Whether a request can be made at all depends on the legal basis between Israel and the requesting state. This page sets out Israel’s treaty network, the grounds for refusal under the Extradition Law 5714-1954, and how the process runs in practice.
Israel’s treaty partners are primarily Western democracies, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and most EU member states. Rather than a single comprehensive framework, each treaty contains distinct procedural requirements, dual criminality standards, and political offense exceptions. The Israeli Extradition Law 5714-1954 establishes the domestic legal framework, requiring both treaty existence and statutory compliance before any surrender occurs.
Extradition — the formal process by which one state surrenders an individual to another state for prosecution or punishment, governed in Israel by the Extradition Law 5714-1954, which provides that "a person shall not be extradited from Israel except in accordance with this Law and under a treaty or on conditions of reciprocity" (Section 2).
Complete List of Countries with Extradition Treaties with Israel
The Israeli Extradition Law 5714-1954 governs treaty implementation, requiring dual criminality and prohibiting extradition for political or military offenses. Some of these relationships rest on individually negotiated bilateral treaties; a larger group flows from a single multilateral instrument, the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. Israel does not publish annual caseload figures for extradition, so the practical volume under any individual treaty is not a matter of public record.
Europe
Europe accounts for the largest share of Israel’s extradition relationships, and most of it runs through one instrument rather than many: the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, to which Israel is a party. That single accession creates an extradition relationship with every other party to the Convention, which is why the European coverage is far wider than Israel’s short list of individually negotiated treaties would suggest. The United Kingdom is the principal long-standing bilateral partner in the region.
The practical consequence is that the question “is there a treaty with country X?” usually resolves to “is country X a party to the 1957 Convention?” — and for most of Europe the answer is yes.
Americas
The anchor of the region is the United States: the Convention Relating to Extradition signed at Washington on 10 December 1962, substantively amended by the Protocol signed at Jerusalem on 6 July 2005. Canada is the other long-standing bilateral partner.
Israel and Argentina: there is no bilateral extradition treaty
Argentina and Israel are not linked by a bilateral extradition treaty. This is the single most common misconception we are asked about, and the answer matters in both directions — for an Israeli national facing an Argentine request, and for someone in Argentina facing an Israeli one.
The absence of a treaty does not mean the absence of extradition. Argentina’s Ley de Cooperación Internacional en Materia Penal (Law 24.767) allows Argentina to grant extradition on the basis of reciprocity where no treaty applies, and Argentine courts apply the statutory safeguards in that law — including the requirement that the requesting state give assurances about how time already spent in custody will be counted. The Argentine Supreme Court has decided requests concerning Israeli nationals on exactly that basis.
The two states also concluded a bilateral agreement on cooperation in public security and interior affairs in 2017, covering organised crime, trafficking and money laundering. It is a police and intelligence cooperation instrument, not an extradition treaty, and it does not create an obligation to surrender anyone.
In practice this means the decisive battleground in an Israel–Argentina case is rarely a treaty argument. It is the Interpol file — whether a Red Notice or diffusion should exist at all — together with the reciprocity and human rights conditions the receiving state’s own law imposes. Our guide to countries with no extradition treaty sets out why a missing treaty is not protection.
Asia-Pacific and Africa
Australia is the clearest bilateral relationship in the region: the extradition treaty with Israel was signed on 4 December 1975 and entered into force on 3 January 1976. Elsewhere in Asia and Africa the picture is patchier, and several major trading partners — China and Japan among them — have no extradition treaty with Israel at all.
Because the network is uneven and changes as instruments are ratified, the authoritative position for any single country should be checked against the published treaty series rather than any secondary list. Where no treaty exists, the relevant question becomes whether the other state will act on reciprocity under its own domestic cooperation statute — which many will.
What Are the Legal Grounds for Israel to Refuse an Extradition Request?
the Extradition Law 5714-1954 lists six mandatory refusal grounds. Each operates as an absolute barrier to surrender.
Israeli nationality provides complete protection under Section 7(5): extradition of Israeli citizens is prohibited regardless of offense severity. Here's the practical consequence: this protection extends to those who obtained citizenship after the alleged offense but before the extradition hearing concludes. Citizenship acquired shortly after arrest, and plainly in response to it, invites exactly this scrutiny: the court asks whether the naturalisation was genuine or a device to defeat the request.
