The Attorney General’s Opinion on the Military Conscription Bill: Legal Position or Political Interference?

Attorney Maxim Rakov, our partner and former Legal Advisor to the National Security Council, commented on KAN-REKA radio regarding the Attorney General’s opinion on the controversial military conscription bill.

Question: The bill hasn’t been approved yet — why is the Attorney General getting involved?

Answer: She’s not interfering — this is part of her role. The Attorney General’s office actively participates in the legislative process and presents its position on behalf of the executive branch.

Question: What happens when the Attorney General’s opinion contradicts that of the executive branch itself?

Answer: On legal matters, the Attorney General’s opinion prevails until a court rules otherwise. On all other matters, the elected executive branch decides.

But there’s another issue here. This conscription bill originated as a government bill back in 2022 and was passed from one Knesset to the next. However, the current version is completely different from what was approved in the first reading under Benny Gantz. Gali Baharav-Miara says it cannot be automatically carried over in this form. If you want a government bill — follow proper procedure: internal government work, approval by government committees, then submission.

Question: What are constitutional norms in the absence of a Constitution?

Answer: Currently, constitutional norms are defined by Supreme Court rulings. When the court declares something unconstitutional — until a legislative process that can override court decisions is completed, and it hasn’t been — that constitutes the constitutional norm. She argues that the bill contradicts Supreme Court verdicts on this matter.

Her opinion can be divided into three parts: procedural — this is not the same bill; substantive — it contradicts court rulings; political — the law does not address the army’s needs.

Question: “Meets the army’s needs” is not a legal standard — it’s a political position. Should she include this in a legal opinion?

Answer: I agree. I don’t think she should introduce such positions at the Knesset legislative level. Typically, this is expressed during internal government discussions.

What is she trying to say? That this has reached the level of unconstitutionality. We’ve already had laws exempting the ultra-Orthodox from military service that the court struck down for violating equality before the law. She’s saying: the law was supposed to solve this problem, but instead it addresses the funding needs of yeshivas.

Question: What weight does this opinion carry? Will it stop the legislative process?

Answer: No. We all know this bill is political and aims to solve coalition problems, not the IDF’s manpower shortage. Gali Baharav-Miara is right about that — it’s just not her place to say it.

The opinion will be used in committee discussions and in petitions to the Supreme Court if the law is passed.