Dismissing Israel’s Attorney General is a threat to the rule of law

The cabinet’s vote on Sunday in favour of a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara marks a dangerous escalation in the far-right government’s ongoing conflict with the judiciary; not only is it reflective of deep divisions within Israel’s political system, but also of a broader effort by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government to consolidate control over legal institutions.

Israel’s attorney general serves as the chief legal adviser to the government, as well as the state’s top prosecutor – an assignment designed to be wholly separate from political interference. Since her appointment in February 2022, Baharav-Miara has repeatedly clashed with the government over critical legal and political matters, including the Prime Minister’s judicial overhaul efforts, and the coalition’s policies related to the Israel-Hamas war.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the driving force behind the Attorney General’s dismissal, justified his vote by noting that it was due to what he defined as ‘substantive and prolonged disagreements’ between the government and the Attorney General. Such ‘disagreements,’ he argued, had obstructed effective governance, and, under the terms of a cabinet resolution passed in 2000, such a contention is one of the five legitimate grounds for the discharge of an attorney general. Levin further argued that such an incapability to collaborate on the part of Baharav-Miara has already deeply undermined the government’s ability to effectively carry out its policies, declaring that ‘there is no way in which effective cooperation can exist between the adviser and the government’.

The Attorney General, though, rejected this rationale. She argued that her role is not to enable the agenda of a government that has in the past expressed extremist outlooks on key matters, but to instead uphold the rule of law. In her letter to the cabinet following the vote, she noted that the government’s move echoes a desire for ‘political loyalty, not legal advice.’

Dismissing an attorney general, though, is no easy task: the legal process for doing so requires approval from a five-member statutory committee, which the government has struggled to form given that no former attorney general or justice minister has agreed to participate in it. Baharav-Miara herself noted that the no-confidence vote carries little to no legal weight until the committee’s process is followed – which, of course, raises the question of whether the government intends to bypass the legal process entirely and possibly create a constitutional crisis.

Over the past year, Netanyahu’s government has advanced a sequence of measures that curtail the authority of the judiciary and centralise authority within the executive branch, which includes legislation that would grant Netanyahu’s government greater control over appointments to the courts, as well as statutes that would restrict the ability of the High Court to overturn governmental decisions. Just days before the no-confidence vote against Baharav-Miara, Netanyahu’s government also moved to dismiss Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, which I wrote about last week. For Netanyahu to remove Baharav-Miara would create the prospect of installing a more lax attorney general in her stead, one who would soften or even drop the charges against him – potentially.

The opposition has grasped this point with both arms. Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, accused Netanyahu of attempting to ‘fire his prosecutor’ following his attempts to ‘fire his investigator,’ Ronen Bar. National Unity leader Benny Gantz argued that the move adequately represents the Prime Minister’s effort to secure support from Haredi parties by eliminating legal barriers to reinstating blanket military service exemptions for yeshiva students, which was a key demand from Netanyahu’s coalition partners.

This political backdrop underscores why the government’s actions are so alarming. Removing the Attorney general would not only undermine judicial independence, but also pave the way for further political interference in the legal system. Should the government succeed, it would establish a precedent that future, even further right-wing, governments could exploit to eliminate legal checks on executive power.

Public response to the government’s push has been swift and intense, though: over 100,000 Israelis took to the streets on the night before the vote. Protests spread across major cities, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with demonstrators framing the government’s actions as an attack on democracy itself, carrying signs that read ‘No to dictatorship,’ and ‘Save the courts.’

This is not the first time Netanyahu’s approach to the judiciary has sparked public anxiety. His judicial overhaul campaign, which gave rise to mass protests throughout 2023 and 2024, was, in the eyes of many, an attack on democracy itself. This new round of firings is, by any definition, a direct continuation of that campaign: in order for Netanyahu to achieve his vision of an authoritarian Israel, he must first remove those who tell him that it is against the law.

The High Court is likely to be the next battleground. Yet, even if the High Court blocks the government’s move, the damage may already be done. The no-confidence vote shows a deliberate effort to weaken the position and authority of an attorney general, regardless of the legal outcome for the current Attorney General.

The government’s claim that prolonged disagreements with the Attorney General justify her removal sets a dangerous precedent: Israel’s legal system has long been a cornerstone of its democratic identity, and the independence of the state’s chief prosecutor serves as a critical check on executive power, ensuring that all government actions remain within the bounds of the law. To dismiss her, therefore, would upend the balance and thus replace legal independence with political loyalty.

The Prime Minister’s political motivations, too, cannot be ignored if we are to preserve the freedom of Israel. It is not yet Hungary, Poland or Turkey, but the trajectory it finds itself in is profoundly worrisome. If it succeeds, the Attorney General’s firing would commemorate a consequential step towards centralised, unrestrained executive power. After all, it’s a slippery slope.