Omar Khamaisi

In democratic systems, the separation of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—is a fundamental principle. However, the reality in Israel is quite different. The word “separation” has been altered to “preference,” reflecting how the three branches of power are used to uphold and preserve the Zionist project in all its forms.

In this article, I will discuss an Israeli Supreme Court ruling regarding the issue of summons for “interviews” or “chats” carried out by the Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security agency) through the police. This case raises questions about the limits of the Shin Bet’s authority, a security agency that until 2002 was directly under the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and lacked a clear legal framework, thus operating in a cloud of secrecy and ambiguity.

In 2002, the Shin Bet Law was enacted, which clarified the agency’s powers, objectives, and areas of operation. Specifically, Sections 7 and 8 of the law granted Shin Bet officers powers similar to those of police officers and investigators, but with additional authority relevant to the unique nature of the agency’s work. Below are the key points of these sections:

Section 7: The Shin Bet is responsible for safeguarding the state’s security and the foundations of the democratic system, including preventing terrorism, subversion, espionage, and the leakage of state secrets. It also supports the country’s vital national security objectives, all under the direction of the government and in accordance with the law.

Section 8: This section defines the Shin Bet’s authority to collect information and investigate crimes. It also grants the agency special authority to carry out investigations aimed at preventing future violations in two areas: first, national security and the democratic system, and second, areas designated by the government as critical for preserving national security.

In general, minor criminal offenses are usually investigated by the police, not the Shin Bet. However, the Shin Bet becomes involved in two specific cases:

1. Security-related criminal offenses: In such cases, suspects are arrested and denied access to an attorney. They are held in detention facilities operated by the Shin Bet, such as the infamous “Petah Tikva” detention center, or others like “Kishon” in Haifa, “Ashkelon,” and “Al-Maskobiya” in Jerusalem.
2. Cases of alleged security threats: These do not rise to the level of criminal offenses but are still deemed security-related concerns. The Shin Bet investigates them under the broadest definition of “security,” which goes beyond the criminal law framework. These types of investigations usually take place in facilities adjacent to police stations, such as the police stations in Nazareth, Musmus, and Haifa.

In such cases, the Shin Bet often summons individuals who are not suspected of any specific crime and pressures or coerces them to cooperate, provide information, or collaborate with the agency on matters related to certain groups or activities.

We have previously argued that the Shin Bet frequently engages in actions that lack a clear legal basis, interpreting its powers in ways that are unfounded and unlawful. We have called for these “summons” practices to stop. We suggested public mobilization, including protests outside the police stations and Shin Bet offices where activists are being interrogated, as a way to counteract these investigations. The Shin Bet prefers to operate in the shadows, without public scrutiny of its methods, its tools, or the secret orders under which it works.

In 2013, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel filed a petition before the Supreme Court, revealing the close relationship between the High Court and the Shin Bet behind the scenes. And what a relationship it was—one characterized by a “chat,” as the court ruling revealed four years later. It became clear that the Shin Bet had been corresponding with the court without notifying the petitioners, and several hearings had taken place without their presence—all under the cloak of secrecy and the claimed need for national security.

Throughout the hearings, the Shin Bet emphasized the fear, danger, and security threats posed to the state and justified its actions by arguing that it was investigating individuals allegedly plotting to undermine the state’s institutions. They framed their actions as preventive measures, arguing that “cooperation” (a term not defined in the law) could be a precursor to security breaches. According to them, these investigations were an initial warning before a crime had been committed, balancing the violation of individual rights—such as detention and interrogation under duress—with the need to prevent threats to national security.

Ultimately, the judges noted several points concerning the Shin Bet’s internal directives, both existing and proposed. These orders, however, remain secret and are not published. Among the judges’ key observations were:

• If a person is called in for questioning based solely on suspected “cooperation” (without clear evidence of terrorism or espionage), the Shin Bet must first consult with its legal advisor, who will assess the potential impact on the person’s rights. This assessment must balance the individual’s rights with national security concerns.
• After obtaining approval from the Shin Bet’s legal advisor, the person being summoned must be informed that their attendance is “voluntary.” The summons will no longer be labeled as a “summons for investigation,” as has previously been the practice. It will instead be clearly stated that the meeting is not an investigation.
• The person must be informed that, since they are not suspected of a crime and are not under investigation, any statements they make cannot be used against them in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision represents an attempt to strike a balance between individual rights—protected under the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty—and the Shin Bet’s expansive powers. However, in practice, we continue to witness blatant violations of freedom of expression, with individuals being harassed for their political, religious, social, economic, and cultural activities, as the Shin Bet seeks to monitor everything, as if we are still living under military rule.

The powers of the military governor are now exercised by the three branches of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial. The relationship of “preference” between these powers is strong and coordinated, ensuring that policies are established, implemented, and legally sanctioned.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case suggests that, for the time being, these “interviews” or “chats” are not considered legitimate investigations and cannot be used in court. The individual summoned for questioning has the right to refuse to appear, according to the court’s ruling. In practice, however, the Shin Bet continues to operate with its usual policies. As I was writing these words, a young man from the north of Israel received a summons to appear at the Acre police station. I contacted the Acre police to inform them that my client would not comply with the summons and that they were obligated to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. This procedure may be a test of how the public and activists will respond to the Shin Bet’s interrogation policies. In any case, there will undoubtedly be another round of “chats” between the Supreme Court and the Shin Bet.