Former Shin Bet head sues Netanyahu as dispute over Oct. 7 accountability deepens

The lawsuit contends that Bar repeatedly warned Netanyahu in 2023 that Israel’s deterrence was eroding and that Hamas was becoming more dangerous and unpredictable.

By Pesach Benson, TPS

Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar filed a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, escalating a dispute over responsibility for Israel’s failure to prevent the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, massacre.

The suit comes two weeks before national elections, with accountability for the attack remaining a politically charged issue.

Filed in Tel Aviv District Court, the lawsuit challenges Netanyahu’s allegations about the Shin Bet domestic security agency’s conduct before the attack, including claims that Bar had advance knowledge of an impending assault.

Bar argues that Netanyahu is using the intelligence failure to deflect scrutiny from his own decisions on Gaza and his government’s handling of warnings about Hamas. He is seeking NIS 3 million ($900,000) in damages.

Bar is also seeking access to intelligence assessments, records of security consultations and other documents that he says could clarify what Israeli leaders knew before the massacre.

He argues that court proceedings have become necessary because the government has not established an independent state commission of inquiry to examine the disaster.

“In the absence of a state commission of inquiry, the truth will emerge in court,” Bar wrote. “A little light will dispel much darkness.”

Bar does not dispute that the Shin Bet failed to prevent the attack, in which Hamas-led terrorists killed about 1,200 people and abducted 251 others.

He argues, however, that accepting responsibility for the agency’s shortcomings should not shield political leaders from scrutiny.

“As the head of the service, I bear responsibility for the Shin Bet’s failure to provide the intelligence required regarding the October 7 attack and its timing,” he wrote.

He added that he resigned with his “head bowed before the bereaved families.”

Warnings Before October 7

Bar announced his departure in April 2025, amid a government effort to dismiss him. The High Court of Justice subsequently ruled that the dismissal was unlawful.

The lawsuit contends that Bar repeatedly warned Netanyahu in 2023 that Israel’s deterrence was eroding and that Hamas was becoming more dangerous and unpredictable.

According to the filing, the Shin Bet urged the government to consider offensive measures against Hamas operatives and leaders, as well as restrictions on the entry of workers from Gaza into Israel.

Bar says some proposals were rejected or left unanswered.

The filing also challenges the government’s policy of maintaining relative calm in Gaza while Hamas remained in control.

It alleges that Netanyahu supported continued Qatari financial transfers to Gaza despite warnings that some of the money was helping Hamas expand its military capabilities, including tunnel construction and weapons procurement.

These claims reflect Bar’s account of events as presented in the lawsuit and have not been established by the filing itself.

The handling of intelligence on the morning of October 7 is another central issue in the lawsuit.

Bar says the Shin Bet distributed an alert at 3:03 a.m. to Israeli security bodies, including the military, police and National Security Council.

The alert flagged indications of possible offensive activity along the Gaza border but, according to the filing, did not establish the scale of the impending attack.

The lawsuit says Bar instructed staff to notify Netanyahu’s military secretary, Avi Gil. The instruction was recorded in the Shin Bet’s computerized operations center, the filing states.

Bar places his first conversation with the military’s chief of staff at 6:29 a.m., after Hamas had begun firing rockets into Israel.

He says he warned that the barrage might serve as a diversion for terrorists infiltrating Israeli communities.

The lawsuit also disputes suggestions that the deployment of a Shin Bet tactical unit known as Tequila demonstrated advance knowledge of a major assault.

Bar argues that the unit was routinely deployed and did not require the agency chief’s personal authorization.

The Inquiry Dispute

The lawsuit comes amid a broader dispute over how Israel should investigate the failures that allowed the October 7 attack.

A state commission of inquiry has broad investigative powers, including the authority to summon witnesses and obtain evidence.

Its members are appointed through the judiciary, and its recommendations are not legally binding on the government.

The government has proposed an alternative committee whose members would be politically appointed.

The opposition has boycotted Knesset proceedings related to the proposal, leaving the question of an independent inquiry unresolved.

The Israel Defense Forces have released a series of detailed internal probes examining how roughly 5,000 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists were able to storm Israeli communities and overrun military positions.

The probes address operational, intelligence and command failures within the military but do not examine decisions made by the political leadership.

Israel’s most recent state commission of inquiry examined the deaths of 45 people in a 2021 stampede at Mount Meron during the Lag BaOmer celebrations.

In 2024, the commission held Netanyahu personally responsible for the disaster, illustrating the potential for such inquiries to scrutinize the conduct of senior political leaders.

Elections are scheduled for October 27.