Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his intention to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, writing that he did so “in light of improper conduct and substantive, prolonged disagreements between her and the government.” This announcement follows relentless attacks against the Attorney General by government ministers, led by Levin, and repeated calls to oust her. The turbulent tenure of the Attorney General – and whether the desire to oust her is justified.

Yesterday, Justice Minister Yariv Levin dropped a bombshell. He approached the Cabinet Secretary and requested to initiate dismissal proceedings against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara—an event unprecedented in 40 years. This move came after a long period during which new headlines continuously entered our lives, heralding yet another struggle between the Attorney General and the political echelon. Sometimes it is already difficult to understand when a claim is substantive—and when it is hot air serving politicians vis-à-vis their political base.

Adv. Gil Bringer, director of the Oman-Fisher Center at the Hebrew University, explains: “The Attorney General has three roles: to advise the government legally, to assist it in implementing the policy it has determined by law, and the third—to represent it in legal forums.”

“Israeli case law determined decades ago that the Attorney General’s legal counsel has binding status,” says Adv. Raz Nizri, former Deputy Attorney General. “The Attorney General determines the law for the government as long as the court has not ruled otherwise. Governmental legal counsel is unlike private legal counsel—the client is the government, government bodies, ministers, etc., but the Attorney General also represents the public interest.”

“When comparing this to other advanced democracies,” says Prof. Yaniv Roznai, “it is clear that the role of the Attorney General in Israel is stronger compared to similar roles in other countries. Clearly, this is due to the absence of checks and balances mechanisms existing in other countries, which we lack.”

According to Adv. Bringer, “The institution of the Attorney General has changed over the years—from a classic position of legal counsel to the government, to some new ethos of gatekeepers.”

“There is some rashness in pulling out ‘red cards'”

The beginning of this frontal confrontation can be marked at the first government meeting in December 2022. At that time, Prime Minister Netanyahu, against whom three indictments were filed, exceptionally decided not to invite Gali Baharav-Miara to it—a sort of message delivery: you are not welcome here.

According to Dr. Elad Gil, head of the Tachlith Research Institute: “There is an event here that from the very first moment started on the wrong track. We later saw statements never heard before, expressions like ‘He who rises to kill you, rise early to fire him.'”

“When you ask me what the role of the Attorney General is—it is not to share power with the government,” Bringer explains. “It is to represent while the government acts according to law. Is it acting according to law or not? The feeling is that lately there is great rashness in the rather hasty claim that the government is not acting lawfully. There is some rashness in this pulling out of ‘red cards’.”

“Should not do ‘acrobatics’ and approve everything the government wants”

We dove into the data. Since the beginning of the current government’s term, the Attorney General disagreed with the government’s position, a specific minister’s position, or promoted bills in about 15 cases. On 12 issues, she allowed them to receive separate legal representation—such as in the petition against Aryeh Deri’s appointment as a minister, or in the High Court petition against the cancellation of the reasonableness standard. On other issues, such as the promotion of Superintendent Meir Suissa to the rank of Chief Superintendent, she refused to allow the government private legal representation. In ten government decisions, she determined that there was a legal impediment—meaning the government’s action was contrary to law—out of some 600 decisions.

According to Dr. Gil, “The numbers, as always, are a matter of narrative. One can argue that the numbers are negligible. That ministers needing legal counsel receive legal counsel in about 90% of cases. There is also room to understand that sometimes even higher numbers than what we are accustomed to seeing can create problems in the already complex relationship between an Attorney General and their government.”

Prof. Roznai notes: “Ultimately, these are very low percentages of intervention or prevention, and rightfully so. In the end, we are within some zone of reasonableness, and all her decisions in my opinion were within this zone of reasonable legal counsel. Do I think the Attorney General is supposed to perform ‘acrobatics’ now to approve anything the government wants, no matter how much that thing endangers the rule of law or human rights? Certainly not.”

According to Adv. Bringer, “Until not many years ago, cases where the Attorney General refuses to represent the state in court, or even more severe cases where the Attorney General prevents it from hiring a private lawyer, it is very hard to find those cases.”

“Creating antagonism, a feeling that we cannot work together for political reasons”

No one knows the role of the Attorney General better than former Attorney General Prof. Avichai Mandelblit, who finished his term about three years ago. His tenure was not considered simple, primarily due to the opening of criminal cases against the Prime Minister, but it featured fewer professional clashes and legal impediments.

