Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara on Wednesday urged the High Court of Justice to issue an order requiring the dismissal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, arguing that his conduct undermines the country’s democratic foundations and the independence of the police.
In an 83-page response to petitions filed with the court — totaling some 450 pages including appendices — Baharav-Miara wrote that unless there is a “very significant change” in the underlying circumstances, and unless Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets the burden placed upon him to explain why he has not removed Ben-Gvir from office, the court should make its interim order absolute and compel action.
1 View gallery
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir
(Photo: Alex Kolomoisky, Alex Gamburg, Shalev Shalom)
“In the current state of affairs,” she wrote, “absent a very significant change in the factual infrastructure, and insofar as the prime minister does not meet the burden imposed upon him to explain why he will not order the transfer of Ben-Gvir from his position as national security minister, the attorney general’s position is that an absolute order should be issued in the petitions.”
Baharav-Miara said her position was based on what she described as a substantial factual record concerning Ben-Gvir’s conduct since his appointment, as well as prior material that she said the prime minister has not substantively addressed. She also cited the absence of safeguards and mechanisms to ensure the “proper, statesmanlike and equal” functioning of the Israel Police, particularly given what she described as the prime minister’s failure to act.
She wrote that while the prime minister has broad discretion in appointing and dismissing ministers — discretion influenced by political and coalition considerations — that authority is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review.
“The prime minister, as part of the executive branch, is subject to the rules of administrative law and the duty to exercise his authority reasonably,” she wrote. “In exceptional circumstances, when the fundamental values of the constitutional and legal system require it — for example, when the manner in which a minister performs his duties directly, severely and possibly irreversibly undermines the governmental foundations over which he is entrusted — the authority to remove a minister becomes not a matter of discretion but an administrative obligation.”
Ben-Gvir responded sharply, accusing the attorney general of attempting to stage what he called a governmental coup during wartime.
“At a time when the State of Israel is engaged in one of the most fateful and important wars in its history, a dismissed criminal official is trying to carry out a governmental coup in a democratic state and remove an elected official,” Ben-Gvir said in a statement. “There is no precedent in democratic countries in which a bureaucrat removes an elected official. Gali Baharav-Miara thinks we are in Iran, and soon she and her criminal bureaucrat friends will establish Revolutionary Guards here. Democracy will prevail.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz also rejected the attorney general’s appeal to the court, saying it was inappropriate to address such matters during what he described as one of the most important and complex wars in Israel’s history.
“Beyond the principled issue, there is no place for dealing with this type of matter during wartime, regarding a minister who is a central part of decision-making and maintaining internal security,” Katz said. “Israel needs unity at this time — and preserving unity requires everyone.”
It was the first time Katz publicly addressed the petitions seeking Ben-Gvir’s dismissal. Other ministers also voiced opposition to Baharav-Miara’s move.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order instructing the prime minister to explain why he had not dismissed Ben-Gvir. Amid calls from coalition leaders for Netanyahu to defy the court’s ruling, the justices expanded the panel hearing the case to nine judges, citing the weight and complexity of the issues involved.
The court scheduled a hearing for March 24 and ordered the prime minister and the national security minister to submit affidavits by March 10.
Baharav-Miara had already called on the court on Jan. 1 to require Netanyahu to explain why he had not removed Ben-Gvir from office. At the time, she wrote that Ben-Gvir was “abusing his position to improperly influence Israel Police activities in the most sensitive areas of law enforcement and investigations, harming basic democratic principles.”
In her earlier legal opinion, she accused Ben-Gvir of systematically and unlawfully interfering in police work, exceeding his authority and issuing operational instructions in the field, which she said is prohibited by law. She argued that the public could no longer be shielded from what she described as damage to the police’s independence, turning the organization into a political body.
In April of last year, Ben-Gvir and Baharav-Miara reached a compromise agreement regarding his involvement in police affairs, enabling her office to defend him against petitions seeking his removal. Under that agreement, Ben-Gvir was barred from intervening in matters related to protests, from interviewing police officers and from interfering in operational activity.
However, in her January opinion and in her latest response to the court, Baharav-Miara argued that Ben-Gvir has repeatedly violated that compromise. When discussions turned to operational steps, she wrote, disagreements emerged and it became clear that the document amounted to declarative statements without practical enforcement.