Defying protests, Israeli cabinet reported to be seeking attorney general's removal
TEL AVIV/JERUSALEM, March 23 (Reuters) - Israeli protesters took to the streets for a sixth day on Sunday amid reports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet is preparing a no confidence motion on the attorney general in its latest move against officials deemed hostile to the government.
Tens of thousands of Israelis have joined demonstrations in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv over the past week, as fears for Israeli hostages after a resumption of the bombing campaign in Gaza and anger at moves to sack the head of the domestic intelligence agency have brought different protest groups together.
The removal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, approved by cabinet last week, was set to be followed by a no confidence motion against attorney general Gali Baharav-Miara, who has frequently clashed with the current government.
Israeli media reported last week that cabinet would hold a no confidence motion on Sunday against Baharav-Miara, a former district attorney appointed under previous prime minister Naftali Bennett, although any dismissal could be months away.
The moves against the two officials have drawn accusations from protestors and the opposition that Netanyahu's right-wing government is undermining key state institutions.
At the same time, families and supporters of the 59 hostages still held in Gaza have vented their anger at what many have seen as the government's abandonment of their loved ones.
"We are here to make it clear that Israel is a democracy and will remain a democracy," said 46 year-old Uri Ash, who was taking part in a protest in Tel Aviv. "We will overtake this government because it is ruining Israel," he said.
Although the protest groups have different priorities, they have built on mass demonstrations before the Gaza war that were unleashed by the right-wing government's moves to curb the power of the Supreme Court.
Netanyahu said at the time the overhaul was needed to rein in judicial overreach that was intruding on the authority of parliament, but protestors said it was an attempt to weaken one of the pillars of Israeli democracy.
ACCUSATIONS
Earlier this month, Justice Minister Yair Levin initiated moves to dismiss Baharav-Miara, accusing her of politicizing her office and obstructing the government.
In practice, any step to remove the attorney general is likely to face administrative hurdles and an appeals process that could delay it for months. But the reports, which the prime minister's office declined to confirm, have added fuel to the protests, echoing the same accusations made over Bar's dismissal.
Cabinet approved Bar's dismissal despite objections from Baharav-Miara, but the move has been held up by a temporary injunction from the Supreme Court.
Late on Saturday, Netanyahu issued a video statement defending the dismissal of Bar and rejecting accusations that the sacking was aimed at thwarting a Shin Bet investigation into allegations of financial ties between Qatar and aides in the prime minister's office.
Instead, he said, the Shin Bet probe into the affair was launched as a means of delaying Bar's expected resignation over intelligence failures that allowed the devastating attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023 to take place.
Netanyahu has rejected the accusations in the so-called "Qatargate" affair as an attempt to undermine his government for political reasons while Qatar has dismissed it as a "smear campaign."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
39 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
The National
44 minutes ago
- The National
Human rights group loses bid to bring legal action against EHRC
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. READ MORE: This is what the Hamilton by-election tells us about SNP chances for 2026 Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, he said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' READ MORE: Labour considering 'Brit Card' ID plans, minister confirms Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump's new travel ban is a gratuitously cruel sequel
I'm not much for horror movies, but I have just read that the film Black Phone 2 'will creep into cinemas' in October and that, compared to the original, it's supposed to be a 'more violent, scarier, more graphic' film. I'll pass on the movie, but that description seems pretty apt to what living under this Trump administration feels like: a gratuitously more violent sequel to a ghoulish original. Consider the Muslim ban. Back in late 2015, candidate Donald Trump called for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. He signed the first version of the Muslim ban on 27 January 2017, and protests erupted at airports across the nation at the revival of a national policy, similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, that bars entry of whole swaths of people based on our national prejudices. It took the Trump administration three attempts at crafting this policy before the supreme court tragically greenlit it. While Joe Biden later reversed the policy, congressional moves to restrict the president's ability to institute these blanket bans – such as the No Ban