Attorney General of Israel

The Attorney General occupies an unusual position in Israel’s executive and legal systems because one office combines chief legal counsel to the government, representation of the state in court, and leadership of the public prosecution.[1][5] The office also advises on legislation and is described as representing the public interest in the legal sphere.[1][2] This institutional combination, rather than any single power alone, is central to understanding both the office’s work and the disputes about its scope.

The Attorney General advises the government, ministers, ministries, local authorities, and other public bodies, either directly or through the government legal service. The office interprets law for the executive branch, advises on whether government action falls within its legal powers, and supports preparation and review of legislation. It also oversees the prosecution system and represents the state in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings.[1][6]

A defining feature of the pre-2027 arrangement is that the Attorney General’s legal opinions have generally been treated as authoritative and binding on government authorities unless a court rules otherwise. The office may also decline to defend a government or public-body position it considers unlawful. These features give the Attorney General influence not only over litigation, but also over how the executive develops and carries out policy.[1][7]

The office is commonly presented as an internal legal-supervision mechanism: ministry and agency legal advisers, including those serving security bodies, are professionally subordinate to the Attorney General. This creates a form of oversight inside the executive, alongside review by the courts. The arrangement is intended to enable government policy to proceed through lawful means while identifying actions that legal advisers consider unlawful.[8][9]

The institutional design has also made the Attorney General a focal point of disputes about democratic accountability. Supporters of a strong, independent office emphasize its role in safeguarding legality and the public interest; critics argue that binding advice and control over state representation can constrain elected officials’ choices. The debate has encompassed appointment and dismissal procedures, ministerial legal advisers, prosecutorial authority, and the extent to which the government may present a court position different from that of its legal representative.[10][7]

The office’s authority developed through legislation, government practice, court rulings, and precedent rather than through a single comprehensive statute setting out every aspect of its role. An older Library of Congress country study described the Attorney General as the state’s principal representative in enforcing criminal and civil law and as responsible to the justice minister; that account is historical and does not establish the current reporting relationship.[11] Later descriptions emphasize the combination of prosecution, legal advice, state representation, and public-interest functions.[1][6]

An important early examination of the office followed a 1962 dispute between Justice Minister Dov Yosef and Attorney General Gideon Hausner. In a commentary recounting the episode, Yosef had demanded prosecution of journalist Eliezer Livneh over an allegation connected to the Dimona reactor; Hausner refused, saying he found no factual basis. The dispute nearly led to Hausner’s resignation and prompted an inquiry chaired by Supreme Court Justice Shimon Agranat.[12]

The Agranat Committee’s work helped shape norms of political neutrality and professional independence. The committee recommended that the officeholder be free of party influence so decisions could be made independently of instructions from the government or justice minister, and it emphasized demanding professional qualifications. The committee’s approach also encouraged selection of candidates considered qualified to serve as Supreme Court justices.[1]

The same commentary says the government adopted the committee’s position that the Attorney General’s opinion should generally be treated as reflecting existing law, while other executive authorities should regard it as guidance on legal questions. This account describes the historical development of the office’s legal authority; later court decisions and practice gave the Attorney General’s interpretation a more consequential place in executive decision-making.[12][7]

The 1993 Deri and Pinhasi cases became a major reference point in the relationship between the Attorney General, the government, and the courts. Attorney General Yosef Harish declined to argue Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s position in court in a dispute concerning Interior Minister Aryeh Deri’s continued service. The High Court ruled that Rabin had to dismiss Deri and established, in the account cited here, that the government needed the Attorney General’s permission to present its own case before the High Court.[13]

The Pinhasi decision is also cited for treating the Attorney General as the authorized interpreter of law for the executive branch. Subsequent practice has generally treated the office’s legal position as binding on the government unless a court decides otherwise. The 1998 state commission examining the office’s powers also said that the Attorney General should represent the public interest and protect existing law.[13]

