Quick Answer: Israeli arbitration has no US-style pre-trial discovery. Document production is limited to specific identified documents the tribunal orders; witness evidence is typically given in written statements followed by oral cross-examination; and expert evidence follows a party-appointed or tribunal-appointed model. For foreign companies used to broad US disclosure or full English common-law discovery, the Israeli approach will feel significantly more constrained — which means you must front-load your documentary evidence from day one.

When a foreign company first becomes involved in an Israeli arbitration — whether under a contract governed by Israeli law, an ICCA clause, or an ad hoc arrangement — the most common source of surprise is how evidence works. Attorneys from the United States, Australia, or the United Kingdom walk in expecting something resembling the discovery or disclosure regimes they know from home. What they find is quite different.

Israeli arbitration law gives tribunals broad flexibility to design their own evidence procedures, but that flexibility sits within a civil law tradition skeptical of broad documentary fishing expeditions. The Arbitration Law 5728-1968 and the International Commercial Arbitration Law 2024 both vest the tribunal with authority over evidence, but neither creates a discovery regime. Israeli arbitral practice has developed its own conventions around documents, witnesses, and experts, and you will be at a disadvantage if you learn them mid-proceeding rather than before filing.

1. Why Evidence in Israeli Arbitration Is Different

Israel's civil procedure tradition is rooted in the British Mandatory rules but has evolved into a hybrid civil-law system. The Civil Procedure Regulations 5744-1984 — which govern court litigation — do provide for some pre-trial document discovery, but their scope is narrower than US federal discovery and substantially narrower than English common law disclosure. Israeli arbitration has inherited this comparative skepticism toward broad document production.

Three things in particular catch foreign parties off guard:

  • No automatic disclosure obligation. Unlike English civil litigation, where each party must disclose all documents it controls that are relevant and not privileged (the standard disclosure obligation under the CPR), Israeli arbitration imposes no automatic obligation to produce documents. You produce what you choose to produce — unless the tribunal orders otherwise.
  • Tribunal authority, not party-driven. Under Section 22 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, document production is ordered by the tribunal on application. There is no party-to-party document request process unless the parties adopt specific rules (such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence) that create one.
  • Flexible procedure by design. Under the same Section 22, the tribunal can "take evidence and examine witnesses in the manner it sees fit" and is not bound by the Israeli Evidence Ordinance that governs court proceedings. This flexibility cuts both ways: it allows sensible adaptations for international cases, but it also creates uncertainty if the parties have not agreed on rules in advance.

Parties who build their case around obtaining the other side's records are often disappointed. In Israeli arbitration, the party that arrives with its own documents in order, organized around the specific issues in dispute, is almost always better positioned than the one waiting for something to emerge through production orders.

2. Document Production: What You Can and Cannot Demand

The statutory basis for document orders in domestic Israeli arbitration is Section 22 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, which empowers the tribunal to require parties to produce books and documents for inspection. For international arbitrations under the International Commercial Arbitration Law 2024, Article 19 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (as adopted in Israel) gives the tribunal equivalent authority to determine admissibility and relevance of evidence.

In practice, how document production actually works depends heavily on whether the parties have adopted institutional rules:

  • Ad hoc arbitrations (Arbitration Law 1968): The tribunal will typically issue a procedural order at the first case management conference specifying how documents will be exchanged. The most common approach is a simultaneous exchange of the documentary evidence each party relies on — essentially, each side submits its own bundle at the same time as its written submissions, without a separate document production phase.
  • ICCA-administered arbitrations: The Israeli Centre for Commercial Arbitration rules give the tribunal authority to order document production but do not create a US-style discovery phase. Document requests are typically heard as part of the procedural timetable, and tribunals apply a relevance and materiality threshold when evaluating requests.
  • ICC arbitrations seated in Israel: The ICC Rules (2021) allow the tribunal to order document production, and ICC tribunals regularly apply the IBA Rules' Redfern Schedule process when parties cannot agree. The requesting party identifies the category of documents, the producing party objects, and the tribunal rules on each objection.
In Practice: Section 22 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 allows production orders for specific documents or categories — but Israeli tribunals consistently refuse requests for "all communications" or "all documents relating to" a broad topic. At the ICCA, a party requesting documents must identify specific documents or narrowly defined categories, explain their relevance to a genuine issue in the arbitration, and confirm the documents are in the other party's custody. Broad Redfern Schedule requests modeled on US-style document requests are routinely refused. If critical internal records of the other side are central to your case, plan your claim strategy around what you already hold — and seek targeted production orders for the specific documents you know exist.

One procedural point that catches foreign parties off guard: unlike US federal courts, there is no compulsory process to obtain documents from third parties who are not parties to the arbitration. If key records sit with a bank, a government ministry, or a contractor who is not party to the proceedings, the tribunal cannot order their production. The requesting party must approach Israeli courts under Section 22(b) of the Arbitration Law 1968, which allows the tribunal to request that the court assist with obtaining evidence — but this process adds weeks and is not guaranteed to succeed.

