Despite Threats: Shin Bet Chief Ousted, Attorney General on Her Way Out
Things are moving rapidly in the Israeli government. In a separate article in this newspaper, I wrote about the rocky relationship (or complete lack of a relationship) between the government and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. On Thursday, the government convened and decided to dismiss Ronen Bar, the head of the Shin Bet. Before the meeting, the attorney general sent a memo to Netanyahu claiming that it was illegal for the government to meet to discuss Bar’s dismissal, and it was certainly illegal for them to fire him. She claimed that the process of removing Bar from his position hadn’t been handled correctly and that Netanyahu had a conflict of interest that rendered him unfit to deal with the case. The government ignored the attorney general’s warning, the meeting took place, and the decision was made: Ronen Bar will leave his position in two weeks (on April 10) or whenever the prime minister appoints his replacement, whichever comes first. No one was surprised, though, when a petition was quickly filed with the Supreme Court against the government’s decision and the court ordered the dismissal frozen. It is unclear now what will happen next.
While my other article focused on the attorney general’s track record of battling the government, I can add here that the process of her impeachment has already begun. The cabinet convened on Sunday to discuss the subject in a session led by Justice Minister Yariv Levin. Levin was chosen for this task not only because he is the minister of justice and is leading the battle against the judges and the attorney general, but also because Netanyahu was forced to be absent from the session due to his conflict of interest. Due to the prime minister’s ongoing criminal trial (more on that below), he is deemed to have a vested interest in the attorney general’s dismissal. But even without Netanyahu’s presence, the rest of the government had plenty to say about Gali Baharav-Miara. Every government minister spoke out against the attorney general, and it became clear that every single one of them, each for his or her own reasons, has significant gripes against her. Even the minister of religious services voiced displeasure with her conduct.
Attorney General Baharav-Miara was invited to the cabinet session on Sunday but chose not to be present, just as Ronen Bar had opted to be absent from the session dealing with his dismissal several days earlier. Like Bar, she chose to send a letter instead. The attorney general’s letter accused the government of advancing a process that violates the law, holding itself above the law, and allowing external considerations to taint its judgment. “Impeaching me is a highly unusual move that should be carried out through an orderly process that would preserve the independence of the attorney general’s office,” she wrote. “The cabinet’s discussion today is not part of that orderly process, has no legal validity, and bypasses the established rules.” She also argued that the move to impeach her was based on factually incorrect information and a fundamentally erroneous view of the attorney general’s position. “This is an attempt to obstruct my ability to carry out my duties,” she asserted. Her lengthy letter also claimed that she is performing her job faithfully and denied that she generally opposes the government’s moves. For the time being, she has received the backing of a large number of retired Supreme Court justices, who spoke out against the impeachment process. But that hasn’t stopped the government from moving forward with it.
Yariv Levin commented after the cabinet meeting, “I view the attorney general’s absence with great severity. This is further evidence of the depth of contempt that she feels toward the government and its members and of the fact that she does not have answers to the claims that have been made against her.”
One thing is certain: We are at the beginning of a dramatic and exceptional process. At the end of the meeting, the government voted unanimously to impeach the attorney general.
The Government Takes on the Supreme Court
Perhaps I should give you a broader picture of the ongoing conflict between the government and the judiciary, or what Netanyahu describes as the deep state. The political left and the judges’ supporters have expressed outrage over a large number of issues. First of all, there is the controversy over the Judicial Selection Committee. The government is opposed to the committee’s current makeup, which gives the judges a majority regarding any appointment to the Supreme Court and thus allows them to veto any candidate who is not to their liking. The Knesset has already approved the first reading of a law that would change the committee’s composition, and it is scheduled to finish the legislative process this Wednesday. The new law would make it possible for the government to appoint new judges even if they are rejected by the judges on the committee, thus ensuring that the courts represent diverse views.
The second issue that has irked the left is the dismissal of the Shin Bet chief, and the third is the impeachment of the Attorney General. The fourth is the manner in which the ombudsman of the judiciary is appointed; the government has decided that the judge who oversees the other judges in the court system is to be appointed by the government, not by the judges themselves. Until now, that official was always chosen by the judges, which naturally meant that they selected someone who shared their leanings and views.
