Israel's High Court calls for compromise while weighing petitions to remove Ben Gvir over alleged politicization of police

After a ten-hour-long, stormy debate, Israel’s High Court did not issue a ruling on a petition to dismiss National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir over his alleged politicization of the police after a hearing on Wednesday.

Instead, the nine judges called on the government and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to find a compromise that would restrain the controversial minister, instead of taking the unprecedented step of forcing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to fire Ben Gvir.

They also questioned whether, given the proximity of elections, an extreme step like ordering the prime minister to dismiss a minister is even necessary.

The case reignited unresolved tensions from pre-war judicial reforms, including debates about the court’s power to curtail a democratically elected government, and the coalition’s desire to fire Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who has called on the court to remove Ben Gvir from his post.

Government ministers have vowed to ignore a potential ruling they see as overstepping the court’s boundaries and directly curtailing a democratically elected government. In particular, they argue the court can't order the removal of a minister without a criminal complaint against him.

“Gali Baharav-Miara wants to take your voice from you,” Ben-Gvir said at a press conference outside the High Court, before the hearing began.

The petitioners argued that the coalition tried to intimidate the judges. While the hearing was closed to the public to prevent disturbances, Chief Justice Isaac Amit expelled Likud MKs Tally Gotliv, May Golan, and Idit Silman, as well as Limor Son Har Melech from Ben Gvir’s Jewish Power party for shouting down the judges.

The petitions claim that Ben Gvir has consistently pursued unlawful policies and overstepped his authority to interfere in the proper functioning and the nominations to senior posts in the police, with which the judges appeared to essentially agree.

However, they also claim that Netanyahu has a duty to stop Ben Gvir, and that his failure to dismiss him is an extreme and unreasonable administrative policy, with which the judges signaled they don’t fully agree by calling both sides to find a compromise.

Baharav-Miara has called for Ben Gvir’s removal over allegedly breaking a compromise barring his involvement in anti-government protests or determining criminal investigations, citing, among others, a case where Ben Gvir refused the promotion of a police detective involved in Netanyahu’s criminal trial.

Ahead of the hearing, Yariv Levin, the Justice Minister and architect of the judicial reforms, vowed that he would disregard a ruling to remove Ben Gvir, calling the hearing itself “unlawful.”

“My friend, Minister Ben Gvir, will continue to serve in his position by virtue of the decision of the people and the trust of the Knesset,” Levin asserted.

Arriving at the court, Ben Gvir told reporters that the A-G “says that I am deciding policy and changing the police — she is correct.”

“I am not a puppet of the State Attorney’s Office. I’m not a potted plant. I am a minister who was chosen in order to govern,” he said, as his supporters chanted that the judges were “traitors.”

During the hearing, Ben Gvir’s attorney David Peter assailed the judges: “You have no authority! You have no authority to decide that you have authority!”

Justice Alex Stein replied, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that we do have the authority to determine our own authority.”

Netanyahu has argued in an opinion filed on Sunday, “Accepting the petitions would indicate that the court is, in practice, assigning itself an active and significant role in the political arena without any legal authority.”

In her written opinion, Baharav-Miara wrote, “What is under discussion... in essence, is the urgent need to stop the damage to individual freedoms and the democratic system of government, which is being caused by improper political interference in the police’s exercise of power, amid severe damage to its apolitical nature and to equality under the law.”

Justice Stein acknowledged that “No country in the world has a mechanism that allows a court to dismiss a minister from his position," but added, "It very much could be that this is what must happen here… but we should also be aware that this is the most extreme step.”

In the meantime, the attorney representing the A-G requested the court to issue an interim order preventing him from taking several actions vis-a-vis the police, including appointing officers to some sensitive positions, involvement in operations that include friction with civilians, and meeting officers without the Police Commissioner.

Protesting such an order, Peter characterized it as “firing the minister without [actually] firing him.”