Court Orders Ben Gvir: Promote This Officer or We Will Do It Without You

The Jerusalem District Court ruled Wednesday that National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir must promote Inspector Rinat Saban to the rank of Superintendent within five days — or the promotion takes effect without his approval. The judge ordered Ben Gvir to pay 2,500 shekels in expenses and found that he was "not complying with the court ruling" issued a month earlier.

The facts are straightforward. Saban is an investigator who worked on Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla affair, and on the witness intimidation case involving state witness Shlomo Filber. Police Commissioner Dani Levi and the police command staff recommended her promotion. Ben Gvir refused. Saban petitioned the court, which ruled in her favor a month ago. Since then, Ben Gvir has not signed. Now the court is threatening to bypass him entirely.

Ben Gvir called Saban a "criminal" without explaining why, and added that she "does not deserve to be an officer in the Israel Police." Strong words, but they are not the central question here.

The central question is this: does an elected minister have the authority to exercise judgment over appointments under his command, or does the court dictate the composition of his command structure?

The court wrote in its ruling that the sequence of events raises "a real concern for the existence of extraneous considerations." The decision noted that in Saban's case, "arguments and issues were raised retroactively and in an unusual manner that were not raised in other similar cases." The court's conclusion: Ben Gvir delayed the promotion solely because Saban investigated the prime minister.

The State Attorney's office went further. In the government's response to the petition, it stated that Ben Gvir's refusal to promote Saban "intimidates police officers who testify in criminal investigations." The message to police investigators, the prosecution argued, is chilling and clear: investigate corruption cases and your career stalls. Cross the minister and you will not advance.

These are serious claims, and they carry internal logic. But this story is bigger than Rinat Saban.

What is revealed here is a pattern where the judicial system determines not only what a minister cannot do, but what he is required to do. The court did not merely overturn a minister's decision — it compelled him to take a positive action, to promote a specific officer, within a timeline the court itself dictated. And if the minister does not comply? The appointment takes effect without him.

When a court dictates to an elected minister who serves under him and at what rank, that is no longer judicial review. That is the expropriation of executive authority. Oversight becomes control.

This does not mean Ben Gvir is right in all his claims. The delay may well have been driven by political rather than professional considerations. But the remedy — where a court replaces an elected minister's judgment with its own and dictates the command structure of the police — exposes precisely the tension Torenu seeks to sharpen: the line between legitimate oversight and institutional control that hollows out governance from within.