Former top jurists warn proposed attorney-general split would gut Israel’s checks and balances
Former Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Reichman University law professor Yaniv Roznai issued a sharp warning on Thursday about the bill to split the attorney-general’s role, which is advancing toward second and third readings in the Knesset Constitution Committee. They said the measure would trigger a deep constitutional and regime crisis, paralyze the public prosecution, turn legal advice into a political patronage post, and strip the High Court of Justice of power.
Beinisch called the proposal “the last nail in the coffin of the separation of powers in Israel.” She said the bill completely neutralizes the powers of the attorney-general and public prosecutor, and argued that the government’s goal is to escape oversight, remove legal checks, and create “one all-powerful branch that does whatever it wants.” She rejected claims that the attorney-general already holds unlimited power, calling that “a complete exaggeration and political spin,” and said government authority is bounded until the court rules otherwise.
She said ordinary citizens would be the main victims, especially people harmed by unchecked government decisions, favoritism or corruption. According to Beinisch, if judges and the attorney-general are politicized, the checks will disappear and the individual will become subject to coercive rule rather than a democratic state. “A democratic state cannot exist without an independent and autonomous legal branch, and this law destroys that principle,” she said.
Roznai said the term “split” is misleading, describing the plan instead as the elimination of the attorney-general institution as it has functioned since Israel’s founding and its conversion into a political trust position. He listed four core harms, loss of professional independence, loss of binding force for legal opinions, blocking the attorney-general’s independent position in the High Court, and weakening the fight against corruption by subordinating the state prosecutor to politicians.
Roznai added that the government would be able to tell ministries not to follow the attorney-general’s opinions, choose what position is presented to the High Court, and make indictments against a prime minister, ministers, or MKs dependent on political approvals. In practice, he said, this would mean no more indictments for public corruption in Israel. He also rejected coalition claims that similar models exist abroad, saying Israel lacks the constitutional safeguards of other systems and that this move is “one hundred times more severe” than the cancelation of reasonableness, especially because it politicizes legal advice during an election period.
