Tension has escalated in Israel’s fractious political landscape. On Monday, the government took an aggressive first step by voting to fire Gali Baharav-Miara, the sitting attorney general. This controversial decision has already triggered a legal challenge. In turn, Israel’s High Court of Justice granted a temporary injunction that allows Baharav-Miara to remain in office for now. While she was appointed by the former administration, her tenure has been marked by persistent turbulence. She has had many showdowns with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, most notably on his bribery and fraud indictments.
The Israeli government’s decision to dismiss Baharav-Miara shouldn’t be a surprising one-off occurrence. It follows a week of escalated rhetoric and tensions between her office and Netanyahu’s right-wing administration. Upsetting to many since March, Israeli justice minister Yariv Levin started the dismissal process, arguing that these fundamental disagreements over judicial principles and democratic governance. The court has barred Baharav-Miara’s successor from assuming office until her term expires. Now, despite the protests and outrage, numerous Israeli ministers are making public their intentions to ban her from hearings and committee sessions regardless.
In response to the government’s actions, hundreds gathered outside Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem, protesting the proposed dismissal. Demonstrators raised their concerns about the prospect of eroding the rule of law. They praised Baharav-Miara’s vigorous defense of judicial independence principles. Her public comments unapologetically affirm the separation of powers. They’ve targeted Netanyahu’s despised judicial overhaul, a step that many opponents say threatens democratic norms in Israel.
Baharav-Miara’s battles with the prime minister have escalated in recent weeks amid a backdrop of rising discord over national security. The attorney general is adamantly against any sort of judicial meddling. This outlook has resonated widely with Israelis concerned about Netanyahu’s proposed changes’ debilitating effects on the nation’s democratic governance and rule of law. Protests are growing in size and intensity by the day. Members from all quarters of society have begun raising their voices and calling for a reconsideration of the present political course.
“Your credibility with the vast majority of Israelis augments your ability to steer prime minister Netanyahu and his government in the right direction: end the war, return the hostages, stop the suffering.” – 600 former Israeli security officials
The recent and current war on Gaza has made this situation much more urgent and heightened. This crisis presents an important opportunity to examine our national security policies. Even former high-level Israeli security officials are calling for a cessation of hostilities. They caution that prolonging the war will most likely endanger more lives—including those of hostages. This change of heart is probably representative of a collective increasing concern that military aims have neglected moral rationales.
Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security agency, called it the “greatest change” in the narrative of Israel’s war since the October 7 attacks. He stated, “At first this war was a just war, a defensive war, but when we achieved all military objectives, this war ceased to be a just war.” Ayalon’s remarks belabor a penetrating truth that strikes at the hearts of many Israelis who are incredulous about the ongoing cycle of violence.
Families of hostages voiced their fears that current policies “endanger the lives of the kidnapped, who are already in immediate danger of death.” This call draws attention to the humanitarian costs of continuous military operations and risk of escalation and further harm they pose to people in the midst of war.
The High Court’s injunction ensures Baharav-Miara retains her role for now. The government’s intention to sideline her raises significant concerns regarding institutional integrity. The Israeli Supreme Court has emphasized that she should not be replaced until her term ends, reflecting a legal commitment to upholding judicial processes amidst political upheaval.