Supreme Court Justice ‘worried’ about expanded powers for Ben-Gvir

Left-wing groups and opposition lawmakers have challenged this legislation, in an effort to prevent Ben-Gvir from being able to make major changes within the institution.

By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News

A Supreme Court Justice described himself as a “concerned citizen” regarding expanded powers to oversee the police granted to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, as petitioners lobby the court to prevent the minister from being able to gain greater control over the force.

An amendment to a law outlining the rights and responsibilities of Israel’s National Security Minister passed by the coalition several weeks ago grants Ben-Gvir the ability to “direct police policy and the general principles for its operations.”

Left-wing groups and opposition lawmakers have challenged this legislation, in an effort to prevent Ben-Gvir from being able to make major changes within the institution.

During a hearing at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, one of the petitioners argued that the law is “unconstitutional,” implying it is related to potential judicial reforms and an overall effort to “change Israel’s form of government.”

Attorney Eliad Shraga, who is the head of the the Movement for Quality Government in Israel group, said “that this amendment will allow a minister — as we have already seen in the last half a year — to harm fundamental rights, whether it is the right to demonstrate, the right to freedom of expression, individual liberties, the right to due process, to be represented, we are seeing how human rights are being violated by this amendment.”

Shraga did not provide examples as to how Ben-Gvir had violated any of those fundamental principles, and his assertion was challenged by Supreme Court Justice Yechiel Kasher.

“You’re talking about a specific minister whose worldview you don’t agree with and a police commissioner whose worldview you appreciate more,” responded Kasher.

However, his colleague, Justice Isaac Amit expressed reservations over the legislation. He noted that the law did not include a pledge that the minister would act in a “statesmanlike” manner, implying that the absence of the phrase meant that Ben-Gvir wasn’t committed to making non-partisan decisions.

“When the word ‘statesmanlike’ is missing, and I’m speaking for myself, I become a worried citizen, even scared,” said Amit.

Arguments into the constitutionality of the law are ongoing.