Under condemnation for failing to stop the Oct 7, 2023, raid, Israel’s top and director of internal security are having public debate about reforms to the agency.
Over the planned changes, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has charged Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar of using “blackmail” and “threats.”
In an interview he conducted with Israel’s privately owned Channel 12 television, Bar’s predecessor Nadav Argaman added oil to the flames on Thursday.
“I keep anything personal that happened one-on-one between the prime minister and me. Argaman added, “It is quite clear that I have a great lot of knowledge which I could put to use, but I do not”.
“I will have no choice — I will reveal everything I know — in order to preserve the importance of relations between the Shin Bet chief and the premier should I conclude that the prime minister has decided to act in contravention of the law?”
“I’m very troubled by the fact that the prime minister is purposefully damaging Israeli society and causing friction inside it in order to rule,” the former security head said.
On social networking site X, Netanyahu answered accused Argaman of “live, on-air extortion against a sitting prime minister” and of generating “Mafia-style criminal threats.”
He also charged Bar of being behind “part of an ongoing campaign of threats and media leaks,” meant to prevent him “from making the necessary decisions to restore the Shin Bet after its devastating failure on October 7.”
“Baseless” charge
Formally, the domestic security agency is the Internal Security Agency.
On March 4, it admitted its shortcomings in stopping Hamas’s 2023 attack and said that different action may have stopped the attack.
The agency has now, in a rare remark on the political scandal, denigrated “a serious accusation against the head of a state agency in Israel” and labeled it “baseless.”
“Ronen Bar dedicates all his time to security matters and defending democracy,” the statement read.
Since 2021, Bar has commanded the Shin Bet; his contacts with Netanyahu were tense even before the Hamas attack, mostly over suggested judicial changes dividing the nation in the run-up.
Following the March 4 release of the internal Shin Bet report on the incident, relations were even more strained.
Bar said following admission of responsibility for mistakes that a more thorough investigation of Israel’s security and political aspects as well as their cooperation was necessary to really know how the unparalleled attack was not stopped. According the report, “a policy of quiet had enabled Hamas to undergo massive military buildup.”
Netanyahu has insisted on Bar leaving, whose mandate runs until October next year.
Israeli media have reported his refusal to resign, so the premier might have to dismiss him at a pivotal moment while the negotiations in Qatar for a truce in Gaza are under progress.
Agent autonomy
Bar’s obligations seem to have been cut back in the meanwhile. Media sources claim he was left out of a security cabinet meeting as well as the Israeli negotiation mission in Doha, headed by Bar’s deputy just referred to as “M.”
Bar has participated in earlier indirect negotiations with Hamas sessions, including those resulting in the January ceasefire.
Regarding who should replace the present Shin Bet chief, Netanyahu and Bar also differ.
As is tradition, Bar wants `M’ to succeed him; Netanyahu wants the last say on the decision.
Media sources claim that everything boils down to Shin Bet independence against a premier inclined to name someone loyal who would serve in his political interests instead of those of the nation.
Already, the Israeli opposition has blasted government actions aimed at dismissing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, an outspoken critic of Netanyahu serving also as the government’s legal counsel.
Strong protector of the independence of the court, Baharav-Miara has regularly stood against policies of Netanyahu’s government.
Following her exile, the premier returned to power in 2022 and cautioned that the legislative agenda of her new administration risked transforming Israel into a “democracy in name, but not in essence”.
