Since the Netanyahu government announced its intention to fire Bar last week, tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets, mainly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The demonstrators have called on the government to adhere to court rulings, claiming Israel’s democracy is at stake. They also protested the resumption of Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza and the deadlock in negotiations for the release of Israeli hostages.
Also on the agenda at Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting was the possible dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.
The current upheaval follows nearly two years of tensions between the political right, which claims the judiciary has amassed too much power, and the government’s opponents, who view the courts as a vital part of Israel’s already fragile system of checks and balances. These checks are especially limited because Israel lacks a formal, written constitution.
Instead, Israel’s constitutional framework consists of 13 Basic Laws passed by the Knesset, which define the powers of key state institutions and enumerate certain civil rights. While these laws serve some constitutional functions, they do not provide a clear separation of powers, a comprehensive bill of rights, or an established process for amendment. In practice, the Basic Laws are supplemented by Supreme Court rulings and legal traditions, forming a patchwork system that lacks the robust checks and balances found in many other democracies.
Two of Netanyahu’s senior aides are currently under investigation by the Shin Bet—the agency responsible for internal security, counterterrorism, and protecting state institutions—for alleged ties to Qatar. They are suspected of leaking documents from the Prime Minister’s Office and accepting money to promote Qatari interests in Israel.
Netanyahu’s opponents, many of whom have taken to the streets, are questioning the prime minister’s motives for firing Bar and the timing of the decision, which comes just as the so-called Qatargate investigation gains traction.
“There will be no civil war! The State of Israel is a state of law and according to the law, the Israeli government decides who will be the head of the Shin Bet,” Netanyahu wrote on the social media platform X on Friday, after the court ordered the temporary injunction. His attempt to calm public fears did little to appease his critics.
Netanyahu and his coalition partners have also expressed distrust of the attorney general, further intensifying fears of an impending political crisis, as her dismissal is reportedly already in motion.
“We are on the verge of a constitutional crisis, if not already within one,” Dr. Guy Lurie, a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, told The Media Line.
Israel’s ruling coalition controls the country’s sole legislative chamber, the Knesset. In the absence of a formal constitution, the 13 Basic Laws passed by the Knesset over the years define the relationships among the branches of government. But this ad hoc framework lacks the clarity and stability of a unified constitutional document.
“A constitution is not the antidote for a constitutional crisis,” Lurie said. “Such a crisis is a social event impacting the legitimacy of institutions and the adherence of public officials to court decisions. Having said that, if Israel had a constitution … such a document helps to coalesce the ethos of a country thus may help avert such a crisis.”
Israel has avoided drafting a formal constitution due to a lack of political consensus. Deep ideological divisions—political, ethnic, and religious—have led lawmakers to favor an incremental approach, enacting Basic Laws and gradually elevating their legal status.
“The Israeli public is incapable of creating a constitution that everyone supports and believes in,” attorney Zeev Lev, legal counsel for the Movement for Governability and Democracy, told The Media Line. “If such a document exists, the public discourse would not allow reaching such extreme cases.”
Under current law, the government has the authority to appoint and dismiss the head of the Shin Bet. This forms the basis of Netanyahu’s legal defense. The court must now determine whether the dismissal is lawful or if Netanyahu’s decision represents a conflict of interest.
“The legal grounds for the decision are very simple,” said Lev. “What we are seeing is a public battle that has no legal basis. The attorney general has no grounds to object this decision other than her automatic objection to any move the government makes regarding its ability to govern.”
This lies at the heart of the conflict between those supporting the government’s judicial reform efforts and those opposing them.
In January of last year, the Supreme Court struck down legislation that aimed to restrict the judiciary’s use of the “reasonability” standard in reviewing government decisions. That amendment was part of Netanyahu’s broader overhaul aimed at curbing what he calls judicial overreach. Critics warned it would further erode the already limited checks on executive power.
“Since then, Israel is in a constitutional crisis and a battle between the branches,” said Lev. “In essence, the Supreme Court completely discarded Israel’s Basic Laws.”
According to Lev, this is the first time the crisis between the executive and judicial branches has reached this level. If the court rules the dismissal of Bar is unlawful and Netanyahu presses ahead with appointing a new Shin Bet chief, public servants could be caught in the middle. Israel’s military chief, who works closely with the Shin Bet, would be forced to choose which head to recognize. If the same scenario plays out with the attorney general, ministry legal advisers could be torn between two authorities.
“The government has chosen a good test case as far as it’s concerned,” said Lev. “The head of the Shin Bet during a war needs to have the full confidence of the government. The lack of trust is very clear here and is a good reason for firing him.”
As the cabinet convened, thousands of anti-government protesters amassed in Jerusalem. They warned that Israel is at risk of becoming a dictatorship.
“What is at hand here is government adherence to the law,” said Lurie. “When the prime minister says he will not adhere to a court order, which suggests the government is trying to pursue a course of action in which it is not governed by the law and how the court rules that the law stands. That is a very big threat to the actual rule of law in Israel and will make it into country in which the politicians and not the law governs.”
For proponents of the judicial overhaul and the government’s efforts to dismiss Bar and Baharav-Miara, the case illustrates what they see as their inability to govern under what they consider an overly powerful judiciary.
Both sides remain entrenched in their opposing positions. If the court overturns the government’s decision and Netanyahu defies the ruling—by appointing a new Shin Bet chief and sacking the attorney general—Israel could plunge even deeper into a constitutional crisis, with an uncertain outcome.
