Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara was a no-show for Sunday's government meeting, during which ministers unanimously expressed no confidence in her and advanced the process for her dismissal. However, the letter she sent shortly before the meeting outlined her "defense statement" point by point.
Baharav-Miara wrote: "The termination of the attorney general's term is an extremely rare step. Advancing such a measure must follow a structured process that guarantees the independence of the attorney general's office, as established in government decisions based on the Shamgar Committee report. The planned declarative discussion is not part of the structured process, has no legal validity, and bypasses the established rules."
3 View gallery
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Attorney General Gali Baharv-Miara
(Photo: Alex Kolomoisky, Rafi Kotz, Oliver CONTRERAS / AFP, AFP)
She continued: "The current proposal reverses the roles. Cases where the government seeks to act unlawfully, even to the detriment of the public, are presented as 'disagreements' that serve as grounds for dismissal. The goal is clear: to turn the attorney general's office into one that remains silent in the face of unlawful actions or even supports them. Otherwise, dismissal becomes a possibility.
"At this stage, I will address only preliminary points: First, the proposal is based on a questionable and incomplete factual foundation. Second, the proposal reflects a misunderstanding of the role of the attorney general. As I will clarify, not only does the government's discussion bypass the rules for term termination, but it also attempts to undermine our ability to fulfill our role. The main claim in the proposal is that significant and prolonged disagreements between the government and the attorney general prevent effective cooperation. The truth is different," she wrote.
In her letter, the attorney general explained that she did not initiate disagreements but simply performed her duties according to the law. When, to her judgment, the government advances actions that are unlawful, it is her duty to raise a red flag. As an interpreter of the law, she is bound solely to it and is not authorized to align with actions that may contradict it. Consequently, disagreements arise, but Baharav-Miara argues that they stem from adherence to the law, not from her actions.
"Since the establishment of this government, the entire attorney general's office and I have worked with the government to advance its policies. The claim of a lack of effective cooperation is disconnected from reality. The data and facts speak for themselves. During the tenure of the current government, we assisted in advancing over 650 government decisions and hundreds of legislative initiatives. We provided ongoing legal counsel to the government and represented the state in thousands of legal proceedings."
Some ministers claim Baharav-Miara does not assist the government in advancing its policies. For example, when petitions are submitted to the Supreme Court against various government actions, the attorney general does not defend them or represent the government, leaving it without representation in court. In the past, disputes were usually resolved away from the public eye. Governments recognized the supremacy of the rule of law and the attorney general's role as the authorized interpreter of the law, unless the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Previous governments avoided unlawful actions to adhere to the attorney general's interpretations and court rulings, with many disputes ending in compromise. The situation under the current government is entirely different.
In her letter to the ministers, the attorney general elaborated: "We have worked extensively to advance issues at the core of the government's declared policies: national security, the approach toward Gaza, combating terrorism and incitement to terrorism, formulating state budgets, expanding and supporting settlements, matters of religion and state, addressing the consequences of the Gaza war, including the activities of the Tkumah Directorate. We have also provided a comprehensive range of legal tools to the government and security agencies to achieve the objectives of the conflict."
She added: "In this context, we advanced hundreds of government legislative initiatives. We represented the state in over 2,000 security-related petitions, including administrative detention proceedings, demolitions of terrorists' homes, holding the bodies of terrorists, defending the government's policies on humanitarian aid to Gaza, and appearances in international courts to prevent orders against the state. Cases where legal counsel indicated that the government's desires could not be advanced for legal reasons were rare and exceptional, highlighting the mistaken perception underlying the proposal."
AG leaving her home on way to work
On the other hand, ministers repeatedly claim the attorney general consistently obstructs the government's legislative proposals. Baharav-Miara counters this by asserting that legal counsel helped advance 650 government decisions and hundreds of legislative initiatives. Legal objections occurred in fewer than ten cases. The instances in which she refused to represent the government involved the judicial overhaul, as they were unconstitutional. These included the law canceling the "reasonableness clause," the law changing the process for appointing judges, the conscription law, and the so-called "Ben Gvir law."
Baharav-Miara continued: "The role of the attorney general is to assist the government in achieving its policies, while ensuring adherence to the law. When legal counsel presents the government with legal boundaries, it is fulfilling its role. This cannot be considered a disagreement that constitutes grounds for dismissal. Even if this is not to the government's liking, it is the professional duty of legal counsel to ensure the legality of its actions."
She further wrote: "The proposal frames situations where legal counsel pointed out legal boundaries to the government as grounds for dismissal, even though, in the overwhelming majority of these cases, the courts found judicial intervention in the government's stance to be warranted. According to the proposal, an attorney general who adheres to the law would be deemed uncooperative with the government and could be dismissed. Essentially, the proposal seeks to make the government the sole interpreter of the law and the arbiter of its boundaries. The Supreme Court recently rejected this approach unanimously in an expanded panel."
The attorney general serves as the legal interpreter of the law. She has the authority to determine whether a government proposal violates democratic principles or infringes on individual rights. According to Baharav-Miara, under Justice Minister Yariv Levin's proposal, an attorney general who strictly adheres to the law would be deemed uncooperative with the government and could be dismissed. Essentially, the proposal seeks to turn the government into the sole interpreter of the law for itself, favoring a legal advisor loyal to the government over one dedicated to the public interest and individual rights as defined by the role. This would transform the legal advisor into a "loyal servant" instead of a national advisor.
She wrote: "This move must be understood for what it is: the proposal does not aim to promote trust, but rather loyalty to the political echelon. It does not seek governance but unchecked governmental power, as part of a broader effort to weaken the judiciary and intimidate professional ranks. The government seeks to place itself above the law, operating without checks and balances during highly sensitive times—emergency periods, anti-government protests, and election times. I was not asked in advance to address this in the government meeting."
The attorney general expressed concern about accelerating regime changes, including weakening the police, undermining legal advisors in government ministries by turning them into political appointees, dismissing the head of Shin Bet, and altering the process for appointing judges in Israel with an emphasis on political appointments. She hinted at the need to remain vigilant to prevent the government from exploiting the current sensitive situation to harm human rights and the right to protest. She emphasized her role as a safeguard for the public.
<< Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv >>
Later in the letter, she wrote: "A detailed response to the claims raised in the proposal, its legality, timing, extraneous considerations involved, and its influence on criminal proceedings will be provided in the appropriate forum."
Between the lines, among the extraneous considerations behind launching the dismissal process, the attorney general hinted at the "Qatar-Gate" affair, which is being investigated by Shin Bet under her supervision, involving individuals closely associated with the prime minister. She also referred to ongoing investigations into ministers and their offices: Miri Regev for alleged allocation of budgets to associates; May Golan for alleged involvement in fictitious appointments; Eli Cohen in the case of distributing diplomatic passports to political activists; and associates of Itamar Ben Gvir, suspected of irregular activities to advance their positions in the police.
In conclusion, Baharav-Miara wrote: "A dismissal process, if decided upon, must be conducted properly, in accordance with established rules and its stages. We, in the attorney general's office, will continue to fulfill our duties without fear—assisting the government in advancing its policies within the bounds of the law. Sincerely, Gali Baharav-Miara."