A further institutional turning point concerned appointments. In January 1997, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Roni Bar-On Attorney General; Bar-On resigned two days later amid public and political outrage. Reports that surfaced about a week after the appointment connected it to a possible arrangement involving Shas leader Arye Deri, support for the Hebron Agreement, and a hoped-for plea bargain in Deri’s corruption case. Those reports describe an alleged connection, not an uncontested finding.[14]

A commission chaired by former Supreme Court president Meir Shamgar followed the Bar-On affair. Its recommendations informed a changed appointment procedure adopted in 2000. A later account of the Shamgar Committee’s recommendations identifies screening candidates through a public-professional committee as a central proposal. The process was intended to make professional assessment a meaningful part of appointments while leaving the government with a role in making the appointment.[14][15]

The Shamgar Committee also examined the office’s functions. A reference account summarizing its report lists leading public prosecution, representing the state in noncriminal litigation, advising the government and public officials, assisting with and reviewing legislation, and representing the public interest and upholding the law in other areas specified by law.[6] A commentary says the committee recommended legislating the Attorney General’s functions and limiting the term to five years; it reports that the term recommendation was implemented, while the proposal to codify the role was not.[12]

Aharon Barak served as Attorney General during the 1970s and was appointed to the post in 1975; he became a Supreme Court justice three years later. Near the end of his term, Prime Minister Menachem Begin asked him to advise on peace negotiations with Egypt. A separate account says Barak pursued an investigation involving Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his wife Leah’s two foreign bank accounts, which had been opened legally while Rabin was ambassador to the United States. The resulting Dollar Account affair led to Rabin’s resignation.[16][17]

The history of the office also includes changes in how its legal advisers interact with ministries. The Attorney General’s professional authority over ministry legal advisers developed alongside their administrative relationship to ministers and ministry management. In accounts of the established arrangement, advisers could help officials identify lawful ways to achieve policy objectives while warning when a proposed action appeared illegal.[8][9]

Before the 2026 law takes effect, the Attorney General is appointed by the government on the justice minister’s recommendation, following professional review of candidates. The American Jewish Committee describes the appointment as non-political, with the justice minister nominating a candidate and the cabinet approving the appointment. The government’s appointment power therefore operates within an arrangement designed to involve independent professional assessment.[18][14]

The pre-2027 process described by the Jerusalem Post includes an external five-member public-professional committee that reviews candidates and provides an expert opinion before the government decides. Its membership consists of a retired Supreme Court justice as chair; a former justice minister or attorney general selected by the government; a Knesset member selected by the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; a lawyer selected by the Israel Bar Association; and a legal academic selected by law-faculty deans.[14]

Current descriptions consistently identify a single six-year term that is not tied to Knesset elections or changes of government, with early removal possible only on specified grounds and with committee involvement.[14][7] Encyclopedia.com likewise describes a single six-year term, while Calcalist gives February 2028 as the expected end of Gali Baharav-Miara’s term following her February 2022 appointment.[6][19] Two older accounts differ: the Jewish Virtual Library page says the term is undefined, while a 2017 Maariv commentary says a five-year recommendation was implemented. Those descriptions conflict with the current six-year framework reported by the more recent sources.[1][12]

The professional independence of the office has historically been supported by norms governing appointment and removal. A Jewish Virtual Library account describes the Attorney General as a civil servant appointed by the government on the justice minister’s recommendation and says removal follows a similar process, though it has rarely been implemented. In the arrangement described before the 2026 law, early removal was subject to conditions and involvement by the appointment committee.[1][14]

The 2026 law changes are scheduled to alter aspects of this framework, but they had not taken effect as of the bundle’s October 26, 2026 access date. Until January 1, 2027, the existing powers and arrangements remain in place, according to the cited accounts. The effective date is important when distinguishing enacted future changes from the rules governing the office at the time described.[3][4]

The office’s independence has been a recurring subject of political disagreement. The government’s legal-advice system is characterized in an Israeli government report as independent of the political establishment, with decisions subject to judicial review; the report says High Court decisions overturning an Attorney General’s decision are rare. Other accounts stress that the office remains part of the executive’s institutional structure and that questions about its proper accountability and authority are disputed.[2][10]

