Populists vs. Spies in Israel and Beyond  (Ofek Riemer, Daniel F. Wajner, and Ehud Eiran, War on the Rocks)
Over a year and a half after the Oct. 7 attacks, the Israeli government is embroiled in an unprecedented institutional clash with the nation’s internal security agency, also known as Shin Bet. For the first time in the country’s 77 years, the government voted to dismiss a head of a secret service. And against the backdrop of this unprecedented move, that outgoing director, Ronen Bar — while still on duty — publicly leveled serious accusations against a sitting head of government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acting in flagrant defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling of the dismissal as unlawful, is currently trying to get through the process his chosen nominee: a military officer with close ties to Netanyahu’s inner circle and no record in intelligence or law enforcement. This open conflict is especially striking given the Shin Bet’s central role in Israel’s war effort in Gaza — the primary front of the ongoing war.
But why would a state undermine its own security institutions, not least during a war?
Answering this question is important well beyond the Israeli case. Since the turn of the century, political leaders in Venezuela, Russia, Hungary, and Turkey — to name but a few examples — have sooner or later encroached on their secret services. We see similar patterns in the United States with the demonization of the “deep state.” Recurring patterns point to leaders politicizing and derailing intelligence organizations from their focus on national security threats, and even weaponizing them against domestic opposition; intimidating or dismissing intelligence chiefs and replacing them with loyalists; and dismantling entire units or agencies and replacing them with new bodies more closely aligned with the government’s political agenda.
To make sense of Netanyahu’s behavior, we point to the underlying logic of populist leadership. Publicly attacking the intelligence and stigmatizing it as an unelected elite that acts to subvert government policies and, by extension, the people’s general will, shores up the electoral base and helps build public support for drastic reform of relatively popular state organs. Propagating such conspiratorial narratives can be especially useful in the event of failure, allowing the government to deflect the blame onto professional authorities and evade accountability. Notably, the ultimate goal is to seize control of the intelligence apparatus and erode one more check on executive power. Indeed, intelligence organizations bear responsibility for assessing the strategic environment and national security threats and are positioned to challenge the wisdom and effectiveness of government security policies. Some are empowered with legal authorities and tools to surveil and investigate government transgression. The consequences are potentially severe: intelligence organizations may become less effective, vigilant, and resilient, democratic institutions more fragile, and the country more exposed to security risks.