gvir

TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, commenced a landmark hearing on petitions seeking the dismissal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir from his high-profile position. The proceedings, which have captivated national attention, center on allegations of the minister’s purported unlawful interference in the operational affairs of the Israel Police, a charge that strikes at the heart of the country’s democratic principles and the independence of its law enforcement agencies. The court’s decision to hear the petitions privately, though with a live broadcast to mitigate potential public unrest, underscores the extreme sensitivity and volatile nature of the case, which many observers believe could precipitate an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

The move by the Supreme Court to consider removing a sitting minister is exceedingly rare and reflects the profound legal and political tensions gripping Israel. Minister Ben-Gvir, a controversial figure from the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, has been under intense scrutiny since assuming his role in late 2022. His tenure has been marked by a series of provocative statements and actions that critics argue have systematically eroded the professional autonomy of the police force and undermined the rule of law.

The Genesis of the Controversy: Allegations of Ministerial Overreach

The core of the legal challenge against Ben-Gvir revolves around the fundamental principle of police independence. In democratic systems, law enforcement agencies are expected to operate free from direct political manipulation, ensuring impartial application of the law. Petitioners, including various civil society organizations and legal watchdog groups, contend that Ben-Gvir has repeatedly crossed this line, issuing direct operational directives to police officers, influencing appointments, and commenting on ongoing investigations.

Among the specific allegations cited in the petitions are claims that Ben-Gvir:

• Directed police actions during protests: There have been reports and public statements where Ben-Gvir appeared to issue direct orders regarding the handling of demonstrations, particularly those involving Palestinian citizens or ultra-Orthodox communities, often advocating for a harsher response than police commanders deemed appropriate or lawful.
• Attempted to influence personnel decisions: Critics allege he sought to appoint individuals loyal to his political agenda to key positions within the police force or to remove officers who resisted his directives.
• Made public comments on ongoing investigations: Such remarks are seen as an attempt to exert undue pressure on law enforcement and judicial processes, potentially prejudicing outcomes.
• Changed police rules of engagement: There were reports of Ben-Gvir pushing for more aggressive rules of engagement, particularly concerning interactions with Palestinian youth, which raised significant human rights concerns and warnings from legal experts.

These actions, the petitioners argue, constitute an abuse of power and a direct threat to the integrity of the police force, transforming it from a professional body serving the public into a political tool of the minister.

Ben-Gvir’s Defiance and the Mandate Argument

Outside the Supreme Court building, dozens of Ben-Gvir’s supporters rallied, holding banners denouncing what they termed "judicial dictatorship" and demanding an end to judicial overreach. The minister himself addressed the crowd, adopting a defiant stance. "Government Legal Adviser Gali Baharav-Miara claims that I changed policy and policing, and interfered in appointments to implement my policy. She is right," Ben-Gvir declared, doubling down on the very actions that form the basis of the legal challenge.

He asserted that his actions were a direct fulfillment of his electoral mandate. "More than half a million voters chose us to bring real change. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to dismiss me and there will be no coup." This statement directly challenges the court’s jurisdiction and power of judicial review, an essential component of Israel’s democratic checks and balances, especially in the absence of a formal constitution. Ben-Gvir further warned the Supreme Court, stating, "Do not drag Israel into a constitutional crisis, division, or polarization. Democracy will not collapse. The legal dictatorship will collapse." This rhetoric mirrors the broader narrative promoted by elements within the current governing coalition, which has consistently accused the judiciary of overstepping its bounds.

The Role of the Government Legal Adviser and the Supreme Court’s "Reasonableness Standard"

The Government Legal Adviser, Gali Baharav-Miara, plays a pivotal role in this unfolding drama. As the chief legal counsel to the government, her opinion carries significant weight and is generally considered binding on government ministers. Baharav-Miara has consistently advised against Ben-Gvir’s alleged interventions, asserting that they exceed his legal authority and infringe upon the operational independence of the police. Her official legal opinion, which likely forms a significant part of the petitioners’ case, is critical because it represents the government’s own legal watchdog flagging potential illegality within the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s authority to intervene in such matters often relies on the "reasonableness standard" – a legal doctrine allowing the court to strike down administrative decisions by government officials or ministers if they are deemed "unreasonable in the extreme." This standard, while a cornerstone of Israeli administrative law, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing judicial overhaul debate. Critics of the judiciary, including Ben-Gvir and his allies, argue that the "reasonableness standard" grants the court excessive power to substitute its judgment for that of elected officials, thereby undermining democratic governance.

