When Harry Meets Sally? Israel faces a constitutional standoff as cabinet prepares to fire A-G Baharav-Miara, setting up a potential clash with the judiciary over the separation of powers. The Israeli political and judicial systems are entering uncharted waters with no one having a clue about the consequences if the Cabinet votes as expected to can the leftist, interventionist Baharav-Miara.

The Israeli government is on the brink of a full-blown constitutional crisis after a five-member ministerial panel voted unanimously to recommend the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. The cabinet is now poised to decide whether to implement the recommendation—an unprecedented move that could shake the delicate balance between the executive and judiciary and trigger a direct confrontation with the High Court of Justice.

Chaired by Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, the committee included Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel, and Religious Services Minister Michael Malkieli. All five ministers voted in favor of dismissing Baharav-Miara, finalizing the text of their resolution Thursday night and formally adopting it Friday morning.

“The attorney general has consistently overstepped her legal boundaries and obstructed the will of the elected government,” said Ben Gvir following the vote. “We have no choice but to act decisively to restore democratic governance.”

The resolution now moves to the full cabinet, which can take it up for a vote as early as its next meeting. But the path forward is anything but clear.

Just hours after the ministerial vote, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg issued a ruling stating that any decision by the cabinet to dismiss Baharav-Miara would not come into effect immediately. The delay is meant to give the court time to review a raft of petitions challenging the new legal framework for removing the attorney general—a framework instituted in June amid widespread protests and opposition warnings that it would weaken judicial independence.

Baharav-Miara responded to the ruling Friday afternoon with her own legal filing, requesting the court not merely to delay implementation, but to halt the entire dismissal process outright. In her submission, she called the government’s actions “an unconstitutional encroachment on the independence of the chief legal officer of the state.”

The stakes could not be higher. If the cabinet follows through with the firing and the court moves to block it, Israel will face a head-on clash between its branches of government with no clear precedent or roadmap for resolution.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far remained quiet publicly, but sources in the Prime Minister’s Office suggest he is inclined to back the recommendation, given what coalition leaders view as Baharav-Miara’s consistent resistance to key government policies—including her opposition to the controversial judicial reform plan and her legal reservations on security decisions during the ongoing war in Gaza and the north.

The attorney general, appointed under the previous government, has long been seen by the current coalition as a holdover from the “deep state” structures resistant to their agenda. Her critics accuse her of politicized legal activism, while her defenders say she has upheld the rule of law against dangerous overreach.

Legal scholars warn that if the High Court ultimately invalidates the government’s action, and the government refuses to comply, Israel could enter uncharted waters—akin to the American Watergate-era question of what happens when a president defies a judicial order.

“This is not just about one person,” said Prof. Suzie Navot of the Israel Democracy Institute. “This is about whether the attorney general is independent, and whether the judiciary has the power to check the executive. If the court is ignored, it’s game over for the rule of law.”

The opposition, meanwhile, is rallying in defense of Baharav-Miara, with protests already being organized for this weekend. MK Benny Gantz, speaking Friday, said, “Firing the attorney general to avoid legal scrutiny is the act of a frightened regime, not a confident democracy.”

As the nation watches, all eyes now turn to two institutions: the Israeli cabinet—and the Supreme Court. One must decide whether to pull the trigger. The other must decide whether to block the shot. And the country must brace for what follows.