Rothman Says Election Fairness Is Impossible With a Non-Objective Attorney General

On Monday, during a Knesset Constitution Committee debate on the implications of splitting the attorney general’s role for the electoral system, committee chair MK Simcha Rothman of Religious Zionism attacked Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. He said the attorney general is not objective and acts with political bias, adding, “It is impossible to hold fair elections with bureaucrats fighting for their lives against elected officials.”

Rothman said that because, in his view, the attorney general issue will be central to the coming election campaign, Baharav-Miara will not be able to handle it. Addressing representatives from the Justice Ministry and the Central Elections Committee who were present, he said, “The standard you impose on others, impose first on yourselves.” He also asked how a challenge to his own candidacy would be handled, saying he doubted that “a sane person in Israel” would think officials subordinate to Baharav-Miara, who has made similar claims, could work on such a case.

On election-related legal advice, Rothman argued that because the law does not specify who should provide it, the government should decide that the deputy attorney general will give the guidance. Merav Michaeli? No, Knesset member Karin Elharrar of Yesh Atid responded that the push to split the attorney general’s position was really about expanding coalition control over the appointment in the future and removing anyone who could warn against improper election conduct. She said the coalition wants “a private lawyer, not an attorney general,” whom they could order to change decisions or fire if he does not.

Rothman also criticized the Bennett-Lapid government, saying that Herzi Halevi’s appointment as IDF chief of staff was approved during an election period, while there was already a serving chief of staff. He said restraint had also led that government to sign a diplomatic agreement during the election campaign without bringing it to the Knesset, and asked why such discretion only works “for one side.”