Israel’s elected sovereignty stands firm as Ben-Gvir rejects activist courts threatening voter will and national security.
Itamar Ben-Gvir has formally challenged the judiciary’s authority to interfere with Israel’s democratically elected government, submitting a sharp legal demand through his attorney that no conditional order be issued without a full hearing.
In the request filed today, Ben-Gvir argues that the petitions seeking his removal are legally baseless and fundamentally contradict Israeli law. The submission stresses that no statute grants the court authority to compel the Prime Minister to dismiss a serving minister—especially in the absence of an indictment or any defect in the minister’s eligibility.
According to the filing, judicial intervention of this nature would mark a radical and dangerous deviation from democratic norms. Such a move, the minister argues, has no parallel in established democracies and would amount to an unprecedented assault on representative governance and the sovereign will of Israel’s voters.
Attorney David Pater emphasized that a detailed preliminary response had already dismantled the petitions point by point, exposing serious distortions presented by government legal advisers. The defense maintains that the court is being urged to act without legal foundation, factual grounding, or constitutional authority.
The request concludes with a stark warning: issuing a conditional order without a hearing would constitute an extraordinary judicial power grab—one that risks destabilizing Israel’s democratic balance and overriding the clear mandate delivered at the ballot box.Itamar Ben-Gvir has formally challenged the judiciary’s authority to interfere with Israel’s democratically elected government, submitting a sharp legal demand through his attorney that no conditional order be issued without a full hearing.
In the request filed today, Ben-Gvir argues that the petitions seeking his removal are legally baseless and fundamentally contradict Israeli law. The submission stresses that no statute grants the court authority to compel the Prime Minister to dismiss a serving minister—especially in the absence of an indictment or any defect in the minister’s eligibility.
According to the filing, judicial intervention of this nature would mark a radical and dangerous deviation from democratic norms. Such a move, the minister argues, has no parallel in established democracies and would amount to an unprecedented assault on representative governance and the sovereign will of Israel’s voters.
Attorney David Pater emphasized that a detailed preliminary response had already dismantled the petitions point by point, exposing serious distortions presented by government legal advisers. The defense maintains that the court is being urged to act without legal foundation, factual grounding, or constitutional authority.
The request concludes with a stark warning: issuing a conditional order without a hearing would constitute an extraordinary judicial power grab—one that risks destabilizing Israel’s democratic balance and overriding the clear mandate delivered at the ballot box.
