High Court approves compromise between gov't, A-G on new Shin Bet head
The High Court of Justice on Sunday approved a compromise between the government and the Attorney-General's Office on the fiery issue of the next appointment to lead the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency): Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now has 60 days to propose a new appointment.
Within 60 days, the conflict of interest issue plaguing Netanyahu will be resolved, and he will be free to recommend his appointment to the Advisory Committee on Senior Civil Service Appointments.
The incoming chief will be barred from involvement in the 'Qatargate' investigations until the matter is resolved by Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, as part of a conflict-of-interest arrangement.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit clarified last month in a court hearing that there is no dispute over the prime minister's authority to appoint the Shin Bet chief. Rather, the legal disagreement centers on whether Netanyahu is barred from making the appointment while a sensitive Shin Bet probe is underway involving members of his staff, this being the basis for Baharav-Miara's harsh objection regarding the legitimacy of the appointment of IDF Maj.-Gen. David Zini.
She wrote that the appointment wasn't legitimate because it was made while Netanyahu was shrouded in a conflict of interest on the issue due to two pending matters: the 'leaked documents' case and the 'Qatargate' investigation. Both involve former Prime Minister's Office military spokesman Eli Feldstein and adviser Yonatan Urich.
Since the Shin Bet is assisting in both investigations, the attorney-general has maintained that Netanyahu must recuse himself from the appointment process. Baharav-Miara has proposed that the government delegate the appointment authority to another minister, a move she says would eliminate the conflict. Netanyahu has rejected her position, saying that national security considerations override what he called an alleged conflict of interest.
He argued that the relationship between the prime minister and the Shin Bet chief is unique and vital to state security, and therefore, the decision must remain in his hands. He also contended that the issue is political in nature and should not be decided by the court.
Former Shin Bet head Ronen Bar resigned on June 15, after the push to fire him gained momentum in November 2024, when the Qatargate investigations began.
Sarah Ben-Nun contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's Tariff Arguments Met With Skepticism From Appeals Court - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Trump's Tariff Arguments Met With Skepticism From Appeals Court The Lead with Jake Tapper 78 mins President Trump is pushing ahead with a slew of new tariffs but will his biggest deals yet come down to the 11th hour? Plus, an attorney behind the case challenging if Trump's tariffs are even legal joins to discuss. Also, an Israeli human rights organization that is saying Israel is committing genocide in Gaza joins to discuss.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kash Patel's Girlfriend, 26, Confronted With MAGA Spy Accusations While Spilling on Their Relationship
Country artist Alexis Wilkins says she's had enough of the 'insanely ridiculous' conspiracy theories swirling around her romantic relationship with Trump's FBI Director Kash Patel. In a wide-ranging interview on Megyn Kelly's show, the 26-year-old dismissed MAGA chatter accusing her of being a secret Israeli 'honeypot' agent planted to compromise Trumpworld via the 45-year-old Patel. 'It would have been a really long-game play,' she joked, noting she began dating Patel 'a little over two and a half years ago—so, long before he was the head of the FBI.' The singer's pushback echoes a recent online statement in which she blasted 'accounts that are farming engagement' by branding her a Mossad asset. Those claims erupted after the Justice Department said the long-awaited Epstein files contained no 'client list,' prompting furious MAGA influencers to look for a scapegoat. Some trolls fixated on Wilkins' stint making educational videos for conservative education company PragerU. Online bios of the company's CEO, Marissa Streit, have noted her previous service in an Israeli intelligence unit—but there is no evidence that Wilkins has any connection to Israel. The attacks on Wilkins came as part of a broader trend among young MAGA commentators who have folded Israel into their conspiracies around Epstein. As reported earlier this month, one account even misidentified the Arkansas-raised singer as a 'Jewish' country singer. On Kelly's show, Wilkins confirmed that she is a Christian who spent part of her childhood in the U.K. and Switzerland. A 2023 profile said Wilkins attended the Collège du Léman school in Switzerland—which former Fox News star Tucker Carlson also attended—and that her father worked for Gillette, while her mother was in the pharmaceuticals and aerospace industries. Wilkins told Kelly she understands why people might think she was a spy. 