And that is not all. The left has also taken umbrage at the move to make the Department of Internal Police Investigations subordinate to the minister of justice and at the communications minister’s battle against Channel Kan 11, which is part of an overall effort by the government that they view as weakening the media. The seventh issue that gets their goat is the government’s general contempt for the judges of the Supreme Court, which might lead to a deep rift if the government decides to actively ignore Supreme Court rulings, such as the court’s decision on Thursday to freeze the dismissal of the Shin Bet director or the potential ruling that the government is not permitted to reinstate Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of national security. The judges also might rule that the attorney general may not be impeached, which the government is likely to ignore.
And we haven’t yet reached the end of the list of issues that infuriate the left. They are also indignant over every cent of government funding that is earmarked for the chareidi community—as if chareidim aren’t citizens of the state, do not have businesses, do not pay taxes, and do not bring the country millions of dollars in revenue from visitors from abroad. Of course, the left is also enraged by the ongoing efforts to pass a new draft law, which they describe as a “draft evasion law.” The chareidim have repeatedly argued that the left is pushing for the will of the people to be ignored, which is a highly undemocratic position to take, but the liberals vigorously deny that claim. Nevertheless, despite their protestations, we all know that the real issue has nothing to do with governance, the will of the people, the sovereignty of the people, or any of the other buzzwords that they tend to use to obscure their true agenda. There is simply a group of radical extremists, some of whom are borderline fascists, who decided two years ago that they will not return to the opposition under any circumstances. They are determined to be in power, and they will vociferously protest anything that they view as standing in their way.
Today, the left is warning that if the government refuses to comply with a ruling of the court, there will be a veritable earthquake. A general strike will be inevitable; when the government creates anarchy and undermines the foundations of the country’s existence, they assert, there may be no choice but to respond in the same way—by shutting down the country. On motzoei Shabbos, Yair Lapid called for the citizens of Israel to refuse to pay taxes. The left is horrified at the mere thought that Netanyahu might choose a new Shin Bet director when the Supreme Court has ruled that the current head of the Shin Bet will remain in his position. Indeed, if the government chooses to disregard an explicit court ruling, the country will reach an unprecedented level of anarchy—in the middle of a war and at a time when Israeli hostages are still languishing in Gaza, no less.
Majority Support for Netanyahu
The cabinet meeting that dealt with the attorney general’s impeachment managed to stir up even more passion that the earlier meeting at which the government decided to boot Ronen Bar from his position. For the time being, it seems that the dismissal of the Shin Bet chief will proceed with ease, although there will be some opposition from the elements who are always opposed to Netanyahu. Ronen Bar’s reaction to the move, together with the long letter that he sent to the cabinet members just a few minutes before their meeting, boomeranged against him; he came across as a petty leftist politician who is fearful of the findings of an investigation into his actions on October 7th. After receiving the letter, the minister of justice remarked, “Now that he has written such a letter, it is impossible for us to continue working with him for even one more day.”
Bar’s reputation also suffered from the fallout of the recent actions of his predecessor. As I mentioned last week, the previous Shin Bet director, Nadav Argaman, threatened in a televised interview to reveal personal details about the prime minister, which turned out to be a disservice not only to himself but to Bar as well. Argaman sounded more like a mafia agent resorting to blackmail than a respectable former leader of Israel’s intelligence agency, and he has since been summoned for questioning by the police.
Ronen Bar has been denounced by former Shin Bet officials, such as Amit Assa, a former high-ranking member of the agency who claims to have mentored Bar at the beginning of his career. Assa recently published a blistering opinion piece in which he accused Bar of dangerous conceit that led to a series of failures with fatal consequences on October 7. In a letter to Bar, a man who was once his subordinate, Assa wrote, “I have learned an important lesson from you today: A conceited person is more dangerous than anyone else. His decisions can destroy values, harm unity, and even cause a civil war.” He claimed that Ronen Bar had decided to hide vital information on the day of the Hamas invasion and to act on his own, rather than involving other officials, out of a sense of superiority. Moreover, he accused Bar of forcing a political agenda on his operatives in the Shin Bet. “Your arrogance transformed the Shin Bet from a statesmanlike agency into an organization that serves a personal and political agenda,” he wrote scathingly, adding that Bar’s behavior and reactions had the potential to lead to the assassination of the country’s prime minister.