The controversy became especially acute in the effort to remove Gali Baharav-Miara. In March 2025, the government was reported to be seeking her removal, after she had been appointed under a previous prime minister. Later reporting says the Supreme Court invalidated the government’s effort to bypass the professional committee and that she remained in office under the existing framework. The dispute formed part of wider disagreements over apolitical expertise and checks on government action.[18][4]

The removal effort involved competing political claims. Government supporters accused Baharav-Miara of obstructing elected leaders, while critics argued that her dismissal would politicize the legal system and weaken judicial independence. On March 23, 2025, the cabinet voted unanimously for a no-confidence motion that was described as intended to accelerate the removal process; opposition leaders condemned it as further evidence of the coalition undermining the rule of law.[18]

A separate report describes a government effort in June 2025 to change the dismissal process, including a ministerial committee chaired by Amichai Chikli and a pre-dismissal hearing. Baharav-Miara objected that the move was unlawful and would politicize the office. That report describes the process at that time, while another account says the Supreme Court invalidated government decisions changing the termination procedure in December 2025 and that she continued in office under the existing framework.[20][19]

The Attorney General’s responsibilities span legal advice, prosecution, litigation, and public-interest oversight. An Israeli government report identifies four principal functions: heading the public prosecution, advising the government, advising it on legislation, and representing the public interest in the legal sphere. Other descriptions add the office’s role as authorized interpreter of law for the executive branch and representative of the state in legal proceedings.[2][1]

As chief legal adviser, the Attorney General advises the government, ministers, ministries, local authorities, and other public bodies. The office gives legal interpretations, attends government meetings to advise on legal matters, and assesses whether the government is acting within its powers. Ministry legal advisers provide much of this advice inside their organizations, while remaining professionally subordinate to the Attorney General.[1][8]

The office also participates in the preparation and review of legislation. It advises the Ministry of Justice’s legislation division on government bills, oversees the promulgation of regulations by ministries, and reviews private members’ bills for consistency with existing laws and rights. This work links the Attorney General’s advisory role to the formation of policy and the legal rules through which it is carried out.[1]

In criminal law, the Attorney General heads the public prosecution and has authority to decide whether to submit an indictment. The office may review decisions by police or the State Attorney to investigate or close a file, seek detention extensions beyond 30 days, request waiver of a Knesset member’s immunity, and stay criminal proceedings after an indictment. The Jewish Virtual Library account describes these as exclusive powers subject to review by the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice.[1]

Government reporting further specifies that the Attorney General handles stays of proceedings and appeals against refusals to investigate or prosecute. On matters involving public security, the Attorney General must consult with the justice minister or the government.[21] In 2020, Avichai Mandelblit said that after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dropped his bid for immunity, the rule of law obligated him to submit an indictment immediately because he had already made the decision to indict. Mandelblit also said the Attorney General’s job was to protect government policy, that he had no agenda, and that the government must defer to the rule of law.[22]

The office represents the state in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings before courts and tribunals, delegating much of the work to the State Attorney. It also represents the state in noncriminal matters such as civil, administrative, fiscal, and labor litigation. Under the pre-2027 framework described by the sources, the Attorney General may choose whether to defend the state or a public body in court and may decline to defend a position considered contrary to legal advice; the government’s ability to retain private counsel was described as requiring consent from the Attorney General’s office.[1][6]

This power can produce disagreements between the government and its legal representatives. A Mosaic commentary describes a 2003 dispute in which a nonprofit challenged a revenue-sharing agreement involving state-owned agricultural land leased to kibbutzim. The Attorney General declined to defend the ministry’s position, and a state attorney argued against it. The account presents the episode as an example of the office’s role, while also reflecting a contested disagreement about who should present the government’s position in court.[23]

The State Attorney’s Office operates under the Attorney General’s purview, distinguishing the Attorney General’s broad leadership from the prosecutors and lawyers who conduct much of the daily work. In a historical account, the Library of Congress described the Attorney General as the state’s principal representative in enforcing criminal and civil law and said the office was responsible to the justice minister; that older description should not be read as a definitive statement of current arrangements.[9][11]