'I think people see certain pieces and I get it,' she said. 'They want to connect things, they want to justify, you know, some of the pain that that they've been through watching the last four years, and there's pieces of this that, you know, I can, I understand. 'But I think that they've taken just these pieces of evidence that you laid out and tie them together in all of the wrong ways.' Wilkins also walked Kelly through her small-town bona fides—growing up in Arkansas, shipping in country albums from the States while her family lived briefly in Europe—before revealing the Nashville house party where she and Patel first crossed paths. 'We just happened to meet,' she said, at an 'event that we both went to at a friend's house.' The pair's 19-year age gap, Wilkins added, never felt relevant compared to his 'incredible character' and their shared patriotism. 'I have always liked, when I met him, I just liked that he was so, so honest,' gushed Wilkins. 'He's exactly who he is all the time. His character is incredible. His values are incredible.' 'And, you know, we both are very patriotic. So obviously there are things there that we definitely agree on, but he's just the most honest, you know, most integrity I've really experienced in a person, he's fantastic,' she added. Regarding the spy claims, Wilkins' political persuasion is hardly a secret: she hosts a weekly Rumble show, has long worked with veterans' charities, and flatly rejects what she calls the 'left-woke institution.' It's not 'like there's not enough information out there about me to glean a real conclusion on all of this kind of vigilante research,' she said. But being outspoken, Wilkins argued, should not make her a target for antisemitic fantasies. 'Seeing these things twisted is not only very confusing, very out of left field for me, but also incredibly disheartening. 'It's, it's bizarre to me, you know, as a, as a—pretend I'm a third person—it just, it doesn't make any sense.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Behind the curtain: Iran's unseen influence on Gaza talks
The ceasefire deal that was thought to be imminent following the IDF's success in Iran has collapsed. Instead of giving Hamas the green light to deal, it seems that Tehran sent word to double down. Just a month ago, in the immediate aftermath of the IDF's success in Iran and ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, there was a real sense in the air – among policymakers, journalists, and diplomats – that a hostage-ceasefire deal with Hamas was finally within reach. US President Donald Trump spoke of imminent good news, as did his envoy Steve Witkoff. Egyptian and Qatari negotiators talked about positive movement. Israeli officials signaled that Hamas was softening its stance, and that Israel was as well. The atmosphere was charged with cautious optimism. This time, the sense was, it's real. But it wasn't. Looking back, it's worth unpacking why that optimism turned out to be misplaced: yet another false peak in a long series of dashed hopes. A key driver of that misplaced confidence was the assumption that the blows dealt to Iran – military, symbolic, and operational – would echo in Gaza. That after being struck by Israel and the US, Iran would be too weakened to continue backing Hamas with the same intensity. And that Hamas, sensing the shifting balance of power, would show more flexibility. Netanyahu himself said as much on June 22: the campaign in Iran, he declared, would 'help us expedite our victory and the release of all our hostages.' Trump echoed the message a couple of days later. Why would an attack on Iran move the needle in Gaza? Because of a belief that Iran's loss was Hamas's loss, and that the Islamic Republic's defeat would translate into Hamas's pliability. There were some reasons to think this was plausible. In addition to denigrating Iran's nuclear and missile stockpiles and production capabilities, the strike on the Islamic Republic killed key military figures, including Saeed Izadi, a senior Revolutionary Guard officer who coordinated with Hamas. The thinking was straightforward: cut off the head of the octopus, and the tentacles – Iran's proxies – will flail. With Iran momentarily reeling, the logic went, Hamas would sense that it was now on its own and seek an exit. The feeling was that the shockwaves of the attack would loosen Hamas's grip and push it toward a deal, and that the fear of being left