Micha Kobi, another former high-ranking figure in the Shin Bet, joined the chorus of criticism. “There is a dangerous cluster of high-ranking officials forming around Bar, who are advising him not to resign and not even to accept his dismissal,” he wrote. “Within the organization, there is a mounting opposition to Bar’s policies. This situation is liable to lead to a profound crisis in Israel’s secret service.” He warned that the Shin Bet is being dragged into politics.
A third senior official, Dr. Avner Barnea, warned that the policies pursued by the agency’s director pose a direct threat to democracy. And a fourth critic was Avi Dichter, currently minister of agriculture and former head of the Shin Bet. Dichter wrote, “Trust between the prime minister and the head of the Shin Bet is critical, not only on an operational level but on a personal level as well. The Shin Bet is responsible for the personal security of the prime minister and his family; the agents are the people in closest proximity to the prime minister and his family throughout the day. If the trust between them is eroded, then the only option is to end the term [of the head of the Shin Bet].”
These former officials grew concerned for the same reason—Ronen Bar’s refusal to accept the authority of the political leadership. They also objected to the judges’ meddling in what is meant to be a relationship of trust between the prime minister and the director of the Shin Bet. One astute political observer remarked, “Israel is facing a very fragile moment at this time. The Shin Bet, the organization charged with maintaining the country’s security, is standing at the edge of a moral, legal, and political abyss. The controversy surrounding Ronen Bar is no longer a question of authority; it is an issue of public trust, loyalty to the state, and avoiding a descent into a dangerous internal conflict.”
Which Came First—Ronen Bar’s Dismissal or the Qatar Scandal?
Bar’s letter of protest over his dismissal contained one paragraph in particular that evoked the prime minister’s wrath. (Incidentally, Netanyahu hinted that he believed the letter had been drafted by Attorney General Baharav-Miara!) The director of the Shin Bet implied that Netanyahu’s opposition to him was prompted by the agency’s investigation of the prime minister’s aides, in a scandal that has come to be known as “Qatar-gate.”
Two of Netanyahu’s aides, Eli Feldstein and Yonasan Urich, have been accused of receiving money from Qatar, ostensibly for providing consulting services for the foreign government. (Feldstein is still under house arrest on account of his previous criminal case, and thanks to a recent court order, he is expected to remain confined to his home indefinitely.) It’s a complicated story, and the exact nature of the charges is difficult to pinpoint, although it’s clear that the story has an American angle as well, since a Jewish American public relations expert admitted that he had channeled the money from Qatar to Netanyahu’s two advisors. What complicates matters is the fact that the third man is associated with the political left. It’s also important to note that the two suspects are unofficial advisors to the prime minister.
Ronen Bar claims that the distrustful relationship between him and Netanyahu was a result of the investigation into the prime minister’s two advisors. However, it isn’t clear why this should make a difference. What matters is the fact that there is no trust between them; why should the reason for that distrust make a difference? But perhaps most importantly, Netanyahu claims that Bar has the timeline backward: The investigation into the Qatar scandal was opened because Bar’s dismissal was brewing. In effect, the Shin Bet began investigating Netanyahu’s aides to create a pretext for preventing the agency’s director from being fired.
On motzoei Shabbos, Netanyahu released a video explaining his claims. “The investigation into the Qatar scandal was opened with the goal of preventing the dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, not the other way around,” he asserted. “Ronen Bar will not remain the head of the Shin Bet, there will not be a civil war, and Israel will remain a democratic state,” he added. This was an oblique message to the judges who had suspended Bar’s dismissal. Netanyahu made a compelling argument: With all due respect to the judges, he explained, it would be impossible for him to work together with Ronen Bar if there is no trust between them. And when he added that there wouldn’t be a civil war, this was a response to former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, who had spoken out against Netanyahu the previous day and warned that his actions might lead to civil war and bloodshed.
