Israel's Civil Service is an essential but often overshadowed part of the government's smooth operation. The Civil Service Commissioner oversees approximately 70,000 public sector employees and is responsible for maintaining professional and apolitical standards in senior public appointments. Recently, though, it has become a flashpoint for several conflicts between Israel's government, governance, the attorney general, the courts, and existing laws. As Israel has no constitution, there is no authority above all of the parties involved, leading to the present deadlocked status.
The Story So Far
In August 2024, this office came into the spotlight as part of a significant political controversy surrounding the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioner. Traditionally, the appointment process has involved a search committee headed by a retired judge. This arrangement is not legally mandated, but was seen as a balanced option to preserve the independence of the civil service, although the retired judge could easily introduce their own political views into the process despite no longer being on the bench and Israel's committee for choosing judges is controlled by the judges themselves.
The current government has decided to allow the Prime Minister to select the next commissioner, subject to approval by the advisory committee for senior appointments. sparking tension with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and multiple left-leaning organizations claiming to be watchdogs of government transparency.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara argued that the new process does not meet legal standards, as it permits the appointment of individuals without the necessary professional qualifications, undermining good governance. In her opinion, this change could compromise the objectivity of the civil service and open the door to politically motivated appointments. Baharav-Miara stated that the move represents “a significant step in turning the civil service into a political system.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu dismissed the objection, saying that his selection would be for the good of all the citizens regardless of political leaning. “For months now, in the midst of a war, we have been attempting to appoint a Civil Service Commissioner, as well as other government roles, only to be stopped by an Attorney General and Supreme Court who believe themselves to be our legislative body,” he declared. Netanyahu also insisted that, regardless of political bias, he had fulfilled his duty to consult before the appointment, and that the Attorney General should have no further influence on the matter.
The 'Reasonableness Standard'
In January 2025, Prime Minister Netanyahu appointed Roi Kachlon as acting Civil Service Commissioner, disregarding the Attorney General’s objections. Baharav-Miara asserted that Kachlon does not meet the legal requirements for the role, describing the appointment as exhibiting “extreme unreasonableness.”
What does "unreasonableness" mean in a court of law? Israel's Supreme Court has ruled that the Supreme Court has the authority to perform judicial review not only on legal cases and legislation, but also on the actions of the government and its ministers, and to strike down any that were deemed by the court to have exceeded the reasonable limits of the relevant body's authority.
This represented a change to Israel's Basic Law: Judiciary, instituted by the court itself, conflict of interest aside, increasing the powers of the Supreme Court at the expense of legislation being promoted at the time to cancel the "reasonableness" standard as part of the larger judicial reform. MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party), one of the main proponents of the judicial reform, vowed to see the "reasonableness" standard annulled before the October 7th massacre. He has since largely refrained from promoting the reform to focus on the war effort, and the reasonableness standard remains a strictly subjective and highly controversial matter in its own right.
Several organizations rejected the appointment. The national labor union, led by opposition member Arnon Ben-David, threatened wide-ranging strikes if it stood. After a Supreme Court petition was filed on the matter, Prime Minister Netanyahu withdrew the appointment to prevent the Supreme Court from issuing a precedent-setting ruling that was almost certain to be against him. Netanyahu instead tapped Kachlon to be an interim Commissioner while a permanent one was found. Other candidates have since refused the position, citing concerns about the political nature of the controversy and the limitations they feared would be imposed on their position.
Since Kachlon's appointment, Netanyahu has proposed several other candidates both as interim and permanent Commissioner, including Eden Bar-Tal, manager of the Foreign Ministry, and Yehuda Cohen, manager of the Chief Rabbinate. Neither has yet been confirmed for the position.
Implications
Without a replacement for Kachlon, the Civil Service will be unable to carry out the tasks that require the Commissioner's authorization. Many other senior roles could be left unfilled, leading to steadily more governmental paralysis.
Aside from the implications to the Civil Service Commission, this issue is another instance of the growing divide between the government and the legal system, which the government accuses of abrogating powers with no precedent or decision to that effect.
Although Prime Minister Netanyahu reversed his decision in this case, he later rejected the Attorney General's objections again with the appointment of David Zini as director of the ISA in place of Ronen Bar. Under clear Israeli law, the head of the ISA is appointed and dismissed by the government and is under its supervision. The government had decided to mandate a committee to approve the dismissal of an ISA chief, but then decided to rescind that demand. Baharav-Miara insisted that the Prime Minister not deal with replacing Bar due to Bar's involvement in the Qatar-Gate investigation, claiming that Netanyahu is in conflict of interest and legally prohibited from removing Bar while the investigation is ongoing. As Netanyahu is not being investigated and is not part of the investigation, Netanyahu moved forward with Zini's appointment regardless.
These conflicts are emblematic of the ongoing and deepening dispute within Israel's government as to the powers of the Attorney General. Netanyahu recently openly supported the idea of removing Gali Baharav-Miara from the position and reforming the Attorney General's powers, calling for citizens to attend a large-scale rally for the reform on Thursday evening. Over a hundred thousand Israelis attended.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced the start of formal proceedings to dismiss Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara.
A third and crucial aspect of the case concerns the Supreme Court's authority. The ruling to require a competitive process directly contradicts both other precedents and the letter of the law, raising concerns about the assumption of powers by the Supreme Court, threatening the balance of powers between the judiciary and other branches of government. As conflicts between the powers grow, Israel will likely see its democratic process tested to its limits.