The government legal service extends the office’s influence into ministries and agencies. The Institute for National Security Studies describes ministry and agency advisers, including advisers in security bodies, as professionally subject to the Attorney General. The system supplies legal supervision within government beyond judicial review, allowing legal questions to be raised before an executive decision reaches court.[8]

The Library of Congress describes ministry legal advisers as nonpolitical appointees selected through a Civil Service Commission tender process. They are administratively subordinate to their ministries but professionally subordinate to the Attorney General. Their legal opinions bind ministry management, and ending their employment requires the Attorney General’s consent.[10]

Former Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein explained the dual lines of accountability: ministry legal advisers are professionally subordinate to the Attorney General but answerable to a ministry’s director general and minister. Their role is to advise how a policy objective can be pursued lawfully and to warn when an action appears illegal. Rubinstein described the Attorney General as the “professional father” of the advisers, a phrase that conveys the office’s supervisory and professional relationship to them.[9]

Rubinstein recalled defending ministry legal advisers in about 10 instances after they identified illegality and a minister sought to dismiss them. He also recounted intervening after an adviser told him a minister planned an unlawful, very large financial favor for someone else. Rubinstein warned that the state would sue to recover the amount if the minister proceeded, and said the minister relented. The examples illustrate how legal advice and professional protection can operate as internal checks on executive action.[9]

The Attorney General’s role can also extend to senior appointments and public-interest litigation. Tel Aviv University describes Yehuda Weinstein as reviewing the legality of senior appointments subject to his confirmation, including appointments of the IDF Chief of Staff, the Police Commissioner, and the Governor of the Bank of Israel; that account describes practice during Weinstein’s tenure rather than a comprehensive rule for all periods.[24]

During Weinstein’s 2010–2016 tenure, his stated priorities included strengthening public trust in law enforcement, fighting corruption, safeguarding the integrity of public officials, combating crime through criminal, civil, and administrative measures, and protecting the public interest. He promoted contiguous-day court hearings and helped establish a professional unit to investigate allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.[24]

Weinstein also promoted civil and administrative sanctions alongside criminal penalties in cases involving systematic crimes for financial gain. The approach reflected the view that traditional criminal penalties could be insufficient, and that enforcement should also target illicit gains and their financial impact. His office participated in civil cases even when the state was not a party if the case affected or concerned the public interest.[24]

Another position associated with Weinstein was that local government could retain discretion to remove an official to protect public trust and integrity even when the official’s conduct did not meet statutory removal requirements. The example illustrates how the office’s public-interest function could be invoked in legal arguments about the integrity of public administration.[24]

The office’s functions are often most visible in cases where legal advice, prosecution, and political responsibility intersect. Aharon Barak served as Attorney General during the 1970s, beginning his term in 1975. He later became a Supreme Court justice, and near the end of his Attorney General term Prime Minister Menachem Begin sought his advice on peace negotiations with Egypt.[16][17]

Barak’s handling of the Dollar Account affair is another prominent example cited in the bundle. The Jewish Review of Books recounts that he pursued an investigation involving foreign bank accounts held by Yitzhak Rabin and his wife Leah. The accounts had been opened legally while Rabin was ambassador to the United States, but the affair that followed led to Rabin’s resignation.[17]

Elyakim Rubinstein’s recollections emphasize the office’s relationship to ministry legal advisers. Alongside his account of defending advisers threatened with dismissal, he described the Attorney General’s role as helping officials find lawful ways to pursue objectives and stepping in when a minister intended an unlawful action. Those examples frame internal legal supervision as a practical part of government administration, rather than solely a matter for litigation after a decision has been made.[9]

Avichai Mandelblit’s tenure brought the prosecution function into direct focus. In an account of his 2020 remarks, Mandelblit said he had decided earlier to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that, once Netanyahu abandoned his immunity bid, the rule of law required immediate submission of the indictment. He also said the Attorney General should protect government policy while ensuring that the government defers to law.[22]