“Israeli law permits the government to dismiss the head of the Shin Bet before the end of his term,” Netanyahu said. He added angrily, “My distrust for the director of the Shin Bet began on October 7, when he didn’t wake me or anyone else. That distrust increased until he was kicked off the negotiating team, and all this took place long before the Qatar investigation began.” Netanyahu released records of his correspondence with Bar and claimed that he had instructed Bar to submit the Shin Bet’s investigations into its failures on October 7 no later than February 15, 2025, at which point he planned to fire him. Bar asked for an extension until February 25, which was granted. On February 27, he asked for another extension, which was granted as well. “Look what happened next,” Netanyahu said. “On the evening of that very same day, on February 27, in an unusual convergence of events that couldn’t possibly be made up, the attorney general announced that an investigation was being opened into the Qatar scandal.” At the end of the video, the prime minister declares, “The facts are undeniable. The dismissal wasn’t intended to prevent the investigation; on the contrary, the investigation was manufactured to prevent the dismissal. So you tell me: who is acting on foreign considerations?”
Let me make one more point: The attorney general responded to Netanyahu’s message by insisting that he was lying. She claimed that the documents were inaccurate and thus hinted that Netanyahu was trying to dismiss Bar in response to the investigation. With all due respect, though, I must say that I tend to believe Netanyahu over the attorney general.
The justices of the Supreme Court have already set a date to hear the petitions against Bar’s dismissal. On April 8, a panel consisting of Chief Justice Yitzchok Amit, Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Barak-Erez is due to hear the case. Two members of this trio are the most ardent judicial activists imaginable, and the court’s ruling is therefore a foregone conclusion: They will certainly rule against the government’s decision to dismiss Ronen Bar.
The Hostile Prosecution
The Japanese ambassador to Israel, a charming gentleman named Mizushima Koichi, was very interested in meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Since the prime minister has a packed schedule, the ambassador decided to pay a visit to the courthouse in Tel Aviv where Netanyahu is testifying in his trial, and he took advantage of the time between Netanyahu’s arrival and the judges’ appearance to have a conversation with the prime minister. This was fairly uncomfortable for Netanyahu, but it was also embarrassing for the entire country. It served to highlight the absurdity of forcing a prime minister to sit in court during a period of such terrible tension.
I haven’t written about Netanyahu’s trial in a long time, but it has been an ongoing source of interesting sights and incidents, such as the secret notes that are occasionally passed to Netanyahu during a court session, prompting him to ask for a recess, or the fierce disputes between the defense and the prosecution, leading to the judges’ intervention. The entire case seems to be nothing more than an obsessive witch hunt conducted by the judiciary in an underhanded effort to unseat the elected prime minister. Netanyahu himself has occasionally taken the opportunity to castigate the prosecution during his testimony; at one point, the prosecutor accused Netanyahu of chutzpah. Many people believe that the defense is winning the case, but there is really no way to be sure what will happen when the trial ends—which won’t be for a very long time.
This week, Netanyahu asked for his testimony on Wednesday to be canceled since he needed to appear in the Knesset. There were two reasons for this; the first was a forty-signature discussion, which requires the prime minister’s presence, and the second was the scheduled vote on a new law to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee. The opposition and the left were furious; they are vehemently opposed to the law, which would change the method for selecting judges, and they were enraged by Netanyahu’s audacity in claiming that he couldn’t attend his trial on account of voting for the law.
