israel’s democracy, obliterating its rule of law and crossing a “red line” that may never be reversed.
To be sure, the histrionics are all profoundly cynical and manifestly dishonest. Leaving aside the simple fact that Israel has no constitution, firing the head of Israel’s internal security agency by no means evinces a “constitutional crisis,” regardless of whether or not there’s any validity to the much-trumpeted suspicions of an alleged “Qatargate” investigation.
First of all, the law in this case is straightforward and unequivocal. The General Security Service Law of 2002 stipulates quite clearly that the government appoints the service’s chief as proposed by the prime minister, and thus concomitantly, “The government is authorized to terminate the tenure of the head of the service prior to the expiration of his term of office.”
Nevertheless, isn’t the Shin Bet an independent agency, warranting special protection against governmental interference? Quite the opposite: The law expressly states, “The service shall be subject to the authority of the government; the government shall approve objectives for the service subject to the provisions of this law.”
And if that weren’t enough, it adds: “The prime minister shall be in charge of the service on behalf of the government.”
In accordance with these provisions, Netanyahu’s Cabinet unanimously approved his proposal to fire the Shin Bet chief due to a “persistent personal and professional distrust” toward Bar, undermining both the government and the service itself. The statutory authority of the executive branch in this case could not be less ambiguous.
But this is Israel, where the letter of the law and the government’s adherence to it are no more than quaint ornaments to be set aside by the Supreme Court when necessary, which in Netanyahu’s case is more often than not.
Taking a position
Almost simultaneously with the government’s decision to fire Bar, petitions were filed before Israel’s Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, demanding that the dismissal be immediately frozen prior to its ultimate cancellation.
In an ex-parte decision, Supreme Court Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz (mistakenly believed to be a member of the “conservative” camp) ruled: “Without taking any position on the petitions, and in order to prevent a claim of irreversible circumstances, a temporary order is hereby issued whereby the effect of the decision that is the subject of the petitions will be suspended until another decision is issued.”
But of course, by issuing an order such as the above, you are indeed “taking a position on the petitions,” at least to the extent that you don’t deem them as utterly worthless and a grave imposition by the judiciary on the executive branch’s statutorily sanctioned authority.
Adding to this blatant injustice is the absurd practice whereby Israel’s attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara, empowered with the sole authority to represent the government in all judicial proceedings, actually sides with the petitioners.
She cited concerns of “conflict of interest,” potential “legal impediments” and a supposed binding requirement for the government to first consult with an advisory committee headed by a retired Supreme Court justice.
Baharav-Miara even went so far as to purport that Netanyahu was prohibited from engaging in the mere task of interviewing potential candidates to replace Bar, so long as the court has yet to hear the petitions and issue its final ruling on the matter.
The judges themselves, on the other hand, felt this was one step too far and thus allowed the vetting process to continue. At the same time, though, they kept in force the initial freeze order preventing Bar’s firing for an extended period, at least until the scheduled hearing of the case on April 8. Is it any wonder this attorney general has also been slated for dismissal by Netanyahu and his Cabinet?
This brings us to yet another abnormality particular to the Israeli legal system. How is that of all the petitioners demanding judicial intervention aimed at preventing the dismissal, the aggrieved party himself is not included amongst them?!
Rather, a cohort of opposition parties and left-wing “public petitioners,” oftentimes funded by foreign governments and other anti-Israel agents, have taken it upon themselves to object to Netanyahu’s application of the law. Indeed, as a result of this ludicrous state of affairs, Ronen Bar is listed as one of the respondents to the proceedings, indicating, as it were, that the litigation is actually against him!
These and a series of increasingly preposterous circumstances amply exemplify just how disfigured the Israeli legal system has become, along with a complete renunciation of fundamental democratic principles. Separation of powers, judicial restraint, the time-honored requirement of “standing,” and the proper function of the attorney general, inter alia, are almost nowhere to be found when it comes to Israel’s Supreme Court.
We proudly declare ourselves as the only true democracy in the Middle East, but of course, everything is relative. Granted, compared to our immediate neighbors, Israel has all the trappings of a functional democracy.
Yet it doesn’t take more than a few hours’ flight to find an abundance of countries whose legal systems wouldn’t dare allow the avaricious excesses the Israeli public, or more specifically—its right-wing contingent—is subject to at the hands of the judicial wing and its “deep state” accomplices.
Rest assured, Ronen Bar will be removed as head of the Shin Bet. After solemn deliberation, the High Court will eventually reject the petitions, adding that they were sincere in motive, but this particular instance does not warrant judicial intervention.
For their part, Netanyahu and his government will once again have to pledge allegiance to the irresistible power the Supreme Court justices have usurped for themselves, and with heads bowed, express gratitude for the court’s gracious beneficence.
