Loyalty Over the Rule of Law

Ronen Bar’s affidavit exposes unprecedented attempts by Prime Minister Netanyahu to misuse the Shin Bet for political ends—pressuring it to track protesters, influence his trial, and prioritize loyalty to him over the rule of law—revealing a profound threat to Israeli democracy and the integrity of its security institutions.

Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flashi90

The affidavit submitted by Ronen Bar is an extraordinary and rare testament to the severe erosion of Israeli democracy. The public, eight-page affidavit filed by the Director of the Shin Bet is a courageous and chilling document — one that opens a Pandora’s box for the Israeli public, revealing a series of instructions that fly in the face of democracy, and even raising concerns about criminal conduct. Among them: improper pressure exerted on the Shin Bet chief by the Prime Minister — including demands to track protest activists, attempts to involve the Shin Bet in influencing the Prime Minister’s criminal trial, instructions to operate without documentation, and the most alarming directive of all: to obey the Prime Minister in the event of a constitutional crisis — even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise. An unfathomable reality.

The public affidavit is only partial. The main content, including essential documentation, was submitted to the Supreme Court in a much longer and more detailed classified affidavit. It is important to recall that an affidavit is, in essence, a written testimony by its declarant — and a false affidavit is equivalent to perjury, a criminal offense punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court hearing on the dismissal of Ronen Bar focused almost entirely on the technical flaws of the dismissal process: no established factual basis, no hearing, no advisory committee, no review of conflicts of interest — with a decision made in total disregard for proper procedures. The affidavit, however, does not address any of these "procedural" issues. Its entire purpose is to substantiate a claim of improper motives: what exactly is the basis for the alleged “loss of confidence,” the very pretext for the dismissal?

As Bar writes, the affidavit was submitted "despite the heavy price the organization and I are paying, to ensure the independence of the organization and of my successor, as well as its ability to refuse to carry out improper instructions..."

Despite its disturbing content, the tone remains restrained, and the language is that of someone with a deep sense of civic duty. The document's overarching goal is defensive. A fight for the home front. The protection and defense of one of the most important institutions in the State of Israel. In this sense, the affidavit aligns with the position of the Attorney General in this case. The story is not the dismissal of Bar — who in any case is nearing the end of his term, as he himself notes in the affidavit. The story here is far broader. As the Attorney General stated: “This affair has dramatic negative implications for the professional and mamlachti functioning of the Israel Security Agency and the conduct of its leadership, now and in the future.” (Mamlachti refers the Israeli concept of civic duty, in which national interests rise above political or personal interests). We now understand the reasons for the Attorney General's concern quite clearly.

The affidavit reveals that there were requests from the Prime Minister to act contrary to the Shin Bet's legal authorities — and those requests were refused. But the issue is not only the requests themselves, but also the manner and context in which they were made:

"In numerous instances, the Prime Minister requested to discuss these matters at the end of work meetings, after instructing the Military Secretary and the stenographer — who operates the recording device — to leave the room, with the clear intention that the exchange would not be documented."

One wonders: why would such discussions need to be undocumented — unless the requests were not legitimate or legal?

It turns out that the Prime Minister also expected the Shin Bet to deploy its operational capabilities against open and public protests opposing the government and its policies. Perhaps this is a moment to revisit basic principles: the right to protest and demonstrate is a fundamental right. Protest against government policy is legitimate, and the Shin Bet cannot exercise its powers against protest activists unless “subversion” is involved — that is, unless there is a covert element or a threat of violence. This distorted view — that it is permissible to deploy a secret service to “suppress” demonstrations, intimidate protest leaders, or create a “chilling effect” — is a hallmark of autocratic regimes.

Bar further writes that there was an attempt to use the Shin Bet to allegedly disrupt the Prime Minister’s own criminal trial. He described the Prime Minister's extraordinary and repeated pressure to present security needs as an impediment to his legal proceedings. 

Additionally, there was an attempt to impose on him a professional opinion — supposedly drafted by the Prime Minister or someone on his behalf — which was sent to Bar with the demand that he present it as the Shin Bet’s official professional opinion.  

As for the ongoing sensitive investigations surrounding the Prime Minister’s office, Bar writes that they raise “serious suspicions of grave harm to state security...”

It seems that the concept of “harm to national security” and its implications have become somewhat normalized in Israeli public discourse — just as other phenomena have: the erosion of the concept of mamlachti, the systematic delegitimization of certain branches of government, the replacement of professionalism with political appointees, and other developments once considered unthinkable — now seemingly normalized as well.

It is difficult to overstate the gravity of Bar’s assertion:

"It was made clear to me... that should a constitutional crisis arise, I would be expected to obey the Prime Minister and not the Supreme Court."

In other words: not the rule of law as interpreted by the Court, but a regime that demands its secret service disobey the law.

This is precisely how authoritarian regimes operate. If security services are required to show personal loyalty instead of loyalty to the state, and if the Prime Minister seeks to sever the Shin Bet from the principle of the rule of law — that constitutes a clear and present danger to state security and to what remains of Israeli democracy.

 

This article was published in the Times of Israel.