Act – have not succeeded. And on the first day of his second term, Trump indicated he was prepared to institute a wider-reaching travel ban. He has now done just that. The new executive order will 'fully restrict and limit the entry [to the US] of nationals of the following 12 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen' and will also 'partially restrict and limit the entry of nationals of the following 7 countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela'. Yes, there are key cutouts in the latest travel ban that make it a different animal from the original 2017 ban, but it still derives from the same family. Green-card holders, those with valid visas issued before the executive order was proclaimed, and professional athletes representing their countries in the forthcoming World Cup, for example, are exempt, illustrating how the administration has learned to write more litigation-resistant immigration exclusion orders. But make no mistake. Such a policy is alienating, counterproductive and simply racist. For one thing, Trump claims that the ban is necessary because the selected countries exhibit either 'a significant terrorist presence', a lack of cooperation in accepting back their nationals, or high rates of visa overstays. According to the Entry/Exit Overstay Report for fiscal year 2023 (the last one available), the number of people from Equatorial Guinea, a small African country, who overstayed their B1/B2 visas (travel to the US for business or pleasure) was 200. From the United Kingdom, it was 15,712. It's true that the percentage (as opposed to the number) of people overstaying their visas from Equatorial Guinea is significantly higher than UK overstays. But Djibouti, which hosts the primary US military base in for operations in Africa, has an even higher percentage of B1/B2 visa overstayers than Equatorial Guinea – yet it isn't part of the ban, illustrating how much it is based on narrow political calculations and cheap theatrics. The capriciousness of the policy was immediately evident after Trump released a video explaining his decision. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed for our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas,' he said, adding: 'We don't want them.' Yet, as everyone knows, the suspect in the Boulder, Colorado, attack is an Egyptian national, another key US ally. And Egypt is not on the list. Nor should it be, because these lists of banned countries collapse individuals into vague categories of suspicion and malfeasance. Why should the actions of one person from any given country mark a completely different person as inadmissible? Trump may sound tough to his supporters when announcing the ban, but such broad-brush applications against basically all the nationals of comparatively powerless countries is hardly the flex that Trump thinks it is. In the eyes of the rest of the world, the new policy mostly makes the administration look like a bully, picking on a handful of Muslim-majority countries, a few African and Asian states, a couple of its traditional enemies, and Haiti. Meanwhile, the rest of the world also sees how the Trump administration has withdrawn temporary protections from more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua, suspended refugee resettlement from around the world, and yet welcomed in dozens of white Afrikaners from South Africa to the United States as refugees. The ethnocentrism of the policy is as naked as it is opportunistic. The truth is that the damage from Trump's first-term Muslim ban was long-lasting and had all kinds of collateral impact, including on the mental health of family members living in the United States. And immigrant advocacy organizations are already sharply criticizing this latest version. AfghanEvac, a non-profit organization that facilitates the resettlement of Afghans who worked with American troops, stated that the new ban 'is not about national security – it is about political theater'. To include Afghanistan among the banned countries, even as thousands of Afghans worked alongside American forces, is to Shawn VanDiver, the group's founder and president, 'a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' Trump's latest travel ban, his ramped-up immigration deportation regime, his international student crackdown, and his all but ending asylum in the United States add up to a clearly a concerted attempt to stave off the inevitable while vilifying the marginal. Demographers have been telling us for years now that the US will be a 'majority minority' country around 2045, a prospect that has long frightened many of the white conservatives who make up Trump's base. In response, Trump is pursuing a policy that draws on the most basic kind of nativism around, and one we've seen before in the United States. The 1924 Immigration Act severely restricted immigration to the US to keep America as white and as western European as possible. Only in 1965 were the laws finally changed, with the national immigration quotas lifted, laying the foundation for the multicultural society we have today. That earlier movie of epic exclusion lasted some 41 years. So far, this sequel is violent, scary and authoritarian. It had better be a short film. Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist
