Part 1: What Is the Attorney General?

Known in Hebrew as היועץ/ת המשפטי/ת לממשלה, which translates directly to “the legal advisor to the government,” the attorney general is one of the most important and influential political positions in Israel. Both the English and Hebrew names for the title are somewhat misleading, as the position is unique to Israel’s political system. Though the role technically sits within the government, the attorney general functions with wide-ranging independent authority and effectively serves as a liaison between the executive and judicial branches.

The current attorney general is Gali Baharav-Miara. She was appointed in February 2022 by Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar under Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

Responsibilities

Head of the Prosecution

• Has authority to advance or close criminal indictments, including for elected officials
• Can testify in legal proceedings that involve the public interest
• Directs and supervises the prosecutorial decisions of the state attorney and its representation of the state in civil and criminal cases

The State’s Legal Defense

• Represents the state and serves as its legal defense at the High Court of Justice
• Can allow the state to seek private legal counsel at her discretion

The Government’s Legal Advisor 

• Provides legal opinions to the elected government, serving as a guardrail against illegal executive action
• Provides legal counsel to the government and state agencies
• Serves as the executive branch’s authorized interpreter of the law

Throughout all of these roles, the attorney general is tasked with representing the interest of the public and placing its needs over political considerations.

This combination of responsibilities makes for a complex relationship between the attorney general and the government—at times representing it and defending it, and at other times serving as a check on its power and defending the public interest against overreach and inappropriate action.

History

Israel has no constitution, with the various branches of government and their responsibilities typically defined in quasi-constitutional Basic Laws. The role of the attorney general, however, is not defined in Basic Law. It was established and shaped by various government resolutions, regulations, and committees during the initial decades of Israel’s history.

The position was created by Israel’s first justice minister, Pinchas Rozen—contrary to Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s initial preference that the justice minister himself take responsibility for issuing legal advice to the government. Nonetheless, Ben Gurion adopted the view that the attorney general’s legal opinions are binding, except over the defense ministry. The attorney general also assumed authority over prosecution. Even during those initial years, however, the independence of the attorney general and relationship to the justice minister and the political echelon remained contested and ambiguous.

The Agranat Commission (1962)

In 1962, a dispute between the justice minister and the attorney general about whether the former is subordinate to the latter led to the creation of a legal committee to look into the matter, known as the Agranat Commission (not to be confused with the Agranat Commission created after the 1973 Yom Kippur War). Led by Supreme Court Justice Shimon Agranat, the commission was tasked with examining the relationship between the attorney general and the government and whether the AG’s legal opinions are binding. 

The commission report emphasized that there is no explicit legal requirement that the government adhere to the attorney general’s advice and that the government is empowered to act according to its discretion. Nonetheless, it should generally accept the attorney general’s view as reflective of the law in the interest of “good order.” Meanwhile, the commission affirmed that the attorney general’s opinion is indeed legally binding over government agencies, as opposed to the cabinet itself. The government officially adopted the committee’s recommendations in 1968.  

The Shamgar Commission (1997)

The relationship between the attorney general and the government was further spelled out by the Shamgar Commission of 1997. Earlier that year, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to appoint Roni Bar-On as attorney general, a Likud activist who lacked the necessary qualifications. It was also reported that criminally indicted Shas leader Aryeh Deri had struck a political deal with Bar-On, in which he would offer Deri a favorable plea deal in exchange for Shas’ support for the Hebron Agreement, which saw Israel transfer control over most of the city to the Palestinian Authority. (Bar-On resigned from the role two days after his appointment.) Following the so-called Bar-On-Hebron affair, the government convened a Shamgar Commission, headed by former Supreme Court President Meir Shamgar, to examine various issues and ambiguities related to the attorney general, including the appointment process and relationship to the political echelon.

The Shamgar Commission recommended that the attorney general allow the government to seek independent legal counsel in cases when the government is going against the attorney general’s legal opinion. It also affirmed the attorney general’s right to advance criminal proceedings against government officials the AG has determined to be violating the law—a principle that strongly encourages compliance with the AG’s legal opinions. 

Whereas previously the attorney general was directly appointed by the government, the Shamgar Commission proposed a five-member nomination committee of legal experts to prevent political appointments. The Commission also laid out specific criteria and the procedure for an attorney general’s dismissal. (See below for more on appointments and dismissals.) Most of the recommendations of the commission were adopted via Government Resolution 2274 in 2000.

Over the years, without advance planning, the attorney general has developed into a key check on the power of the executive in Israel, in a system where few such checks exist. But in the absence of a robust constitutional framework, the position remains hotly contested and vulnerable to politicization.  

Appointment Process

As spelled out in the Shamgar Commission and established by Government Resolution 2274,  candidates for attorney general are recommended by a five-member committee, consisting of a former Supreme Court judge, a former justice minister, a member of Knesset, a member of the Israeli Bar Association, and a legal expert from academia. Candidates can be proposed by the justice minister, prime minister, or members of the committee, and must have the support of four out of five committee members to be advanced.

Once the committee has approved a candidate, the process then passes to the cabinet for deliberation and a confirmation vote. 

The attorney general is appointed for a six-year, nonrenewable term.

