A senior legal source said that figures on the far left are waging a public pressure campaign aimed at Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, seeking to draw him into the activist majority of the court ahead of the hearing on petitions against the tenure of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir—despite the absence of any indictment or legal basis for his removal, Arutz Sheva reported.

According to the source, far-left leaders are no longer content with just criticizing Ben-Gvir and filing petitions and are now attempting to influence Solberg personally and influence his judicial stance.

The source noted a series of opinion columns and articles recently published in left-wing outlets such as Calcalist and Haaretz, which portray Sohlberg as a potential swing vote who could align with the rest of the panel—described as the most activist bench on the court—including Justices Yitzchak Amit and Daphne Barak-Erez—and join a decision to remove the minister.

“The effort is not subtle,” the source said. “It is overt and explicit, accompanied by dramatic language about ‘defensive democracy,’ a ‘fateful moment,’ and a ‘moral duty’ for the court to intervene in the makeup of the government. The message is clear—although Justice Sohlberg has long been viewed as a conservative, he is being urged to change his approach in this case—not because of any explicit legal mandate, but due to an ideological framework that treats the tenure of a lawfully appointed minister as a ‘threat’ to be neutralized through judicial action.”

The source added that “far-left commentators and alarmist media channels are also seeking to pressure the court into revisiting or expanding the Deri–Pinchasi precedent, which allows for the dismissal of a minister following the filing of an indictment—a ruling that itself has drawn harsh criticism over the years.”

According to the source, those advancing this argument are fully aware that no indictment has been filed against Ben Gvir. “This is an attempt to stretch an activist precedent from the 1980s—originally applied to an indicted minister—and extend it to a situation in which there is no indictment, no conviction, and no statutory provision requiring removal,” he said. “What remains is ‘judicial discretion,’ and they are trying to push it to its outer limits.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)