Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s domestic security agency Shin Bet, of lying to the country’s Supreme Court in an ongoing legal battle over Bar's dismissal. Netanyahu's affidavit, intended to justify Bar's ouster, counters allegations from Bar that the firing was motivated by a demand for personal loyalty rather than professional reasons. Bar has alleged that Netanyahu sought to misuse Shin Bet's powers to spy on protesters and interfere with his ongoing corruption trial. This case highlights deepening political divides in Israel, with Netanyahu's right-wing government facing opposition from more liberal groups. The Supreme Court may need to assess the credibility of conflicting affidavits or negotiate a compromise regarding Bar's departure date.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly accused Ronen Bar, the Shin Bet chief, of lying to the Supreme Court in a legal case concerning Bar's dismissal, intensifying political tensions in Israel.

Netanyahu claims in a detailed affidavit that Bar's removal is due to a lack of trust, while Bar contends it stems from Netanyahu's expectation of personal loyalty and misuse of security powers.

Bar alleges that Netanyahu requested Shin Bet to spy on anti-government protest leaders and attempted to impede progress in Netanyahu's corruption trial by drafting false security opinions.

Netanyahu rebuts Bar's claims, asserting he merely sought enhanced security measures during his trial, following threats to his family, and denies accusations of using Shin Bet for illegitimate surveillance.

The conflict underscores a larger domestic crisis in Israel regarding the distribution of governmental power and democratic integrity, with Netanyahu's supporters clashing with liberal factions.

Netanyahu attributes his loss of confidence in Bar to an intelligence failure during a surprise Hamas attack, while Bar insists he had warned of potential conflicts previously.

The Supreme Court faces the challenge of evaluating the credibility of the conflicting affidavits, potentially resulting in a compromise regarding Bar's resignation timeline.