Israel’s Supreme Court announced the cancellation of the hearing that had been scheduled for Thursday on petitions calling for the ouster of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for alleged “improper interference in police work”—citing “the absence of a substantive response from the Prime Minister.”

The court also announced that, in accordance with Ben Gvir’s request and in light of the “weight of the claims,” the panel for the hearing has been expanded to five justices.

The court stated that the expanded panel will consider issuing a conditional order—which means that the Prime Minister will have to explain his position as early as the beginning of February—and that a new date for the hearing will be set “no later than the end of March 2026,” and the identities of the panel members will be published in accordance with the court’s schedule constraints.

Political commentator Amit Segal wrote, “A hearing at the end of March means the justices won’t rule on this before the elections and don’t want to decide.”

Associates of Ben Gvir said, “The fact that the Supreme Court writes that it will consider issuing a conditional order even without a hearing and without any authority proves that the justices are seeking a constitutional crisis at any cost.”

A B’Chadrei Chareidim journalist wrote, “Behind the procedural justifications and dry legal language, the Supreme Court’s decision to postpone the hearing on the petitions to remove Minister Itamar Ben Gvir until the end of March is far more than a technical move. It is a distinctly political-legal decision that sends a clear message: the Supreme Court has no desire to rule on this explosive issue.”

“In practice, the justices chose to kick the can down the road. Instead of issuing a clear ruling, they adopted a procedural rationale, criticizing the government’s responses and citing the lack of substantive answers to the claims—to postpone the hearing to a time that is, politically speaking, light years away.

“Israel at the end of March, 2026 is another world entirely. Anyone familiar with the Israeli political system knows that such a delay means one thing—there will be no ruling before the elections. And that is, in itself, a choice.

“The justices fully understand the public significance of a ruling compelling the prime minister to dismiss Ben Gvir. They understand that such a move could ignite a fierce backlash among right-wing voters, be perceived as blatant judicial interference in politics, and would certainly even boost Ben Gvir’s standing at the ballot boxes. A scenario in which the Supreme Court ‘fires’ a right-wing minister on the eve of elections is one the judicial system wants to avoid.

“And so, under the pretext of insufficient responses, general positions, and the ‘need for an expanded panel,’ the Supreme Court achieves what it often does in especially sensitive matters—abstaining from a decision—and thereby deciding. By postponing the hearing so far into the future, the court has, in effect, sealed the fate of the petitions—not through a ruling, but through foot-dragging.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)