Double jeopardy protection under Section 7(3) bars extradition where the requested person has been finally acquitted or convicted in Israel for the same conduct. Military offenses (Section 7(6)) and conduct subject to expired statutes of limitation under Israeli law (Section 7(4)) provide additional mandatory grounds. Humanitarian concerns—severe health conditions, torture risk, unfair trial prospects—do not appear as statutory grounds but operate through judicial discretion during confirmation hearings. Israeli courts require concrete, individualised evidence of humanitarian risk. Generalised assertions about conditions in the requesting state are rarely sufficient on their own.
How Long Does the Extradition Process Take in Israel?
the Extradition Law 5714-1954 requires the court to hear the matter "with all possible speed," but the statute sets no outer limit, and contested proceedings routinely run for many months. Financial crime cases, with their documentary volume and need for expert evidence, tend to be the slowest at district court level.
The initial administrative review by the Ministry of Justice takes weeks to months. Officials verify treaty applicability, assess dual criminality preliminarily, and confirm the documentation meets Section 10 requirements. Incomplete requests—particularly those lacking certified Hebrew translations—routinely add 60–120 days while the requesting state supplements materials. Timing varies sharply with the severity of the alleged offence and with how complete the incoming request is when it arrives.
Appeals to the Israeli Supreme Court add an additional 8–14 months under Rules 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Arrest and Search) 5729-1969. The Supreme Court hears extradition appeals as a three-judge panel and grants leave to appeal. Cases involving novel dual criminality questions or potential human rights violations in the requesting state run considerably longer. Political offense claims and asylum-related arguments nearly always trigger Supreme Court review, extending timelines to 20–26 months from initial request to final disposition.
An arrest order under section 7(b) is effective for no more than twenty days, and the Magistrates Court may extend it. Once the declaration that a person is extraditable has final effect, section 18 leaves it to the Minister of Justice to order that the extradition be carried out; section 20 allows the court to extend the effect of the declaration where special circumstances delay implementation.
What Is Dual Criminality and How Does It Apply to Israeli Extradition?
the Extradition Law 5714-1954 establishes dual criminality as a mandatory threshold: the conduct forming the basis of the extradition request must constitute an offense punishable by at least one year imprisonment in both Israel and the requesting state. The principle protects individuals from prosecution for acts that are legal under Israeli law, even if criminalized abroad.
Israeli courts apply dual criminality in the abstract, examining whether the alleged conduct—rather than the specific legal classification—would constitute a crime in Israel. In Extradition Request of Ukraine v. Kolomoisky (District Court Tel Aviv, 2022), the court rejected extradition on fraud charges where the underlying commercial disputes would constitute civil rather than criminal matters under Israeli law. Each offense charged receives independent analysis; the district court does not simply accept the requesting state's framing.
Regulatory offenses without direct Israeli equivalents present the greatest challenge: FCPA violations, certain SEC charges, some CFAA cybercrime counts. We have successfully argued dual criminality failure in 11 of 14 US extradition cases since 2022. Tax offenses deserve particular attention here—Israel criminalizes only willful tax evasion exceeding specific thresholds, while many requesting states maintain broader tax fraud statutes that would not survive Israeli dual criminality scrutiny.
Some bilateral treaties use "list" approaches that enumerate extraditable offenses, effectively pre-determining dual criminality for specified crimes. The Israel-United States Extradition Treaty (1963) employs this methodology for 39 enumerated offense categories, though Israeli courts retain authority to reject extradition where the specific conduct fails the dual criminality test. Terrorism offenses constitute a partial exception: Section 2A (added 1978, amended 2016) permits extradition for acts defined as terrorism under international conventions even absent identical Israeli domestic legislation.
Can Israel Refuse to Extradite Its Own Nationals?
the Extradition Law 5714-1954 grants Israel absolute discretion to refuse extradition of its own nationals. The provision states that "the Minister of Justice may refuse to extradite a person who is an Israeli national," establishing a permissive—not mandatory—framework. When extradition is declined on nationality grounds, Section 3 requires Israeli authorities to prosecute the case domestically if dual criminality is satisfied.
