Background
Hatzlacha – For the Promotion of a Fair Society and Yosef Melman petitioned the High Court of Justice to order publication of the conflict-of-interest arrangements prepared for the directors of the Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the Mossad. They also sought an order requiring the Attorney General to instruct relevant officials to publish comparable arrangements in the future. Their counsel had asked the Attorney General’s representatives in October 2025 whether the arrangements would be published, but received no response despite reminders.
The petitioners relied on Attorney General directives generally calling for proactive publication of conflict-of-interest arrangements for senior public officials. The respondents argued that full publication could expose classified information, personal relationships, or identifying details useful to hostile intelligence services and could endanger the officials or national security. They also noted that the Court had already rejected disclosure of the ISA director’s arrangement in earlier litigation; that no concrete conflict requiring an arrangement had been found when former Mossad director David “Dadi” Barnea entered office; and that whether an arrangement was required for current Mossad director Roman Gofman was still being examined by the relevant legal advisers.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition for lack of grounds for judicial intervention. It first explained that the ordinary route for obtaining government information is a request under the Freedom of Information Law. Because the petitioners had not filed such a request, they had neither exhausted available procedures nor used their alternative remedy, under which any resulting decision could be reviewed by the Administrative Affairs Court.
The Court also rejected the petition on the merits. Although the Attorney General’s publication directive establishes proactive disclosure as the starting point for certain senior officials’ conflict-of-interest arrangements, it remains subject to freedom-of-information principles and applicable confidentiality protections. The professional assessment that complete proactive disclosure of the ISA and Mossad directors’ arrangements could threaten personal safety and national security supplied a reasonable basis for withholding them. Such arrangements may reveal personal connections or details about the officials and others, information protected by statutes and regulations governing ISA and Mossad personnel.
The Court nevertheless recorded the respondents’ representation that any future freedom-of-information request would be considered individually under the law, including whether portions could be released subject to appropriate conditions without harming national security or personal safety. Because the authorities’ failure to answer the petitioners’ original inquiry may have made the litigation unnecessary, the Court awarded no costs.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking government records ordinarily must first apply under the Freedom of Information Law and pursue the statutory review process.
- Policies favoring proactive publication of senior officials’ conflict-of-interest arrangements remain subject to national-security, personal-safety, privacy, and confidentiality restrictions.
- The ruling did not foreclose partial disclosure: a future information request must be assessed on its facts, including whether protected material can be withheld while other portions are released.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a boundary between the public interest in scrutinizing senior officials’ conflicts of interest and the special security concerns surrounding Israel’s intelligence chiefs. It confirms that general transparency directives do not require automatic, complete publication where disclosure may expose sensitive personal or security information.
At the same time, the Court left open a narrower path through the Freedom of Information Law. Applicants may seek disclosure through that process, and the responsible authorities must consider whether at least part of an arrangement can safely be published.