Netanyahu-Bar Defamation Suit Extends Beyond Personal Dispute

A defamation lawsuit filed by Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is far more than a personal quarrel over responsibility and reputation. It represents a potential prelude to a state inquiry commission and an attempt to force Netanyahu into a truth-finding process he has allegedly avoided. The article suggests Netanyahu deflects blame onto others, particularly Bar, to absolve himself, a tactic that involves attributing far-fetched conspiracy theories to his accusers.

Bar's lawsuit details specific defamatory claims made by Netanyahu, which Bar argues constitute libel rather than legitimate public criticism. These include Netanyahu's accusations that Bar was aware of impending "failures and crimes," held meetings discussing "all the warning signs" but chose not to update the Prime Minister, and decided against alerting IDF units or evacuating the Nova music festival, despite allegedly knowing of the danger. Bar contends these allegations portray him as either a traitor or completely incompetent, serving Netanyahu's narrative that he cannot be held responsible with such a Shin Bet chief.

Bar systematically refutes these claims in his lawsuit, asserting the Shin Bet does not license events or monitor parties, thus refuting the accusation about the Nova festival. He places responsibility on Netanyahu for a policy of "quiet at all costs" in Gaza, which allegedly preserved Hamas as a governing entity and allowed its military strengthening through Qatari funding, despite Shin Bet objections. Bar links this policy to the October 7th disaster, arguing it left Israel dependent on unreliable warnings and border defenses.

The lawsuit frames the timeline of events differently, with Netanyahu focusing narrowly on the hours before the attack, while Bar extends the scope to months prior, setting the stage for a key debate in any future state inquiry. The article posits that a judge in a defamation case is unlikely to establish historical truth. A potential settlement could involve Netanyahu retracting accusations of betrayal or malice in exchange for Bar withdrawing the suit, allowing Netanyahu to still claim operational failures by Bar while clearing Bar of treason.

Should the case go to trial, Netanyahu faces scheduling conflicts with his ongoing criminal trial, a submarine commission inquiry, and other lawsuits. The outcome of the lawsuit may also hinge on the upcoming election results. A victory for the opposition could lead to a state inquiry that supersedes the lawsuit, while a Netanyahu victory could solidify the defamation case as the primary forum for determining responsibility between political and security echelons, though the article suggests Netanyahu may find a way to evade even that.