A High Court hearing on Tuesday is debating the legitimacy of the government’s appointment of retired IDF Maj.-Gen. David Zini, as the Shin Bet's (Israel Security Agency) director, introduced pointed scrutiny, as petitioners argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conflict of interest, combined with an irregular and opaque selection process, rendered the appointment “extremely unreasonable."
Zini’s nomination as the successor to outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, a decision backed by Netanyahu, was met with swift and strong opposition.
Former Shin Bet directors Nadav Argaman, Ami Ayalon, and Carmi Gillon, two of whom attended the hearing alongside several civil society groups, voiced their concerns.
Their petitions, signed by over 180 former security officials, accused the government of “contaminating” the process and warned that installing a politically aligned outsider could undermine the agency’s independence.
Representing the petitioners, attorney Eitan Peleg argued that Zini’s lack of experience inside the Shin Bet made the appointment fundamentally flawed.
Chief Justice Isaac Amit pressed him on the matter by drawing parallels between this and the Mossad, noting that military officers who did not emanate from within the organization itself have often led it nonetheless.
Peleg responded that the Shin Bet operates on a markedly different framework, and while external appointments are not inherently illegitimate, “the skill set has to match up.”
Zini, in a response submitted last week, urged the court to dismiss the petitions, accusing his critics of trying to “police opinions under the guise of democratic virtue.”
His attorney, Ohad Shalem, said on Tuesday that the petitions “delegitimized themselves the moment they were filed,” framing the case as an attempt to conflate personal opposition to the current government with objections to Zini himself.
High Court Petitions Target Zini's Shin Bet appointment
Central to the petitioners’ claims is the argument that Netanyahu, barred by a previous High Court ruling from dismissing Bar due to a conflict of interest, was likewise conflicted in choosing his successor.
Further, they said the Grunis Committee’s vetting process was insufficient, alleging procedural deficiencies, inadequate scrutiny of Zini’s ideological leanings, and unresolved concerns regarding reported ties between Zini’s brother and political donors close to Netanyahu.
Some petitioners also pointed to past statements in which Zini’s religious-nationalist worldview was seen as potentially compromising the agency’s apolitical character.
Justice David Mintz challenged the notion that the committee should probe a candidate’s personal politics. At the same time, attorney Yair Nehorai argued that ideology is inseparable from leadership and that the committee failed to meaningfully examine this aspect.
Attorney Eliad Shraga of the Movement for Quality Government drew attention to Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara’s earlier warning, which was issued before the committee’s recommendation, that the process had been tainted.
Justice Noam Sohlberg countered that news reports were insufficient grounds to brand Zini dishonest, pressing petitioners for firmer evidence.
Other stand-ins representing different groups of petitioners, including attorneys Ran Sprinzak and Gilad Barnea, argued that the committee failed to account for the “very severe and unique” circumstances of the case, particularly Netanyahu’s fraught relationship with Bar.
They pointed to Bar’s affidavit alleging that Netanyahu asked him to delay proceedings in the prime minister’s criminal trial and to conduct surveillance on protest leaders who were leading demonstrations against the government’s handling of Hamas.
These remarks, Sprinzak said, underscored the prime minister’s interest in securing a compliant successor.
The backdrop to the dispute is the political fallout from Hamas’s October 7 massacre, which intensified criticism of Bar and strained his relationship with the Prime Minister’s Office.
That rift only increased amid the “Qatargate” affair, a controversy in which the Shin Bet probed financial channels involving Netanyahu’s associates and alleged ties to Qatar.
Bar ultimately resigned in June, citing the need to preserve the agency’s independence, paving the way for Netanyahu to swiftly appoint Zini.
Lawyer Idan Seger, representing protest leader Shikma Bressler, among others, argued that once the depth of the prime minister’s conflict of interest became clear, the entire appointment process should have been restarted.
Shraga echoed this, saying, “The contamination is in the appointment by Netanyahu himself.”
Speaking on the government’s behalf, attorney Neta Oren maintained that the petitions lack merit, adding that the Grunis Committee’s approval is binding and that the government’s authority in such appointments is broad.
“To say it is ‘extremely unreasonable’ for the government to appoint a man with such an impressive military record does not come close to justifying judicial intervention,” she said, saying that the committee had already reviewed all the objections against Zini.