High Court orders former Shin Bet officials who challenged Zini appointment to reveal names

The 189 petitioners had argued that Zini lacked the experience required to lead the agency and that his selection was tainted by conflicts of interest.

The High Court of Justice ordered 189 former Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) officials who sought to overturn David Zini’s appointment as head of the agency to reveal their identities to him by next Thursday, bringing the latest dispute arising from one of Israel’s most contested security appointments closer to an end.

The names will be given only to Zini and will remain barred from public release.

The petitioners include former Shin Bet directors Nadav Argaman, Ami Ayalon, and Carmi Gillon, alongside 186 former employees and managers of the agency. Their October petition argued that placing Zini at the head of the Shin Bet without prior intelligence experience posed a risk to both national security and the agency’s independence.

Zini, a retired IDF major-general, was appointed after a turbulent process that began with the government’s attempt to dismiss his predecessor, Ronen Bar. The High Court subsequently found that Bar’s dismissal had been conducted unlawfully and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in a conflict of interest because the Shin Bet was involved in investigating the Qatargate affair concerning members of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Netanyahu later received approval to advance the appointment of Bar’s successor under an agreement reached with the attorney-general and endorsed by the court. The government approved Zini’s appointment on September 30, 2025, and he entered the position on October 5.

Former Shin Bet officials challenge Zini's appointment

The former officials filed their petition that same day. They argued that Zini had never served in an intelligence position and lacked the professional background required to manage an agency responsible for counterterrorism, counterespionage, internal security, and protecting Israel’s democratic institutions.

They also alleged that the appointment process did not include a substantive examination of his professional suitability and that conflicts involving members of his immediate circle could prevent him from handling parts of the agency’s work.

The petition asked the court to cancel the appointment and require a new selection process. Alternatively, it asked the government to demonstrate that the dominant consideration behind Zini’s selection was professional rather than political or personal.

The High Court rejected the challenges to the appointment in December by a two-to-one majority. Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg and Justice David Mintz found no basis for judicial intervention after the senior appointments advisory committee and the government had approved the appointment.

Mintz also rejected the contention that Zini’s lack of Shin Bet experience disqualified him, noting that senior officials had previously moved between different branches of Israel’s security establishment.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit dissented. He did not call for Zini’s appointment to be canceled outright, but said the advisory committee had failed to examine sufficiently the circumstances surrounding his selection, Netanyahu’s conduct, and the possibility that improper considerations had influenced the process. Amit would have returned the appointment to the committee for further examination and a fuller explanation.

Court suggests Zini waive right to see petitioners' names

The separate battle over the petitioners’ identities continued after their substantive case was rejected. They had filed the list of names confidentially and asked that it be available only to the judges.

Sohlberg ruled in December that no legal basis existed to conceal the names from Zini, a respondent in the case who held the necessary security clearance. The court nevertheless suggested that Zini consider waiving his right to see them to ease tensions with former agency personnel who could still assist its work.

The petitioners later maintained that the judgment had recognized Zini’s right to inspect the list without expressly ordering them to provide it. Zini disagreed and filed a contempt-of-court motion to enforce it.

On Thursday, Amit, Sohlberg, and Mintz issued a new, unequivocal order requiring the petitioners to provide their names to Zini within seven days.