In his affidavit, Netanyahu quiet on loyalty demand, loud on political messaging
In his response to Shin Bet chief’s High Court filing, PM avoids denying he asked Ronen Bar to put loyalty to him above judicial rulings, reinforcing a political strategy over legal accountability
Shalom Yerushalmi is the political analyst for Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew current affairs website
In his affidavit submitted to the High Court of Justice on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not deny that he asked Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar to obey him rather than the court in the event of a constitutional crisis.
Netanyahu’s reference to this issue is amorphous, and the prime minister’s attorney Zion Amir failed to explain, in a radio interview Monday morning on Kan Radio, why the prime minister categorically denied all of the claims Bar set out in his affidavit last week — except for this astounding one, which strikes at the heart of democratic life in Israel.
The reason is simple. Had Netanyahu denied that he told Bar to prioritize the prime minister’s interests over a court ruling, he would have, through his own affidavit, undermined the narrative he has been constructing for years alongside Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
The supremacy of the judiciary has long since fallen off Netanyahu’s agenda; he seeks to turn it on its head, and there is therefore no reason for him now to defer to the judges’ decisions — and certainly not to admit a readiness to do so himself.
Netanyahu is not even willing at this moment to say that he would comply with a High Court ruling if the justices decide — at the conclusion of the tumultuous legal proceedings sparked by the Netanyahu cabinet’s unanimous decision to fire Bar last month — to order that the Shin Bet chief be kept in his post. The prime minister is also thinking about the day he may be convicted in his criminal trial, and how he would relate to the court’s verdicts if they indeed went against him.
In any case, those opposing Netanyahu — the “anyone but Bibi” camp — will not believe the claims and arguments he makes in his affidavit, even though he presented selections from official documents. His staunch supporters — the “Bibists” — will believe every word he wrote, and would do so even if he himself were to tell them it is a false affidavit.
In the grim reality that has emerged over the past year and a half since the October 7 massacre — and in general — words and documents have no real value; only preordained identities matter.
Netanyahu knows this reality and bends it to his advantage. The affidavit he submitted on Sunday to the High Court is first and foremost aimed at promoting his overarching political goal — the swift removal of Ronen Bar, so that Netanyahu alone remains for the long haul, the sole “righteous man” in the field. Anyone reading the affidavit can see that the political message directed at his supporters is far stronger than the legal argument.
The prime minister hammers away at the Shin Bet chief, working to systematically convince his supporters that Bar is to blame for the October 7 massacre — just like all the others Netanyahu has already cast aside. “This is the greatest intelligence failure in the history of the state,” Netanyahu emphasized in the affidavit, using text set out in large, bold letters.
And what of Netanyahu’s responsibility? “What do you want from him — he’s a surveillance soldier?” Minister David Amsalem said on Channel 12 on Saturday night, in comments mirrored two days later when Netanyahu again depicted himself as the victim of others’ failures in his affidavit.
Likely assassination attempts
Netanyahu recounts in several places in the affidavit that there have likely been assassination attempts against him — externally, by Hezbollah, which fired a drone in October at the PM’s residence in Caesarea; and internally, by radical activists who stalk him and his family.
That, Netanyahu claims, is why he tied his testimony in his criminal court case to the threats on his life, and was merely seeking a “safe location” in which to give evidence. Bar, for his part, wrote under oath that Netanyahu sought to have him sign off on a legal opinion stating that the prime minister would not be able to testify continuously in his trial.
In this way, Netanyahu turns one of Bar’s core accusations — that the prime minister demanded the Shin Bet use its tools to monitor protest activists — into a claim that his life and the lives of his family are under threat, and therefore need protection.
According to the affidavit, Netanyahu is a great defender of democracy, not its great adversary. Therefore, he demanded that the Shin Bet fulfill its role according to the law: “to thwart and prevent illegal activity aimed at harming the democratic system of government or its institutions” (Section 20 of his affidavit).
Under oath this time, Netanyahu again depicts the Shin Bet under Bar’s leadership as a hostile entity operating against the law and democracy, referencing in his affidavit a recording recently unearthed of the head of the Jewish Division discussing arrests carried out without evidence.
This is a serious affair, aimed against right-wing activists in the settlements, but Netanyahu skillfully adds another dimension — that the Shin Bet operates only against right-wing protesters and plants agents among them. Another transparent move in his political campaign.
Little said about Qatargate
The events of October 7 and the assignment of blame to various figures other than himself are, of course, Netanyahu’s primary focus — generally, and in the affidavit. On Sunday, in a speech to a conference of the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), he mocked former defense minister Yoav Gallant and former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi, who have remained largely silent since they left office, this time in the context of the elimination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
According to Netanyahu, the two let out “a real sigh of relief” when he promised to consider their concerns before the assassination. “I called the then-minister of defense and then-IDF chief of staff to a separate room and I said, ‘Look, the [idea of notifying the American in advance] is out of the questions; at best we could tell them when the planes are en route, give them the courtesy, but we’re not going to tell them. But I want to think about what you’re saying, and I’ll come back to you. There was a real sigh of relief there!” Netanyahu also disclosed details about the successful “pagers operation” in Lebanon — and naturally credited himself with the last-minute success of the mission.
Ronen Bar is part of this disparaged lineup. In the affidavit Netanyahu submitted to the High Court — most of which Bar, of course, denies — Netanyahu accuses the Shin Bet chief of failing to wake him, the defense minister or key IDF commanders in the hours before the Hamas invasion and massacre.
In Netanyahu’s telling, even before October 7, the Shin Bet had fallen into mistaken conceptions, claiming that Hamas was restrained and would not attack Israel. Netanyahu presents in the affidavit a Shin Bet assessment made shortly before the war, which stated: “Security calm in exchange for economic relief is a recipe for maintaining long-term stability in the Gaza Strip.”
Bar was quick to reply. “The policy of quiet and the funding of Hamas, dictated directly by the prime minister, was something Netanyahu never took responsibility for,” Bar said on Sunday evening, in a statement responding to Netanyahu’s affidavit.
“This historic failure of misguided policy is what built up Hamas, eroded Israeli deterrence, and contributed to the risk of miscalculation among senior defense officials, including on that night,” Bar added.
This battle between them will not end, but Netanyahu will exploit his advantage as prime minister — the only one allowed to declassify whatever protocols he wishes, and do so selectively to support only his claims — and continue to discredit and denounce Bar, even after the Shin Bet steps down. This is what Netanyahu has done with others, and will continue to do so until the elections next year.
Still, it is worth noting that throughout the lengthy affidavit, Netanyahu dedicates only a single paragraph to the Qatargate affair — where his aides are suspected of receiving payments from Qatar to run a PR campaign for the Hamas-supporting country — despite the fact that this alleged criminal scandal is at the heart of the drama surrounding Bar’s ousting and the ensuing High Court petitions and battle.
Netanyahu could have expanded on the matter, but he clearly knows where to elaborate and where it’s better to be concise, especially under oath.
Most importantly, again: Netanyahu does not deny in his affidavit the Shin Bet chief’s assertion that he demanded Bar obey him rather than the courts of law.
The justices of the High Court who will now rule on Bar’s case must issue a clear decision; they cannot be satisfied with the expected departure of Ronen Bar. The message has to be definitive: The head of the Shin Bet in Israel must obey the law and the state — especially in times of constitutional crisis — and not the will of a king.
The Times of Israel Community.