Big Political Fight in Israel: Israel is staring at a potential constitutional meltdown after a controversial cabinet resolution fundamentally altered the mechanism for removing the Attorney General. The resolution, recently passed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, transfers the authority to dismiss the Attorney General from a professional statutory committee to a five-member ministerial panel, raising serious concerns about the erosion of legal safeguards and judicial independence.
Big Political Fight in Israel
Israel is staring at a potential constitutional meltdown after a controversial cabinet resolution fundamentally altered the mechanism for removing the Attorney General. The resolution, recently passed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, transfers the authority to dismiss the Attorney General from a professional statutory committee to a five-member ministerial panel—raising serious concerns about the erosion of legal safeguards and judicial independence.
Until now, the dismissal of an Attorney General in Israel required inputs and oversight from a professional statutory committee, designed to ensure legal integrity and prevent political interference. However, the newly passed resolution bypasses this structure, granting direct dismissal powers to a government-appointed panel. This dramatic shift is being seen as a strategic attempt to place the Attorney General’s fate squarely in the hands of the ruling administration.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin moved quickly following the cabinet’s decision. His office formally submitted a request to the newly empowered five-member ministerial committee, asking them to convene a hearing aimed at removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara from her position. Levin cited “ongoing and substantive differences of opinion” as the justification for the move.
This aggressive step has drawn sharp criticism and triggered alarm bells within Israel’s legal community and political opposition. The Attorney General’s office has issued a firm warning that the move is not just procedurally flawed—it is outright unlawful. It argued that the new political route to her removal could severely undermine the independence and credibility of the Attorney General’s role.
The matter is expected to land swiftly in the High Court of Justice, where legal petitions are being readied by watchdog organizations and opposition groups. These groups argue that if the government proceeds with its plan, even in defiance of a potential court ruling, Israel could plunge into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Justice Minister Levin, however, remained firm in defending the cabinet’s decision. He stated that the differences between his office and the Attorney General were “substantial” and accused the latter of obstructing key government functions.
Opposition voices were quick to condemn the move. Democratic Party Chairman Yah Golan accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of using the Attorney General as a political scapegoat to divert attention from internal party disputes and ongoing legal troubles. He labeled the cabinet decision as a blatant attempt to politicize a neutral legal role. National Unity Chairman Benny Gantz echoed these sentiments, warning that the move represents a direct threat to the legitimacy and authority of Israel’s state institutions.
In the backdrop of this political and legal storm, government watchdog groups are actively preparing to challenge the resolution in court. If the High Court strikes it down and the government still moves forward, Israel would find itself in uncharted constitutional territory—potentially sparking mass protests and a deeper erosion of public trust in democratic governance.
As the nation watches closely, all eyes are now on Israel’s High Court of Justice. The outcome of this legal battle will not only determine the fate of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara but could also shape the future of democratic checks and balances in the country.
Disclaimer: This article is based on the latest developments and public reports concerning Israel’s evolving political and judicial landscape. Details may continue to unfold as the situation progresses.