In a press conference on Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at length about a series of issues, including the ongoing war; the Hamas attack on October 7; the investigations into his aides for leaking classified documents and providing public relations services for Qatar; the High Court of Justice ruling earlier on Wednesday that determined that his move to fire Shin Bet head Ronen Bar was illegal; and more.
Many of the prime minister’s claims were inaccurate, misleading, contradictory, or conspiratorial. The following are a number of examples:
Netanyahu's attempt to downplay Qatari money used on Oct 7
In an attempt to downplay the extent to which the Qatari money assisted Hamas in building up the capabilities that eventually enabled the October 7 massacre, Netanyahu argued that Hamas terrorists attacked Israel with “flip-flops, Kalashnikovs, and pickup trucks,” which were cheap and easily attainable even without the Qatari money.
This is inaccurate and misleading. According to numerous inquiries, testimonies, and videos, Hamas used drones and anti-tank and other portable missiles, as well as preempting its attack with thousands of rockets. In addition, the highly coordinated Hamas attack indicated extensive planning and training.
The prime minister also attempted to lay the blame for the failure to defend the border on October 7 on the IDF and other security agencies. Among other claims, the prime minister argued that a future investigation should examine why the air force was only mobilized “hours” after the beginning of the attack, “who said to do this, and who said not to do this.”
This is conspiratorial. The prime minister was alluding to claims on social media, including by his son Yair, that as part of their opposition to the government’s judicial reforms, air force officers intentionally delayed providing assistance to the troops on the ground. Yair Netanyahu, Likud MK Tally Gotliv, and others have made similar claims about the Shin Bet, claiming that it intentionally refrained from warning the prime minister that an attack was looming and enabled the attack in order to trip up Netanyahu and push him out of power.
The prime minister then argued that one kibbutz, Ein Hashlosha, did not receive a directive not to mobilize, and for that reason “nothing happened,” and terrorists did not enter the kibbutz. The kibbutz put out a statement soon after saying that it was “surprised and shocked” by the prime minister’s “jarring inaccuracy.” According to the kibbutz, dozens of terrorists infiltrated the kibbutz, and four of its members were killed. Netanyahu later issued an apology, saying that his words had “not been understood correctly,” and that what he meant to say was that “not receiving a directive from the security system not to act, is what led the people in the kibbutz to act.”
Netanyahu claims he didn't know if aids received Qatar funds
Netanyahu categorically denied that he himself had received payments from Qatar, but stated that he “did not know” whether or not his aides had received funds from Qatar. However, he contradicted himself soon after, saying that “what he did know” was that it was “all one big lie.”
The prime minister later argued that the payments from Qatar to Hamas under his tenure as prime minister were supported by the security establishment. This is inaccurate – while a majority of security indeed supported the first payment in November 2018, two different intelligence agency heads later warned the prime minister, on two separate occasions, one in 2019 and 2020, that the money was assisting Hamas’s military wing.
Netanyahu also quoted Rishon Letzion Magistrate court judge Menachem Mizrahi, as saying that the charges against his close aide, Yonatan Urich, were unclear, and that there was “no harm to national security involved.” This is misleading, as the prime minister failed to mention that this determination was overruled upon appeal to a regional court judge, who ruled at the time that Urich would remain in custody on the grounds that “the security aspect establishes a clear cause for danger” if he is released.
The government can 'hire and fire the Shin Bet head'
In response to a question from Channel 14’s Moti Kastel, the prime minister read aloud the law that says that the government has the prerogative to hire and fire the Shin Bet head, and argued that the High Court had “ruled against the law” in deeming the decision to fire Bar illegal.
This is misleading. The prime minister failed to mention past government decisions, which determined requirements for a vetting process for both appointing and firing of the seven top public officials, including the Shin Bet head. The High Court mentioned this in its ruling.
The prime minister also failed to mention the fact that Bar was not given an arraignment, as required by law. The prime minister has argued in the past that a government meeting on March 20, in which the government voted to fire Bar, served as an arraignment, and the fact that Bar did not attend meant he had given up the right of arraignment. However, this argument was only made after the fact, and there is no precedent that a government meeting can serve as an arraignment. The High Court ruling addressed this as well.
The prime minister’s claim that the High Court “ruled against the law” is also misleading, as it suggests that his interpretation of the law is equitable or even overcomes that of the court. However, as laid out in Basic Law: The Judiciary, the High Court is the sole statutory interpreter of the law, and its rulings are legally binding.
The High Court ruling determined that Netanyahu had acted illegally in firing Bar since he was in a conflict of interest due to the Qatargate investigations.
Soon after the ruling, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara determined that this also barred him from appointing a new Shin Bet chief until legal limitations are laid out regarding the conflict of interest. The prime minister called the ruling and the ensuing legal opinion a “show,” arguing that no such limitations had been placed on a prime minister in 70 years, and therefore they were unjustified.
This is misleading and conspiratorial. The prime minister failed to mention that never before has a prime minister fired a Shin Bet head, let alone doing so while the Shin Bet is investigating serious national security charges that could directly affect him. In addition, his statement referenced the conspiracy theory that the High Court and Attorney-General were intentionally ruling against him as a result of hidden political motives.
