One of the few institutions capable of restraining government power in Israel is under threat. A bill advancing through the Knesset would fundamentally weaken the office of the attorney general and remove a key safeguard of the rule of law.
Amid war fatigue, ongoing security uncertainty, and looming elections, the legislation is moving forward largely unnoticed. It has been described as a measure to “split” the role of the attorney general between prosecutorial and advisory functions. In reality, it goes much further.
Rather than merely reorganizing responsibilities, the bill would fundamentally weaken the office and strip away one of the central safeguards protecting the rule of law in Israel’s democratic system.
Today, the attorney general fulfills several critical functions: heading the criminal prosecution system, representing the state in court, defending the public interest before the courts, and providing legal advice to government authorities as the state’s authorized interpreter of the law. In a system with relatively few institutional constraints on executive power, the attorney general serves as one of the government’s most important checks.
The bill, which is nearing its first reading in the Knesset, would transform the attorney general from an independent professional civil servant into a political appointee whose appointment, tenure, and dismissal depend entirely on the government of the day.
The attorney general would no longer be an independent figure responsible for objectively interpreting the law and representing the state before the courts. Even if the new legal adviser sought to act independently, the government could simply ignore that advice – and remove the adviser if it wished.
The bill would also dramatically alter the state’s legal representation. If the government disagreed with the position being presented in court, it could not only hire private counsel in place of the attorney general’s office whenever it chose, but could also prevent the government’s official legal adviser from presenting a contrary legal position.
The damage would extend far beyond the attorney general’s office itself.
For decades, Israel’s system of government has relied on an attorney general who operates as an independent professional rather than a political loyalist. That independence has been one of the factors protecting the rule of law and human rights despite Israel’s limited system of checks and balances. The courts, themselves among the few institutions capable of constraining executive power, depend on the attorney general’s office to provide an independent and professional presentation of the facts and the law when conducting judicial review.
Just as importantly, many protections embedded throughout Israeli law assume the existence of an independent attorney general. Other democracies possess institutional safeguards that Israel lacks: an entrenched constitution, a bicameral legislature, a clearer separation between the executive and legislative branches, or a presidential veto. In Israel, judicial review and the authority of the attorney general are among the very few effective constraints on executive power.
Many alternative safeguards never developed in Israel, partly because the attorney general’s office filled that role. The coalition now seeks to politicize the institution without proposing any meaningful substitute.
The consequences would be felt across government.
The legal advisory system, operating under the attorney general’s professional guidance, helps safeguard the rule of law within powerful bodies such as the Shin Bet and the police. Even when acting in good faith, these agencies can exceed legal limits while carrying out directives from elected officials. Independent legal oversight helps ensure that security needs are balanced against civil liberties and that police powers, including the management of demonstrations, are exercised in a way that protects the right to protest.
Much of that responsibility would now fall to a political legal adviser. In effect, the fox would be guarding the henhouse.
The attorney general also plays a crucial role during election periods. The office helps ensure that governments do not exploit the significant powers and resources at their disposal to gain an unfair partisan advantage. Independent legal oversight helps enforce election laws and administrative rules designed to preserve fair competition between political parties.
These are only a few examples. Political control over the attorney general’s powers would cause systemic damage to Israeli democracy and directly affect the rights of Israeli citizens.
The bill would also create a new Prosecutor General, who would assume the criminal prosecution powers currently held by the Attorney General. While the proposed appointment process includes somewhat stronger professional safeguards, politicians would still retain significant influence. For example, the justice minister, with the approval of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, would be able to transfer powers away from the Prosecutor General and to the government’s political legal adviser.
An additional and troubling provision establishes a committee controlled by politicians that would be authorized to approve the opening of criminal proceedings against serving elected officials. In other words, alongside the broader implications for the rule of law and human rights, politicians would also be granting themselves special protections and undermining the principle that all citizens are equal before the law.
Democracy is not defined solely by majority rule. It also depends on limits on power and institutions capable of enforcing them.
For decades, Israel’s democracy has relied on the attorney general as one of the few institutions capable of providing those safeguards. Dismantling that role without replacing it with an effective alternative would weaken the foundations of Israeli democracy itself.
Dr. Guy Lurie is a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute.