Ruth Bar breaks silence on her 1993 affair with Netanyahu, his early political rise – interview

Dr. Ruth Bar is the most famous anonymous woman you have never heard of. On January 14, 1993, Benjamin Netanyahu, sweating and somber, burst into the studio of Israel’s Channel 1 television to confess live on air that he had conducted an extramarital affair with the strategic adviser working for him in the race for the Likud leadership. That woman was Ruth Bar.

The primaries to succeed Yitzhak Shamir as Likud chairman were then in full swing, after Shamir’s defeat by Yitzhak Rabin in the 1992 election. Netanyahu’s rival, and the man standing in his way of winning the Likud leadership, was David Levy. Netanyahu, a scion of the Revisionist aristocracy and a member of Israel’s old elite, was an outsider in Likud.

Only a few years earlier, he had returned to Israel from the UN, joined Likud, and decided to take the party by storm in an American style his rivals had never encountered.

The “Likud princes,” including Bennie Begin, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor, Roni Milo, Limor Livnat and others, saw him as a threat. In their eyes, he was a phony opportunist, a foreign agent who had come to carry out a hostile takeover and was trying to exploit the defeat by Rabin to seize control of the party. To their astonishment, Netanyahu rapidly gained popularity and took the lead in the race. Even he had not expected his plans to materialize so quickly.

Then, in the middle of his ascent, someone called the Netanyahu family home and told his young wife, Sara, that her husband was having an affair with his strategic adviser at the primary campaign headquarters, and that unless he withdrew, a tape containing incriminating evidence of the affair would be made public.

Netanyahu decided not to give in to the blackmail. Instead, he chose to get ahead of the blackmailer and confess live on television. He arrived at the studio, where news anchor Ya’acov Ahimeir and police affairs reporter Uri Cohen-Aharonov were waiting for him, and told the nation that he had indeed cheated on his wife. It was a telenovela broadcast live. In the same breath, he accused a “senior Likud politician,” meaning David Levy, of attempting to blackmail him, and said he was surrounded by “a gang of criminals,” meaning Ya’acov Bardugo and the late Moti Mishani.

Israel had only one television channel at the time, with a 100% rating. The uproar was immediate. The entire country talked about the incident, after which Netanyahu was thrown out of his home by his wife Sara, with no intention of allowing him back. But, as usual, he returned. Crawling.

That tape was never published, for a simple reason: There was no tape. Someone had either played a prank or threatened Netanyahu with a cap gun. That was enough to send him racing to television to confess live on air that he had cheated on his wife.

Dr. Ruth Bar’s name was indeed published at the time, but there were no social networks and there was no digital media. Bar managed to disappear back into anonymity, from which she never again emerged. She continued her work as a psychologist and strategic consultant specializing in branding and decision-making, working with senior politicians including Shlomo Lahat, known as Chich, former Ramat Gan mayor Zvi Bar, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor and Gabi Ashkenazi. Her past clients included brands such as Osem-Nestlé, Tivall, Sabra, Strauss, Jafora, Materna, Tara, Nirlat, Electra and others. In the financial sector, she worked with Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Clal, Psagot, Gazit Globe, the Tourism Ministry and others.

Bar conducted a very long series of scientific studies to substantiate the theses and theories she developed over the years. She never gave an interview, never appeared before a camera, microphone or reporter’s notebook. Not off the record, not on the record. Very few political journalists, if any, know her.

Over the years, she focused on research, during which she cracked the formula that makes it possible to influence the brain and the decision-making mechanism. The same mechanism causes us to choose one particular product when we stand in front of a supermarket shelf, or one particular ballot slip at the polling station.

Now she is talking. For the first time ever.

This interview is not about politics, nor is it about the election. Bar is reluctantly giving up her anonymity. Her life’s work, a book of more than 600 pages, is being published after years of work. That is the reason for the timing.

The book is called Brain Under the Influence, and it is due to reach stores around this time. It contains a great deal of professional material, but also a great deal of politics and a meticulous analysis of most of the election campaigns Israel has seen.

Bar’s testimony has particular significance because she was part of the small team that shaped Netanyahu’s political persona at the beginning of his career, when it was still in its infancy. As you will understand later, everything roiling our lives in these years was already sown and planted back then, in those days.

Holding on to life

Ruth Bar has been married all her life to the same husband, Dr. Shmuel Bar, who was also her husband during her affair with Netanyahu. He is an ophthalmology specialist who became known as an airborne physician with the 669 rescue unit and was the first to perform a full surgical tracheotomy on the battlefield.

Their marriage survived that trauma, “mainly thanks to my husband,” she says, but that was only the preview. Later, two of their three children were killed, one in an accidental shooting and the other in a traffic accident. It is almost impossible to recover from a blow like that. They did. Ruth and Shmuel Bar somehow managed to pull themselves out of the abyss, overcome depression, cling to life and move forward.

This is the first interview she has ever given, 33 years after a single television broadcast turned her into the most famous woman in Israel, apart from Sara.

Is there really a mechanism that operates our decisions? One that makes us reach for a particular product rather than its competitor, or for a particular ballot?

“We have known for several decades that we have two decision-making systems. The first system is unconscious, intuitive, associative, simultaneous and very fast. It absorbs information and at the same time produces meaning from it. Then, what is in front of your eyes is what determines things. It isn’t short-term memory, it is truly immediate. This system doesn’t retrieve information from memory, only what is happening in front of your eyes, here and now. This system is very dominant. The second system thinks in a more logical, sequential, systematic way, and it is more critical. The first system is not critical. It is intuitive and unconscious. The second one is.”

“There is an important model I developed called the ‘survival layers model.’ You have to understand, this model is backed by dozens of scientific studies I conducted over many years, with hundreds of respondents and hundreds of situations. According to this model, human perception is wired according to four survival layers. Nothing is accidental in the way we perceive events or brands. The first layer is impression, the second is the relations layer, the third is protection, and the fourth is emotions.

“Every experience, every event, everything receives a score in these four layers. Impression is how much this event impresses me. Relations is how much it relates or is connected to me. Protection includes values such as security and peace of mind. Emotions are the emotions the event generates in me: joy, hope, hatred, fear. This is where our processing begins, until the decision is made.”

“Now I decide: to act or not to act, to embrace or retreat. I weigh each layer. The survival layers dominate the conscious thought process. Once I realize that my decision is primarily driven by the impression layer—being seen as superior, powerful—I can strategically place myself in that space.”

“Think of it as managing multiple survival buckets. If I fill the ‘impression’ bucket with bold actions, observers automatically associate confidence with authority. When I engage in aggressive tactics, supporters see ambition; when I remain reticent, rivals see caution. Both paths reinforce the specific survival strategy I operate under.”

“During my partnership with Netanyahu, I observed his profound reliance on the impression layer. His visual dominance was unmatched—every speech, every gesture reinforced a self-image of invincibility. Yet within the relations layer, credentialing and genuine connection remained notably absent. This structural imbalance created the vulnerability exploited in the infamous 1993 televised confession, where personal exposure shattered the carefully constructed facade.”

So what actually happens at the moment when we face a decision?

My modeling reveals a dynamic evaluation cascade. First, initial impressions crystallize—these form the strongest initial weighting. Second, relational assessment occurs, evaluating alignment with allies and enemies alike. Third, emotional response filters priorities, often silencing moderate considerations. Finally, the decisive action emerges from the interplay of these forces. The slower a candidate moves through these stages, the higher the ceiling for miscalculation. Speed becomes an asset when the perception engine runs fast, but overconfidence risks accelerating beyond realistic viability.

“In practice, political figures accelerate through recognition circuits. They prioritize visible achievements—visual magnetism that captures attention. The subsequent step involves leveraging this momentum to reshape perceptions. Success lies in matching tactical tempo to the layered processing logic. When opponents struggle to track narrative shifts, they inadvertently grant the leader additional visibility for rapid escalation.”

Our current electoral landscape demands unprecedented influence mapping.

The present political environment requires mastering multi-layered persuasion simultaneously. Netanyahu’s historical capacity to navigate impression-driven environments provides a template. Strategic communication must oscillate deliberately between reinforcing strong positions—such as security discourse—and addressing nuanced criticisms about democratic norms. The survival framework proves adaptable across contexts, provided core vulnerabilities remain identified and mitigated systematically.

Navigating coalition tensions through emotional calibration.

Coalition management increasingly tests psychological defenses through interpersonal mechanics. As political atmospheres tighten, awareness gains that transcend standard debating protocols becomes evident. Empirical observations suggest a growing necessity to balance relational authenticity with competitive advancement—a tension captured distinctly in contemporary discourse metrics.

