Full Breakdown
Tensions Rise Between Attorney General and National Security Minister Over Police Promotions and Judicial Appointments
2/9/2026, 2:03:27 AM
Allegations of Political Interference in Police Promotions
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has accused National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir of unlawfully intervening in police appointments, specifically delaying the promotion of Chief Superintendent Ruti Hauslich, who has received unanimous support from the police command. In a letter to Ben-Gvir, Baharav-Miara's deputies expressed grave concerns that the minister's actions were influenced by political considerations, violating administrative law and High Court of Justice rulings. The recommendation for Hauslich's promotion was submitted to Ben-Gvir in July 2025, yet he failed to provide a substantive explanation for the delay until January 2026, raising suspicions of an ex post facto justification for his decision.
The attorney-general's office highlighted a troubling pattern, noting that Ben-Gvir has previously blocked the advancement of female officers while promoting others with disciplinary issues. This conduct, they warned, could undermine the independence of police investigators working on sensitive matters, suggesting that promotions may hinge on alignment with the minister's political views rather than professional merit.
Criticism of Judicial Appointment Delays
In a separate but related issue, Attorney-General Baharav-Miara has also criticized Justice Minister Yariv Levin for failing to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, which is responsible for appointing judges to magistrate and district courts. This refusal has persisted for over a year, resulting in a backlog of cases and a significant shortage of judges, with 44 positions currently vacant. Baharav-Miara contends that Levin's actions are contrary to law and harm the public interest by delaying judicial proceedings.
Levin has justified his inaction by claiming a lack of "broad consensus" among committee members, despite the law requiring only a simple majority for lower court appointments. Baharav-Miara argues that Levin's stance effectively grants him a veto power over judicial appointments, which is not supported by legal authority.
Official Statements & Responses
In response to the attorney-general's accusations, Ben-Gvir dismissed the claims, stating, “I heard you, Gali. Your advice was not accepted. We are continuing with full force.” Levin has similarly rejected Baharav-Miara's assertions, claiming that he is working towards a consensus and that the responsibility for the stalemate lies with other committee members.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While Baharav-Miara's office asserts that Levin's refusal to convene the Judicial Selection Committee is causing significant harm to the judiciary, Levin maintains that he is acting within his rights and that the committee's paralysis is due to a lack of cooperation from other members. This disagreement highlights a broader conflict over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch in Israel.
What's Next
The ongoing disputes between the attorney-general and both Ben-Gvir and Levin are expected to escalate, particularly as the High Court of Justice deliberates on petitions demanding accountability for their actions. The outcomes of these legal challenges may have significant implications for the future of police independence and judicial appointments in Israel.
