Ahead of hearing, Ben Gvir says High Court, AG have no right to remove him as minister

By Ariela Karmel

You will receive email alerts from this author. Manage alert preferences on your profile page

You will no longer receive email alerts from this author. Manage alert preferences on your profile page

13 January 2026, 2:33 pm

1 Edit

Ariela Karmel is a political correspondent at The Times of Israel. She previously reported for Calcalist and Haaretz. She holds an MA in Middle Eastern and African History from Tel Aviv University and a BA in Political Science from the University of British Columbia.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir attends a National Security Committee meeting at the Knesset on December 31, 2025. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says the High Court of Justice has no authority to remove him from office, and that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara’s opposition to his continued tenure is politically motivated.

The minister makes the statements in a detailed response to the court ahead of a hearing on Thursday, following a filing by Baharav-Miara accusing the far-right minister, who leads the Otzma Yehudit faction, of systematically involving himself in police work beyond the authority of his role, and of abusing his powers. She has demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be ordered to explain why he hasn’t fired him over his actions.

Ben Gvir argues that there is a conflict of interest in the attorney general’s petition against him, because he has publicly called for her own dismissal since the start of his term, and alleges that she is targeting him because he “succeeds in advancing policies [she] dislikes and [which she] has been unable to prevent using the tools at her disposal.”

He further claims that there exists “no precedent in the history of Western democracies for removing a sitting minister via a judicial order,” and that the petition “tramples [upon] the political rights of more than half a million Israeli citizens as direct voters.”

Ben Gvir has repeatedly framed the case as an attack not on him personally, but on democracy.

He denies any wrongdoing, stating that if any of his actions “justified a criminal investigation, it is presumed that the attorney general would have initiated one immediately,” but she hasn’t because “there is nothing to investigate.”

The attorney general has accused the far-right minister of exercising undue influence over the police, a force meant to operate independently, and has said that he has violated an agreement on the matter to which the two agreed last year. Ben Gvir has maintained that he is fulfilling the will of the voters who elected him and has branded the attorney general a “criminal.”

In a 68-page opinion on petitions calling for Ben Gvir to be dismissed, Baharav-Miara said that through “a continuous (sometimes sophisticated) system of pressure” on police officers, Ben Gvir has inappropriately intervened in the force’s operations concerning anti-government protesters, the status quo on the Temple Mount and protection for Gaza-bound aid trucks.