She is very right-wing and fits this government like a glove.
She allowed the government almost anything it wanted regarding the Arabs.
Still, she is definitely a law-and-order, justice type, and the former Attorney General and former Supreme Court justice Rabbi Elyakim Rubinstein argues that she went along with almost everything the government wanted, except in a very small number of cases where the law really did not allow it.
Rabbi Elyakim Rubinstein’s testimony, and in an interview for the whole nation, was unequivocal.
So what flaw did the Rabbi find in her conduct?

A great many flaws, and I have no desire to get into it.

Congratulations to Rabbi Michi on opening a parody corner on his site. But it would be worth stating that clearly, because here and there there are people liable to take these remarks literally.

The problem with the role of the government’s Attorney General is that it is based on the assumption that the person holding the position has a minimum of humility, and respects both the voters and the law. That is why it does not have—as with many senior positions—an official definition of boundaries.

The trouble is that some legal advisers do not understand this, and see their power not as an emergency brake but as a standard brake pedal entrusted to them. This is a relatively new phenomenon, about 20 years old, that did not exist in the past, and it exists among other senior officials too, who have also coveted for themselves the title of Bigthan and Teresh.

Since we still do want there to be an emergency brake in case the government goes off the rails, these roles are essential and good. But the people filling them need to be different.

I did not understand your view about firing the Attorney General, because at the beginning you said you are in favor of removing her, and at the end you said the procedure is illegitimate and that removing the Attorney General leaves us with only one branch.

I think it is right to remove her because she is excessively oppositional toward the government. But the way they are removing her is plainly unacceptable. They do not go through the normal committee procedure because there is no Attorney General or Justice Minister who would support it (but the ministers’ committee that comes in its place is somehow acceptable, when all of them have a view known in advance). In other words, the government is smashing all the structures of proper governance. It replaces the chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee when he holds a position inconvenient for it, replaces an external committee with the facade of a ridiculous forum on its behalf, and so on and so on. The meaning is that the government today completely controls the Knesset, the public committees, and the legal and advisory system. That means there is only one branch. That is intolerable even in those cases where the goal is indeed worthy (like replacing the Attorney General). Even a correct step cannot be taken at the price of a systematic dismantling of the state and a hostile takeover of all its institutions. It really looks like a government waging war against the state. That must not be accepted under any circumstances, even if the price is keeping the Attorney General in place.
And no less serious is that all this is being done by a collection of corrupt scum for corrupt goals and sectoral interests.
In short, the government’s war against the state is a war in which both sides are rotten and destructive. As I wrote: a country falling apart.

The main problem with the Attorney General is that she consistently acts to strip the elected echelon of powers granted to it by law. We saw this in the case of the head of the Shin Bet, in the case of the Civil Service Commissioner, and in more and more events. At this rate, the authority of the government will resemble the authority of the King of England. Ostensibly full authority. In practice, unable to do anything. If, for example, the Chief of Staff does not conquer Gaza and the government also cannot fire him (as the Attorney General will surely determine), then democracy in Israel will become meaningless. My voice as a voter for the current government will become empty. The State of Israel will officially become a legal oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. Substantive democracy at full blast.

As for the procedure, I do not think there is any holiness in procedure. The procedure was designed with other cases in mind, not a case like this of a direct battle over the government’s own powers. To cling to the procedure is not to understand the overall situation. Noam Sohlberg at his very best.

Precisely regarding adherence to procedure, I agree with Sohlberg. Part of the arguments in favor of the reform were that the High Court breaks procedures and twists them as it wishes. That is true in the other direction as well. Want to remove her? Do it by the book. Doesn’t work? Change the procedure (the change will take effect only from the next Attorney General onward), and until then swallow hard.

The problem with the court is not that it overturns procedures but that it overturns laws. I have seen an upside-down world. Every procedure established by a government decision becomes, in practice, a law given to Moses at Sinai that no one may touch, while every law enacted by the Knesset becomes something trampled underfoot.