Israeli government votes to dismiss attorney general, escalating standoff with judiciary
The Supreme Court froze the move while it considers the legality.
Netanyahu and his supporters accuse Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of exceeding her powers by blocking decisions by the elected government, including a move to fire the head of Israel's domestic security agency, another ostensibly apolitical office. She has said there is a conflict of interest because Netanyahu and several former aides face a series of criminal investigations.
Critics accuse Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, of undermining judicial independence and seeking to concentrate power in the hands of his coalition government, the most nationalist and religious in Israel's history. Netanyahu denies the allegations and says he is the victim of a witch hunt by hostile judicial officials egged on by the media.
An attempt by Netanyahu's government to overhaul the judiciary in 2023 sparked months of mass protests, and many believe it weakened the country ahead of Hamas' Oct. 7 attack later that year that triggered the war in the Gaza Strip.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, a prominent watchdog group, said it filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court following Monday's vote. It said more than 15,000 citizens have joined the petition, calling the dismissal 'illegal' and 'unprecedented.'
In a statement, the group accused the government of changing dismissal procedures only after failing to legally remove Baharav-Miara under the existing rules. It also cited a conflict of interest related to Netanyahu's ongoing trial.
'This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,' the group said. 'The legal battle will continue until this flawed decision is overturned.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Analysis: Lebanon's decision on weapons corners Hezbollah
The weapons decision, adopted during a Cabinet session chaired by President Joseph Aoun on Tuesday, not only ends the political cover Hezbollah has enjoyed for decades, but also undermines its legitimacy as a 'resistance organization,' according to military and political analysts. Photo by Wael BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- Lebanon, caught between mounting international pressure and the risk of another devastating war with Israel, made a game-changing decision by tasking the Army with preparing a plan to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year. The move poses a new challenge to the once-powerful Hezbollah, which has been left with almost no options after being significantly weakened during last year's war with Israel. The decision, adopted during a Cabinet session chaired by President Joseph Aoun on Tuesday, not only ends the political cover Hezbollah has enjoyed for decades, but also undermines its legitimacy as a "resistance organization," according to military and political analysts. Addressing Hezbollah's weapons had long been a taboo topic; until September, when Israel escalated its attacks on the group, killing its longtime leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, along with many of its top military commanders. In addition, the Iran-backed Shiite group reportedly lost the bulk of its military capabilities in ongoing Israeli airstrikes targeting its positions in southern and eastern Lebanon. Hezbollah had no alternative but to accept the Nov. 27 ceasefire agreement, brokered by the United States and France, to end the 14-month war with Israel that killed or wounded more than 20,000 people and left border villages in southern Lebanon in ruins. However, the agreement marked an opportunity for Lebanon to reclaim its long-lost sovereignty after decades of lawlessness, military occupation and the dominance of armed non-state actors. Tuesday's decision was "certainly a historic" one, according to Riad Kahwaji, who heads the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. "Hezbollah has lost the political cover that has given it legitimacy as a resistance organization," Kahwaji told UPI. He maintained that the militant group is now viewed as an armed militia that must comply with the 1989 Taif Accords -- which ended the 1975-1990 civil war -- and U.N. Resolution 1701, both of which call for the disarmament of all armed groups and affirm that only the Lebanese Armed Forces should hold a monopoly on weapons in the country. While Hezbollah implicitly agreed to discuss its weapons as part of a national defense strategy, it resisted government efforts to set a timetable for disarming -- a key U.S. condition for unlocking much-needed international and Gulf Arab funding to support Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery. In line with the government decision, the Army was to submit its implementation plan on disarming Hezbollah and other Palestinian armed factions to the cabinet by the end of August for discussion and approval, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said after the Cabinet meeting. Hezbollah and its main ally, the Shiite Amal Movement led by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, rejected in separate statements Wednesday the Cabinet's decision as a "grave sin" that offers "free concessions to the Israeli enemy" and weakens Lebanon, rather than ending Israel's ongoing attacks, its occupation of Lebanese territory and securing the release of Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah has maintained that it is unwilling to lay down its arms as long as Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanese territory -- an argument that was considered legitimate until the recent Cabinet decision. "Its weapons will become illegitimate by the end of the year, in accordance with Lebanese law," said Abdul Rahman Chehaitli, a retired major general and author of The Lebanese Land and Maritime Borders: A Historical, Geographical, and Political Study. "But it still enjoys popular legitimacy." Chehaitli noted that Lebanon still faces "external threats" from Israel and from armed groups operating outside the control of the new Syrian leadership and that are deployed along the eastern border. He explained that Lebanon would need an agreement similar to the 1949 Armistice Accord to guarantee Israel's withdrawal and to demarcate the border, as well as a separate border agreement with Syria to enable the Lebanese Army to carry out its mission. "The government is serious, but no one can say what will happen the next day or what additional demands the U.S. and Israel might push forward," he told UPI, referring to concerns among Lebanon's Shiite community about their future and political role in the country. The question remains whether Hezbollah is still capable of fighting Israel after losing much of its power. Kahwaji said the group was "trying to put on a strong face," but clearly, "the Hezbollah we knew is no longer there. ... It's much weaker." He argued that Hezbollah's "calculations have continuously and miserably failed" since Oct. 7, 2023, which is why the group was "badly defeated and degraded." "It has lost the halo it carried for years. All its attempts to recreate the illusion of deterrence and to intimidate the state have also failed," he said. While Israel claimed to have destroyed 70 percent of Hezbollah's arsenal, Chehaitli said, "no one really knows. ... It remains a mystery." "It could still have military capabilities it hasn't used -- or it could have none," he added, emphasizing that Hezbollah, in any case, would not initiate a war but could fight back if one is imposed. The devastating blows Hezbollah suffered during the war with Israel have reportedly prompted the group -which has been fighting Israel since its establishment after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982- to engage in a comprehensive internal review. The situation has shifted significantly due to the accelerated developments in the region following the Gaza war. Hezbollah, which was the principal component of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" carrying out missions outside Lebanon, has been forced to shift its focus. Kassem Kassir, a political analyst who specializes in Islamic movements and is close to Hezbollah, explained that the group is engaged in internal discussions, as well as talks with other political forces in the country, to develop "a new vision." "But so far, it hasn't produced a comprehensive or complete one," Kassir told UPI. What is clear, however, is that Hezbollah is now focusing on Lebanon and its future role as part of the state.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
UCLA in talks with Trump administration to end $584M freeze
The university is the first public institution to contend with a targeted government funding freeze. The University of California, Los Angeles, is negotiating with the federal government to end a research funding pause of more than half a billion dollars, according to the school. Approximately $584 million has been suspended, UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said in an Aug. 6 message to the campus community. James Milliken, the president of the University of California system, said the school has committed to "engage in dialogue with the federal administration" in hopes of ending the freeze, "as soon as possible." On July 29, the Justice Department notified UCLA that it had violated federal civil rights laws and allowed discrimination to occur against Jewish and Israeli students when it failed to adequately respond to protests in the spring of 2024 stemming from the Israel-Hamas war. Read more: Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal Since then, grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies have been cut off, jeopardizing the university's research apparatus. "This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination," Frenk said in a July 31 statement. Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump The funding freeze mirrors similar actions the federal government has taken against other prestigious colleges in recent weeks and months, prompting a series of unprecedented agreements with schools like Columbia and Brown. UCLA is the first major public institution, however, whose research support has come into the Trump administration's crosshairs. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
