The Quiet Overhaul

The Israeli government's current efforts to dismiss the head of the director of the Shin Bet and the Attorney General, alongside its attempt to restructure the Judicial Selection Committee, reflect a broader shift toward subordinating legal and security institutions to political authority, raising concerns about the erosion of the rule of law and the future of democratic governance in Israel.

On March 20, 2025, Israel’s government voted in favor of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to dismiss Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet, citing "growing distrust" in the security chief. The following document answers key legal questions around this announcement.

Amidst the return to fighting in Gaza, the Minister of Justice is taking advantage of the public's eye being off the ball to hastily overhaul Israel's judicial system.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has informed Israel Security Agency Shin Bet Director Ronen Bar of his decision to fire him. Netanyahu cited his mounting lack of confidence in Bar as grounds for his dismissal. KAN's Mark Weiss spoke about the prime minister’s decision to dismiss Ronen Bar with Prof Amichai Cohen, a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.

On March 16, 2025, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced his intention to bring the dismissal of Ronen Bar, the head of the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), Israel's internal security service, to a vote of the full cabinet. Though not a perfect comparison, the Shin Bet is often seen as comparable to the FBI in the US.  

The battle over Israel’s legal system has resumed, threatening judicial independence.

Changes in the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee threaten the independence of the judicial system. The current proposals would lead to a complete politicization of appointments to all courts and should be blocked. 

The proposed bill, which would change the selection process of the Ombudsman - responsible for investigating complaints about the conduct of judges and religious court judges - aims to intimidate judges and undermine their independence.

Defense Minister Katz recent demand that the IDF Chief of Staff reprimand the Chief of the IDF Intelligence Directorate for presenting the possible security implications of the "Trump plan" for Gaza is the latest in several steps that threaten to politicize Israel's national security agencies, a process that could be disastrous for the country.

While the selection of Justice Amit as President of the Supreme Court was done in accordance with the relevant legislation, the Justice Minister has declared the procedure "fundamentally improper and illegal." His refusal to recognize the selection creates a precedent that may lead to the deterioration of the authority of other institutions. This is what the beginning of a constitutional crisis looks like. 

The lack of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court has numerous consequences that will, among other things, harm the services provided by the judiciary to the citizens of Israel.

Following Justice Isaac Amit's selection as Supreme Court President, Minister of Justice Levin immediately declared he would refrain from any collaboration between them, describing the selection process as unlawful. This announcement is both factually incorrect and a serious dereliction of his duties. 

Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar presented their proposed changes to the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee (JSC) as a compromise aimed at achieving a gradual change in the judicial selection process, but many constitutional experts worry that the plan will have dire consequences resulting in the politicization of Israel’s judicial selection process.

Law enforcement and security agencies are central pillars of democratic rule, and therefore, their capture is a pivotal factor in democratic decline. A comparative analysis by IDI experts reveals that this takeover is often achieved quietly while striving to present all steps as lawful. 

In September, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to fulfill his duty to convene the Committee because the system cannot be paralyzed. Since then, the Minister has convened the committee, but refused to appoint the Supreme Court President. Now, the Court has ordered him to do so.

The Police Commissioner's decision to terminate the Israel Police Legal Advisor without consulting the Attorney General to whom the Police Lega Advisor is professionally subordinate the most recent worrying sign of the problematic relations between the Attorney General and various government officials.

The diminished number of women in decision-making positions in government, coupled with the increase in attempts to implement gender segregation, threatens the right to equality.

To protect the credibility of the police as an impartial law enforcement agency, independent oversight over the police prosecution unit - the police unit that issues criminal charges - must be increased through the Attorney General's office.

The Israeli Supreme Court recently issued a pivotal ruling, instructing the Minister of Justice to convene the Judicial Selection Committee and select a new President of the Supreme Court. This decision come after nearly a year in which this permanent position has remained vacant. 

After the Minister of Justice Yariv Levin refrained from convening the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a Supreme Court President, the Supreme Court ruled that the Committee must convene to appoint a President—Prof. Suzie Navot analyzes the Court's decision.

Disregard of the Attorney General’s authority to interpret the law by several government ministers is leading Israel toward a constitutional crisis.

In recent days the Attorney General has issued several warnings that decisions are being made using "flawed work processes." This explainer provides an overview of the role and importance of the Attorney General in Israeli democracy, and the current criticism directed by the AG at the government.