In present-day Israel, an intense and persistent wave of public protests and media opposition is targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The campaign bears striking resemblance to the years-long media offensive once aimed at Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi served as the prime minister of Italy from 1994 to 1995, 2001 to 2006 and 2008 to 2011.
Much like that movement in Italy, this one seeks to politically dismantle Netanyahu by painting him as an authoritarian threat to democracy. The heart of the opposition’s argument lies not in religious or right-wing extremism but in Netanyahu’s unwillingness to conform to the long-standing ideological preferences of Israel’s secular, European-rooted leftist elites.
Despite being secular himself and globally connected, Netanyahu represents a broader public—largely Mizrahi (Sephardic) Jews—who have long been sidelined by Israel’s historical socialist establishment.
While ideological clashes are typical in democratic societies, the stakes are dramatically higher in Israel, a country at war and fighting for its survival. Protests have intensified at a time when both right- and left-wing citizens are serving on the front lines, facing existential threats from Gaza in the south and Hezbollah in the north.
These demonstrations are focused, among other things, on stopping Netanyahu from dismissing two senior figures: Ronen Bar, head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security agency) and Gali Baharav-Miara, the attorney general.
Baharav-Miara has blocked Bar’s dismissal and has consistently used her position to challenge government policies. Though removing her would be legally complicated and time-consuming, a growing number of lawmakers have signed petitions calling for her removal.
Her role is also at the center of a broader legal battle over Israel’s judiciary—a system that, in the absence of a formal constitution, has accumulated vast power, particularly under the influence of former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak. Under this doctrine, the judiciary can override government decisions, a structure now being fiercely challenged by the Netanyahu government.
Baharav-Miara has made extensive use of this legal framework, effectively positioning the judiciary as a counterbalance to the elected government. Critics argue that the judiciary is now dominated by the political left, and Bar’s case has become a flashpoint in this power struggle. The debate is framed by Netanyahu’s opponents as a threat to democracy, but others see it as a necessary rebalancing of democratic institutions.
Ronen Bar’s leadership of the Shin Bet since October 2021 has been marked by conventional counterterrorism tactics—targeted killings, intelligence gathering, and operations in places like Jenin and Gaza. However, his broader strategic assessments have often emphasized de-escalation, political dialogue, and economic aid.
This approach has led to serious miscalculations, especially on October 7, when Hamas launched its devastating surprise attack. Bar and his colleagues underestimated the threat, failing to recognize the ideological and military buildup taking place in Gaza. Even as events unfolded in the early morning hours, Shin Bet leaders reportedly deemed the situation too minor to inform the prime minister immediately.
While Netanyahu shares responsibility for national security, the decision-making that morning fell within the intelligence apparatus. Since the Oct. 7 attacks, Bar’s public stance has diverged sharply from Netanyahu’s, aligning more with former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and former U.S. President Joe Biden. This growing rift prompted Netanyahu to begin the process of replacing him.
Some reports allege that Bar’s dismissal was linked to his preparation of a so-called “Qatar dossier,” which purportedly accuses a Netanyahu aide of accepting money from Doha. Netanyahu denies this, stating that Bar raised the issue only after learning he was to be removed—an effort, he says, to politicize the situation and shield himself from dismissal.
In a functioning democracy, unelected officials—no matter how critical their roles—are ultimately accountable to elected leadership. In Israel, however, the dynamic is often reversed: intelligence and military leaders sometimes expect the civilian government to operate in service of their agendas.
As Israel faces existential threats and navigates wartime decisions, the country must find a way to temper its internal divisions. In times like these, unity—not factional infighting—is essential for survival.