Coalition leaders sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhau urging him to block any High Court order given to fire National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir ahead of the hearing set for Thursday, based on petitions calling for his dismissal.
Those who signed the letter to the prime minister included Coalition Whip Ofir Katz (Likud), Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar (New Hope-United Right), Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionist Party), and Ben-Gvir himself.
The scheduled High Court hearing on Ben-Gvir follows the framework of petitions calling for his removal from office. In a position submitted to the court last month, Attorney General Baharav-Miara argued that Ben-Gvir repeatedly exceeded the legal limits of his authority over the police.
The coalition leaders wrote that they "strongly reject the legal opinion of Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara."
They stated that attempts to fire "a senior minister constitute an attempted coup against democracy."
“We will stand like a fortified wall against the baseless dismissal of a government minister,” the coalition leaders wrote in the letter.
Among the petitioners calling for Ben-Gvir’s dismissal is the Ima Era movement, which responded sharply to the coalition leaders’ letter to Netanyahu. “Criminals are ruling our country,” the group said.
“Coalition leaders are calling for a coup and the overthrow of the rule of law. The public will not stand by. They will not intimidate us; we are not withdrawing our petition, and we call on everyone to join us in this struggle for the country," they added.
Politicians in the opposition slammed the letter. MK Gilad Kariv (The Democrats) also called the government "criminals," whose goal is to dismantle Israeli society, warning strongly against ignoring a High Court ruling.
Shas chairman Arye Deri said Ben-Gvir had asked him to join the coalition leaders’ letter to the prime minister, adding that Shas "fully agrees" with their stance. However, he noted that Shas is not currently part of the coalition, having left its coalition roles amid negotiations over the controversial haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription bill.
Earlier on Tuesday, Ben-Gvir submitted a lengthy response to the High Court, nearing 60 pages, listing hundreds of sections arguing against his firing.
He called the attorney general's actions "absolutely mafia-like,” and asserted that there is “no precedent in the history of western democracies for the removal of a serving minister through a judicial order.”
Ben-Gvir claimed that there is no basis to the petition against him, and that the reason the attorney general was attempting to remove him was that he was “succeeding in advancing” policies she is against and "has not been able to prevent this with the tools at her disposal."
Ben-Gvir's response said that he had "only acted within the framework of the law" and that the attorney general is “unable to open a criminal examination against him because there is nothing to investigate.”
He also asserted that Netanyahu had backed him on issues, including his controversial trips to the Temple Mount.
The national security minister defended his repeated trips to Temple Mount, stating that he had met “frequently with Netanyahu for meetings lasting five to six hours."
“The petitions herein seek to trample, in a gross manner, the political rights of more than half a million citizens of the State of Israel as direct voters,” Ben-Gvir’s response added.
What did the attorney-general rule?
According to Baharav-Miara’s position against Ben-Gvir, Israeli law draws a clear distinction between a minister’s power to set general policy and the police’s exclusive authority over operational, investigative, and enforcement decisions.
The attorney-general stated that this separation is anchored in statute, case law, government resolutions, and prior commitments made to the High Court.
The attorney general’s position describes what it characterizes as a pattern of conduct by the minister that allegedly breached those limits, including public statements and actions that could be interpreted as influencing police operations, investigations, enforcement priorities, and senior appointments.
The position states as well that responsibility for ensuring that ministers act within the bounds of the law ultimately rests with the prime minister, and that the circumstances justify judicial scrutiny.
The attorney-general warned that continued political intervention in police activity risks undermining police professionalism, eroding public trust in law enforcement, and weakening the principle of equal application of the law.
She framed the issue as an institutional one rather than a personal dispute, arguing that the cumulative effect of the conduct raises broader constitutional concerns.