Israeli Coalition Advances Limited Split of Attorney General Role Amid Judicial Overhaul Debate

With the summer Knesset session ending in two weeks before a long recess until after elections, the Israeli coalition has decided to push forward a scaled-back version of the bill to split the Attorney General's role. This proposal, central to the ongoing judicial reform, has sparked nearly 60 heated discussions in the Knesset Constitution Committee, reflecting deep clashes between the bill’s proponents, led by committee chair Smotrich Rotman and right-wing lawmakers, and the legal establishment including current and former government legal advisors.

Since Israel’s founding, the Attorney General (AG) has served as the authoritative legal interpreter for the executive branch, with binding opinions unless overturned by courts. The AG also heads the prosecution, with powers to open investigations and indict senior officials including the prime minister. The judiciary views this as a safeguard ensuring government adherence to the rule of law and protecting citizens from arbitrary or disproportionate decisions.

The coalition argues the AG wields unprecedented power compared to Western democracies, limiting elected governments’ ability to implement their policies. They highlight conflicts of interest arising from the AG’s dual role as government legal advisor and chief prosecutor, which they say intimidates politicians and hampers governance. Justice Minister Yariv Levin has emphasized that legal advisors should serve the government’s interests rather than act as independent decision-makers.

The proposed law would divide the AG’s responsibilities into two separate roles: a Government Legal Advisor handling non-criminal legal advice and representation, and a Prosecutor General overseeing criminal prosecutions independently. The Prosecutor General would be appointed from a public committee’s candidate list for a six-year term, with protections against political dismissal. Conversely, the Government Legal Advisor would be appointed by the government without a prior selection committee and serve at the government’s pleasure, effectively making the position politically dependent.

Critics warn this reform undermines judicial independence and the rule of law, weakening essential checks and balances in Israel’s democracy. They argue the government lacks judicial expertise and that politicizing the prosecution risks eroding public trust and legal protections. The legal establishment fears the changes will diminish the ability to hold officials accountable and impair the public legal system’s integrity.

Currently, the coalition is advancing only the provisions limiting the Government Legal Advisor’s powers, postponing the establishment of a separate Prosecutor General. This partial approach raises concerns about creating legal gaps, as the AG’s ability to declare government actions unlawful would be curtailed without a clear alternative to prosecute violations. The bill also proposes ending the AG’s authority over ministry legal advisors, allowing ministers to appoint their own legal counsel independent of the AG’s oversight.

The debate continues amid warnings that the rushed legislative process lacks professional groundwork and contradicts previous committee recommendations against splitting the role. The outcome will significantly impact Israel’s legal system, government accountability, and democratic governance.