Deputy Supreme Court President Justice Noam Sohlberg ordered Israel Police Commissioner Danny Levy on Wednesday to respond to a petition asking why Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has not yet been investigated on suspicion of conflict of interest and fraud in the Sde Teiman affair. The petition was filed by MK Avichai Boaron and the Lavie organization, which claim the attorney general acted while conflicted and pushed an aggressive criminal probe against Israeli fighters.
The petitioners argue that Baharav-Miara continued to run the matter and make decisive decisions even after it allegedly became clear that she was barred from handling it, without reporting the conflict to oversight officials in the Justice Ministry as required. Boaron said police can no longer avoid getting to the facts, calling the conduct a potential case of fraud and breach of trust that requires accountability. Lavie said that when there is concern a senior official acted while conflicted, there can be no evasiveness and the rule of law must apply to everyone equally, adding that in a state ruled by law, no one has special status.
The case stems from the highly publicized arrest of fighters from Force 100, who were responsible for guarding Nukhba terrorists involved in the October 7 atrocities. That episode triggered broad public anger over what many saw as the justice system targeting soldiers instead of protecting them.
The article also cites claims from Honenu about personal and institutional conflicts involving Baharav-Miara and former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. According to those allegations, a mutual dependency existed between their professional futures, while Baharav-Miara’s son was reportedly under the Military Advocate General’s authority over alleged theft of equipment during his service. The petitioners say these circumstances should have forced Baharav-Miara out of any involvement, especially in the investigation into the leaked video from the facility, which they say badly damaged Israel’s image abroad. In an earlier High Court ruling, judges harshly criticized affidavits submitted on Baharav-Miara’s behalf, questioned the reliability of those filings, and described the matter as a difficult and troubling case. They also complained that her legal responses were filed late and that she repeatedly sought last-minute extensions, which the petitioners say undermines procedure.
