The High Court of Justice on Monday dismissed petitions that challenged the government’s appointment of Maj.-Gen. (res.) David Zini as Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) director.
The court’s scope of intervention was especially limited regarding senior security appointments, Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg wrote. He cited the Shin Bet’s statutory powers and the democratic imperative of civilian oversight by the elected government.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a series of High Court battles over the leadership of Israel’s internal intelligence agency. It follows earlier decisions on the dismissal of former Shin Bet director Ronen Bar and the legality of the appointment process itself.
Together, the cases have placed the Shin Bet at the center of a broader confrontation over the limits of judicial review, the government’s discretion in security matters, and accusations of conflict of interest involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Zini was appointed by the government on September 30. He was nominated by Netanyahu, and the appointment was approved by the Advisory Committee on Senior Civil Service Appointments, known as the Grunis Committee, which examines the integrity and suitability of candidates for sensitive public offices.
Zini officially assumed the role on October 5 after interim requests to freeze the appointment were denied.
The claims raised by the petitioners – including allegations concerning Zini’s integrity and ethical conduct – did not present legitimate grounds for judicial review, Sohlberg wrote.
Justice David Mintz joined the opinion.
No room for judicial intervention
The conclusions of the Grunis Committee, which some of the petitioners also sought to challenge, carried decisive weight, Sohlberg wrote. He cited prior cases when an appointment mechanism had been approved by both the government and legal authorities, and there was generally no room for judicial intervention except under exceptional circumstances.
Several of the petitions were filed by former senior security officials and public figures, reflecting the deep divisions within the security establishment over the government’s recent conduct and the role of judicial oversight.
The appointment process had raised substantive difficulties, Chief Justice Isaac Amit wrote in the lone dissenting opinion. The government should, at the minimum, be required to explain why the matter should not be returned to the Grunis Committee for reconsideration, he said.
Amit said his concerns were not directed at Zini personally, but at the scope of the ethical review ahead of the appointment, which he said had focused narrowly on the candidate himself and did not sufficiently examine the broader circumstances surrounding the decision-making process.