After months of boycotting Knesset votes in protest over the coalition’s failure to pass the giyus law and formally secure the status of yeshiva bochurim, leaders of the chareidi parties are now considering a striking move — throwing their support behind the proposal to divide the powers of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.
In recent days, heads of the chareidi factions have been deliberating whether to end their boycott for this specific vote, viewing it as a direct and fitting response to the attorney general’s pressure on the IDF to arrest yeshiva bochurim.
“This is the only response we have to the yo’etzet,” said a senior chareidi official. “She can’t provoke a crisis with the chareidi factions over the arrests and then also enjoy the benefits that come with it.”
Another senior figure added, “It’s not just Gali Baharav-Miara — the entire legal system is waging war against the tzibbur hachareidi, and we cannot allow them to benefit from their own campaign of persecution.”
The bill in question argues that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the same person both advises the government and has the authority to prosecute its members. Under the proposed law, the role of the yo’etz hamishpati lamemshalah would be divided into three: one to serve as the government’s legal adviser, another as the state prosecutor, and a third responsible for representing the government before the Bagatz.
Attorney General Baharav-Miara has voiced fierce opposition to the proposal, claiming that “these initiatives must be opposed and should not move forward. They constitute a dangerous change to the system of governance, being pushed hastily, without due process or consultation with relevant officials, and appear to be driven by personal interests related to ongoing criminal cases and the identity of the state prosecutor.”
If the chareidi factions do decide to suspend their boycott and vote in favor of the bill, it would mark a dramatic turnaround, transforming their quiet protest against the coalition into a bold act of defiance aimed squarely at what they see as an increasingly hostile legal establishment.
What is hava amina not to support it? You are talking about decreasing the power of the person most singularly responsible for the situation. How could there even be a consideration not to do so?
Nothing will come out of it just like nothing came of the judicial reform.