“The Attorney General’s legal counsel remains in the same place; it has not moved from the place I defined earlier,” says Prof. Mandelblit. “Namely, to assist the government in realizing its policy; it is blind to who the government is, it cares not whether it is right or left.”

If we look at the numbers, Gali Baharav-Miara disqualifies or opposes or does not support significantly more decisions than during your period.

“Yes, because they are going to places they did not go to during my time, including a statement recently made by the Communications Minister that even if the High Court rules, we will not respect it. Did anyone imagine there would be a minister in the government who would say such a thing? I think they are trying to artificially manufacture, intentionally, many decisions that cannot be defended, that are outside the red lines of a liberal state. There is a desire to create antagonism, a feeling that we cannot work together for political reasons.”

Even during Mandelblit’s time, several memorable decisions occurred. He determined that the “Cameras Law” could not be promoted to place cameras at polling stations. He did not approve extending the tenure of Deputy State Attorney Dan Eldad, and determined that Ofir Akunis’s appointment as Justice Minister, carried out swiftly in 2021, was illegal.

“That was right at the end of the term,” Mandelblit says, “and it is nowhere near the levels of the past three years since I left.”

And when such a thing happens, like the Cameras Law, take me behind the scenes, you come to the Prime Minister in a closed room and tell him ‘This won’t pass, let’s try to do something together,’ does he come to you? How does it work?

“You make an effort, an endeavor; in most cases we found a solution. In most cases you don’t hear about it. Why don’t you hear about it? Because it gets resolved. During my time, did anyone think of subordinating investigations to the Public Security Minister, did anyone think of appointing political judges? From the opposition? From the coalition?”

When did that change?

“I felt a very big change after the indictment was filed against Netanyahu. That is what I felt. I did not change my path. I do not think I was adversarial to the government either; quite the contrary. There was criticism that I was catering too much to the government.”

And this is another substantive issue poisoning relations between the government and the institution of the Attorney General. She is the authority responsible for prosecution in the Netanyahu files, and the one deciding whether to open investigations and indict MKs and ministers. Such as the investigation opened against MK Tali Gotliv, suspected of exposing a Shin Bet operative on social networks to harm his wife, Shikma Bressler; an investigation against Transport Minister Miri Regev, suspected of fraud and breach of trust for prioritizing authorities based on political affinity; and a bribery suspicion investigation against Minister May Golan, following the Comptroller’s report exposing the creation of fictitious jobs for associates and illegal fundraising for an NGO she established.

In a letter published by Levin yesterday, he said regarding the Attorney General that she purified the creeping abomination she desired, and defiled the permitted not to her liking. And all this under the cynical and dogmatic guise of the rule of law.

When you heard about the government’s desire to fire the Attorney General, what did you think?

“I wasn’t surprised,” Mandelblit answers. “I wish I had been surprised. Because this is something we shouldn’t reach. It is a deliberate, planned move to get rid of one of the foundational pillars of the democracy of the State of Israel,” Mandelblit says.

“She chose in most cases not to go with the government’s position”

One of the prominent clashes was the dismissal of Israel Post Chairman Mishael Vaknin by ministers Shlomo Karhi and Dudi Amsalem. The reasoning for dismissal was that he was not fulfilling his role properly. The Attorney General opposed the move, claiming the decision suffered from substantive flaws and lacked factual basis, and called on the High Court to cancel his dismissal. High Court justices agreed with Baharav-Miara’s position and annulled the dismissal.

Conversely, in the case of Dr. Odellia Mines, acting chair of the Second Authority Council, the Attorney General determined the appointment was illegal and did not allow the Communications Minister separate legal representation. And Dr. Gil notes: “The Communications Minister expressed a desire to fire the Israel Post Chairman, despite the fact that by every objective professional metric he excelled in his work, and throughout the process it was hard to find any legal basis for it.”

High Court justices agreed with Baharav-Miara’s position, and annulled his dismissal. But in the case of Dr. Odellia Mines, appointed acting chair of the Second Authority Council, the outcome was different. The Attorney General determined the appointment was illegal, did not allow the Communications Minister separate legal representation, and the judges rejected all her arguments, approving Odellia’s appointment to the post.

And Bringer explains: “The Attorney General not only determines that the appointment is void, without even reaching court—if you go back ten or twenty years, you won’t find examples of this. The government says, ‘Very well, let me be represented by a private lawyer.’ The Attorney General writes to the Communications Minister and informs the government, private representation is only when you have not deviated significantly from what the law requires. Meaning, in the legal counsel’s view, the government here completely deviated from what the law allows it.”

