Israel's Supreme Court Grants Extension to Petitioners in Shin Bet Chief Appointment Case

Israel's Supreme Court has ordered former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) officials who petitioned against the appointment of David Zini as the agency's chief to provide their names within one week. This decision comes after the petitioners failed to comply with a previous court order mandating them to do so. Despite the non-compliance, the justices granted the petitioners an additional extension and refrained from ruling that they had violated court orders.

The petitioners, a group of former Shin Bet employees, are challenging Zini's appointment but have simultaneously sought to conceal their identities from Zini himself, the respondent in the case. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on December 28, 2025, that there was no legal basis for withholding the petitioners' identities from Zini, given his security clearance and his position as the subject of the petition.

Although the court initially suggested Zini consider waiving his right to know the petitioners' identities, he declined. A subsequent order in May 2026 reiterated the requirement for the petitioners to submit their names. However, this order was also not fulfilled, with the petitioners continuing to avoid revealing their identities.

In their latest decision, delivered on Thursday by Justices Yitzhak Amit, Noam Sohlberg, and David Mintz, the court stated, "Given that respondent 4 [Zini] stands on his right to receive the list, and without determining whether the decisions made so far obligated the petitioners to disclose their names to respondent 4, we order that the petitioners do so within seven days from today." The court also left open the possibility for Zini to again waive his right to receive the list, in which case the court would decide how to proceed.

This ongoing situation marks a prolonged period where individuals seeking judicial intervention against Zini's appointment have not complied with court orders to disclose their identities, while the court has opted to grant further extensions rather than declare a violation of its directives.