The High Court of Justice in Israel has ruled that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must clarify his reasons for not dismissing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This conditional order reflects the court’s concern that Netanyahu, as the individual ultimately responsible for Ben-Gvir’s appointment, has not engaged with the issue.
Ben-Gvir has publicly rejected the High Court’s authority, insisting, “There will be no coup,” demonstrating his defiance against the judicial body’s influence on political appointments. The panel that will examine the case has been expanded to nine justices, recognizing the significance of the matter. This includes Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, among others.
Central to the court’s deliberation are accusations that Ben-Gvir has breached agreements established with Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, which were designed to limit his interference in police operations. These agreements are typical for the role and aim to ensure that the police remain apolitical and independent from ministerial pressure, particularly regarding sensitive issues like promotion and demonstration protocols.
The court has given the government until February 24 to present a formal response, with even tighter deadlines for affidavits from both the prime minister and Ben-Gvir. The framework of this investigation is set to culminate with a hearing scheduled for March 24.
MK Gilad Kariv from The Democrats supported the court’s move, emphasizing the necessity for Netanyahu to address what he termed as Ben-Gvir’s clear breaches of law that threaten the independence of law enforcement. A protest group, Ima Era, has also voiced escalating concerns, stating that Ben-Gvir’s continued presence in his ministerial role jeopardizes both national security and the safety of its citizens.
In response to the court’s intervention, Justice Minister Yariv Levin criticized the judges’ authority, alleging that they are overstepping their judicial boundaries and encroaching on decisions meant to reflect the democratic will of the people. Levin portrayed their actions as leading toward a potential constitutional crisis, insisting that only Netanyahu has the prerogative to appoint or dismiss ministers.
Former Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch weighed in on the situation, characterizing Levin and Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric as inciting chaos, materially dangerous to Israel’s democratic foundations.
The ongoing legal battle and the corresponding political drama highlight a significant moment for Israel, reinforcing debates around accountability and the rule of law within its governance structures. As the situation unfolds, it is crucial for the involved parties to navigate this challenge constructively, promoting stability and adherence to democratic principles.