Netanyahu fires Shin Bet chief, battles Supreme Court, and moves to oust Attorney General amid protests, leaked letters, and threats of a general strike.

The fallout from the Israeli government’s unanimous firing of the failed Shin Bet Director Ronan Bar has triggered a wave of escalating protests, threats of a nationwide general strike, and—for the first time in Israeli history—the public release of direct correspondence between a prime minister and the head of the Shin Bet.

These revelations have exposed deep fractures between the country’s executive, judicial, and security branches, raising profound questions about governance, democracy, and national security.

The chain of events began with the government’s dissatisfaction over Ronen Bar’s performance as head of Israel’s domestic security agency, particularly his abysmal performance in failing to act to prevent the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, or to inform the political echelon. Despite admitting his failures publicly, he refused to step down, instead clinging to power and, it seems, trying to implicated the Prime Minister in what the left-wing media has dubbed Qatargate.

Netanyahu publicly expressed that Bar had repeatedly failed to deliver a promised detailed report analyzing intelligence failures leading up to the devastating incident. On February 10, Netanyahu formally demanded that Bar submit the Shin Bet findings within two weeks. Bar requested an extension until February 27, a deadline he subsequently missed.

In a speech to the Israeli public, Netanyahu highlighted Bar’s failure to meet the agreed-upon deadline as a critical factor eroding his trust. He emphasized that Israel’s security demands absolute reliability from intelligence leaders, implying Bar no longer met this standard. Netanyahu firmly rejected any association between Bar’s firing and the ongoing “Qatargate” investigation into allegations of Qatari financial influence on officials within Netanyahu’s circle, labeling such accusations as baseless and politically motivated. Netanyahu was explicit in stating that Bar’s refusal or delay in submitting the October 7 report long preceded the surfacing of any allegations about Qatari ties to Netanyahu’s office. The Prime Minister strongly implied that it is Bar who is politicizing the situation by attempting to connect his dismissal to the later-emerging Qatari investigation, thereby shifting blame and undermining the government’s credibility.

However, Netanyahu’s decision to dismiss Bar triggered intense backlash. Critics swiftly accused the Prime Minister of political interference in Israel’s nonpartisan security services, portraying the dismissal as an attack on institutions vital to the nation’s stability and security. Protests erupted across major Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with demonstrators demanding Netanyahu’s resignation, accusing him of undermining democratic norms.

The political crisis deepened further when Israel’s Supreme Court stepped into the fray, issuing a temporary injunction to halt Bar’s dismissal. The court accepted petitions challenging the legality of Netanyahu’s decision, asserting that such a significant move required thorough judicial review. The Supreme Court’s intervention marked a bold step into Israel’s increasingly fraught separation-of-powers conflict, escalating tensions between the judicial and executive branches.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, another pivotal figure in this unfolding drama, openly opposed Netanyahu’s decision to fire Bar, asserting the action lacked solid legal justification. Baharav-Miara argued that the Shin Bet director’s role was constitutionally insulated from political influences to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of Israel’s security apparatus.

Baharav-Miara’s position drew immediate retaliation from the Netanyahu government. Justice Minister Yariv Levin initiated proceedings aimed at removing her from office, accusing Baharav-Miara of obstructing governmental authority and using her legal powers to undermine political decisions. This unprecedented motion of no confidence against a sitting attorney general intensified fears among opposition leaders and legal experts, who argued it represented a significant threat to the rule of law and institutional independence.

The government’s move to oust the attorney general amplified public outcry. Former Supreme Court justices, including the highly respected Aharon Barak, publicly denounced the government’s actions, emphasizing that Israel’s democratic framework depends fundamentally upon maintaining judicial independence and clear boundaries between governmental branches.

The Supreme Court’s injunction freezing Bar’s dismissal is set to be reviewed comprehensively, with a final ruling expected before April 8. This forthcoming decision promises to be a landmark moment for Israel, potentially reshaping the balance of power between the executive and judiciary. Observers speculate that a court ruling confirming the dismissal could embolden Netanyahu’s government, possibly prompting further measures to constrain judicial oversight. Conversely, a ruling reversing Bar’s removal could significantly weaken Netanyahu politically, fueling further protests and demands for his resignation.

Compounding the crisis, the dismissal controversy overlaps with ongoing military tensions in Gaza and Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz has ordered intensified military operations in Gaza, warning Hamas of possible territorial annexations if Israeli hostages are not released promptly. Simultaneously, cross-border exchanges of fire with Lebanon have increased, raising fears of broader regional instability. Netanyahu’s critics argue that internal governmental turmoil risks compromising Israel’s strategic posture and ability to respond effectively to external threats.

International reactions have been swift and largely critical, particularly from Western allies. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement urging Israel to return immediately to ceasefire conditions in Gaza and to resolve internal political conflicts through democratic means rather than unilateral executive actions. The statement further pressed Israel to investigate military actions impacting humanitarian sites in Gaza, reflecting broader concerns about escalating casualties.

Yet, Netanyahu remains defiant, framing his actions as necessary leadership decisions amid unprecedented national security challenges. He continues to maintain significant public support among segments of Israeli society who view his actions as essential to ensuring governmental effectiveness and national security.

This political confrontation illustrates a deeper existential debate within Israel about the boundaries between elected leadership and institutional authority. Netanyahu’s supporters argue that democratically elected leaders must have the latitude to implement their policies fully and hold security officials accountable. Critics counter that strong institutional checks and balances are vital for maintaining democratic health, especially in a region characterized by volatility and external threats.