The government approved today (Sunday) the proposal of Justice Minister Yariv Levin to initiate impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara in a precedent-setting step, which could trigger wide-ranging political and legal consequences.
The government today (Sunday) approved Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s proposal to initiate a dismissal process against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.
Immediately after approval, Minister Levin approached the designated ministerial committee to request a hearing for the Attorney General, in accordance with the newly approved procedure.
Under the plan presented, the AG could be dismissed not only after consulting the selection committee that appointed her, but also following a hearing before a special ministerial committee. That committee will be comprised of representatives from all coalition parties except United Torah Judaism, which has announced its support for dissolving the Knesset.
The committee will be chaired by Minister Amichai Chikli, with members including Ministers Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben Gvir, Gila Gamliel, and Michael Malchieli.
During the cabinet meeting, several ministers attacked the Attorney General’s conduct, alleging conflicts of interest and institutional overreach. Minister Levin stated, “The Attorney General is tainted by conflicts of interest,” while Minister Ben Gvir urged that the hearing take place “as early as tomorrow morning.” Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar joined Levin’s remarks, warning that a Supreme Court rejection of this decision could lead to a historic constitutional crisis, causing great damage to Israeli democracy.
Prior to this morning’s meeting, Baharav-Miara issued a scathing legal opinion from Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon. In it, Limon argued that the proposal “seeks to change the rules of the game, clearly aimed at ending the current Attorney General’s term, serving the immediate political needs of the government.”
Regarding the removal of the requirement to consult the professional-public committee, the opinion stated: “It is difficult to understand the logic behind abolishing the requirement to consult with a professional-public body meant to safeguard the independence of the Attorney General’s office.”
Limon’s memo further contends that the proposal “contains significant substantive and procedural flaws, including a series of legal defects that undermine the basis of the process.”
The opinion also addresses a broader trend: “Critics report ongoing attempts to weaken gatekeepers, various moves to increase politicization in the civil service… The State of Israel has shifted from a culture of ‘it is not done’ regarding political appointments to a culture of ‘it is done now,’ breaking established norms. Today, there is not even an effort to hide the intention to appoint political cronies.”
