Legal Expert Warns Former Shin Bet Chief's Lawsuit Against Netanyahu Could Backfire

Professor Yuval Albashan has cautioned that the defamation lawsuit filed by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could prove to be a significant legal misstep. Albashan argues in an opinion piece for Israel Hayom that Bar's decision to sue Netanyahu, intended to protect his reputation, might instead become a legal tool used against him.

Albashan contends that Bar made a strategic error by detailing his account of events leading up to the October 7th attack within the lawsuit's filing, before Netanyahu was required to present his own version. The professor finds it surprising that the former head of an intelligence agency, built on information gathering, would reveal his hand so early in a legal battle. Albashan believes this gives Netanyahu and other involved parties, including former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, an advantage in preparing their responses.

He suggests that any future investigation into the October 7th failures will likely focus on the testimonies of these four key figures. By already presenting his detailed account, Albashan posits, Bar risks future inconsistencies with newly discovered documents or testimonies, potentially placing him in a difficult position. Netanyahu, having received Bar's detailed account and appendices without yet needing to disclose his own, could benefit significantly, especially if he opts for a claim of immunity, which Albashan anticipates, potentially ending the proceedings before a thorough examination of the claims.

Albashan warns that Bar might face the opposite outcome he intended: instead of forcing Netanyahu to confront the events of October 7th legally, Bar himself may have to defend his own account against an opponent who is already privy to its details. He draws a parallel to former Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich's surprise at Netanyahu's determination to fight his indictments, suggesting a potential underestimation of the Prime Minister's resolve.

While acknowledging that Bar might have seen the lawsuit as his only recourse to defend his public image, Albashan emphasizes that the crucial question is not just Bar's immediate gain, but the future price he might pay. He concludes by comparing Bar's current decision to the risk assessment failures on October 7th, questioning if Bar, who admitted to misjudging the danger that night, is repeating the same mistake in the legal arena.