Ben-Gvir demands Baharav-Miara's removal to join Netanyahu's next coalition

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara told the High Court of Justice on Monday that all legal efforts to prevent National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir from interfering with police operations have failed. Her statement came as part of an update on the implementation of a court ruling from April that mandated Ben Gvir, head of the ultra-nationalist Otzma Yehudit party, to adhere to a set of guidelines meant to safeguard police independence. The court’s April decision required Baharav-Miara, Ben Gvir, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach an agreement aimed at curbing the minister’s influence over police activities. However, according to the attorney general, Ben Gvir has rejected the final version of the principles document, effectively rejecting the notion that the police should remain apolitical and free from political interference in their use of force against citizens. Since the court’s ruling, Baharav-Miara stated that Ben Gvir has continued to act in ways that contradict the agreed-upon principles. She described these actions as violations of the court order itself. Among the examples she cited were public remarks by Ben Gvir suggesting that a criminal investigation into a senior police officer was politically motivated, comments about the police’s use of stun grenades during ultra-Orthodox protests, and ongoing involvement in selecting police personnel. Baharav-Miara specifically referenced Ben Gvir’s recent posts on social media, including one in which he criticized the Department of Internal Police Investigations for probing Avishai Muallem, a former senior police detective in the West Bank accused of bribery, breach of trust, and abuse of office. In a May post, Ben Gvir called Muallem an “outstanding officer” and claimed he was being persecuted by the “deep state” for attempting to promote him. She also noted Ben Gvir’s defiant declaration following the court’s April ruling, in which he vowed to continue appointing police officers based on his policies and warned that if the attorney general intervened, they would “blow up the negotiations.” According to Baharav-Miara, the pattern of behavior suggests that attempts to halt the minister’s interference have not yielded results. In response, Ben Gvir dismissed Baharav-Miara’s claims on social media, stating that she would “keep trying to bring down the right-wing government, and we’ll keep working, and, with God’s help, we’ll win!” The court’s April ruling followed months of legal proceedings, during which Baharav-Miara petitioned for Netanyahu to remove Ben Gvir over repeated allegations of political meddling in police affairs. A month after the ruling, the attorney general received a report from the Zulat Institute for Equality and Human Rights highlighting concerns about threats to freedom of expression and freedom of protest. The case underscores the growing tensions within Israel’s political landscape, particularly around the role of law enforcement and the extent to which officials can exert influence over policing decisions. As the situation continues to unfold, the court’s next steps will likely determine whether further measures are taken to enforce the principles outlined in the earlier ruling.