Finance Committee Chair Milvitsky Rejects Legal Challenges to Budget Transfers, Declares Issue Closed

A sharp confrontation unfolded in the Knesset on June 1, 2026, between Finance Committee Chair MK Hanoch Milvitsky and the committee's legal advisor, attorney Shlomit Arlich. Milvitsky sent a strongly worded letter rejecting Arlich's earlier claims that the committee's late-night budget transfer discussions and votes were illegal and invalid. He asserted unequivocally that the discussions were lawful, comprehensive, and lasted over two and a half hours, emphasizing that no further debate would take place and the matter was closed.

Milvitsky criticized the legal advisor's conduct, accusing her of confusing her role with legislative authority and allowing personal disputes with the Treasury legal counsel to influence her judgment. He condemned her refusal to permit discussion on significant budget transfers due to technicalities, calling it unacceptable.

The dispute was triggered by Arlich's morning letter to Milvitsky, the Knesset legal advisor, and the Treasury legal advisor, alleging that the committee's votes on budget reallocations and large surpluses violated laws and transparency rules, especially given the current Knesset's term ending. She highlighted three main procedural flaws: a late-night transfer request from the Prime Minister's and Heritage Ministries lacking legal opinion or government decisions; a nearly 1 billion shekel surplus transfer from 2025 to 2026 with a 67 million shekel alleged legal defect; and various budget overruns including payments to families of Yemenite children and credit fund activities, which she said lacked proper legal review.

Milvitsky refuted these points, stating no opposition members left the session in protest as claimed, and that the surplus transfer's irregularity was a technical bookkeeping error, not a legal violation. He stressed the critical nature of the disputed budget items, including compensation for Yemenite children and victims of the "Yisraelis" affair, and noted opposition agreement to revisit these issues after the Knesset dissolves. He concluded that substantive needs must prevail over procedural technicalities.

This unprecedented public clash highlights tensions between elected officials and legal advisors over parliamentary procedures and budget oversight, with no resolution yet as the committee moves forward without reopening the debate on these transfers.