Amazingly, the prosecution announced that they were opposed to Netanyahu’s request unless he would appear in court on an additional day to make up for the lost time. They argued that the Knesset had scheduled its discussions after the court sessions were already lined up, and they had therefore ignored the court schedule, in defiance of a decision made by the District Court in Yerushalayim. The prosecution also observed that Netanyahu had already asked to reduce his weekly appearances in court to two days instead of three and that he had affirmed that he would be capable of testifying twice a week while continuing to manage his affairs as the head of state. Since he made that guarantee, the prosecution plans to hold him to it. They argued that Netanyahu should have notified the Knesset that he is scheduled to testify in court every Monday and Wednesday and that the Knesset would have to adjust its schedule to accommodate his testimony rather than vice versa.
Sirens in Yerushalayim
Of course, there are plenty of other things for me to write about. The deadline for passage of the state budget (which must be passed by the end of March) is rapidly approaching, and the Knesset is about to finish its winter session. Another story worthy of coverage is Eli Sharabi’s recent appearance at the United Nations, and there is also plenty to discuss about the draft controversy. Each of these topics deserves to be covered on its own.
There have also been several air raid sirens this week, and the left was quick to blame them on the incoming chief of staff of the IDF. They argue that the appointment of a hawkish chief of staff who does Netanyahu’s bidding and ignores the hostages in Gaza has triggered the missile attacks that sent millions of Israelis running for shelter. Missiles from Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon have already been intercepted, and Netanyahu’s enemies are pinning the blame on him and his pick for head of the IDF. Apparently, Netanyahu’s detractors do not know how to limit their inflammatory rhetoric.
This week, someone assembled a small collection of incendiary statements that have been made against Netanyahu. The prime minister has been dubbed an enemy of the people and a traitor, and protestors have announced that they were waiting for him with a hangman’s rope. He has even been equated to Hitler. This is sheer madness!
On a personal note, I did not hear the siren last Shabbos, perhaps because I don’t hear well. I also missed the siren on Thursday evening, but I was sitting at the bedside of a patient in Hadassah Hospital at the time, and she heard it. That patient happened to be my daughter, who had given birth to a baby girl just a few hours earlier. And not only did she hear the siren, but the nurses announced over the loudspeaker that all the patients should gather in the main area of the maternity ward due to the missile alert.
“I am willing to pasken that you should remain in bed,” I told my daughter upon hearing the announcement.
“But Saba Rabba says that there is an obligation of hishtadlus,” she protested. “Saba Rabba” is Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, her husband’s grandfather, who maintains that the requirement of hishtadlus obligates a person to run to a fortified area when an air raid siren sounds.
“That’s true,” I told her, “but there is no difference between your hospital room and the center of the ward, where the patients are supposed to gather. It isn’t any more fortified than this room.”
By the time we had finished our debate, the other new mothers had already returned to their rooms, and the question was moot.
I will not write about the hostages this week; I will tell you only that the hostages who have already returned from Gaza are continuing to share stories of emunah from their time in captivity. I have no doubt that these stories will one day be compiled in a book, which will certainly contribute to the emunah and bitachon of its readers.
Budget Set to Pass by Wednesday
On Sunday, a message was circulated to all the Knesset employees, informing them that the House Committee had approved the schedule for the debate over the budget. On Sunday night, the Knesset would convene at 9:00 to permit the bill to be submitted. It is highly unusual for the Knesset to be in session on a Sunday, but in this case it was meant to convene only for about a minute. The following day, on Monday, the Knesset would convene at 11:00 in the morning, even though it generally begins its sittings at 4:00 in the afternoon on Mondays. The schedule for the day included four bills to be introduced for their first readings. At 8:00 p.m., the chairman of the Finance Committee, MK Moshe Gafni, would present the budget bill, which would be followed by a discussion of about 15 minutes. If there were no other speakers, the Knesset would take a break until 11:30 on Tuesday morning, when it would reconvene—again, much earlier than its usual starting time on Tuesdays of 4:00 in the afternoon—for a recap of the debate and to vote on the budget. In short, the Knesset hopes to finish its work on the budget by the middle of the week.
On Wednesday, the Knesset’s schedule begins with a forty-signature discussion, followed by a vote on the proposal to reform the Judicial Selection Committee. Knesset members are required to be present for voting on Monday from 11:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m., on Tuesday at 11:30, and on Wednesday at 11:00 and during the forty-signature discussion. They will then have to be on call for the following 20 hours to vote on the judicial reform bill.