Ruth Bar Unveils Professionally: Confessing Affair and Analyzing Political Power

Dr. Ruth Bar is the most famous anonymous woman you have never heard of. On January 14, 1993, Benjamin Netanyahu, sweating and somber, burst into the studio of Israel’s Channel 1 television to confess live on air that he had conducted an extramarital affair with the strategic adviser working for him in the race for the Likud leadership. That woman was Ruth Bar.

The primaries to succeed Yitzhak Shamir as Likud chairman were then in full swing, after Shamir’s defeat by Yitzhak Rabin in the 1992 election. Netanyahu’s rival, and the man standing in his way of winning the Likud leadership, was David Levy. Netanyahu, a scion of the Revisionist aristocracy and a member of Israel’s old elite, was an outsider in Likud.

Only a few years earlier, he had returned to Israel from the UN, joined Likud, and decided to take the party by storm in an American style his rivals had never encountered.

The “Likud princes,” including Bennie Begin, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor, Roni Milo, Limor Livnat and others, saw him as a threat. In their eyes, he was a phony opportunist, a foreign agent who had come to carry out a hostile takeover and was trying to exploit the defeat by Rabin to seize control of the party. To their astonishment, Netanyahu rapidly gained popularity and took the lead in the race. Even he had not expected his plans to materialize so quickly.

Then, in the middle of his ascent, someone called the Netanyahu family home and told his young wife, Sara, that her husband was having an affair with his strategic adviser at the primary campaign headquarters, and that unless he withdrew, a tape containing incriminating evidence of the affair would be made public.

Netanyahu decided not to give in to the blackmail. Instead, he chose to get ahead of the blackmailer and confess live on television. He arrived at the studio, where news anchor Ya’acov Ahimeir and police affairs reporter Uri Cohen-Aharonov were waiting for him, and told the nation that he had indeed cheated on his wife. It was a telenovela broadcast live. In the same breath, he accused a “senior Likud politician,” meaning David Levy, of attempting to blackmail him, and said he was surrounded by “a gang of criminals,” meaning Ya’acov Bardugo and the late Moti Mishani.

Israel had only one television channel at the time, with a 100% rating. The uproar was immediate. The entire country talked about the incident, after which Netanyahu was thrown out of his home by his wife Sara, with no intention of allowing him back. But, as usual, he returned. Crawling.

That tape was never published, for a simple reason: There was no tape. Someone had either played a prank or threatened Netanyahu with a cap gun. That was enough to send him racing to television to confess live on air that he had cheated on his wife.

Dr. Ruth Bar’s name was indeed published at the time, but there were no social networks and there was no digital media. Bar managed to disappear back into anonymity, from which she never again emerged. She continued her work as a psychologist and strategic consultant specializing in branding and decision-making, working with senior politicians including Shlomo Lahat, known as Chich, former Ramat Gan mayor Zvi Bar, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor and Gabi Ashkenazi. Her past clients included brands such as Osem-Nestlé, Tivall, Sabra, Strauss, Jafora, Materna, Tara, Nirlat, Electra and others. In the financial sector, she worked with Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Clal, Psagot, Gazit Globe, the Tourism Ministry and others.

Bar conducted a very long series of scientific studies to substantiate the theses and theories she developed over the years. She never gave an interview, never appeared before a camera, microphone or reporter’s notebook. Not off the record, not on the record. Very few political journalists, if any, know her.

Over the years, she focused on research, during which she cracked the formula that makes it possible to influence the brain and the decision-making mechanism. The same mechanism causes us to choose one particular product when we stand in front of a supermarket shelf, or one particular ballot slip at the polling station.

Now she is talking. For the first time ever.

This interview is not about politics, nor is it about the election. Bar is reluctantly giving up her anonymity. Her life’s work, a book of more than 600 pages, is being published after years of work. That is the reason for the timing.

The book is called Brain Under the Influence, and it is due to reach stores around this time. It contains a great deal of professional material, but also a great deal of politics and a meticulous analysis of most of the election campaigns Israel has seen.

Bar’s testimony has particular significance because she was part of the small team that shaped Netanyahu’s political persona at the beginning of his career, when it was still in its infancy. As you will understand later, everything roiling our lives in these years was already sown and planted back then, in those days.

