Ben Gvir appears in ‘Israeli’ Supreme Court over police interference allegations

• The High Court is reviewing arguments over whether it can intervene in disputes involving National Security Minister Ben Gvir and alleged politicisation of the police.
• Sharp exchanges took place between judges and lawyers over judicial authority and separation of powers.

The Israel Supreme Court held a tense hearing on Monday involving National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, as judges and lawyers clashed over the court’s authority to intervene in government decisions linked to police oversight.

Read more: Ben-Gvir blasts Moroccan football star Hakim Ziyech over death penalty law criticism

The case centres on allegations that Ben Gvir has influenced policing policy in ways that raise concerns over politicisation of law enforcement, and whether judicial intervention is justified in the absence of criminal charges.

Dispute over judicial authority

Attorney Michael Rabilo, representing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argued that only the prime minister has the authority to dismiss a minister, insisting the court should not intervene in political appointments unless an indictment has been filed.

Read more: Polish MP displayed an ‘Israeli’ flag marked with a swastika

Judges pushed back, arguing that the court may be required to act if there is credible concern over politicisation of the police, framing it as a potential threat to democratic governance.

Heated exchanges in court

Judge Grosskopf warned that politicisation of law enforcement could pose a serious risk to democracy, saying the public interest may justify judicial oversight in such cases.

Rabilo responded that expanding judicial intervention could open the door to repeated petitions against ministers, warning of ongoing legal challenges to political decisions.

Judge Solberg suggested a possible compromise, proposing an interim framework agreement between the government and legal authorities to define limits of responsibility until a ruling is issued.

Defence for Ben Gvir

Ben Gvir’s lawyer, David Peter, told the court it had “no authority” to consider removing a minister, arguing that policy decisions, including those relating to the Temple Mount, are purely political matters.

He also criticised the petition as being based on public statements rather than legal grounds, while judges challenged aspects of his arguments during the session.

Tensions outside the court

Outside the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, Ben Gvir addressed supporters, warning against what he described as a push toward a constitutional crisis.

Demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse opposing judicial intervention in government affairs, while police were deployed in large numbers to prevent clashes and maintain order.

Broader institutional clash

The hearing reflects growing tensions between the judiciary and government in ‘Israel’, amid an ongoing dispute over the scope of judicial authority and the limits of ministerial control over sensitive security institutions.