Israeli High Court Demands Netanyahu Explain Ben Gvir Role

On Wednesday, February 4, 2026, Israel’s political and judicial landscapes collided in dramatic fashion as the High Court of Justice issued a show-cause order demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explain why he has not dismissed National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. The move comes amid an intensifying court case over allegations that Ben Gvir, a controversial far-right figure, has systematically overstepped the bounds of his authority and interfered in police operations. The court’s actions, and the fiery responses they provoked, have set the stage for a showdown that could redefine the balance of power between Israel’s government branches.

The ruling, signed by five Supreme Court justices, was anything but routine. In an unusual procedural step, the panel hearing the case was expanded to nine justices—a clear signal, according to The Times of Israel, of "the nature and the gravity" of the issues at hand. High Court hearings are typically presided over by three justices, but the bench may be expanded for particularly sensitive or precedent-setting matters. The hearing on the petitions is scheduled for March 24, 2026, with both Netanyahu and Ben Gvir ordered to submit their written responses by March 10.

Behind the legal wrangling lies a fierce political controversy. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, in a detailed 68-page legal opinion dated January 1, 2026, accused Ben Gvir of repeatedly abusing his authority. According to The Times of Israel, Baharav-Miara charged that Ben Gvir had "inappropriately intervened in police operations through a continuous (sometimes sophisticated) system of pressure on police officers." Her allegations included claims that Ben Gvir had pressured police regarding their treatment of anti-government protesters, the status quo on the Temple Mount, protection for Gaza-bound aid trucks, and appointments within the police ranks.

Baharav-Miara further contended that Ben Gvir had issued operational directives to police commanders—something ministers are explicitly prohibited from doing under Israeli law. In her words, this behavior was turning the police into a "politicized body," a development she argued the government could no longer ignore. She urged the court to require Netanyahu to justify why he had not fired his national security minister in light of these repeated violations.

Ben Gvir, for his part, has dismissed the accusations in the strongest terms. In a video statement, he asserted, "The High Court of Justice doesn’t just want to fire me, it wants to fire the nation, it wants to fire millions of voters and deprive them of the right to vote. It won’t happen, they have no authority, there won’t be a coup!" On social media, he echoed these sentiments, writing, "You have no authority. There will be no coup." Ben Gvir has consistently denied any improper interference in police business and maintains that the court has no standing to weigh in on his ministerial tenure.

The controversy has ignited fierce debate within Israel’s political establishment. Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs, quoted by Ynet, called the court’s order a "red line" and labeled any attempt to terminate a serving minister not under criminal investigation as a "clearly illegal order." The sentiment was echoed by coalition leaders, including Ben Gvir himself, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, and coalition whip MK Ofir Katz, who penned a letter to Netanyahu urging him to defy any High Court ruling demanding Ben Gvir’s dismissal. "No legal authority, including the High Court of Justice, has the power to force the dismissal of a government minister, especially when no indictment has even been filed against him," they wrote. Their letter warned of a "coup against democracy" and pledged to "stand as a wall against the baseless removal of a government minister."

Netanyahu, for his part, has reportedly vowed not to fire Ben Gvir. The far-right Otzma Yehudit party, led by Ben Gvir, is a key partner in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, and any move to remove him could threaten the government’s stability. This political reality has only heightened the stakes of the court case, making the upcoming hearing one of the most closely watched legal battles in recent Israeli history.

The roots of the current controversy stretch back to December 2025, when the High Court approved Ben Gvir’s appointment as national security minister despite petitions arguing he was unfit for the role. Critics cited his history of racist statements and a criminal record that included a conviction for supporting a Jewish terror group. At the time, the court accepted Ben Gvir’s assurances that he had changed, and trusted that "the professional independence of the police would be maintained and the minister wouldn’t serve as an ‘uber-commissioner’," as noted by Attorney General Baharav-Miara. However, Baharav-Miara now says that assumption no longer holds, given Ben Gvir’s alleged regular interference in police affairs.

This is not the first time Ben Gvir’s conduct has come under legal scrutiny. In April 2025, Baharav-Miara reached a compromise with Ben Gvir that limited his involvement in policing, barring him from involvement in protests, from interviewing officers, and from directing operational activity. According to Baharav-Miara, Ben Gvir has repeatedly violated this agreement, rendering it "meaningless." Ben Gvir, however, has flatly rejected the attorney general’s authority, calling her "a criminal" and refusing to recognize her legal standing.

The legal drama is also raising questions about the so-called Deri-Pinhasi doctrine, a precedent governing when a prime minister must dismiss a minister for misconduct. Some legal analysts argue that the case could broaden judicial oversight over Cabinet appointments, while others warn of an "unprecedented power grab" by the judiciary. Ben Gvir’s lawyer, David Peter, argued before the court that there is "no precedent in any known democracy" for a court-ordered dismissal of a sitting minister without criminal charges, warning that even considering such an order would be an "unprecedented power grab."

The expanded panel of nine justices reflects the deep divisions within the current court, which is more split than in past years between activist and conservative judges. Observers suggest that the outcome may hinge on the votes of centrist justices, such as Yael Wilner and Yechiel Kasher, who could tip the balance in this high-stakes case.

Meanwhile, the Israeli public is watching closely, as the case threatens to set new boundaries for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. Supporters of the court argue that judicial oversight is essential to prevent abuse of power, while critics warn that unelected judges are overstepping their authority and undermining the will of the voters. The outcome of the hearing, scheduled for March 24, could have lasting implications for Israeli democracy, governance, and the rule of law.

As the deadline for Netanyahu and Ben Gvir’s responses approaches, the nation awaits clarity on whether the High Court will force a seismic shift in the government’s composition—or whether political realities will once again trump legal arguments. One thing is certain: this is a turning point in the ongoing struggle over who holds ultimate authority in Israel’s democracy.