"Putting an End to the Era of Bureaucrats": The right celebrates effort to remove the Attorney General

Rightwing leaders have responded with jubilation to Justice Minister Yariv Levin's decision to initiate the process of removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara today (Wednesday). Here are some of their responses.

The former Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, who made the dismissal of the Attorney General a condition for his return to the government, wrote: "Better late than never. It's time!"

Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar added: "The Minister of Justice did well by initiating the process of replacing the Legal Advisor, and the Attorney General will do well to resign from her position in light of the deep trust crisis between her and the elected government."

Communication Minister Shlomo Kara praised Levin: "Kudos to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who stands by his word. We promised and we're fulfilling. Home!"

Education Minister Yoav Kish attacked: "The Attorney General has been oppositional to government activity from the first moment, in an unprofessional and completely political manner. Opposition in every sense. I bless Minister Yariv Levin on the decision to initiate her dismissal."

Transportation and Road Safety Minister, member of the Political-Security Cabinet, Brigadier General (Res.) Miri Regev stated: "I congratulate Yariv Levin. At a good hour. It's time to dismiss the oppositional advisor to the government and put an end to the era of bureaucratic rule."

As mentioned, earlier this evening, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin approached the government secretary regarding the Attorney General to the Government, thus essentially initiating her dismissal. The document calls for a vote of no confidence in the advisor and convening a search committee to discuss her dismissal - which is essentially the first step towards her removal.

According to Levin, one of the reasons for dismissing the Attorney General is the contamination of legal advice with political considerations - it is claimed that the advisor acted not as a professional body but as a tool to thwart government policy, presenting "legal prevention" even when there was no legal justification for it. Additionally, it is claimed that she worked to obstruct government and private legislation, as well as prevent appointments in the civil service.