Critics say Israel’s system lacks structural safeguards to prevent the erosion of oversight of government behavior amid a split in the prosecutor general’s role.
Parliament’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee will continue debate this week on several bills proposing changes to the way the Attorney General operates.
The plan includes nine proposals, one of which has the support of coalition lawmakers and recently passed a preliminary reading in plenary session. The discussions mark the most serious legislative effort in years to formally reorganize the role.
The Attorney General currently has three main responsibilities: serving as the government’s chief legal adviser, leading public prosecutions, and representing the state in legal proceedings.
Over decades, Supreme Court rulings and administrative practice have shaped this status as a central legal authority whose opinions are generally considered binding on government ministries.
This broad mandate does not appear in a single Basic Law; rather, it has developed through precedent and institutional practice. In 1998, a government committee led by former Supreme Court chief Meir Shamgar reviewed the system. It recommended retaining a unified role and cited the importance of Israel’s unique constitutional structure and centralized legal oversight.
Justice Minister Gali Baharav-Miara attends a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset, Israel, on September 30, 2025. (Photo source: OREN BEN HAKOON/FLASH90)
Bills currently being debated propose various ways of dividing or transferring these functions. Some of the more limited proposals would shift responsibility for criminal cases involving the prime minister, ministers or parliamentarians from the attorney general to the state prosecutor’s office.
New proposals, new roles
The second tier of proposals would create a new role – Attorney General. The Attorney General will take over all prosecutorial powers. As for the attorneys general, they will continue to be responsible for providing legal advice to the government.
The most comprehensive bill – the one proposed on first reading – would split the attorney general’s current responsibilities into three distinct positions. The court will have a government legal adviser, a prosecutor general and a state representative.
Each role has its own appointment and dismissal process. Under this model, the government’s legal advisers’ opinions would be less binding, and the government could seek outside legal representation more easily than under the current structure.
A relevant part of the debate concerns legal advisers within ministries. While all drafts are not identical, some legislative proposals and broader coalition plans to reorganize government legal services would change the current protocol for selecting legal counsel.
More importantly, the status will change from that of a civil servant appointed under the professional guidance of the Attorney General to that of an adviser appointed directly by the respective minister. The exact mechanism varies from proposal to proposal.
Supporters of the reform argue that combining advisory and prosecutorial powers in one office, as is the case now, creates a conflict of interest and gives too much influence to an unelected official. They point out that in many other democracies prosecutions and government legal advice are institutionally separate.
Critics point out that Israel’s system lacks some of the structural safeguards found in those countries and warn that the division of roles, especially without a strong independent appointment process, could weaken oversight of government behavior.
The timing of the push for legislation has raised public eyebrows as current Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has taken prominent positions in several high-profile legal disputes involving the government. These include matters relating to judicial reform legislation, conflict of interest rules applicable to the Prime Minister and the State’s representation in courts.
The divisions have made the attorney general’s office an unusually central part of the political discussion, and the proposed reorganization comes at a time when its powers are under intense scrutiny.
As the committee continues its deliberations, some expected topics include how independent the new positions will be, how they will be appointed and removed and how much legal force their opinions will have.
The outcome will determine whether Israel continues with a single, centralized prosecutor general’s office or transitions to a model that distributes power among several new legal actors, reflecting a potentially major shift in the country’s legal governance.