without a sponsor – or being the next one to be steamrolled – would spur a shift in their negotiating posture. But that's not what happened. Failure to reach a deal Netanyahu travelled to Washington and returned home, but no deal was struck. The momentum, such as it was, dissipated. Talks in Doha continued, but progress stalled. The flexibility expected from Hamas never materialized. Instead, it was Israel that appeared to bend. The thinking behind that Israeli flexibility, according to some observers, was strategic: now that Israel had clearly demonstrated its overwhelming military might – on global display for all to see – it no longer needed to fear that a deal with Hamas would be perceived as capitulation. Giving up certain demands, like holding onto the Morag corridor, wouldn't erode deterrence, because deterrence had already been so forcefully reestablished in Iran. In this light, the logic ran, Israel could afford to show compromise. And it did. But Hamas didn't respond in kind. Why not? Earlier this week, during a press conference in Scotland, Trump offered his take: Iran. 'I will say that Iran, I think, interjected themselves in this last negotiation,' Trump told reporters on Monday. 'I think they got involved in this negotiation, telling Hamas and giving Hamas signals and orders, and that's not good. That's not good.' In other words, rather than pulling back, Iran seems to have doubled down. Instead of giving Hamas the green light to deal, Trump left the impression that Tehran sent word to dig in. But why would a wounded Iran sabotage a potential ceasefire deal in Gaza? For one, to avoid losing what remains of one of its key regional proxies. Iran has spent years – decades – building up Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups to surround Israel in what it calls the 'axis of resistance.' That axis has taken heavy hits: Hezbollah has been severely degraded, Syria is no longer an uncontested Iranian playground, and Hamas – though still fighting – is a shadow of what it was before October 7. Still, Tehran has not given up on the strategy, and it certainly doesn't want to lose Hamas entirely or allow it to be stripped of military power. Second, the ongoing war in Gaza keeps the pressure squarely on Israel. Images of hungry Gazans, aid trucks mobbed, and malnourished children dominate the headlines. That narrative – one of Gazans suffering under Israeli siege – shifts the spotlight away from Iran. Since the IDF and US strikes on Iran in June, Tehran has faced internal unrest, economic turmoil, and rising dissent. The longer the world focuses on Gaza – on the humanitarian crisis, on Israel's actions – the less attention is paid to what's happening inside Iran. For a regime worried about instability at home, this is no small thing. Third, there's the Saudi angle. One of Iran's overriding regional goals is to prevent normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have said repeatedly that normalization depends on a ceasefire in Gaza and progress toward a Palestinian state. As long as the war drags on, there is no normalization. For Tehran, prolonging the conflict is a way of blocking what would be a strategic nightmare: a US-brokered Israeli-Saudi alliance. And finally, there's the simple cost-benefit calculus. Iran has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Hamas over the years in cash, weapons, and training. If the terrorist group were now to strike a deal that stripped it of its ability to govern or wage war, that investment would be completely lost. From Iran's perspective, a hobbled proxy is still better than no proxy at all. Not surprisingly, Iran denied any interference. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected Trump's accusations as 'absolutely baseless' and 'a form of projection and evasion of responsibility and accountability.' He added that Hamas negotiators 'do not need the intervention of third parties' and that Hamas 'recognizes and pursues the interests of the oppressed people of Gaza in the most appropriate manner.' But the denial rang a bit too loudly. As Shakespeare might have put it, the spokesman protests too much. A month ago, the talk was about momentum. Iran had been knocked back, and the assumption was that Hamas would soon follow. That hasn't happened. The optimism of June has given way to the stalemate of July. If Trump is right, and Iran has indeed inserted itself into the talks, then there's an important lesson here: when it comes to Hamas, the levers of power aren't necessarily in the tunnels of Gaza or the luxury hotel suites of Doha, but 1,500 kilometers to the east in Tehran. And if that's the case, then the assumptions driving this process and what it will take to move Hamas need a serious rethinking. Solve the daily Crossword