Yehuda Weinstein served as Attorney General from 2010 to 2016. His priorities included public trust in law enforcement, fighting corruption, protecting public officials’ integrity, and safeguarding the public interest. His initiatives included contiguous-day hearings, a professional unit to investigate prosecutorial-misconduct allegations, and broader use of civil and administrative sanctions in systematic profit-driven crime.[24]

Gali Baharav-Miara became the first woman to hold the office. The cabinet approved her appointment on February 7, 2022, and she took up the post the following day, succeeding Mandelblit, whose six-year term had ended on January 31. Before her appointment, Baharav-Miara had worked for 30 years in the Tel Aviv District Attorney’s office, became district attorney for civil affairs in 2008, and left public service in 2016 to enter private practice.[25][26]

Her appointment and subsequent tenure became part of a broader debate over the office’s independence and authority. In 2025, the government’s effort to remove her, the cabinet’s no-confidence motion, and the Supreme Court’s intervention were reported as a clash over the relationship between an appointed legal official and elected leaders. Government supporters said she obstructed the elected government; critics argued that dismissing her would politicize the legal system and weaken judicial independence.[18][4]

The Attorney General is significant because the office connects legal interpretation to the day-to-day operation of the executive branch. Its advice reaches ministries, local authorities, government legislation, regulations, court proceedings, and criminal prosecution.[1][8] The professional subordination of ministry legal advisers creates an internal system for identifying legal problems before they become disputes before the courts.[10]

The office’s institutional “duality” is a central feature of its importance. A study summarized by Globes describes the Attorney General as both adviser to governing authorities and enforcer of criminal law, while also representing the rule of law and public interest, including through legal action against public officials when necessary. The study examined 57 legal systems and found full separation between prosecution and government legal advice in about 58% of democracies and 61% of Western democracies; a model in which the legal adviser also directly heads the prosecution appeared in 37% of democracies.[27]

That combined role can enable coordinated legal oversight but can also produce tension. The Attorney General may advise the government on policy, decide whether prosecution is warranted, and determine whether the state’s position can be defended in court. The same institutional design therefore raises questions about independence, executive responsibility, conflicts of interest, and the accountability of officials who are not elected.[7]

Across different officeholders and periods, the functions described in the bundle include prosecutorial decisions, oversight of ministry legal advisers, review of senior appointments, public-interest litigation, anti-corruption work, and advice on legislation. The office has thus been involved not only in criminal proceedings, but also in the legal framework for government administration and the relationship between public authority and the rule of law.[24][1]

The 2026 law represents a major planned change to that framework, but its future effective date matters: the provisions described in the bundle were not yet in force on October 26, 2026. The law’s implementation and the High Court petitions challenging it were therefore central unresolved issues at the time covered by the research.[3][4]

Disagreement over the Attorney General’s role centers on the office’s combination of government legal advice and prosecution, the binding effect of legal opinions, and the authority to decide who represents the state in court. Supporters of the existing framework emphasize the office’s role in ensuring that government action complies with law and protecting the public interest. Critics argue that the same arrangement can give an unelected official excessive influence over policy and create conflicts between advising the government and prosecuting it.[7]

The Library of Congress presents ministry legal advisers as “gatekeepers” charged with promoting government policy while upholding the rule of law across the executive branch, describing this as the Attorney General’s view of their role. It also records competing arguments: proponents of changing advisers’ status said advisers could reject ministers’ initiatives as legally or constitutionally unacceptable, causing disputes and difficulties in ministry operations; critics of the proposed changes argued that advisers’ authority could permit interference in policy on grounds such as reasonableness and proportionality.[10]

An INSS analysis of proposed changes to judicial oversight described proposals to let ministers select ministry legal advisers personally rather than through selection based on professional qualifications, limit advisers to an advisory role so they could not prevent actions they considered illegal, and permit ministers to use private lawyers before the High Court when the Attorney General and Petitions Division would not present their position. The analysis characterized the proposals as weakening advisers relative to the political echelon, while also arguing that the proper limits of legal and judicial intervention in government decisions merit substantive discussion.[28]

