Shin Bet Chief Takes Sole Responsibility for Denying Security to Gadi Eisenkot Amid Political Tensions

Shin Bet Chief David Zini has publicly stated that he alone decided not to provide security protection to Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yisrael party and candidate for prime minister. Zini emphasized that the decision was his exclusive responsibility, following inquiries from Eisenkot’s team about his security status. Earlier, Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, head of the Central Elections Committee, confirmed that the Shin Bet and the committee are coordinating fully, and that the committee’s statements accurately reflect the situation.

Zini explained that despite receiving requests for Eisenkot’s protection, there was no intelligence or warnings indicating threats against him. Consequently, Zini saw no reason to convene the Security Cabinet to discuss Eisenkot’s security. According to Israeli law, the Shin Bet protects individuals designated by the government, and Eisenkot does not fall under the seven official protected figures. Recently, Zini informed Eisenkot that he would not be granted security protection, even as threats against him have increased.

This stance contrasts with the exceptional lifetime security granted to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his family. Opposition leaders, including former Prime Ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, criticized the decision, calling it a scandal and demanding Eisenkot’s protection during the upcoming election campaign. Lapid highlighted the disparity by noting that Netanyahu’s son is fully protected abroad while Eisenkot, a former IDF Chief of Staff, is not.

Political considerations appear to influence security decisions. Netanyahu appointed retired Colonel Ronen Cohen, known for his aggressive campaign against Eisenkot, as head of the advisory committee on personal security. Cohen has publicly disparaged Eisenkot, linking him to the October 7 attacks despite Eisenkot having left his military post five years prior. Even if the Shin Bet recommends Eisenkot’s protection, Cohen’s committee must provide a professional opinion to the Security Cabinet, which ultimately decides on security matters. Cohen has not responded to requests for comment.

The controversy raises questions about the intersection of security protocols and political rivalry amid Israel’s tense election period.