Could Israel’s Supreme Court Actually Remove Ben Gvir From Office?

Israel’s Supreme Court on Wednesday is holding a rare hearing on petitions seeking to remove Itamar Ben Gvir from his post, over allegations that he improperly intervened in police matters while in office.

The case centers on claims, led by Gali Baharav-Miara, the government’s top legal authority, that Ben Gvir went beyond setting general policy and instead intervened in police matters such as promotions and operational decisions. Supporters, however, argue the effort reflects an attempt to sideline an elected minister through legal pressure rather than the ballot box.

Ben Gvir, a right-wing minister and leader of the Otzma Yehudit party, rose to prominence on a platform of tough policing and expanded authority for security forces. Long a polarizing public figure even before entering office, he built his political base on promises to take a more aggressive approach to crime, unrest, and national security.

The petitions now before the Israeli Supreme Court argue that since taking office, Ben Gvir repeatedly went beyond that mandate. Critics say he intervened in police promotions, attempted to influence operational decisions, and publicly backed actions tied to ongoing law enforcement matters in ways that could affect professional judgment.

A key example cited in the proceedings is the case of police officer Rinat Saban. Ben Gvir sought to block her promotion, but a court later ruled against the move, citing concerns that improper considerations may have played a role. Petitioners argue that episode reflects a broader pattern of political involvement in police affairs, rather than an isolated incident.

Baharav-Miara has warned that such actions risk undermining the independence of the police by allowing political officials to influence decisions meant to be made by professional law enforcement, potentially damaging public trust in the system. Her position forms the backbone of the legal push to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remove Ben Gvir from office.

Ben Gvir and the government reject that argument. They say the minister was elected to set the direction of policing, and that it’s unrealistic to expect him to stay completely out of how those policies are carried out. Speaking ahead of the hearing, Ben Gvir embraced the accusations against him, saying: “She says I set policy and change the police? She’s right… I was elected to govern. I’m not a potted plant.”

Netanyahu’s government has also argued that the court has no authority to determine who serves as a minister, warning that such intervention could open the door to repeated legal challenges against elected officials. Justice Minister Yariv Levin echoed that position, saying the authority to appoint or dismiss a minister “belongs by law to the prime minister, not the court.”

The hearing itself reflected the broader tension surrounding the case. Justice Yitzhak Amit warned participants that disruptions would not be tolerated, as several lawmakers were removed from the courtroom following interruptions. Judges pressed government representatives on whether a minister’s involvement in policing could cross into impermissible territory, while the government warned that allowing such claims would invite constant petitions against sitting ministers.

The central question now is whether Ben Gvir is actually in danger of being removed. On one hand, the attorney general’s support for dismissal, the seriousness of the allegations, and the court’s decision to hear the case before an expanded panel of nine justices suggest the petitions are being taken seriously.

On the other hand, forcing the removal of a sitting minister without a criminal indictment would be highly unusual and politically explosive. Israeli courts have rarely intervened so directly in the composition of a government, and doing so in this case would likely trigger a broader confrontation between the judiciary and the elected leadership.

For now, Ben Gvir remains in office, and a final decision is expected in the coming weeks. Whatever the outcome, the case has already intensified the debate over how far Israel’s courts can go in challenging the actions of elected officials, and how far those officials can go in reshaping the institutions they oversee.