This process has been in place since 2000 and has never been enshrined in legislation or basic law. Theoretically, it could be similarly amended by a government resolution, although such a move would likely face scrutiny by the High Court. 

Dismissing an Attorney General

The Shamgar Commission established four acceptable reasons for firing an attorney general: misconduct, physical incapacitation, a criminal investigation or indictment, or severe disagreements with the government that prevent cooperation.

If the government wants to fire the attorney general, it must first deliver the request in writing to the appointment committee. The committee then holds a hearing where the AG will testify, and then it will issue a recommendation before the government makes a final decision.

While the government is not required to adhere to the committee’s recommendation, going against it could expose the government to petitions at the High Court, which would then review the decision to fire the AG to ensure that it was made based on legitimate considerations.

Part 2: The Attorney General and the Sixth Netanyahu Government

Ever since it ascended to power in late 2022, the Netanyahu government has sought to undermine the power of the attorney general—both the position itself and Gali Baharav-Miara as an individual given her commitment to upholding the rule of law in the face of government overreach.

The Attorney General and Netanyahu

Policy considerations aside, Netanyahu has a personal stake in the questions surrounding the authority of the attorney general. In late 2019, he was charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in three separate cases. He is the first prime minister in Israel’s history not to resign in the face of criminal indictments. 

The attorney general is responsible for overseeing criminal indictments of elected officials, with the power to freeze them or offer plea deals. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit—whom Netanyahu himself had appointed—filed Netanyahu’s indictments, which are now overseen by his successor, Baharav-Miara. 

In order to allow Netanyahu to continue serving as prime minister despite his indictments, Mandelblit issued a conflict-of-interest arrangement barring Netanyahu from intervening in matters impacting his trial, including judicial appointments and relevant legislation. 

The Judicial Overhaul

In 2023, after Netanyahu returned to power, Baharav-Miara affirmed that this arrangement remained in force. This was notable given that Justice Minister Yariv Levin had just announced a wide-reaching plan to curb the power of the country’s judiciary. Included in this plan was a proposal to weaken the attorney general by splitting up its powers. 

Netanyahu’s criminal indictments are not the only reason for doing so. The government has set its sights on subverting the attorney general—and the justice system more broadly—to the executive branch, a goal that advances the policy priorities of far-right and Haredi political factions by weakening the judicial branch relative to the government.

In her role as a guardian of the public interest from within the government, Baharav-Miara has repeatedly warned about the repercussions of the government’s efforts to undermine the separation of powers. She has spoken out against various illegal steps taken by the cabinet, from Netanyahu’s appointment of criminally indicted Aryeh Deri as a minister, to National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s interference in police investigations, to Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s plan to privatize Israel’s public broadcasting service.

As a result, calls continued to grow from within the coalition to fire Baharav-Miara, in parallel to proposals to restrict the power of the attorney general position itself. 

The Dismissal Advances

On March 5, 2025, after much anticipation, Justice Minister Yariv Levin initiated the process for firing the attorney general. In a no-confidence motion he submitted to the government, Levin claimed that Baharav-Miara acts as an “extension of the government’s opponents.” 

The prior day, Baharav-Miara ordered Defense Minister Yisrael Katz to consider applying sanctions on Haredim who are dodging the draft—something the government is loath to do for fear of alienating the Haredi parties. It is possible that this move was a factor in determining the timing of Levin’s decision to advance the AG’s dismissal. 

The next step in proceeding with Baharav-Miara’s dismissal will be convening the five-person committee that appointed her and will review the government’s appeal. The spots on the committee designated for a former justice minister and current MK are both vacant, with Netanyahu responsible for choosing who will fill them. Given its makeup, the committee is expected to approve the motion to dismiss the AG.

Nonetheless, the effort to fire Baharav-Miara faces an uncertain path ahead given that the High Court of Justice will likely opt to review it based on the reasonableness standard. If the High Court assesses that improper political considerations, rather than the public good, motivated the decision, it could opt to block the attorney general’s dismissal. 

Such an outcome would likely not be accepted by Levin and the government given how central the AG’s dismissal is to their agenda—not to mention their previous efforts to do away with the reasonableness standard. The result could even be a constitutional crisis, whereby the elected government ceases to respect the authority of the judicial branch. 

Looking Forward

The attorney general is one of the most powerful positions in the Israeli political system. But the contested nature of this role underscores a key vulnerability in Israel’s democratic regime: the lack of a comprehensive constitutional framework that clearly spells out the responsibilities of and relationships between the various branches of government. The attorney general is one of the few checks on the power of the executive, yet her powers are derived from—and theoretically can be taken away by—resolutions passed by that very same branch of power. The extent to which her rulings are legally binding also remains an open question.

Even more urgent is the upcoming clash between the government and the court over the effort to fire the current attorney general. No matter how it plays out, the result will likely be the politicization of one of the most important guardrails preventing government overreach and serving the public interest.

Israel’s attorney general is unique among democratic countries. Like many aspects of Israel’s legal and political systems, the position was developed ad hoc and may benefit from substantive reform. But such reforms must be done on the basis of broad, multi-partisan consensus rather than as part of a scheme to further the political or personal interests of those in power.