The case around the dismissal of Ronen Bar, former head of Shin Bet, illustrates not only internal tensions within the Israeli government, but also resonates as a mirror on democratic values and the severity of the current political crisis in Israel. At the heart of this torment, a fundamental question arises: how can governance in the face of multiple crises affect national security, and by extension, the very fabric of Israeli society?
This dismissal, which occurred after a period of exacerbated tensions since the devastating attack on Hamas on October 7, 2023, is not just a matter of confidence in institutions. It also stems from a political system which seems increasingly plagued by conflicts of interest. Indeed, the opposition, supported by dissident votes within public opinion, quickly seized the Supreme Court to contest this decision which it describes as illegal, questioning not only the legitimacy of this action but also the political motivations which underlie it.
Journalistic surveys and polls offer an enlightening look at the relationship between the Israeli ruling class and the population. According to a recent Fatshimetric survey, 51 % of Israelis declared themselves opposed to the departure of Bar, while only 32 % supported it, a report which reveals an increasing distrust of Netanyahu decisions. This figure indicates that even in times of crisis, many Israeli citizens seek leaders capable of assuming responsibility for national security, rather than giving in to the inconsistencies of a power that seems routed.
It is interesting to note that the decision to dismiss Bar intervenes in a broader context of institutional crisis. In recent years, Netanyahu has faced strong criticism of justice reform, deemed threatening for the democratic balance of Israel. Some argue that the bar return, while the Shin Bet was investigating allegations of illegal financing by Qatar, represents an attempt to divert the attention of potentially overwhelming accusations. This conflict of interest raises a large-scale ethical question on the separation of powers and the need for effective institutional control: to what extent should political leaders account for their actions, especially in times of crisis?
This situation evokes a clear parallel with other democracies in a situation of tensions, such as Italy during the 1970s, where governments have circumvented accountability measures in the face of internal threats, creating a cycle of distrust and political instability. The flexibility and adaptation of institutions, including the Supreme Court, in Israel, are put to the test. How can these entities navigate between the need to protect national security and the preservation of individual rights in a disputed legislative framework?
Recent events suggest that contemporary Israel could face an “autocratic temptation”, a phenomenon observed in several weakened democracies in the world. The difficulty in building a consensus around a coherent strategy could lead to socio -political fragmentation. This fracture, already palpable with massive manifestations in Jerusalem against the dismissal of bar, illustrates the urgency of a constructive and inclusive dialogue which would take into account the legitimate concerns of the opposition as well as the strategic errors committed by the government.
Beyond internal policy issues, these events also sound on the Israeli security axis. With each episode of crisis, the need to think not only about the fidelity of leaders, but also their ability to manage crises, becomes crucial. Heads of institutions must commit to shared responsibility, and not in a dynamic where confidence is systematically compromised by particular interests.
In the coming days, while the Supreme Court will look at this issue, light will be projected on the future of Israeli institutions and their ability to adapt to an ever more complex reality. The stakes are therefore in size: the maintenance of national security for a country surrounded by geopolitical tensions or the preservation of public confidence, a precious good in times like these. The answer is taking shape in Israel’s ability to forge a new social pact, built on the transparency and responsibility of leaders, to strengthen democracy in the face of the real threat that internal conflicts and external issues represent both.