Holding on to life

Ruth Bar has been married all her life to the same husband, Dr. Shmuel Bar, who was also her husband during her affair with Netanyahu. He is an ophthalmology specialist who became known as an airborne physician with the 669 rescue unit and was the first to perform a full surgical tracheotomy on the battlefield.

Their marriage survived that trauma, “mainly thanks to my husband,” she says, but that was only the preview. Later, two of their three children were killed, one in an accidental shooting and the other in a traffic accident. It is almost impossible to recover from a blow like that. They did. Ruth and Shmuel Bar somehow managed to pull themselves out of the abyss, overcome depression, cling to life and move forward.

This is the first interview she has ever given, 33 years after a single television broadcast turned her into the most famous woman in Israel, apart from Sara.

Is there really a mechanism that operates our decisions? One that makes us reach for a particular product rather than its competitor, or for a particular ballot?

We have known for several decades that we have two decision-making systems. The first system is unconscious, intuitive, associative, simultaneous and very fast. It absorbs information and at the same time produces meaning from it. Then, what is in front of your eyes is what determines things. It isn’t short-term memory, it is truly immediate. This system doesn’t retrieve information from memory, only what is happening in front of your eyes, here and now. This system is very dominant. The second system thinks in a more logical, sequential, systematic way, and it is more critical. The first system is not critical. It is intuitive and unconscious. The second one is.

“There is an important model I developed called the ‘survival layers model.’ You have to understand, this model is backed by dozens of scientific studies I conducted over many years, with hundreds of respondents and hundreds of situations. According to this model, human perception is wired according to four survival layers. Nothing is accidental in the way we perceive events or brands. The first layer is impression, the second is the relations layer, the third is protection, and the fourth is emotions.

“Every experience, every event, everything receives a score in these four layers. Impression is how much this event impresses me. Relations is how much it relates or is connected to me. Protection includes values such as security and peace of mind. Emotions are the emotions the event generates in me: joy, hope, hatred, fear. This is where our processing begins, until the decision is made.”

“Now I decide: to act or not to act, to embrace or retreat. I weigh each layer. The survival layers dominate the conscious thought process. Once I realize that my decision is primarily driven by the impression layer—being seen as superior, powerful—I can strategically place myself in that space.”

“Think of it as managing multiple survival buckets. If I fill the ‘impression’ bucket with bold actions, observers automatically associate confidence with authority. When I engage in aggressive tactics, supporters see ambition; when I remain reticent, rivals see caution. Both paths reinforce the specific survival strategy I operate under.”

“During my partnership with Netanyahu, I observed his profound reliance on the impression layer. His visual dominance was unmatched—every speech, every gesture reinforced a self-image of invincibility. Yet within the relations layer, credentialing and genuine connection remained notably absent. This structural imbalance created the vulnerability exploited in the infamous 1993 televised confession, where personal exposure shattered the carefully constructed facade.”

So what actually happens at the moment when we face a decision?

My modeling reveals a dynamic evaluation cascade. First, initial impressions crystallize—these form the strongest initial weighting. Second, relational assessment occurs, evaluating alignment with allies and enemies alike. Third, emotional response filters priorities, often silencing moderate considerations. Finally, the decisive action emerges from the interplay of these forces. The slower a candidate moves through these stages, the higher the ceiling for miscalculation. Speed becomes an asset when the perception engine runs fast, but overconfidence risks accelerating beyond realistic viability.

“In practice, political figures accelerate through recognition circuits. They prioritize visible achievements—visual magnetism that captures attention. The subsequent step involves leveraging this momentum to reshape perceptions. Success lies in matching tactical tempo to the layered processing logic. When opponents struggle to track narrative shifts, they inadvertently grant the leader additional visibility for rapid escalation.”

Our current electoral landscape demands unprecedented influence mapping.

The present political environment requires mastering multi-layered persuasion simultaneously. Netanyahu’s historical capacity to navigate impression-driven environments provides a template. Strategic communication must oscillate deliberately between reinforcing strong positions—such as security discourse—and addressing nuanced criticisms about democratic norms. The survival framework proves adaptable across contexts, provided core vulnerabilities remain identified and mitigated systematically.

Navigating coalition tensions through emotional calibration.

Coalition management increasingly tests psychological defenses through interpersonal mechanics. As political atmospheres tighten, awareness gains that transcend standard debating protocols becomes evident. Empirical observations suggest a growing necessity to balance relational authenticity with competitive advancement—a tension captured distinctly in contemporary discourse metrics.