Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara submitted a supplementary response to the High Court of Justice Thursday at midnight, addressing a petition that accuses her of being in a “serious conflict of interest” regarding her involvement in matters related to outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and former chief Nadav Argaman.
In her filing, Baharav-Miara denied any close relationship with either official, stating she is neither a friend nor an associate of Bar or Argaman, and never has been. She further noted that there is no need to revise her conflict-of-interest arrangement.
On May 13, Supreme Court Justice Noam Solberg rejected the Attorney General’s claim and ordered her to submit an affidavit to the court responding to the allegations against her and to provide details about the nature of her personal relationships with outgoing Bar and Argaman.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the Lavi organization, which advocates for civil rights, proper governance, and the promotion of settlement.
The petition described a close personal relationship between Baharav-Miara and both Bar and Argaman. According to the petition, the connections were established through her husband, a former Shin Bet agent, and included years of personal visits and social gatherings involving the two former security chiefs and the Baharav-Miara family.
The Lavi petition contended that “despite these personal ties, Baharav-Miara continues to be directly involved in Argaman’s petition and is actively pursuing legal measures to prevent the dismissal of Ronen Bar as head of the Shin Bet – in direct opposition to the government’s stance.”
In the response which was submitted by two of the AG’s underlings, Baharav-Miara firmly denied any personal closeness or friendship with the two Shin Bet chiefs. “The Attorney General is not, and has never been, a friend or close associate of either individual,” the filing stated.
Addressing the claims made in the petition, the response clarified that Baharav-Miara’s husband, a former operative in Shin Bet’s operational units, has been severely ill for over two decades. He is fully paralyzed, has been ventilator-dependent for approximately 15 years, and is unable to speak. “Communication with him is limited and complex,” the filing noted.
The response further explained that while Baharav-Miara’s husband’s career overlapped with those of Argaman and Bar—at times within the same unit—there was no indication of a personal friendship between them. “The Attorney General does not know the extent of their professional cooperation during those years,” it stated, adding that “there were no personal or familial friendships, and the families did not socialize together.”
The filing also noted that while close friends of Baharav-Miara’s husband have regularly visited him and shared meals over the years, neither Argaman nor Bar is part of that group. It acknowledged that her husband received occasional visits from senior Shin Bet officials, including former chiefs, during his illness, but emphasized these were sporadic and not at the Attorney General’s initiative. “To the best of her knowledge, these visits were made out of a sense of institutional duty, not personal ties,” the response said.
GALI AND KING LOUIS XIV
Given these circumstances, the Attorney General’s office concluded that there is no basis to revise her conflict-of-interest arrangement. This position was also reflected in her earlier preliminary response, in which she stated: “There is no personal friendship between me and either individual, and they are not members of my household.”
In a letter sent earlier this month to the Attorney General and the State Ombudsman, Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli alleged that Baharav-Miara is in a romantic relationship with Jackie Eshel, a former Shin Bet officer and a witness in the Netanyahu trial—a relationship Chikli claimed had been “completely concealed, even from the prosecution.”
Chikli further accused the Attorney General of failing to disclose a conflict of interest related to her alleged ties to the Shin Bet and its current director, Ronen Bar. “The Shin Bet has provided your family with significant assistance over many years, including close personal nursing care,” he wrote.
In light of these claims, Chikli called on Baharav-Miara to immediately recuse herself from any involvement in matters relating to Ronen Bar, including issues surrounding “Serviceman A.,” who reportedly attempted to expose alleged misconduct within the Shin Bet. He also demanded she refrain from making any decisions concerning himself in connection with this matter.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a hearing is to be held “as soon as possible” on a petition filed by the bereaved families and victims of terrorism forum, Choose Life, against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. The petition calls for an investigation into a series of security leaks originating from within the defense establishment and passed to the media—leaks that, according to the petitioners, have caused serious harm to national security. The High Court of Justice ordered the Attorney General to submit a response within 14 days prior to the hearing.
The petition accuses the Attorney General and the broader law enforcement system of longstanding negligence in addressing leaks that revealed sensitive operational plans, intelligence sources, and classified information. It describes the leaks as potentially rising to the level of “espionage bordering on treason against the State of Israel.”
Despite the severity of the issue, the petition asserts that no investigation has been launched, no effort has been made to identify those responsible for the leaks, and repeated inquiries to the Attorney General and relevant authorities have gone unanswered.
The petitioners warn that beyond the implications for the public trust, the apparent selective enforcement poses a tangible threat to the security of the state.
This is as good a point as any to quote the late Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, Israeli legal scholar, politician, and recipient of the Israel Prize, who said, “I once said that the Attorney General is similar to Louis XIV, because there is no limit to her authority, and she herself determines the limits of her authority. But then I remembered that Louis XIV had a council of nobles with whom he would occasionally consult. The Attorney General doesn’t even have that.”
