A crisis in the judicial system was averted Sunday morning with the Cabinet's approval of a compromise between the Justice Minister and Attorney General.



Amidst accusations that Israeli democracy was in danger, that indictments are handed down against politicians too easily, politicization of the judicial process and more, the Cabinet ministers managed to reach an agreement on the way in which future Attorneys-General will be chosen.



The new system, agreed upon by the two rivals Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, will be as follows:   A search committee will be headed by a retired judge, who will be chosen by the Supreme Court Chief Justice with the approval of the Justice Minister. The committee will present two or three candidates, from among whom the Cabinet will choose the Attorney-General.



Until now, the committee head was chosen solely by the Chief Justice, and only one candidate was presented. The new arrangement thus represents a victory of sorts for Justice Minister Friedmann, who wanted more of a say for the political echelons at the expense of what he perceived to be a judicial-system monopoly.



On the other hand, Friedmann gave in on his demand that the search committee head be a former Attorney General or Justice Minister.



Seventeen ministers voted in favor of the new arrangement, while seven voted against. Among the latter were two Kadima ministers, Tzipi Livni and Meir Sheetrit - both of whom are former Justice Ministers - and five Labor Party ministers.



Minister Friedmann explained that the root of his proposal is the desire for more separation of powers in the government, and that the Attorney General should therefore not be chosen by the judicial system. Education Minister Yuli Tamir said, however, that she opposes changing the way the Attorney General is chosen, and that Friedmann's proposal is "dangerous." She said that specifically in terms of the balance of powers, "the Attorney General must be independent" - though she did not explain why he must be more "independent" of the political system than of the judicial system.