by Herb Keinon
Baharav-Miara called the hearing for her dismissal a “sham” with a “predetermined outcome” and said her presence would only lend legitimacy to a process that violates decades of legal precedent.
Israel’s institutional crisis has escalated on multiple fronts over the last two days, with the government trying to fire the attorney general, the attorney general seeking to indict confidants of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and ministers advancing legislation to give politicians sweeping powers to dismiss senior officials.
Each of these developments would have made headlines on its own. Taken together, they point to something deeper: a struggle over who gets to set the rules inside Israel’s democratic system – those elected to lead or those appointed to constrain them.
To some, what has transpired in the last two days is nothing less than judicial reform by other means.
The sweeping overhaul that filled Kaplan Street before October 7, 2023, may be on pause, but the impulse to rebalance power between branches of government hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s just shifted tactics.
To others, these steps represent precisely the kind of correction the system needs: reining in officials who have overstepped their role and obstructed governance.
On Monday, a five-member ministerial committee met to hold a “dismissal hearing” for Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. She did not attend and minced no words explaining why.
In a letter released to the public, Baharav-Miara called the hearing a “sham” with a “predetermined outcome” and said her presence would only lend legitimacy to a process that violates decades of legal precedent.
The committee, appointed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and led by Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, bypasses the traditional Grunis Committee and is composed entirely of cabinet ministers: Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Gila Gamliel, and Michael Malchieli. According to the attorney general, this marks a break with a 30-year norm: that dismissing a sitting attorney general must be reviewed by an independent body.
In her response, Baharav-Miara argued that the hearing would set a precedent allowing the government to dismiss not only her but any future attorney general, for improper or politically motivated reasons – such as blocking illegal actions, launching investigations, or indictments against coalition members, refusing to halt criminal proceedings, or as part of a political deal to keep the government in power.
Levin has argued that the relationship between the attorney general and the government has long since broken down, paralyzing government operations at a time of national emergency.
The High Court declined to intervene in the matter on Sunday as Baharav-Miara and her supporters had hoped, allowing the hearing to proceed – but made clear the process was “not irreversible.”
If the attorney-general lost in court on Sunday morning, she responded later in the day with moves of her own.
Continued investigations into Qatargate
First came news that an indictment would be filed, pending a hearing, against top Netanyahu aide Jonatan Urich on national security charges.According to a statement from the attorney general’s office, Urich – alongside former Prime Minister’s Office spokesperson Eli Feldstein – is accused of extracting highly classified intelligence from IDF systems and leaking it to the German daily tabloid Bild, specifically to shape public discourse around the murders of six hostages in Rafah, in August 2024.
The material, according to the attorney-general, was “classified at the highest level” and “obtained via a covert intelligence method,” with its release allegedly “endangering state security and human lives.”
On the same day, Baharav-Miara’s office also revealed that Israel Prison Service chief Kobi Yaakobi – a Ben-Gvir ally – is facing possible charges for passing classified information to a police officer who was under covert investigation for failing to act on alleged settler violence.
Both developments sparked furious reactions from Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, who accused Baharav-Miara of using the legal system to protect her job.
Inside the coalition, the timing was seen as no coincidence.
To some observers, Baharav-Miara’s announcements were an effort to echo the precedent set in the case of former Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) head Ronen Bar.
If the attorney-general has active investigations involving Netanyahu’s close circle, she could argue that the government is in a conflict of interest and cannot legally move to dismiss her – just as the court ruled in the case of Bar that Netanyahu could not fire him because of conflict of interest since top aides – again, Urich and Feldstein – were being investigated in the “Qatargate” affair.
As if all that weren’t enough, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation also moved forward a bill to the Knesset on Sunday that would allow incoming governments to dismiss senior officials – including the attorney-general, IDF chief of staff, police commissioner, and Shin Bet director – within the first 100 days of taking office.
The bill would also permit the reversal of some decisions made by outgoing officeholders. No misconduct required – just “substantial disagreement.”
Supporters of the legislation argue that a government should be able to implement its agenda using officials it trusts, especially if it is ultimately held responsible for results.
Critics argue that it effectively politicizes the top tier of Israel’s professional class.
Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon warned that it would turn the government into “the attorney-general, the chief of staff, and the police commissioner all at once.”
In a system with no constitution and only one legislative chamber, they warn that stripping these positions of independence would remove key checks on executive power, leaving the system prone to abuse, partisanship, and overreach.
It’s tempting to treat these developments as separate stories. But they’re not. They’re all part of the same institutional battle: over who has the final say, who holds real authority, and who has the right to challenge it.
The saga over Baharav-Miara’s firing boils down to whether a government can remove a legal official it sees as obstructing its mandate.
The pending indictments against Urich and Yaakobi raise questions about whether prosecutors can act against senior officials without triggering accusations of political bias.
And the proposed legislation now moving to the Knesset seeks to tip the balance in favor of elected leaders by redefining the rules of professional oversight.
President Isaac Herzog addressed the situation in unusually stark terms on Monday, likening it to a roller-coaster that has lost its brakes. “Inside the lead car there is utter chaos,” he said. “Everyone is attacking everyone. Everyone is blaming everyone. Everyone is striking out. This is very dangerous.”
Herzog praised Baharav-Miara’s performance during the war and called on all sides to act responsibly. “Stop before we collapse into the abyss,” he urged.
While this may not be the sweeping judicial overhaul that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets in 2023, the core questions remain unchanged: Who holds the final say in a system without a constitution, with few checks on executive power, and where legal officials are tasked with holding accountable the very politicians who appoint them?
The answer to that question won’t just determine the fate of one attorney general; it will shape the future rules of the game.
Herb Keinon
Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-861019
No comments:
Post a Comment