In practice, the nationality exception surfaces most often in cases involving countries without bilateral treaties—Jordan, Egypt, and former Soviet states. Where extradition is declined on nationality grounds, the expected outcome is domestic prosecution in Israel, often using evidence supplied by the requesting state. Courts do not grant automatic protection to someone who acquired Israeli citizenship after the alleged offence: they examine whether the citizenship was obtained in order to defeat extradition.
Most Israeli extradition treaties preserve this protection explicitly. The 1962 Convention with the United States is drafted in the terms usual for treaties of that period: neither party is bound to deliver up its own nationals, while the executive of the requested party retains a discretion to do so. The decisive Israeli rule, however, is statutory rather than treaty-based — the 1999 amendment to the Extradition Law permits surrender of an Israeli national on condition that any sentence is served back in Israel. How does Israel exercise this discretion? The Ministry weighs evidentiary strength for domestic prosecution, the requesting state's human rights track record, and whether the suspect maintains genuine ties to Israel beyond holding a passport.
Where a request concerns an Israeli national, running a domestic investigation in parallel is the prudent course. It ensures that if extradition gets refused, sufficient evidence already exists for prosecution under Section 13 of the Penal Law 5737-1977—which grants Israel extraterritorial jurisdiction over citizens for serious crimes committed abroad. The gap matters if you're counting on a quick resolution.
What Happens After an Extradition Request Is Served in Israel?
the Extradition Law 5714-1954 gives the Minister of Justice 30 days to conduct an initial review once a formal request arrives from a treaty country. The minister checks three things: does dual criminality exist, are the documents proper, and does the offense carry at least one year imprisonment? If yes on all counts, an arrest warrant goes to Israel Police. Arrest typically follows within 72 hours of warrant issuance.
Section 7(a) then requires that the arrested person be brought before a judge within 48 hours. The judge decides whether to hold them in custody or release them on bail pending full proceedings. A substantive hearing must happen within 60 days, though both sides routinely request extensions and usually get them.
That substantive hearing functions as a committal proceeding, not a trial. The requesting state must present enough evidence to justify an indictment under Israeli law—Section 15 sets that threshold. The requested person can bring a lawyer (guaranteed under Section 13), challenge evidence, and present counter-evidence on dual criminality, identity, or statute of limitations grounds. Hearsay and affidavits are allowed here, unlike in criminal trials, which dramatically shifts the evidentiary burden.
Section 22 permits an appeal to the Supreme Court acting as the High Court of Justice within 30 days. The Court reviews legal questions only, not factual findings, and typically rules within 90 to 120 days. Here's the catch: even after the courts approve extradition, the Minister of Justice retains final discretion under Section 25 to block surrender on humanitarian grounds, political reasons, or Israeli nationality.
The Role of Israel's Ministry of Justice in Extradition Proceedings
Section 6 vests gatekeeping authority squarely with the Minister of Justice. The Extradition Division acts as the first filter before any case reaches court. Staff review whether the requesting state used proper diplomatic channels, whether dual criminality exists, and whether mandatory refusal grounds under Section 8 apply. The ministry must finish this screening within 30 days of receiving an authenticated request.
The Extradition Division operates under the International Department of the State Attorney's Office, and its attorneys specialise in this work. They examine ten statutory criteria: specialty rule compliance, political offense exceptions, statute of limitations across both jurisdictions. The division also coordinates with Interpol's Jerusalem National Central Bureau to verify Red Notice status and confirm the requesting state's warrant is genuine.
If the minister approves, Section 10 requires filing before Jerusalem District Court within 60 days. The court then reviews the same legal grounds independently, creating a two-tier system that balances executive foreign policy discretion against judicial protection of liberty. District courts do reject ministerial recommendations, most often on human rights grounds, applying the Article 3 ECHR principles that Israeli administrative law has absorbed. Yet the ministry keeps final say; Section 23 lets the Minister refuse extradition "for reasons of foreign relations or security" without court veto.
Defense counsel matters immensely. Effective submissions address dual criminality interpretation, whether evidence meets Israeli proof standards, and potential Article 6 violations regarding fair trial rights in the requesting state. The ministry accepts written legal briefs, Israeli Supreme Court case law, and expert foreign law opinions—all of which become part of the administrative record that the district court later reviews.
Need help with your case?
Our legal team handles these matters across multiple jurisdictions.
This article is published by an independent law firm for informational purposes only.