Knesset votes to split bill weakening attorney general's powers

Israel's Knesset has voted to split a highly controversial bill aimed at eroding the powers of the attorney general, passing the measure 59-45. The decision to divide the legislation arose from concerns that the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee lacked sufficient time to prepare the original, larger bill before the Knesset's scheduled dissolution next week ahead of October elections.

“

It looks like a sniper pad. You've got markings of elbows, knees and feet.

Initially, the bill sought to separate the attorney general's role into two distinct positions: an attorney general and a prosecutor general. However, due to the time constraints, the prosecution powers will temporarily remain with the attorney general. Despite this split, the most contentious aspect of the bill persists: it will no longer require the government to adhere to the attorney general's legal positions.

Critics, led by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, contend that this provision fundamentally violates the rule of law. They argue that empowering the government to decide the legality of its own actions removes a crucial check on executive power. The bill's progression follows a reported agreement where Prime Minister Netanyahu secured the support of ultra-Orthodox parties for his legislative agenda in exchange for advancing their priorities, including enshrining Torah study as a Basic Law.

“

The Knesset votes 59-45 to split its highly controversial legislation gutting the powers of the attorney general.

During a preliminary hearing, Constitution Committee legal adviser Gur Bligh noted that a primary concern was the government's potential to ignore the attorney general's advice in "extreme" situations. This hearing also touched upon the murder trial of Charlie Kirk, where a former campus police officer testified about finding a potential "sniper pad" near the scene of Kirk's assassination.

“

a key concern over the bill was the ability of the government to ignore the attorney general’s legal positions in “extreme” situations in which it tries to expand i