Coalition Leaders Urge Prime Minister Netanyahu To Defy High Court of Justice Over Ben-Gvir Dismissal
As the High Court of Justice examines a petition seeking the removal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, senior coalition figures call on the prime minister not to comply with any ruling, directly challenging the court’s authority.
The dispute began with a petition submitted to Israel’s High Court, asking Benjamin Netanyahu to dismiss Ben-Gvir from office. The petition argues that Ben-Gvir acted beyond the limits of his authority by intervening in police activity, in violation of the legal separation between ministerial policy and operational law enforcement.
The petition was filed by several civil society organizations, including the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. It claims that the minister’s conduct reflects a repeated pattern rather than isolated incidents, and that continued tolerance of such behavior undermines the independence of the police and the rule of law.
The case took on added weight when Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara submitted the state’s legal position to the court. While she did not initiate the petition, Baharav-Miara supported its central claims, warning that Ben-Gvir’s actions raise serious legal concerns and may amount to improper political interference. She also raised doubts about whether the prime minister’s decision to keep the minister in office can still stand under existing legal standards.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The High Court has not ruled on the matter. Even so, the reaction inside the coalition was immediate. Party leaders sent a joint letter to the prime minister calling on him not to comply with any court decision that would require Ben-Gvir’s removal. The letter argues that the court does not have the authority to force the dismissal of an elected minister and portrays such intervention as illegitimate.
The message goes beyond disagreement with the court’s legal reasoning. By urging the prime minister in advance not to carry out a possible ruling, coalition leaders are openly questioning whether High Court decisions should bind the government at all. The move marks a rare and direct challenge to the court’s role in overseeing executive power.
One element of the letter that has drawn particular attention is the signature of Gideon Sa’ar. Until recently, Sa’ar was part of the opposition and publicly criticized both the government and Ben-Gvir. His decision to support a letter urging the prime minister to disregard a High Court ruling highlights the extent of his political shift since entering the coalition.
Ben-Gvir himself has addressed the issue openly. Speaking at a faction meeting of his Otzma Yehudit party, the national security minister described the legal proceedings not as a personal matter, but as a struggle over authority. “The real question,” he said, “is whether the people are sovereign, or whether those elected at the ballot box are merely subordinates of a group of officials who decide what to legislate and whom to block.”
Asked whether he would respect a High Court decision against him, Ben-Gvir rejected the premise. “A decision like that by the High Court would be without authority,” he said, adding that the prime minister and government ministers had already made clear they would view such a ruling as a coup.
The legal process is still underway. But the political confrontation has already moved beyond the courtroom. By publicly urging the prime minister not to follow a future ruling, coalition leaders have placed the focus on whether court decisions will, in practice, be implemented by the government.
As the court continues its deliberations, the case is expected to carry implications beyond the fate of a single minister, touching on the balance between Israel’s executive branch and its judiciary.
