Minister of Justice Yariv Levin began the process to remove the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, from office. In a document distributed to the government on March 5, 2025, "Proposal for a Vote of No Confidence in the Government's Attorney General," he levied numerous accusations against her. These accusations included: being politically motivated; acting against the government and sabotaging its policies; dictating her positions to the government rather than advising the government; preventing legislation and government initiatives from being enacted using “legal preclusion” and without a solid legal basis; refraining from defending government positions in court and refusing to allow the government to use private representation; and holding disproportionately more power in comparison with similar positions in other democracies.
Levin's claims reflect a misunderstanding of the role of the Attorney General and of democratic principles, and the process to remove her from office is a dangerous and anti-democratic move.
How are these claims incorrect?
1. The Attorney General is a professional role, not a political one: The government operates within a legal framework, not solely according to its own exclusive will. The role of the Attorney General is to ensure that the government acts in accordance with the law and does not exceed its authority. The fact that she makes decisions that are inconvenient for the government is not an indication of political bias or an undermining government policy, but rather the fulfillment her role as the authorized interpreter of the law. The claim that the Attorney General "does not represent the will of the voters" ignores the fact that in a democracy, the law exists beyond the temporary will of the majority.
2. "Legal preclusion" is a lawful and legitimate tool: According to the principles of administrative law in Israel, the Attorney General can determine that something constitutes legal preclusion when government initiatives contradict the law or violate fundamental rights. This is an essential part of her role, not "political sabotage" as Levin claims.
3. The Attorney General is not "obligated" to represent every government position: If the Attorney General believes that a government decision is illegal or contradicts fundamental principles, she is entitled—and even obligated—not to defend it in court. This precludes a situation in which the government promotes an illegal policy in the name of "the will of the voters."
4. There is no deviation from what is accepted in the democratic world: Contrary to Levin’s claims, independent institutions that limit government power exist in other countries as well.
Why does the dismissal process undermine democracy?
1. Politicizing the legal system: Firing the Attorney General because she does not always comply with the government would do severe damage to the independence of the legal system and allow the government to act without checks.
2. Undermining the rule of law: An Attorney General who acts only in accordance with the government's bidding would allow the government to promote legislation and decisions that go against the law, without any checks and balances.
3. Creating a dangerous precedent: If the government can dismiss an Attorney General because he or she does not fall in line with its policies, it would set a precedent for dismissing other officials as a result of political interests. Apolitical appointees and roles will become politicized and there will be no one to stand in the way of illegal or ill-advised aspects of the government’s agenda.