The conflict between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the director of the internal security agency Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, represents one of the most serious institutional crises in Israel’s recent history. This clash at the top, which emerged publicly in early 2025, is rooted in complex dynamics that intertwine questions of national security, political responsibility and constitutional tensions.
The origins of the rift between Netanyahu and Bar date back to the turbulent two-year period of 2023-2024, characterized by massive popular demonstrations against the controversial judicial reform promoted by the executive. This climate of social polarization had already eroded trust between the political leadership and some sectors of the security establishment, creating fertile ground for future confrontations.
The tragedy of October 7, 2023 - when Hamas conducted an unprecedented attack on Israeli territory, resulting in approximately 1.200 casualties and over 200 hostages - represented a defining moment. What has been called "Israel's worst national security disaster" inevitably triggered a process of attribution of responsibility among the institutions involved.
The Shin Bet, while admitting its own operational flaws in intelligence, highlighted in internal reports how some strategic choices of the Netanyahu government had contributed to creating the conditions favorable to the assault on HamasThe prime minister, for his part, has consistently refused to take personal responsibility, instead directing criticism at the security apparatus.
The conflict reached a climax in 2025, when Bar filed an extraordinarily serious affidavit with the Supreme Court. In this 31-page document, the director of the Shin Bet He claims that Netanyahu attempted to exploit the agency for personal political purposes by requesting operations of dubious legality.
Particularly disturbing is the accusation that the prime minister explicitly requested the use of the secret service to monitor and gather information on citizens demonstrating against the government, with a particular focus on those who financed the protests. Bar says he opposed these directives, believing them to be outside the agency's legal mandate.
Another element of serious tension concerns the question of "personal loyalty". According to Bar's testimony, Netanyahu had given him to understand that, in the event of a constitutional crisis, the director of the Shin Bet should have sided with the prime minister rather than the Supreme Court – a demand that would constitute a dangerous personalization of the security institutions.
Netanyahu vehemently denied all charges, calling Bar a "liar" and completely contesting his claims. The prime minister reversed the accusation, arguing that the decision to remove the director of the Shin Bet is motivated exclusively by its "massive and direct responsibility" in the intelligence failure preceding the attack Hamas.
This personal conflict quickly took on the shape of a constitutional crisis when, in mid-March 2025, Netanyahu announced Bar's removal from office. Such a dismissal, unprecedented in Israeli history, immediately raised questions about the separation of powers and the independence of security institutions. The Supreme Court quickly intervened, issuing an emergency injunction that the effectiveness of the dismissal is suspended, creating an unprecedented scenario in which the judiciary blocks a government decision on matters of national security.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara formally warned Netanyahu against appointing a new director or changing Bar's position until the Court's final decision, accentuating the institutional dimension of the conflict. The government, for its part, criticized what it considers undue judicial interference in the executive's prerogatives.
This clash at the top has transcended the personal dimension to become emblematic of the broader tensions that run through Israeli society and institutions. On the one hand, an executive that claims broad decision-making prerogatives in the name of national security; on the other, the institutional counterweights that try to preserve the autonomy of the security apparatus from possible political exploitation.
The announcement of Bar's upcoming resignation, while representing a potential way out of the immediate crisis, does not resolve the fundamental issues that have emerged in this confrontation. The question remains open as to what balance should exist between political control and the professional autonomy of the security apparatus, especially in a complex geopolitical context such as Israel's.
The affair highlights the fragilities of a democratic system placed under the dual pressure of persistent external threats and growing internal tensions.. The risk is that institutional conflicts of this magnitude could compromise not only social cohesion, but also the effectiveness of Israel's response to regional security challenges.
Looking beyond the personal dynamics, this case raises fundamental questions about Israel's institutional architecture. The tension between effective national security and the preservation of democratic principles represents a structural challenge for Israel, exacerbated by the protracted conflict with Hamas and multiple regional threats.
The outcome of this crisis could define new balances among the powers of the state or, on the contrary, deepen existing fractures. The hope, expressed by several voices in Israeli civil society, is that democratic norms will finally prevail over particular interests, ensuring that national security remains guided by professional considerations rather than contingent political loyalties.
In a chronically unstable Middle East, Israel’s ability to maintain the strength of its democratic institutions could prove as crucial as its military might in determining its future resilience.
