Haaretz: Ben Gvir lost the battle, but the cowardly courts lost the war policy

Haaretz newspaper described the recent decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn part of the amendment to the police law, which would have authorized National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to determine police policy in investigations, as an important message in the face of the danger of the collapse of the police since he took office.

The newspaper indicated – in its editorial – that the Supreme Court found that the part of the amendment that it canceled violated the Constitution, and stressed the need for the police to be independent, and therefore kept the Police Commissioner in his position as the only person authorized to use police authority.

She warned that the police fall every day into the hands of Ben Gvir, who is considered the most extreme politician, and whom Haaretz describes as a “Kahani,” named after Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded a political and party movement called (Kach) that adopts racist positions against Arabs in Israel.

The Israeli “i24 News” channel reported that the Supreme Court invalidated, the day before yesterday, Thursday, the amendment to the police law that was introduced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to police policy.

The court’s decision ruled that Ben Gvir does not have any authority to interfere in police policy in the field of investigations. The judges explained that “the minister is allowed to establish a general policy in the field of investigations, including setting basic preferences, after listening to the position of the government’s legal advisor and consulting with the Chief of Staff.”

Haaretz newspaper said – in its editorial – that National Security Minister Ben Gvir has a criminal record, as he has a habit of exploiting the police for his political goals, and despite this, the government would have allowed him to proceed on his path.

It quoted the acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Yitzhak Amit, as saying that the amendment undermines basic constitutional rights, saying that this justifies its complete repeal, but he nevertheless refrained from doing so.

Instead, he stuck to the position taken by his predecessor, Uzi Fogelman, which was that the amendment should be interpreted in a way that did not undermine police independence. In this sense, Haaretz believes that the people who were threatening to weaken the Supreme Court and the police have actually succeeded.