The Attorney General's Office and the government have until Sunday to reach a compromise on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's appointment of IDF Maj.-Gen. David Zini as head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), the High Court of Justice's Chief Justice, Isaac Amit, Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, and Justice Alex Stein said on Tuesday following a hearing on the matter.
“We hope that a solution is reached that would make the petitions obsolete,” the judges wrote after a closed-door security meeting with Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs and attorney-general representatives.
The question the justices set out to clarify was whether to uphold, change, or reject Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara’s advisory opinion.
According to the A-G, Netanyahu is in a deep conflict of interest regarding any matter related to the Shin Bet head, including offering a framework for pushing his appointment through.
Several issues were at play: The extent of the conflict of interest that Netanyahu is involved in, how that affects the matter at hand, and how it aligns with the law that grants the prime minister the authority to serve as the guiding force in hiring the intelligence chief.
Amit stood firm on the fact that the law is clear, saying that the authority stems from the prime minister, but that the legal adviser’s opinion is that Netanyahu is indeed in a severe conflict of interest.
This concerns investigations by the intelligence agency and the Israel Police into Qatari influence on figures close to Netanyahu, which have put the legal world into an unprecedented situation.
Supreme Court hears two different petitions
In the “Qatargate” case, police are investigating direct Qatari influence on specific individuals who are close to Netanyahu himself and who have played key roles in various policy decisions.
Another case in question concerns the “leaked documents” incident. Eli Feldstein, a former military spokesperson in the Prime Minister’s Office, was investigated for allegedly leaking classified military documents to the German daily Bild after they were rejected for publication by the Israeli military censor. The documents were publicized, allegedly in an effort to sway public opinion on the hostage negotiations.
On March 16, Netanyahu announced his intention to fire then-Shin Bet director Ronen Bar. The government argued in April to the court that a “lack of trust” stemming from October 7, 2023, prevented a productive work relationship, while Bar argued that efforts to fire him began in earnest in November 2024, when the Qatari investigations commenced.
Bar resigned on June 15.
The court, on May 21, ruled that Bar’s firing was illegal due to Netanyahu’s conflict of interest, following an earlier decision to freeze the firing. Advisory opinions by Baharav-Miara and Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon – as interpreters of the law and advisers to the government – were entrenched in this legal decision.
The court on Tuesday heard from representatives of two separate petitions for the government and the Attorney General’s Office.
Bereaved families are behind the first petition, which considers the appointment to the position unjustified and requests that the advisory opinion be canceled.
The second petition, led by former security officers, released hostages, and NGOs, demands that the government set up an alternate, objective, neutral framework for hiring the next intelligence head.
Netanyahu argued that any barriers to Zini’s appointment would constitute “security irresponsibility” and a “disconnect from national needs.”
This stance was echoed by the first petition representatives on Tuesday. They said that safety concerns and Israel’s security necessitate a chief in the immediate future, and that the legal advisory is preventing that from happening.
The Attorney General’s Office has been consistent in its stance on the conflict of interest. In its advisory opinions, it noted that it had no interest in deliberately slowing down the process and went as far as to offer what it deemed a correct and sound legal framework through which to secure Zini’s appointment, one that does not involve the prime minister himself and ensures objectivity. This framework was suggested a month ago.
Attorney Itamar Meron, representing the bereaved families, argued that the A-G’s Office is splitting the issues of procedure and Israel’s security. When they are pitted against each other, the legal advisory is choosing procedure over security, he said.
Meron said that in the law granting the government the authority to appoint the intelligence chief head, the title “prime minister” is mentioned dozens of times – to emphasize how critical it is, how much of a foundation it is, that these two figures have a professional, functional relationship – something that was lacking with Bar.
Meron further argued that the democratic nature of these positions comes from the elected officials in charge of them – the national security minister in the case of the police, and the prime minister in the case of “the nation’s secret police” – the Shin Bet.
He went on to say that the issue at hand was personal due to its dependence on the unique closeness that is required. Amit responded to this by saying that the conflict of interest could not be ignored.
The chief justice pointed out the absurdity of someone in a conflict of interest being in charge of determining who would or would not handle investigations into them and how they would proceed.
The justices, overall, criticized the second group of petitioners, stating that their arguments were too broad in scope and that the solution they suggested lacked a legal basis.
Attorney Ran Shprinzak said that the situation was precarious and unprecedented. Amit called attention to the legal framework at hand: The advisory opinion. Stein was particularly critical.
The representative referenced a previous High Court ruling on the appointment of the civil services commissioner, which called for an independent body to handle the process due to a much weaker conflict of interest. There, he said, the issue had to do with a suspicion that foreign political factors would influence the appointment.
“The danger, given the power that the Shin Bet holds, is massive,” and for this reason, an objective process must be instituted in this case, he said.