The same institutional argument appears in public commentary. A Jewish Review of Books article describes the existing opinions as binding and characterizes a proposal in Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s judicial-reform plan as reducing the office to an advisory body whose representatives could be dismissed at will. In contrast, law professor Avi Bell argued in Sapir Journal that the Attorney General and government lawyers had acquired what he called a “commissar” status, allowing them to dictate policy to elected officials; he presented the proposed reforms as an effort to reverse or limit that arrangement. These are argumentative interpretations, not neutral descriptions accepted by all sides.[29][30]

The Attorney General’s power to decide whether to represent a government position has also been disputed. One account of the 1993 Deri and Pinhasi cases says the High Court established that the government required the Attorney General’s permission to present its own case before the High Court. A separate commentary describes a 2003 instance in which the Attorney General declined to defend a ministry position and a state attorney argued against it. These examples demonstrate the practical stakes of the rule, while the proper boundaries of the office’s authority remain contested.[13][23]

The 2023 judicial-system proposals formed part of a wider political confrontation. A Library of Congress report says the proposals included an override mechanism and changes increasing political control over judicial selection, and records massive public opposition to the package. The later dispute over the Attorney General’s dismissal and role was situated within broader disagreements about checks on government action and the future of apolitical expertise.[10][4]

In March 2025, the government’s effort to remove Baharav-Miara sharpened the conflict. The American Jewish Committee reported that she had criticized rules of engagement during the war against Hamas, opposed the removal of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, and warned that a proposed judicial-reform measure concerning the reasonableness standard could undermine democracy and the rule of law. The same account recorded opposing interpretations of her conduct and of the consequences her removal would have for the legal system.[18]

The Supreme Court’s reported 2025 decision invalidating the effort to bypass the professional committee reinforced the role of the pre-existing appointment framework in removal disputes. Calcalist reports that government decisions changing the termination procedure were invalidated in December 2025 and that Baharav-Miara continued in office. The accounts place those decisions within a larger dispute over whether legal officials should be protected from political pressure or made more directly accountable to elected leaders.[4][19]

The most consequential statutory change in the bundle is the Attorney General Law (Legal Opinions, Representation and Oversight), enacted by the Knesset on July 15, 2026, by a vote of 65 to 51. It is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. Until then, the prior framework remains formally in force, including the Attorney General’s existing criminal-prosecution authority.[3][4]

Under the law as described, the government may decide that a written Attorney General opinion does not reflect the law and exempt other executive agencies from following it. The decision and opinion must be submitted to the Knesset Constitution Committee, or to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee where national-security or foreign-relations matters are involved. The power does not apply to criminal-law powers or authority expressly granted to the Attorney General by statute.[3]

The law also gives the government final authority to determine the executive branch’s position in court and permits it to retain separate counsel at public expense if the Attorney General declines to present that position or a minister considers the representation inadequate. Once separate counsel is appointed, the Attorney General may not independently present a different position without authorization; criminal proceedings are exempt from this arrangement.[3]

The legislation makes the Attorney General accountable to the government and subject to justice-minister supervision. It requires reports on the office’s activities and, on request, particular matters. If direct disclosure could harm an important public interest or create a conflict of interest for the minister, reports are to go instead to the ombudsman responsible for complaints against state representatives in court. Ministers are prohibited from instructing the Attorney General on a specific criminal proceeding.[3]

The law’s opponents, including Baharav-Miara, opposition legislators, and civil-society groups, argued that it weakens safeguards for legality by limiting binding legal advice and control over state representation. The Israel Democracy Institute warned that oversight rules and uncertainty about the scope of criminal matters could expose law enforcement to political influence. Supporters, including Justice Minister Yariv Levin and committee chairman Simcha Rothman, argued that the law restores decision-making authority to elected officials. Petitions seeking to invalidate the law and prevent its implementation were reported as filed with the High Court of Justice.[3]

The law’s enactment does not settle the broader institutional debate. Its supporters frame the changes as clarifying that elected officials must be able to govern; its critics see them as weakening safeguards against unlawful action and political influence over legal processes. The disagreement reflects a continuing question in Israeli public law: how to combine effective elected government with independent legal advice, prosecution, and judicial review.[3][4]