All in all, this looks like it will be an interesting week in the Knesset.
A Meeting of the Gedolim
Last week, two yeshiva bochurim were arrested at the airport for draft evasion. Despite the many warnings that have been sounded for bnei yeshivos to refrain from appearing at the airport, some bochurim are continuing to do so. The two young men were sentenced to imprisonment but were released early, perhaps because the army feared the mass demonstrations that were bound to result from their detention.
Some of the chareidi politicians, mainly within Agudas Yisroel, considered giving Netanyahu an ultimatum: Pass the draft law before the budget, or the budget will be voted down. They did not follow through on this plan, however, and then they made another suggestion: The chareidi parties would threaten to leave the coalition if a new draft law isn’t passed immediately after Pesach, or possibly before Shavuos. However, it seems likely that this ultimatum, too, will not materialize.
On Sunday, Netanyahu had a long telephone conversation with Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch (in English). It seems that the prime minister explained to the rosh yeshiva what he plans to do and why it would be unwise to draw attention to the draft issue. Nevertheless, the situation seems very dire. According to some rumors, Netanyahu promised to have the new draft law passed before the Yomim Noraim. This is actually a bit strange, since he could just as easily have promised to pass it before Tisha b’Av, when the Knesset begins its summer recess.
Meanwhile, the Gerrer Rebbe visited Rav Dov Landau’s home this week to meet with Rav Landau and Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, the two roshei yeshiva of Slabodka who have become the leading authorities for the Litvish community. Netanyahu has been trying to divide the Litvish and chassidish communities, and even to divide the various chassidish streams from each other; he has tried to separate the Belzer Rebbe and the Vizhnitzer Rebbe from the Gerrer Rebbe, who has taken the toughest stance against him. The Gerrer Rebbe has been advocating for an immediate ultimatum and has pushed for the chareidi parties to block the passage of the budget until the draft law is passed. It appears that Netanyahu managed to convince the rebbes of Belz and Vizhnitz to go along with him, and no one knows exactly what was said in the meeting at Rav Landau’s home. But it appears that the various communities will form a united front while granting Netanyahu an extension on the deadline for a new law.
As I mentioned in the past, all the chareidi political leaders, from Meir Porush to Moshe Gafni, recently told a delegation of Shuvu supporters that the chareidi community in Israel has never faced such a tough situation, especially with the hatred against Netanyahu being channeled toward the chareidim as well. May Hashem help us all.
Leftist Bias
Last week, I wrote about Orel Malik, the young man from Ramat Gan who is working hard to arrange for tefillin to be made available to students in every secular school. This issue was brought up in the Knesset, which decided to transfer it to a committee for further discussion, and Orel and his friend, Rabbi Reuven Twito, are preparing to appear before the committee. The exact committee that will deal with the project has yet to be determined, but it will most likely be the Knesset Education Committee. Meanwhile, Orel and Rabbi Twito asked me to arrange for them to be permitted to visit the Knesset again this week so that they could meet with several members of the Knesset, especially MK Yossi Taib, the chairman of the Education Committee.
There is one noteworthy detail of this story that I did not mention last week—the speech delivered by MK Galit Distal-Atbaryan. Distal spoke during a debate over a new law that would limit the number of foreign infiltrators entering the country. (By now, half the city of Yaffo has been taken over by infiltrators from Africa.) When she received permission to speak, she began, “This morning, I saw a caricature that was published in Haaretz. It shows a picture of a Jewish boy with a long nose bringing a tefillin stand into a public school classroom, where the teacher, a Hebrew-speaking, liberal Israeli Zionist, is visibly repulsed by the hadatah [religious influence]…. With all this fear of hadatah, Israeli students are learning absolutely nothing about Judaism. I recently saw a picture of a woman standing at a protest and holding a sign that read, ‘No more kiddush!’ … This isn’t fear of religious coercion; it is fear of the Jewish people’s faith. A small, violent minority of people who hate themselves and fear their own religion are using brutal force to dominate everyone else, while the majority of the people, who believe in their religion, are suppressed by the minority who are afraid to be Jewish.