Shprinzak further argued that the A-G’s suggestion that a different minister be in charge of the appointment is a smokescreen, as any minister in the current government is simply the long arm of Netanyahu.
Lawyer Michael Rabello, representing the government, focused on the nature of a conflict of interest – terminating Bar’s role and appointing a new chief are different in that context.
“There are so many conflict of interest agreements that can be reached that do not totally immobilize” Netanyahu from the hiring process, he said.
Addressing the opinion itself, Rabello said that, to the detriment of the case at hand, the A-G is free of any restraint from both the government and the courts.
“The attacks against the prime minister here are against the coalition’s governing capabilities,” he said.
One of the criticisms the judges levied toward the government was that Netanyahu waited only one day after it had handed down its decision to announce his support of Zini.
Rabello explained that the reason for the urgency was the attacks against Iran’s nuclear and military sites on June 13. Notably, the problem with this timing is that the Iranian attacks came three weeks after the Zini announcement.
Lawyer Neta Oren, the representative for the Attorney-General’s Office, said that the High Court’s decision on Bar lays the foundation for the question on a conflict of interest: Netanyahu does not need to be the one making the calls in order for him to be in a conflict of interest – it is enough that he has a stake in the outcome.
The Qatari investigations are the very proof, she said, as well as the fact that Netanyahu did not wait to announce Zini’s appointment, despite the A-G’s opinion instructing him to wait to understand the implications of the court’s decision. In commencing with the announcement, nevertheless, Oren said, the prime minister went against the court’s decision.
“Even after the decision was handed down, the prime minister showed, with words and actions, that he is, in fact, very involved in the issue of the director of the Shin Bet,” she said, referencing the government’s announcement backing Zini’s appointment as well.
“All these issues poisoned the entire process,” Oren said.
Kanfi-Steinitz asked, “How does your solution solve the issue of a conflict of interest?”
Oren responded by saying that the legal advisory framework suggests a process that starts from scratch, headed by a different minister, and is thoroughly implemented.
This is what would neutralize the issue of a widespread conflict of interest, she said.
“Of course, security is the most important thing to us as well, but this doesn’t contradict it, and eventually affects that very same security. These are not two opposing forces,” she said.
About 15 minutes before the hearing was set to begin, the court’s security personnel warned the crowd against any public disturbances. During the first hearing on Bar’s firing in April, tensions ran extremely high, and eventually, the audience was removed.
When the justices first entered, they announced that they would begin the discussion in a closed-door hearing on security matters.
A woman then yelled at the judges from the crowd that they had no right to hear this case. Court security removed her. As the judges were leaving, the crowds yelled at them, “Boo! Shame!”
After they returned, Likud MK Tally Gotliv shouted from the audience that she did not understand what the arguments were about. This led to cries from across the public stands, with people yelling, “Shame!” at the judges.
They, in turn, called for a break and decided to remove the audience for the remainder of the hearing.
Two people were forcefully removed from the room: The parents of IDF soldier Shir Hajaj, who was killed in a terrorist attack in 2017 in Jerusalem.
“Did we pay the highest price of all only for us to witness the deepest schism in Israeli society now?” bereaved father Itzik Bonzel, who is a lawyer and also a petitioner, asked the judges.
“I will not allow for bereaved parents to be hit and dragged across the floor. No one is protecting the families,” he continued. Bonzel left the hearing soon after.
During the April hearing, Bonzel was forcibly removed from the room but later returned to present his side.
He had said that the firing of Bar should never have reached the court, and that the method by which Bar was fired was irrelevant, since he bears responsibility for the October 7 massacre and should have resigned on his own.
Amit, when the hearing resumed, heavily criticized the chaos in the room, calling it a “strike at the heart of the democratic process and an attempt to sabotage the legal proceedings.”
“We are now beyond the point of blame; this issue should have never reached the court,” Amit told Meron at one point.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said, “The unprecedented bullying displayed by Netanyahu’s people in the High Court – heckling the judges, the deliberate disruptions and dangerous defiance – are conclusive proof of why Netanyahu must not be allowed to take control of the Shin Bet under any circumstances.”
According to the organization, “Someone who is capable of sending MKs to disrupt court proceedings... who destroys the basic rules of conduct at the heart of Israeli democracy, is a person who must not be allowed to control the internal security service.”
“The Shin Bet under Netanyahu will become a tool of political repression,” it continued, “a thought police that will work against citizens and organizations that stand in his way.”
The Democrats' head, Yair Golan, said, “The outbursts by Likud MKs and those who echo the lies propagated by toxic mouthpieces were a preview of the takeover of the Supreme Court in the style of the US January 6 Capitol riots that occurred the moment the Right was defeated in those elections.”