Autoimmune Disorder in Israeli Democracy

The crisis surrounding the dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, the Supreme Court’s intervention in this decision, and the Prime Minister’s declaration that he will not honor the Court’s ruling, is no ordinary political conflict. It represents a severe manifestation of a worrying phenomenon that can be likened to an autoimmune disorder – when democracy attacks its own defense mechanisms.

Similar to the body’s immune system, a healthy democracy relies on an “immune system” of institutions and organizations that identify threats and protect the entire system. Under normal conditions, institutions like the Shin Bet function as part of that immune system, identifying threats to national security and the welfare of its citizens.

But when political leadership dismisses security chiefs for expressing unwelcome assessments, democracy effectively attacks its own “immune cells.”

This event is a direct continuation of the constitutional crisis that began with the judicial reform led by Justice Minister Yariv Levin in 2023. Although the outbreak of war brought a temporary freeze to legislative efforts, the tension between government branches has not disappeared. It continues to manifest in events like the current crisis, deepening the “autoimmune disease” of Israeli democracy.

The legal framework in Israel places almost no limitations on the dismissal of security system heads. The constraints on the Prime Minister’s power in this context are norms that have developed over the years.

These norms did not emerge by chance: they evolved to ensure that crucial security decisions would be made on professional rather than political grounds; to enable long-term planning instead of frequent shifts based on political winds; and to ensure that the security apparatus serves the entire country, not a specific party or ideology.

Undermining these norms without creating alternative legal limitations leaves the security system vulnerable to extraneous considerations. In such a situation, the only remaining oversight is judicial review by the Supreme Court, which in the case of the Shin Bet chief’s dismissal was based on considerations related to the timing of the removal during wartime and its implications for national security.

When viewed through the lens of international support this crisis takes on additional dimensions. Prime Minister Netanyahu appears increasingly emboldened by his alliance with re-elected US President Donald Trump. This relationship creates a sense of impunity that may be encouraging Netanyahu to push constitutional boundaries further than ever before.

Trump’s own contentious relationship with US intelligence agencies during his first term provides a concerning parallel. His frequent dismissals of inconvenient intelligence assessments and public criticism of security officials created similar tensions within the American system. Netanyahu can point to Trump’s approaches as precedent, while Trump can reference Israel’s actions to normalize his own challenges to institutional constraints. Both leaders project an “everything is possible” attitude toward constitutional limitations that threatens democratic norms in both countries.

The dismissal of Ronen Bar on ideological grounds, for expressing inconvenient truths that challenge political narratives, especially during a complex security crisis, could create a dangerous precedent leading to the politicization of the security system, creating an apparatus where personal or political loyalty supersedes professional judgment and national interest.

This is the core of the democratic autoimmune disorder – to heal the system, we must rely on cooperation from those who caused the disease in the first place. In the current case, the legal amendments that would limit the power to dismiss security agency heads for political reasons must pass through the same coalition that wants unlimited power to do exactly that.

Does this autoimmune crisis doom Israel’s democratic future? Not necessarily. Just as medical science has developed treatments for autoimmune disorders, democratic systems can develop antibodies against self-destruction.

The United States recovered from Watergate when healthy democratic cells – courts, Congress, and the press – successfully contained Nixon’s attempt to place himself above the law. South Korea’s democratic immune system activated when millions of citizens joined the “Candlelight Protests” and the Constitutional Court removed President Park Geun-hye during the 2016-2017 corruption crisis. Constitutional antibodies in post-apartheid South Africa fought off the infections of the Zuma presidency (2009-2018) when the Constitutional Court, independent media, and civil society organizations successfully challenged corruption. The Polish experience since 2015 also demonstrates, alongside vulnerability to democratic autoimmune disorders, the possibility of recovery.

For democracies to recover from similar situations, several parallel conditions are typically required. First, it is essential that a split occurs among the elites, with some power holders choosing to defend democratic norms even at the cost of political confrontation. Simultaneously, institutional resistance is needed – courts, senior civil servants, and security officials willing to stand by professional principles despite political pressure.

Another critical factor is significant public pressure – mass mobilization creating a political cost for democratic regression. Finally, international consequences are often required – diplomatic, economic, or reputational costs that provide additional incentives against democratic erosion.

Political leaders come and go, but basic democratic principles should remain steadfast. This democratic heritage does not belong to one political stream or another, but to all citizens and future generations.

The paradox may seem insurmountable, but Israeli democracy can heal itself through consistent civic engagement and the courage of those within the system who choose democratic principles over partisan advantage.