Explainer: The Proposals to “Split” the Role of the Attorney General

Against the backdrop of the bills currently under consideration in the Knesset, which are intended, according to the proponents, to split the role of the attorney general, IDI experts explain what is at stake.

Photo by Oren Ben Hakoon/Flash90

What are the roles of the attorney general?

Israel's attorney general has several important roles including: heading the criminal prosecution, representing the state and the public interest in court, and providing legal counsel to the governing authorities as the authorized interpreter of the law. The independent role of the attorney general in enforcing the rule of law is seen as particularly vital in light of the structure of Israel’s governmental system, which is characterized by limited mechanisms for checks and balances. For more details about the AG’s roles and their importance, see here.

Past proposals to split the attorney general’s role

Splitting the attorney general’s role by dividing its powers into multiple offices has been debated for many years. Among the reasons proponents have cited for splitting the position are concerns about excessive concentration of powers and excessive workload for the office of the AG. Other concerns debate the conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest between prosecuting elected officials in the executive branch and providing legal advice to that same branch. However, the inherent risks in splitting the role are real and consequential, specifically weakening the independence of the attorney general and the prosecution system, undermining its professionalism, and paving the way for initiatives intended for politicization of these institutions. Considering that the most recent public commission to address the issue (the Shamgar Commission, 1998) recommended not to split the role, the matter should be considered carefully and not advanced in a hasty manner. If it is to be considered, it should be done through an orderly, professional, and structured process.

Advancing the split of the attorney general's role at this time

At present, while the Prime Minister is on trial and facing criminal proceedings, the advancement of the bills appears, on its face, to contravene the conflict-of-interest arrangement applicable to the Prime Minister. In addition, the government attempted to remove the incumbent attorney general from office, but these dismissal proceedings encountered obstacles and Supreme Court rulings that halted them, as they were advanced on the basis of flawed discretion, through a defective process, and without a lawful basis.

It appears evident that the legislation is intended to effectively remove the current attorney general from office, in order to bypass the obstacles posed by the legally prescribed removal procedures.

The substance of the split currently under discussion in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee

During deliberations at the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee meeting held on December 23, 2025, the Committee Chair announced that a draft memorandum of law on splitting the role of the attorney general—prepared in 2008 at the request of then-Minister of Justice Prof. Daniel Friedmann—would serve as the basis for the Committee’s discussions. The Chair further announced that he would incorporate into the text of the bill a provision establishing a committee of senior officials authorized to approve prosecutorial decisions regarding criminal proceedings against the Prime Minister, a minister, or a Member of Knesset.

The framework for discussion (based on the aforementioned draft memorandum) included splitting the role into two separate officeholders (thereby abandoning an alternative model previously proposed and discussed, which envisaged splitting the role among three separate officeholders): a Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the criminal sphere, and a Legal Adviser who would assume the remaining powers of the attorney general. In addition, the framework included a reduction of powers and a weakening of the status of legal advice vis-à-vis the government—for example, by weakening the status of the attorney general's legal opinions, such that the government could decide not to regard them as reflecting the law, and by revoking the attorney general's exclusive authority to determine whether to permit the government separate legal representation.

In the discussions held in the Committee since then, updated versions of the bill circulated by the Committee’s legal advisers have included proposals for far-reaching changes to the status and powers of the attorney general, both in relation to the existing legal framework and even in comparison to the aforementioned draft memorandum. All of these proposals stem from a different conception of the role of the attorney general—as the government’s lawyer and nothing more, rather than as a gatekeeper entrusted with upholding the rule of law and the public interest:

• An explicitly political appointment of the attorney general, without reference to the public-professional search committee established by government decision, whose recommendation is currently required both for appointment and dismissal. Under the proposal, dismissal of the attorney general would also be based on grounds with a very low threshold, without the need for any committee recommendation;
• Limiting the attorney general's term of office to that of the government that appointed him or her;
• Authorizing the government to disregard the attorney general's legal opinions, and even to extend such exemption to other government ministries where the government sees fit;
• Removing the attorney general’s exclusive authority to present the state’s position before the courts, in several respects: first, the authority to determine the state’s position in court would be vested in the government; second, the government (or, in certain cases, only the relevant minister) could decide, at its discretion, on separate legal representation without involving the attorney general; and third, where separate representation is authorized, the attorney general would not appear in the proceedings without government approval;
• With regard to the director of public prosecutions (who would assume the criminal powers currently vested in the attorney general), far-reaching changes are also under consideration, including close supervision by the minister of justice over his or her activities, including during investigations and indictments in specific cases. The proposal also regulates the division of responsibilities between the attorney general in this new, political sense and the director of public prosecutions, while in certain cases allowing the attorney general to make binding decisions, for example, in issuing directives to the police, in providing legal opinions regarding corruption offenses, and so forth.

What are the problems with the proposal?

In truth, this is not a “split” of the role of the attorney general, but rather a far more sweeping move. The text of the proposed bill is designed to weaken the new offices that would replace the institution of the attorney general, in a manner that would impair their ability to fulfill their constitutional role. This weakening is achieved through a variety of means, including, among others: establishing appointment and removal procedures for the attorney general that are political in nature, thereby undermining the office’s independence and effectively turning it into a position of trust serving the government; diminishing the binding force of the attorney general's legal opinions relative to the current legal framework; and revoking the attorney general's exclusive authority to determine whether to permit the government separate legal representation, while also enabling the government to prevent the attorney general from presenting his or her position before the court.

As a result, this bill would undermine the independence of the law enforcement system, strengthen the government, and remove constraints on its actions in a manner that would fundamentally erode Israeli democracy and its safeguards for the rule of law and human rights.