Israel’s Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has formally requested that the High Court of Justice cancel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appointment of Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman as the next chief of the Mossad, arguing that the process used to clear the general was “fundamentally flawed.”
The legal challenge, filed Sunday, comes ahead of a Tuesday hearing on petitions contesting Gofman’s ascent to one of the state’s most sensitive security positions. While Netanyahu appointed Gofman to a five-year term beginning June 2 following a majority vote by the Advisory Committee for Senior Appointments, Baharav-Miara contends that the committee’s approval was based on an incomplete and inaccurate factual foundation.
At the heart of the dispute is a 2022 operation involving the activation of an Israeli citizen, Ori Elmakayes, who was a minor at the time. According to the Attorney-General, Gofman, who then commanded Division 210, approved the activation of Elmakayes without the required authorization from intelligence bodies—a breach of protocol that Baharav-Miara argues constitutes a significant integrity flaw.
The fallout from that operation was severe: Elmakayes was arrested in May 2022, held in full detention through July, and subjected to prolonged electronic monitoring and house arrest. Although the prosecution eventually canceled the indictment against him in late 2023, the Attorney-General argues that the damage was already done and the procedural bypass was inexcusable.
The ‘Integrity Flaw’ and a Divided Committee
The appointment process was marked by a sharp divide within the senior appointments committee. While three members found no issue with Gofman’s conduct, the committee chairman and former Supreme Court president, Asher Grunis, reached the opposite conclusion. Grunis found that Gofman’s actions represented a clear integrity flaw, making him unfit to lead the Mossad.
Baharav-Miara’s filing suggests that the majority’s decision to clear Gofman was rushed and poorly vetted. She noted that majority members signed their opinion before Grunis had even finished writing his dissent and before some members had reviewed critical classified documents. Even after reviewing the materials, those members allegedly failed to explain why their views remained unchanged.
the Attorney-General criticized the committee for failing to hear direct testimony from Elmakayes, relying instead on media interviews, and for ignoring the input of a key officer, identified as Brig.-Gen. P., who held a central role in Military Intelligence at the time.
| Event/Phase | Detail | Outcome/Status |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 Operation | Division 210 activates minor Ori Elmakayes | Unauthorized activation |
| May-July 2022 | Elmakayes arrested and detained | House arrest/Electronic monitoring |
| Late 2023 | Prosecution reviews Elmakayes’ case | Indictment canceled |
| Appointment Vote | Advisory Committee for Senior Appointments | Approved by majority; Grunis dissented |
| June 2 | Scheduled start date for Gofman | Pending High Court decision |
A Clash of Legal and Political Authority
Baharav-Miara was careful to state that her legal position does not diminish Gofman’s extensive military record or his leadership during the events of October 7. However, she argued that the specific nature of the Mossad chief’s role—requiring absolute integrity and adherence to the law—makes the “irregular” activation of a minor a disqualifying factor.
The Attorney-General’s intervention has sparked a fierce backlash from Netanyahu’s coalition partners, who view the move as a political attack on the government. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir accused Baharav-Miara of aiding enemies of the state, claiming that “in Tehran, they are applauding you.”
Coalition chairman Ofir Katz echoed these sentiments, referring to the Attorney-General as the “opposition chairwoman” and urging the government to ignore her legal opinion. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the move as “one step too far,” signaling that the coalition intends to advance legislation during the Knesset’s summer session to split the Attorney-General’s role and limit its powers.
The Stakes for Israel’s Intelligence Community
The controversy places the High Court in a difficult position, balancing the Prime Minister’s prerogative to appoint security chiefs against the legal requirement for a transparent and ethical appointment process. Petitioners have requested that the court review classified committee transcripts and Grunis’s full minority opinion in a closed-door session to reveal the depth of the alleged flaws.
If the court upholds Baharav-Miara’s position, it would mark a significant victory for the legal establishment’s oversight of security appointments and a setback for Netanyahu’s efforts to consolidate control over the intelligence apparatus.
This article contains information regarding ongoing legal proceedings in the Israeli High Court of Justice. The details provided are based on official filings and public statements.
The next critical checkpoint is the High Court hearing scheduled for Tuesday, where judges will determine if the appointment process was sufficiently flawed to warrant the cancellation of Gofman’s appointment.
What are your thoughts on the balance between political appointments and legal oversight in national security? Share your perspective in the comments or share this story.
