Legislation Weakening Israel's Attorney General Risks Undermining Military Justice and IDF Personnel Rights

The Israeli coalition's accelerated push to weaken the authority of the Attorney General (AG) poses indirect but serious risks to the Military Advocate General's Corps (MAG), the rule of law within the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the rights of soldiers serving in the military. Former Military Advocate General and retired judge Ilan Schiff, together with Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer, former head of the International Law Department in the Military Advocate's Office, warn that the legislation could allow political interference in military legal affairs through the back door.

Currently, the MAG operates with professional independence within the IDF, although the civilian AG can intervene in certain cases where decisions have broader implications beyond the military context, such as policies on extracting sperm from fallen soldiers or rules of engagement with potential international legal consequences. These safeguards, established by Supreme Court rulings and AG guidelines decades ago, protect soldiers’ rights and ensure civilian oversight of military justice.

The proposed legislation would grant the government powers to override legal advice, approve external legal representation, and bar the AG from appearing in court, thereby weakening the MAG's authority and the rule of law in the military. This could lead to the adoption of legally questionable positions to appease the government, which the MAG would be compelled to enforce, or the government could impose unlawful directives on the IDF. Potential consequences include discriminatory enforcement of conscription laws and violations of female soldiers’ rights.

There is also concern that the government might impose operational policies on the battlefield that exceed reasonable interpretations of the laws of armed conflict or obstruct independent investigations into alleged violations. During the recent Iron Swords conflict, government ministers sometimes relied on external legal opinions that were criticized for lacking professional rigor, undermining the credibility of military legal counsel.

The authors highlight the risk that IDF personnel may lose trust in the legal system and question whether the best legal professionals will continue to serve if pressured to act unlawfully or face international criminal liability. They also note the troubling absence of IDF and Defense Ministry voices in Knesset debates, suggesting political silencing or fear of confrontation. The article concludes that the legislation represents a severe step in Israel’s judicial overhaul, with collateral damage to the military justice system and soldiers’ rights, and calls for a thorough examination of its implications before proceeding.