High Court dismisses petitions challenging Zini’s appointment as Shin Bet chief

High Court dismisses petitions challenging Zini’s appointment as Shin Bet chief

SARAH BEN-NUN

Sun, December 28, 2025 at 1:32 PM UTC

2 min read

Maj. Gen. David Zini visits families of fallen Israeli soldiers during Memorial Day which commemorates the fallen Israeli soldiers and victims of terror at Mount Herzl Military Cemetery in Jerusalem on April 30, 2025. (photo credit: Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90)

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Generate Key Takeaways

The court rejected challenges to Zini’s integrity and the process behind his appointment, saying there were no grounds for judicial review. Justice Amit dissented, citing procedural flaws.

The High Court of Justice on Monday dismissed petitions challenging the government’s appointment of IDF Maj.-Gen. (res.)David Zini as head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

Zini was appointed by the government on September 30. The proposal came from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the appointment went through after Zini was approved by the Grunis Committee, the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee charged with examining the integrity and suitability of candidates for Israel’s most sensitive public offices.

He officially stepped into the role on October 5, after interim requests to freeze the appointment were denied.

Deputy Supreme Court PresidentNoam Sohlberg wrote for the majority that the claims raised by the petitioners - including allegations concerning Zini’s integrity and ethical conduct - did not present legitimate grounds for judicial review. Justice David Mintz joined the opinion.

Shin Bet director David Zini participates in the state memorial ceremony for the October 7 massacre on Mount Herzl, in Jerusalem, October 16, 2025 (credit: OLIVIER FITOUSSI/POOL VIA REUTERS)

Sohlberg further emphasized that the conclusions of the Grunis Committee - which some petitioners also sought to challenge - carried decisive weight.

No room for judicial intervention

He cited prior case law holding that where an appointment mechanism has been approved by both the government and legal authorities, there is generally no room for judicial intervention absent exceptional circumstances.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, writing in the lone dissent, argued that the appointment process raised substantive difficulties.

He said the government should, at a minimum, be required to explain why the matter should not be returned to the Grunis Committee for reconsideration, noting that the committee’s review of ethical and moral considerations focused solely on Zini himself and did not examine the conduct of other figures involved in the appointment process.

About Our Ads

Source