Court ruling9/3/2026

High Court of Justice Orders 180 Former Shin Bet Employees to Disclose Their Names to David Zini

The High Court of Justice has again affirmed that 180 former Shin Bet employees, who petitioned it anonymously against the appointment of David Zini as head of the agency, must provide him with their names within one week. However, the court did not decide whether their previous failure to comply with the order constitutes contempt of court.

Key facts

•Petitioners: 180 former Shin Bet employees
•Court: High Court of Justice at the Israeli Supreme Court
•Deadline for disclosing the names: one week
•The case number is not stated in the source
•The date of the ruling is not stated in the source
•No monetary amounts or statute names were mentioned

How the Dispute Arose

Former Shin Bet employees filed anonymous petitions against the appointment of David Zini as head of the agency. The petitions were dismissed, and Zini took office. After the judgment was issued, he asked the High Court of Justice to disclose the petitioners’ identities.

Why Disclosure of the Names Was Requested

The High Court of Justice recognized Zini’s right to review the list of petitioners. However, the former Shin Bet employees did not provide the names, following which Zini’s counsel filed a motion alleging contempt of court.

The Parties’ Positions

Eitan Peleg, the attorney for the former Shin Bet employees, argued that the court had not issued a binding order requiring a specific action and that the previous decision therefore could not be regarded as a decision that had been violated. Zini’s counsel insisted that the High Court of Justice’s directive was unequivocal and must be carried out.

What the Court Ruled

The High Court of Justice again ordered the petitioners to provide their names to Zini and set a one-week deadline for doing so. Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit suggested that Zini reconsider the motion, but he did not withdraw it. The question of whether the previous noncompliance constitutes contempt of court remained unresolved.

What this means for you

A petitioner’s identity in a High Court of Justice proceeding is not necessarily kept confidential from the person whose appointment the petitioner is challenging. If the court recognizes another party’s right to review the list of petitioners, they may be required to disclose their identities within a specified deadline. This ruling does not itself determine that the earlier refusal automatically constituted contempt of court.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings