In an affidavit submitted to Israel’s Supreme Court on Monday, the head of Israel’s internal security agency, Ronen Bar, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of trying to exploit the agency’s authority for his own political benefit. Bar’s response came as part of an ongoing deliberation in petitions brought forward to the court aimed at preventing Netanyahu from sacking Bar. While much of the affidavit was sealed, eight pages were made public, intensifying the showdown between the two figures.
For Netanyahu’s opponents, the Bar affidavit was damning proof that Israel’s longest-serving prime minister was threatening the country’s democracy. For his supporters, it was further confirmation that the head of the Shin Bet was the main figure behind Israel’s failure to prevent Hamas’ surprise offensive against Israel on October 7, 2023.
Netanyahu’s office called Bar’s affidavit “full of lies.”
“Ronen Bar submitted a false affidavit to the Supreme Court, which will be disproved in detail soon,” a statement from Netanyahu’s office read.
The latest development has further entrenched each side in its position. The opposition repeated their calls to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to declare Netanyahu incapacitated.
“This would not be a smart move,” Joey Asch, former head of the criminal division at the state attorney's office, told The Media Line. “Israel is facing so many problems between the judiciary and the government that declaring Netanyahu incapacitated now would be a big mistake.”
He said that declarations of incapacitation are intended for those who are unable to serve in their position because of physical or mental illness. “This is not the case for Netanyahu, who can do his job,” he explained.
The opposition believes Netanyahu is prioritizing his own political survival over national interests during the ongoing war, including by delaying a deal that would see the release of 59 Israeli hostages still in Hamas captivity. They argue that Netanyahu is avoiding key decisions, including a commitment to withdraw from Gaza, in order to prevent elections and potential legal consequences due to his misconduct.
Asch said that those who want to see Netanyahu removed from office must pursue elections rather than “some legal structure that might or might not be the right one.”
Netanyahu’s political support in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is solid, but polling on his popularity and his chances of winning an upcoming election have been inconsistent. His approval ratings plummeted in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack but have since recovered.
While Netanyahu’s opposition is vociferous, it has been unable to rally behind a single candidate, making it unclear whether there is a real political threat.
“Out of all the options the opposition has to remove Netanyahu from office, declaring him incapacitated is the only one left,” Liron Lavi, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, told The Media Line.
According to Lavi, the main option in parliament is to pass a constructive no-confidence vote, which requires both a special majority and an alternative government ready to govern. In addition, the Knesset could vote to dissolve itself, or Netanyahu could declare an early election. Neither option is realistic due to Netanyahu’s iron-clad parliamentary majority and his lack of interest in early elections.
Netanyahu already on trial on allegations of corruption, breach of trust
Netanyahu is already on trial on allegations of corruption and breach of trust. The trial began in 2020 and is expected to last for a few more years. Since the investigation into the suspicions began, his opponents have called for his resignation.
The war presented a new opportunity for the opposition to attack Netanyahu and further question his leadership abilities.
Netanyahu has refused to step down, denying any wrongdoing, and Israeli law does not bar a sitting prime minister under trial from holding office. The opposition is left with few paths forward. One hope is that the attorney general may declare him unfit.
To further complicate things, Netanyahu is also accused by the opposition and the attorney general of a conflict of interest due to his push for judicial reforms while facing his own trial.
At the beginning of his 2020 trial, Netanyahu signed a legally binding agreement pledging to avoid involvement in judicial matters that could directly affect his own legal proceedings. Critics argued his active role in advancing the highly contentious judicial overhaul violates this agreement and undermines public trust.
“Netanyahu can still do his job without being in a conflict of interest by simply not dealing with certain things. The war is not one of them, and that is the most important matter at this point,” Asch said. “The judicial and the executive branch are both at fault, and they have to work things out. They can reach an agreement, there are certain steps that should not be taken that would make things a lot worse.”
If Attorney General Baharav-Miara were to declare Netanyahu unfit, it would spiral the country into an unprecedented crisis.
“It would cause a great political shock and would be considered a very explicit and far-reaching move,” Lavi said. “The coalition will not recognize the move, and we will see widespread, very intense demonstrations.”
Asch said that such a development would be “horrendous, not only for Netanyahu, but also for the country and mainly for the attorney general and everything she stands for.”
“This would not be accepted by the public. As one who wants to see Netanyahu out of office, I would not accept this move,” he said.
Supporters of Netanyahu, and perhaps the premier himself, appear to be concerned that the possibility will materialize.
“He is concerned because it remains an option. It is a tool that exists in the toolbox of his opponents, and he is afraid they will use it,” Lavi said.
Before the war, the Netanyahu government attempted to push forward a highly contentious plan to reform the judiciary, limiting the Supreme Court's powers and giving greater authority to the ruling government. Opponents called the program a “judicial coup” that threatened Israeli democracy.
The right wing claims the judiciary has accumulated too much power over the years, while the opposition views the courts as a critical component of Israel’s checks and balances.
For Netanyahu’s supporters, a declaration by the attorney general of the premier’s incapacity to govern would serve as further proof of their beliefs. “They say the government was democratically elected and there is no legitimacy to change this decision in any other way,” Lavi explained.
In recent years, especially during the time the judicial reform was promoted, Netanyahu and his partners engaged in harsh rhetoric against the judiciary. The right-wing bloc has increasingly voiced a lack of faith in the court’s decisions.
“This uproots the ability to execute a decision of incapacitation without leading to major acute and scary implications,” Lavi said.
Many in Israel believe that the massive upheaval the country experienced during the push for judicial reform weakened the country, leading to Hamas’ decision to surprise Israel at one of its most vulnerable hours.
The Hamas attack ignited a massive retaliation on Israel’s part. The war, which is still ongoing, has caused a significant rift in Israel. The opposition claims the Israeli premier is prolonging the war in order to delay the establishment of a national inquiry commission that will inevitably find him responsible for all that led up to the war.
Netanyahu and his political partners are against establishing such a national inquiry commission, claiming it will be politically biased against them.
The prime minister’s reluctance to take responsibility for the failures of October 7 drew criticism from his opposition and also from his own camp. Netanyahu has repeatedly pinned the blame on both Bar and the senior military command, which has largely been replaced since. In the first weeks of the war, Bar accepted blame for his part in the failure, saying he would resign eventually.
The sacking of Bar was set into motion last month by the coalition, with some claiming that the timing was related to new investigations into wrongdoing among Netanyahu’s most senior advisers. Petitions were immediately filed with the Supreme Court, which responded by issuing a temporary injunction on the move pending deliberation.
Bar’s affidavit was, in essence, his defense against the firing. The Shin Bet chief has said he would resign as part of his responsibility for the Hamas attack, but he did not agree to the current timing of Netanyahu’s move.
Netanyahu has been a contentious figure on the Israeli political scene for decades, eliciting staunch support from his political bloc and fierce opposition from his rivals. His trial has further entrenched the camps in their positions, with the war complicating matters further.
As Lavi put it, “This ever-present shadow means the public is constantly questioning Netanyahu’s motives, leaving a lot of room for the war of narratives that Israel is engulfed in.”
