In a dramatic declaration to the High Court on Monday, Shin Bet Director Ronen Bar claimed that his dismissal was rooted in Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s demand for personal allegiance — not just professional duty — and that he had been implicitly instructed to prioritize loyalty to Netanyahu over the rule of law in the event of a constitutional standoff.
Bar, in a formal response to petitions challenging his removal, asserted that he was pushed out for refusing to align himself with the prime minister’s political interests. He pointed to a series of sensitive decisions, including declining to shield Netanyahu from testifying in his corruption trial, launching probes into the conduct of Netanyahu’s inner circle, and the fallout from the October 7 Hamas attack, as factors behind the firing.
He also denied claims by Netanyahu and his allies that the Shin Bet had prior intelligence warning of the October 7 assault and failed to relay it in time. Bar provided a timeline outlining the actions taken by his agency in the hours leading up to the invasion based on the intelligence they had at the time.
Although Bar indicated he would soon announce his resignation, he emphasized that the court’s ruling on his termination would have more lasting implications than his personal exit.
Netanyahu rejected Bar’s version of events, calling it “a false statement.” The Prime Minister’s Office followed up by saying that Bar’s own admission of security failings validated the decision to remove him. The court has asked Netanyahu to formally respond to Bar’s remarks.
Bar’s dismissal was finalized on March 21, following a cabinet vote prompted by Netanyahu’s recommendation. The prime minister cited a loss of confidence in Bar’s leadership. However, critics and legal watchdogs argue that the firing was marred by conflicts of interest and procedural flaws, given Shin Bet’s active investigations into Netanyahu’s aides.
The High Court temporarily blocked the firing and urged both the government and the Attorney General to resolve the legal missteps, while inviting Bar to present his account.
Bar responded by submitting an eight-page public statement via the State Attorney’s Office, accompanied by a 31-page classified annex with supplemental documentation.
In his public remarks, Bar said tensions with Netanyahu did not emerge until late 2024. The shift, he claimed, stemmed from Netanyahu’s expectation of “personal loyalty” rather than a breakdown in professional performance. He noted that Netanyahu had previously lauded the Shin Bet’s contributions during the war, including rescuing hostages and neutralizing terrorists across multiple fronts.
Bar identified November 2024 as the critical turning point. That month, he authorized an investigation into leaked materials from the Prime Minister’s Office, declined to assert that Netanyahu could skip his court testimony on national security grounds, supported the position that political leaders bore some responsibility for the October 7 failures, and endorsed the establishment of a state commission of inquiry. He also launched an investigation into the so-called Qatargate affair, in which Netanyahu’s aides allegedly lobbied for Qatar — a nation linked to Hamas.
“This sequence of events is what brought about a turning point in the prime minister’s attitude to me, and it alone stands at the foundation of the demand to end my tenure,” Bar wrote.
On Qatargate, Bar insisted the involvement of individuals linked to a state that backs Hamas in sensitive Israeli decision-making circles demanded scrutiny — especially given Qatar’s role as a mediator in negotiations with the terror group. He warned that suspected interference by Netanyahu’s associates could jeopardize national security and hostage release efforts.
Bar also revealed that Netanyahu had asked him to take action against citizens participating in anti-government protests and requested intelligence on activists who had monitored cabinet ministers and members of the prime minister’s family.
“The expectation to monitor ‘protest funders’ was made clear to me,” Bar stated, making it known that he refused to carry out such demands.
According to Bar, these requests were made after formal meetings had ended and once military aides and record-keepers had exited the room — a tactic that would leave no official trace of the conversations.
“The prime minister addressed me multiple times in a manner that made clear his expectation that the Shin Bet act against citizens involved in protest action and demonstrations against the government,” wrote Bar.
Bar added that in Netanyahu’s official response to the court, the prime minister acknowledged that one of his grievances was Bar’s refusal to act against those organizing widespread army reserve duty boycotts — a major part of the protest movement against judicial reform.