Broader Context: The Judicial Overhaul Debate

The current hearing is not an isolated event but rather a direct consequence of a deeply entrenched and highly polarized debate over the future of Israel’s judiciary. Since its formation in late 2022, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which includes Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party, has pursued a controversial agenda aimed at significantly curbing the powers of the Supreme Court. Proposals have included limiting the court’s ability to strike down laws, changing the composition of the judicial selection committee, and abolishing the "reasonableness standard."

These proposed reforms triggered unprecedented mass protests across Israel throughout 2023 and 2024, with hundreds of thousands demonstrating weekly against what they perceived as an assault on democracy and the rule of law. The current hearing involving Ben-Gvir is seen by many as a practical manifestation of this ideological struggle: the judiciary asserting its existing powers in the face of a government that seeks to diminish them, and a minister actively challenging the very premise of judicial oversight. The outcome of this case could therefore set a crucial precedent for the balance of power between Israel’s executive and judicial branches.

The UNRWA Controversy: A Precedent of Ben-Gvir’s Actions

Further illustrating the contentious nature of Minister Ben-Gvir’s approach to his role, an earlier incident from January 20, 2026, serves as a significant backdrop. On that date, Ben-Gvir was observed overseeing an Israeli bulldozer demolishing a portion of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) headquarters in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

This action was highly controversial for several reasons. UNRWA is a UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, and its facilities generally hold protected status under international law. The demolition, reportedly undertaken without full coordination or legal justification acceptable to the UN, sparked international condemnation and highlighted Israel’s often-strained relationship with international bodies, particularly concerning East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. For critics, Ben-Gvir’s presence and apparent approval of such an action underscored a pattern of behavior characterized by aggressive unilateralism and a disregard for established norms or international protocols. This incident, while distinct from the police interference allegations, contributes to the broader perception of Ben-Gvir as a minister willing to push boundaries and challenge existing frameworks, both domestically and internationally.

The Minister of Justice’s Intervention and the Specter of a Constitutional Crisis

Adding another layer of complexity and potential escalation, Minister of Justice Yariv Levin, a key architect of the judicial overhaul proposals and a prominent member of the ruling Likud party, publicly stated that any decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss Ben-Gvir would not be implemented. This declaration is highly inflammatory and represents a direct challenge to the authority and legitimacy of the judicial branch.

Should the Supreme Court rule to remove Ben-Gvir and the government, supported by Levin’s stance, refuse to comply, Israel would plunge into an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Such a scenario would entail:

• A direct clash between branches of government: The executive (government) would be openly defying the judiciary (Supreme Court), severely undermining the principle of separation of powers.
• Erosion of the rule of law: If court rulings can be selectively disregarded by the government, the very foundation of legal order and democratic governance is imperiled.
• Impact on public trust: Such defiance would likely deepen societal divisions and further erode public trust in state institutions.
• International repercussions: A constitutional crisis of this magnitude would draw significant international criticism, raising concerns about Israel’s democratic health and its adherence to fundamental democratic norms.
• Uncertainty for police and civil servants: Law enforcement and civil service professionals would face an impossible dilemma: whom to obey – the minister who directs them or the court that rules on the minister’s legality.

Implications and Future Outlook

The Supreme Court hearing on Itamar Ben-Gvir’s dismissal is more than just a legal case; it is a profound test for Israel’s democratic institutions and its constitutional framework. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for:

• Police independence: A ruling against Ben-Gvir, if enforced, could reaffirm the professional autonomy of the police. Conversely, a failure to dismiss him, or defiance of such a ruling, could further politicize law enforcement.
• The power of judicial review: The case will clarify the limits of ministerial authority versus the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and protecting democratic norms.
• Government stability: A dismissal could destabilize the already fragile governing coalition, potentially leading to early elections. Conversely, a victory for Ben-Gvir could embolden the government in its judicial overhaul agenda.
• Public discourse and polarization: The intense public and political reactions underscore the deep ideological rifts within Israeli society, which are likely to intensify regardless of the ruling.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches with bated breath. The decision, expected in the coming weeks or months, will not only determine the political fate of Itamar Ben-Gvir but also cast a long shadow over the future of Israel’s democratic character and the enduring strength of its constitutional checks and balances. The stakes could not be higher for a nation already grappling with profound internal divisions and external challenges.