“However, you reach court, a respected panel of three Supreme Court justices sits, and what do they rule? That justice is entirely with the government. Essentially the judges are telling the Attorney General, you do not know how to assess how much this thing is within the bounds of the law, and how much it is not within the bounds of the law. An event of this type is no small scar. Because ultimately the government must trust the Attorney General, that she exhausted all her abilities to find a legal way to realize what the government chose to do. The result shows that in this case it was not like that. She chose in most cases not to go with the government’s position, most times the High Court ruled in her favor.”

“The truth is the conscription law issue is a relatively simple issue”

And this also happened in her determination to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, in the High Court petition against the cancellation of the reasonableness standard, in the petition against Deri’s appointment as minister, in the amendment to the incapacitation clause, and in one of the most significant issues for this government: Haredi conscription. Both she and the Supreme Court justices interpreted the law the same way, ruling that yeshiva students must be drafted immediately, and funding to them must cease.

And Bringer argues: “The truth is the conscription law issue is a relatively simple issue. Meaning, the government is currently not acting within the bounds of the law. This is by the way a classic case in my view, of the law being very clear on this matter. I think this is actually not a bad example of there being a legal analysis here, which does not deviate from the historical way legal advisors analyzed the law.”

“The Attorney General, to tell the truth, wants to carry out a coup against democracy,” Ben Gvir said of her when serving as a minister in the government. “Any puny brat coming now reaches the Attorney General, they arrest the person right away. He comes and says, I, Dudi Amsalem said so and so.”

And Bringer notes: “With the current government, with some of the ministers, the legal counsel does not have a substantive dialogue. There is an adversarial dialogue, there is an aggressive dialogue. Some of the government ministers’ proposals are dangerous proposals or steps that cannot be defended. And even I, as someone with a more cautious and conservative legal approach, would determine a legal impediment. And yet I think there are also cases where the Attorney General’s trigger finger on the legal impediment was too light. You use a 5-kilo hammer once in a while. It needs to be saved for clear-cut cases. And sometimes we reached a state where I told the political echelon, the Prime Minister, ‘This cannot be done.’ You reach this thing after you try to see if there are other solutions.”

According to Dr. Gil, “The data as we know it to date does not raise justification for firing the Attorney General. This is not a situation where if you don’t like the style, or if you think the Attorney General erred in several cases, you as a government have permission to fire her.”

“Gave the government a blank check regarding the management of combat operations”

In the government, as noted, they think differently and have been planning this move for several months, but it is not so simple to fire an Attorney General. First the government must vote on a motion of no confidence in the Attorney General. Then the Justice Minister is required to approach the search committee, the one responsible for her appointment or dismissal, and present it with evidence of substantive or prolonged disagreements between them. Only today the committee is not staffed at full composition, and must be manned with five members to advance the process. If this happens, the search committee will summon the Attorney General to a hearing, then formulate its recommendations and transfer them to the government. Afterward the Attorney General will undergo another hearing, then the government will vote, and it is not obligated to accept the committee’s recommendations. Ultimately, the decision will reach a High Court test, and the government will be required to justify the reasonableness of the move before the judges.

And Dr. Gil details: “A dismissal move now, during this period, has very heavy internal social costs for the country, it has external costs. The State of Israel is now in an international legal event where if it fires the Attorney General, who is entrusted with interpreting the law and enforcing it within the government, it will be a very harsh message outwardly.”

And Prof. Roznai says: “I think in very many cases, the Attorney General even gave the government a blank check. We saw this for example in everything related to the management of combat operations, we see this in what relates to the settlement enterprise. The Attorney General is certainly not curbing the government.” Conversely, Dr. Gil says: “Arguments always existed, tensions always existed. Imposition of the legal counsel on government ministers, at the levels taking place today, never existed.”

“I don’t think it will happen, that she will be fired at the end of the day. There is a path to cross.”

There are those who think Levin’s move will not successfully pass the long road to dismissal, and is primarily intended for deterrence and strengthening his standing vis-à-vis the Likud base. Nevertheless, from the moment we reached this explosion, as we have already learned firsthand during the days of the judicial overhaul, we all lose.

Mandelblit, what if the Attorney General is fired?

“I don’t think it will happen, that she will be fired at the end of the day. There is a path to cross.” And Dr. Gil says: “We citizens must expect both sides to do more to make this relationship start working.” “Less texting, more talking,” suggests Adv. Nizri.

Jennifer Silon participated in the preparation of the report.

Read the full article at the source >>