“This shows how the prime minister viewed the job of the head of the Shin Bet and his expectations that he activate the authorities of the agency in connection with open and public demonstrations of public protest against the government and its policies in which there is no clandestine activity or threat of violence,” Bar told the court.
Bar further alleged that during discussions about these protests, he was told that in the event of a constitutional crisis, he would be expected to “obey the prime minister and not the Supreme Court,” though he did not specify who conveyed that directive.
He said that more details about that issue would be included in his classified filing.
The threat of a constitutional breakdown has loomed large throughout the current government’s push to overhaul Israel’s judiciary, sparking mass protests and deep political rifts.
Bar reiterated previous claims that Netanyahu had pressured him to submit false security justifications to the Jerusalem District Court in order to excuse the prime minister from testifying in his criminal trial.
Bar said Netanyahu “repeatedly” urged him to issue orders that would prevent the prime minister from making public appearances and from being exposed to security risks — a move that would have effectively delayed or derailed the trial.
He disclosed that a draft memo had even been prepared, which he said was likely authored by Netanyahu or his staff, and that he was asked to present it as the Shin Bet’s official position.
Bar said the full details of that episode would be laid out in his confidential filing.
Bar flatly denied allegations from Netanyahu and his allies that the Shin Bet had knowledge of Hamas’s attack plans in advance and failed to alert the necessary authorities. He provided a detailed account of the agency’s actions before and during the start of the assault.
While acknowledging operational shortcomings, Bar said claims that he failed to brief the prime minister were part of a coordinated campaign to discredit him and the agency.
He noted that months earlier, the Shin Bet had warned the government that internal divisions — largely sparked by the judicial overhaul — were being interpreted by Israel’s enemies as a window of opportunity to strike. The agency had recommended targeted military actions to reestablish deterrence.
Bar also recalled warning Netanyahu in July 2023 about a dangerously deteriorating security landscape, even issuing a rare “war alert” — something nearly unprecedented from a Shin Bet director.
He said that after detecting “unusual but not unambiguous” indicators on the night of October 6, his agency alerted top IDF officials, including those overseeing Gaza and the Southern Command, at 11 p.m.
By 3:03 a.m. on October 7, the Shin Bet issued a general alert to all security branches about possible hostile activity by Hamas, though Bar conceded that the level of warning fell short — a failure he acknowledged.
He said he arrived at the Shin Bet’s headquarters at 4:30 a.m. and instructed that Netanyahu’s military secretary be notified by 5:15 a.m.
“It is with pain that I emphasize that no one evaluated that an attack like this would erupt and certainly not on that morning,” Bar wrote. “However, the attack was ‘not coordinated by us,’ our teams were not ‘sent in order to save Shin Bet personnel,’ and on that night nothing was ‘hidden from the security establishment or the prime minister,’” he emphasized.
“Out of a deep concern for the State of Israel in general and the ability of the Shin Bet to function in particular, I saw it as my duty to bring before the court in a full and public manner the sequence of events,” Bar concluded.
“This is my duty to my successor, so that their ability to fulfill their role with professionalism, with commitment to the country, and while insisting that the authorities of the agency and its tools be used for their intended purposes alone, be preserved, and so as to clearly delineate between the trust required in democratic systems and loyalty that characterizes other regimes.”
In a blistering response, the Prime Minister’s Office declared Bar’s testimony was “full of lies,” claiming he only informed Netanyahu’s military aide at 6:13 a.m.
“Bar confirms the assertion of all government ministers that he failed miserably on October 7,” said the statement from Netanyahu’s office. “This reason alone is cause for his termination.”
The PMO added that just two days prior to the Hamas onslaught, Bar had claimed that “renewal of understandings between Israel and Hamas based on the principle of quiet in exchange for concessions reveals the potential for preserving stability in the Gaza Strip.”
{Matzav.com Israel}
