State Attorney Amit Aisman warned on Thursday that the law restructuring the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigation Department (PID), known by its Hebrew acronym Mahash, could make it harder to investigate sensitive cases involving police, prosecutors, and public officials without political pressure.
Speaking at the Haifa Law Conference, Aisman said that law enforcement authorities were being asked to make difficult decisions in an increasingly polarized public atmosphere, where investigations and court cases quickly become political fights.
“Noise is not evidence,” he said. “A headline is not a factual basis, and likes and shares are not a legal test.”
The Knesset passed the Mahash law earlier this month. The legislation removes Mahash from the prosecution and establishes it as a separate body within the Justice Ministry.
It was sponsored by Likud MK Moshe Saada, who previously served as deputy head of Mahash, and passed by a 43-39 vote.
The new arrangement could create a different problem
Saada and other supporters of the law have argued that Mahash cannot properly investigate police officers while remaining part of the same prosecution system that works with the police on ordinary criminal cases. They say the change is intended to remove that conflict and give Mahash greater independence.
Aisman’s warning was that the new arrangement could create a different problem.
The question, he said, was not simply whether Mahash sits inside or outside the prosecution. It was whether the people responsible for investigating sensitive cases could act freely when their appointment and authority were tied more closely to political officials.
“Once a prosecution service takes into account the intensity of the pressure or the direction of the public wind, it ceases to be independent,” Aisman said. “Without prosecutorial independence, equality before the law is nothing more than an empty slogan.”
Under the law, Mahash’s director will be appointed by a five-member committee, in which appointees of the justice minister and the Justice Ministry director-general hold a majority.
The law also creates a new position responsible for coordinating police-investigation matters. That official will be able to decide which body investigates certain cases involving police officers and other state officials, including cases in which prosecutors may also be involved.
Aisman said that was not a technical question.
“The decision over which body investigates can affect the way an investigation is conducted, the identity of those questioned, and its results,” he said.
He said the real test of law enforcement independence was not in routine files, but in cases involving people with power, influence, or public standing.
“The true test of prosecutorial independence is not in simple cases,” Aisman said. “It is in sensitive cases – precisely those involving people with power, influence, or public status.”
Aisman acknowledged that Mahash has faced criticism over the years, and said some of it had been justified. But, he argued that it had nevertheless operated within a professional system in which political officials did not intervene in its decisions.
The concern now, he said, was not the identity of any future Mahash director, but the method of appointment and the powers created by the law.
“This is not a question of who is appointed, it is a question of the structure.”
“This is not a question of who is appointed,” he said. “It is a question of the structure.”
Aisman warned that investigators and prosecutors cannot do their jobs when they are forced to “look over their shoulder” in politically charged cases. He said the danger was not criticism of law enforcement authorities, but an atmosphere in which investigators and prosecutors were pressured or delegitimized because of the people they were investigating.
He did not name specific officials or cases, but criticized what he described as failures to report for questioning, automatic political backing for suspects, and deliberate disruption of court proceedings.
Those actions, he said, do not damage only one investigation or one trial. They can undermine the legitimacy of the legal system itself.
“Criticism of law enforcement is legitimate and even desirable,” Aisman said. “Criticism – not delegitimization.”
He also linked the Mahash law to the coalition’s separate proposal to split the attorney-general’s role, saying both raised the same broader question: whether the state’s legal and enforcement bodies would be able to continue operating independently in politically sensitive cases.
The Mahash law is already facing petitions before the High Court of Justice from the Movement for Quality Government and a separate group, including former police commissioners and senior police officials. The petitioners argue that the new appointment mechanism and transfer of authority could expose police oversight to political influence.
Aisman said that, despite the pressure, the prosecution service would continue to make decisions based on evidence and law rather than public campaigns.