The Knesset plenum advanced the controversial bill to split the role of Israel’s attorney-general into three different positions on Wednesday, which was initiated by MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party).
Rothman's bill passed its preliminary reading by a margin of 59-44.
Various other versions of bills to divide the role of the attorney general were also advanced during the plenary session; however, the bill submitted by Rothman in 2025 is considered among the more radical.
This bill would split the attorney-general’s role into three separate positions: Legal adviser to the government, head of the state prosecution, and representative of the State of Israel in court.
Before the year 2000, acting attorneys-general were political appointments that had to be qualified for the Supreme Court, ensuring professional standards.
But then, following the 1997 Bar-On-Hebron affair, the Shamgar Commission in 2000 established a formal appointment process via a public professional committee.
This committee, which is chaired by a retired Supreme Court justice and includes a former justice minister or attorney-general, an MK, a lawyer, and a law faculty dean, reviews candidates and submits recommendations to the government. Each attorney-general serves a six-year term, which can only be cut short under strict conditions.
Legal scholars have warned that the new bill proposals would place unprecedented power in the government’s hands over its principal legal challenger. Under the Rothman bill, the A-G would be appointed directly by the prime minister and the justice minister, with government approval, for a term of six years. The candidate must have 10 years of criminal law experience, including at least five years as a District Court judge, but their legal opinions would no longer be binding.
The head of the state prosecution would be appointed by the justice minister for a six-year term, with Knesset committee approval, and would also need 10 years of criminal law experience. The state’s court representative would similarly be appointed by the justice minister, requiring 10 years’ experience.
It is important to bear in mind that several officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are currently facing criminal charges.
The attorney-general occupies a pivotal role in Israel’s legal and democratic framework. As the government’s chief legal adviser, the A-G provides binding counsel to state authorities, ensuring their compliance with the law. The A-G also heads the public prosecution system, represents the State of Israel in courts, and safeguards the public interest in matters affecting constitutional rights.
Benefits and risks
“Even if there may be benefits to such a split... There are risks, particularly the risk of politicizing these institutions,” said Dr. Guy Lurie, a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.
He said that splitting the office should follow “deep consideration” and a professional review, noting that the Shamgar Commission unanimously recommended against this.
“The government in Israel is already comparatively strong; the only major checks on it are the courts and the A-G,” Lurie said.
“This proposal would remove the inner check and leave only the courts. Many issues would go unchallenged, weakening the rule of law and potentially harming human rights,” he continued.
Lurie added that the proposal is “not just a split of the office – it is a major revision that weakens officeholders’ ability to uphold the rule of law. Its importance lies in maintaining a constitutional check on government power.”
Others who oppose the bill argue that the A-G’s independent position is essential to the rule of law. Splitting unitary institutions is a major organizational reform that requires careful thought, especially given the developments since the Shamgar Commission. “If separation proceeds, additional safeguards are needed to prevent politicization,” Lurie said.
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has similarly warned that the proposed appointment methods would politicize the office, undermining its role as a protector of democracy.
Efforts to split the A-G’s role have circulated for three decades but never materialized, mainly due to judicial opposition.
There is a political element here that should not be ignored. Since the prime minister’s indictment in 2019, Israel’s political landscape has been reshaped, culminating in a 2022 coalition that pushed for judicial reforms with an emphasis on independence and reduced oversight.
Given all this, splitting the A-G’s role would require more than legislation – it would demand an extensive review of the hundreds of laws that grant the attorney-general authority.
The likelihood of such a bill passing, unchanged, is low. But the key questions remain: Why push for this now, and why in this manner?