Supreme Court Judge Noam Sohlberg rejected today (Sunday) the petitions seeking to stop the hearing for Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, and to freeze the dismissal process against her.

"The established rule, which was recently applied, is that this court does not address issues related to a specific matter before a final decision has been made by the relevant authority regarding that matter," said Sohlberg in his ruling. "Thus, judicial review occurs only after the decision is made, not before it. If this is the case regarding the dismissal of the petitions, it is clear that they are valid, especially when we are dealing with a request for an interim order, as it is evident that in the absence of a final decision, no irreversible action has been taken. Naturally, if there are changes in the factual situation, it will be possible to submit a new request."

Earlier, the government submitted its response to the petitions in the Supreme Court. In a sharp statement, Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and MK Amichai Chikli, Chairman of the Ministerial Committee on the Attorney General’s Replacement, argued that the government can no longer tolerate the "absurd situation" in which the attorney general "uses state resources for her personal needs and subordinates the public legal service to her personal desires."

"For a long time, the Israeli government has not been given a fair process in cases where there is a dispute between it and its attorney general. The Israeli government sees no reason to continue with this illusion and expects the Supreme Court to face the absurdity and distortion of justice and discussion," the response read. "The attorney general systematically tore apart the rope, and now she expects the honorable court to tear it apart with her, with all the serious consequences."

The government claims that Baharav-Miara faces a clear conflict of interest as she is directly involved in these petitions, but prevents legal representation for the government and instructs lawyers to submit positions reflecting her personal stance alone. "This is an upside-down world," the government wrote, "the public legal service is not her private property but is meant to represent the government. The expectation for the government to respond to the petitions while being disconnected from its legal representation undermines its right to a fair process."

The government also stated that the conduct of the attorney general raises a double standard: "She demands that the government avoid a distant and speculative conflict of interest (referring to the Qatargate investigations which she cited to claim the Prime Minister has conflict of interest in replacing the head of the Shabak although he is not involved in them, ed.), while she herself stands before the court with a beam of conflict of interest in her eyes."

The government further argued that the mere existence of the case at the Supreme Court, where it lacks sufficient legal representation, illustrates the depth of the problem that has arisen. It emphasized that the process against the attorney general is lawful, and the hearing scheduled for her is being conducted with strict respect for her rights.

It was also noted that Baharav-Miara had refused to respond for months to documents submitted to her and did not attend government meetings to respond to the allegations against her. However, the government emphasized that its decision to hold the hearing is "far beyond what is required."

At the end of the statement, it was reported that two supporting documents detailing the grounds for dismissal were submitted to the court, including documentation of repeated attempts to bridge the gaps with the attorney general—efforts that the government said had failed and are currently causing "immense damage to the management of state affairs and the public as a whole."