Court Intervention on Security Agency Head Stirs Fierce Debate Over Democracy, Governance
Exclusive interviews for The Media Line with MK Karin Elharrar of the opposition and MK Tally Gotliv of the coalition paint a picture of a nation grappling with the limits of power, accountability, and the rule of law
The Israeli Supreme Court’s move to freeze Shin Bet head Ronen Bar’s dismissal reflects concern over possible political interference—particularly as Bar is reportedly involved in investigating the so-called “Qatargate” affair, which includes links to figures close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Supreme Court’s final ruling, set to take place on April 20 if the cabinet and the attorney general can’t reach a compromise before that, will do more than settle Bar’s fate. It will determine whether the balance of powers still holds or whether Israel is entering a new era—one where institutional safeguards are subordinated to political force.
The complex saga of Bar’s firing reveals the erosion of mutual trust between Israel’s branches of government. With ministers disregarding legal counsel and openly questioning court authority, the lines between politics and governance are increasingly blurred. Public confidence is polarized: while many see the judiciary as the last line of defense, others believe it represents an unelected elite overriding the electoral will.
As both opposition and coalition escalate their rhetoric, the country faces not only a security crisis but a profound constitutional reckoning.
Lawmaker Karine Elharrar of the centrist Yesh Atid party considers the move against Bar a politically motivated purge. While acknowledging that Bar, as head of Israel’s internal security agency, bears responsibility for the failures of October 7, she notes that, unlike the political echelon, he took immediate responsibility for those failures.
“This is not about policy. It’s about governance,” Elharrar said in her exclusive interview with The Media Line. “Netanyahu is trying to eliminate all institutional restraints: investigators, judges, the police—and now the Shin Bet.”
Israel’s prime minister has the authority to appoint and remove the head of the Shin Bet, subject to government approval, according to Israel’s 2002 General Security Service Law. But this authority is not unlimited. It may face judicial review if such a decision intersects with ongoing criminal investigations or appears politically motivated.
For Elharrar, Netanyahu’s firing of Bar is clearly politically motivated. She described it as part of a broader pattern of “dismantling the legal architecture of the state” that has included attempts to fire the attorney general.
“Anyone who says no to this government becomes a target,” she said.
The government says it might not respect a court ruling. That’s how democracies fall—not with one law, but with a thousand small breaches. And we’ve crossed that threshold.
She described the current movement as one of constitutional crisis. “The government says it might not respect a court ruling. That’s how democracies fall—not with one law, but with a thousand small breaches,” she said. “And we’ve crossed that threshold.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
“If the government refuses to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, we enter a state of anarchy,” she warned. “And in anarchy, the public has no reason to obey laws or pay taxes.”
There is no constitutional crisis. What we have is a crisis of trust in the Supreme Court.
Tally Gotliv, MK from the ruling Likud party, provided a sharply contrasting narrative. “There is no constitutional crisis. What we have is a crisis of trust in the Supreme Court,” she said in an exclusive interview with The Media Line.
According to Gotliv, the true overreach is judicial, not executive. “The High Court was never meant to cancel laws or overturn government decisions,” she said. “It has become a political actor, working hand in hand with a radical leftist elite to undermine the will of the people.”
At the hearing on Tuesday where the High Court issued an interim injunction on Bar’s firing, Gotliv was part of a group of protesters heckling the judges. Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit told her, “You are in a courtroom, not in the Knesset; please don’t interrupt.”
Eventually, she was removed from the court.
“They dragged me out,” Gotliv recounted. “They expelled the right from the courtroom, and with it, millions of Israelis who share my views.”
Gotliv sharply criticized the court’s chief justice. “Judge Amit thinks he knows better than the millions who elected this government,” she said. “He despises elected officials. He thinks the court is his monarchy and that we are merely obstacles.”
At another point in the hearing, a bereaved father interrupted the proceedings, accusing Bar of being responsible for his son’s death and condemning the court for its behavior.
“Instead of answering him, the court had him removed,” Gotliv recounted. “I blocked the security guards with my own body to stop them. This court has lost touch with the people.”
They’re defending the man who, by his own report, failed at every level. He didn’t read military intelligence. He didn’t cross-check data. He didn’t activate community defense teams. He failed to act on warnings. And they defend him because they hate Netanyahu more than they care about national security.
She accused the left of hypocrisy in their support of Bar. “They’re defending the man who, by his own report, failed at every level,” she said. “He didn’t read military intelligence. He didn’t cross-check data. He didn’t activate community defense teams. He failed to act on warnings. And they defend him because they hate Netanyahu more than they care about national security.”
Some critics of Netanyahu point to the timing of Bar’s firing—announced soon after the Shin Bet opened an investigation into Netanyahu aides’ ties to Qatar—as a sign that the firing was politically motivated.
Gotliv rejected the matter of timing as irrelevant. “I told the prime minister at the start of the war: you can’t win with these people in charge. The Shin Bet chief, the IDF chief of staff, the Mossad head—all of them failed,” she said. “Bar’s internal report was devastating. He should have resigned in shame.”
She also rejected claims that Bar’s continued role helped with hostage negotiations. “That’s a fantasy. The prime minister tried to give him space, but he didn’t act,” she said. “I offered to go myself. I don’t treat Hamas with soft gloves. I speak the only language they understand—force.”
“These terrorists rape and burn children,” Gotliv continued. “They enslave hostages in tunnels. You don’t negotiate with monsters. You defeat them. And you don’t keep failed officials in charge during war.”
Some analysts have suggested that crises like this one could be avoided if Israel had a written constitution. For Gotliv, though, the idea of a written constitution is anathema.
“A constitution would erase the Jewish identity of the state. That’s exactly what the left and the court want,” she said, claiming that the judicial branch and the opposition intend to cancel the Israeli law guaranteeing citizenship to all Jews and defining Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
“We must not allow that,” she said.
