The Government's Legal Advisor, Attorney Gali Baharav-Miara, announced this evening (Thursday) that she has decided to close the investigation case against Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir. This decision comes after he was investigated on suspicion of making threats following an altercation in December 2021, during which he displayed a firearm against security personnel in a parking lot in Tel Aviv. The announcement from the Attorney General's office comes in response to a petition submitted to the High Court, which demanded Ben-Gvir's disqualification from his role as a minister due to the criminal investigation.
According to the Government's Legal Advisor, "After reviewing the investigative material collected and following consultations, including with the State Prosecutor and all relevant parties in the case, in which substantive issues requiring a decision were discussed, the Government's Legal Advisor decided to adopt the recommendations of the State Prosecutor to close the investigation case against the minister." It is also asserted that "the evidence does not establish a reasonable chance of convicting him of making threats."
"To complete the picture, it should be noted that, per the State Prosecutor's recommendation, an investigative process was carried out within the framework of and examined by the Tel Aviv District Prosecutor's Office. Discussions took place with the State Prosecutor and the relevant parties participated in the examination of the evidentiary infrastructure and its analysis," she added. "An examination of the entirety of the evidence and its analysis revealed that it is not possible to determine, to the required legal standard in criminal law, the precise circumstances that led to the initiation of the confrontation and how it unfolded. This is, among other things, due to the lack of visual evidence concerning the initial moments of the event, and considering the conflicting versions of the parties involved."
In conclusion, Attorney General Baharav-Miara stated that Ben Gvir did indeed "behave contrary to what is expected of any citizen, certainly as expected from an elected public official." However, she clarified that "the analysis of the evidentiary basis indicated that his claim that he felt an immediate threat to his life and that his holding of the weapon was in response to the threat and danger he perceived cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the evidentiary basis does not establish a reasonable likelihood of conviction for making threats."
