Israeli gov’t continues attempts to dismiss A-G Baharav-Miara with creation of new dismissal procedure

In the long-simmering conflict between the Israeli government and its Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, tensions escalated on Sunday as the government approved a new procedure that could pave the way for her to be fired.

Baharav-Miara had voiced her legal concerns against the move before the government’s meeting, during which it approved the creation of a new ministerial committee designed to bypass the standard official selection committee.

The government’s decision was based on a 25-year-old resolution and aims to circumvent the statutory committee that is made up of legal professionals and public figures by creating a five-member ministerial committee.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin immediately requested that the committee conduct a hearing and provide its recommendation on whether or not to fire Baharav-Miara.

Shortly after the decision, several petitions were filed against the move at the High Court of Justice, which is expected to issue a temporary injunction or cancel the government’s decision altogether.

Sunday’s controversy is just the latest round in the ongoing clash between the two parties.

The right-wing coalition accuses Baharav-Miara of consciously trying to thwart and prevent it from implementing its policies through “legal warfare.”

Meanwhile, the A-G has decried several of the coalition’s policies, particularly the Judicial Reform, and many of National Security Minister Ben Gvir’s actions as illegal.

In a statement delivered by her deputy, Adv. Gil Limon, Baharav-Miara declared, “The government's hasty decision to change the method for ending the term of the Attorney General is illegal and contradicts Supreme Court rulings. The fact that the government failed to establish the advisory committee does not justify a change of the rules and the creation of a mechanism that allows termination of term in an arbitrary manner and politicization of the legal advisory to the government.”

“This is the removal of a central and necessary institutional guarantee to ensure the independent functioning ability of the Attorney General, and essential therefore to the protection of the rule of law,” she explained.

“The result of the proposal is the politicization of the position of the Attorney General, and as a derivative, politicization of the range of powers held by them – in enforcement, legal advice, and representation.”

Justice Minister Yariv Levin hit back, claiming that Baharav-Miara “is tainted by a conflict of interest, the entire method in which the elected echelon is being limited is inconceivable.”

Levin also argued that her dismissal is necessary since the Cabinet expressed their lack of confidence in the attorney general back in March, and that there was no possibility of effective cooperation anymore.

The committee that the government hopes will authorize the A-G’s firing is set to include Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, who is to chair the committee, as well as Minister of National Security Ben Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Services Minister Michael Malkieli, and Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel.

Their recommendation will be passed back to the Cabinet, which can then dismiss Baharav-Miara with a three-fourths majority.

“We will conduct a professional and fair process to examine the Attorney General’s performance and to review her claims, and at its end we will recommend to the government whether to dismiss her or not. The process will be conducted with an open heart and a willing spirit, with an understanding of the central importance of the government’s trust in the Attorney General’s authority and functioning,” vowed Smotrich.

Among the critics of the move is the “Movement for Democratic Integrity in Israel,” which has also filed a High Court petition against it.

The group stated, “As in the case of the government’s decision to dismiss Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, also in this case the government’s decision is afflicted with deep flaws that contradict the fundamentals of administrative law and render the decision illegal.”