“Everything that is being done by Lazimi and Yair Golan [two members of the Democrats party, an alliance of the Labor and Meretz parties] and their ilk is rooted in hatred,” Distal continued. “It is pure hatred, nothing more. They despise anyone who is unlike them. If you are chareidi, they hate you. If you are a settler, they hate you. If you are traditional, they hate you. They hate anyone who is unlike them and isn’t absolutely secular. This will be the left’s downfall—its inability to love the people of Israel. Their hatred for our brethren is even worse than our hatred for Hamas. If you heard [she named a public figure] speaking, when he mentioned our brothers who make up the government, whether they are traditional, chareidi, or religious, the audience began roaring with hate. But they won’t overcome us,” Distal asserted. “They won’t be able to defeat the soldiers who wear Moshiach patches, or the talmidei chochomim, or the traditional community that remains connected to G-d through its ancestors.”
When Justice Is Not Served
On Lag Ba’omer last year, we were all shocked by three cases of police brutality in Meron. In one case, a police officer shoved an elderly man to the ground; in another instance, a policewoman brutally kicked an innocent woman who had done nothing wrong. I remember when the matter was discussed in the Sprinzak auditorium in the Knesset. The committee chairman, Tzvika Fogel, called on the government to weed out the bad apples from the police force and expressed surprise at the fact that people with such penchants for violence made it through the screening process for potential recruits. The facts were indisputable; videos of the incidents were shown, and the participants in the discussion were nearly moved to tears. We were all told that the Department of Internal Police Investigations was examining the stories. Many days later, it was reported that all the cases had been closed. The offending police officers did not receive any penalties for their actions!
But there is a member of the Knesset who refused to let the matter fade away. MK Simon Moshiashvili submitted a parliamentary query demanding further details about the investigations: “It was reported that the Department of Internal Police Investigations, after half a year investigating the incidents, decided to close the cases against three police officers who allegedly beat chareidim in Meron on Lag Ba’omer. The videos of these incidents sparked an uproar at the time they occurred. According to the report, one of the reasons given for the cases being closed was the fact that the victims refused to file complaints. I would like to ask the following: Are these details correct? If so, why were the cases closed? Did the police officers deny committing acts of violence? Were there indeed videos that reinforced the allegations against the officers? Is it true that the victims did not complain, and that this is one of the reasons the cases were closed? If a victim does not file a complaint, is that a valid reason to close a case against a police officer?”
The response came from the minister of justice, who merely relayed the statement of an aide to the state attorney, which quoted the outrageous response of the DIPI. Here is the infuriating response: “We would like to inform you that in all three cases, an investigation was opened, evidence was gathered, eyewitnesses were interviewed, and the three soldiers involved in the incidents were questioned under warning. Two of the cases were referred to the disciplinary division of the police force with the intent of subjecting the officers to a disciplinary hearing, while the third case was closed when it was determined that the officer’s actions did not constitute a criminal offense. Due to legal concerns and the right to privacy of the individuals involved in the cases, we cannot divulge details of the suspects’ versions of events or the reasons that the cases were closed. It should be mentioned that the relevant authorities were notified and that they have the legal right to appeal against the closure of the cases. Without addressing the facts of these specific incidents, it should be emphasized that the DIPI takes a very dim view of the use of unlawful force by police officers, and it will act to apply the full weight of the law in appropriate situations.”
This is utter nonsense! Closing these cases is the exact opposite of applying the full weight of the law. A disciplinary hearing is certainly not a severe consequence for the use of violence. And this response doesn’t even address many of the questions that are raised, such as whether a complaint is necessary for a police officer’s crime to be investigated, or how the DIPI justified closing the cases in light of the incriminating videos. Everyone knows that the Mea Shearim community does not file police complaints; that shouldn’t have been a reason to avoid bringing violent policemen to justice. But when the victims are chareidim and the investigators are from the DIPI, the case is closed quickly. For shame!