3. Witness Evidence: Statements, Examination, and Video Testimony

Israeli arbitral practice regarding witnesses has converged substantially with international norms, particularly in ICCA and ICC-administered cases. The standard approach involves three stages:

  1. Written witness statements — submitted as part of each party's main submission package. The statement sets out the witness's factual evidence in narrative form, signed and dated, and is treated as the witness's examination-in-chief. In domestic arbitrations governed by the Arbitration Law 1968, witness statements are not universally required — some arbitrators still prefer oral examination in full. The procedural order at the case management conference will specify the approach.
  2. Cross-examination — conducted at the oral hearing. The opposing party's counsel questions the witness on the content of the statement and other relevant topics. Israeli arbitrators generally permit wide cross-examination on documents produced in the proceedings, though there is no right to a prolonged US-style deposition in advance of the hearing.
  3. Re-examination — limited to matters raised in cross-examination. The arbitrator may also question the witness directly.

Hebrew is not required. Most Israeli arbitrations involving a foreign party are conducted wholly or partly in English, and witnesses may testify in their native language with interpretation arranged by the parties. Interpretation costs are typically borne by the party requiring it, or split equally by tribunal order.

In Practice: The International Commercial Arbitration Law 2024 (Israel's UNCITRAL Model Law statute) explicitly authorizes remote testimony — witnesses may appear by video link without any special application, provided the other party has adequate notice. Most ICCA and ICC arbitrators seated in Israel now accept video testimony from witnesses located abroad as a matter of routine. If your key factual witnesses are based in the United States, Europe, or elsewhere, arrange video facilities in advance of the hearing: notify the tribunal at the case management conference, confirm the time zone, and test the connection. Budget 45–60 minutes per witness for examination — Israeli arbitrators run tight hearing schedules, and running over without advance warning is poorly received.

Witness privilege in Israeli arbitration follows the general principle of *חיסיון* (privilege): legal professional privilege (attorney-client communications), and in some instances without-prejudice settlement privilege, protect certain categories of evidence from disclosure. The tribunal applies these privilege doctrines similarly to how Israeli courts would, even though it is not bound by the Evidence Ordinance.

4. Expert Evidence: Party Experts, Tribunal Experts, and Hot-Tubbing

Most substantive Israeli arbitrations — construction disputes, financial valuations, technology failures, real estate assessments — involve expert evidence. The two basic models are party-appointed experts and tribunal-appointed experts, and increasingly Israeli arbitrators adopt hybrid approaches.

Party-appointed experts

Each party engages its own expert — a quantity surveyor, forensic accountant, engineer, or real estate appraiser — who prepares a report and may testify at the hearing. Party experts are advocates for the party who retains them to a degree, though Israeli arbitrators expect them to maintain professional objectivity and will discount reports that are overtly partisan. Expert reports are typically exchanged simultaneously after the main round of submissions, with a round of reply reports permitted thereafter.

Tribunal-appointed experts

Under Section 22 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, the tribunal may appoint its own independent expert to investigate factual or technical matters and report to the tribunal. Both parties may comment on the expert's report and challenge it at the hearing. Tribunal-appointed experts are more common in construction and valuation arbitrations where the technical gap between the parties' experts is wide and the arbitrator wants an independent baseline. Their cost is typically shared equally between the parties as part of the overall arbitration costs.

Concurrent expert evidence (hot-tubbing)

Israeli arbitrators, particularly those experienced with international practice, increasingly use concurrent expert testimony — sometimes called "hot-tubbing." Under this approach, both parties' experts on a given topic appear before the tribunal simultaneously. The arbitrator chairs a structured dialogue: experts address each other's opinions, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and respond to the same questions at the same time. The ICCA's procedural guidance endorses this approach for technical disputes.

In Practice: In a construction arbitration before the ICCA, the tribunal appointed an independent quantity surveyor under Section 22 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 after the parties' party-appointed experts produced reports that differed by over NIS 3.2 million on the valuation of incomplete works. The tribunal-appointed expert submitted a report within 60 days of appointment, charged NIS 48,000 (split equally), and both party experts were cross-examined alongside the tribunal expert in a single half-day session. The tribunal's award adopted the tribunal expert's central methodology and resolved the gap to NIS 820,000 — a result neither party's expert had predicted. If the technical evidence in your dispute is genuinely contested, factor in the possibility of a tribunal-appointed expert when budgeting: their report is highly influential and virtually impossible to displace without strong evidence of methodological error.

5. The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence: When They Apply

The International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules) are not automatically part of any Israeli arbitration. They apply only if the parties expressly incorporate them into their arbitration agreement or procedural order. In practice, ICC and LCIA-administered arbitrations seated in Israel often incorporate the IBA Rules, while domestic ICCA arbitrations less commonly do.

When the IBA Rules apply, they provide a comprehensive framework that supplements the institutional rules and transforms the evidence process significantly:

  • Document requests via Redfern Schedules. A party requesting documents submits a Redfern Schedule identifying each request, the relevance of the documents, and any objection anticipated. The producing party responds with its objections in the same schedule. The tribunal then rules on each request. This is the closest Israeli arbitration gets to an organized discovery process — but the IBA Rules impose a materiality threshold that filters out broad requests.
  • Witness statement requirements. The IBA Rules specify what a witness statement must contain (name, factual account, confirmation of truth) and set a default of simultaneous exchange.
  • Expert evidence structure. The IBA Rules establish clear procedures for party-appointed expert reports, reply reports, and tribunal-appointed experts — providing the predictability that ad hoc arbitrations often lack.
  • Privilege. The IBA Rules address privilege for communications with counsel, settlement negotiations, and confidential communications — providing a treaty-level framework when the parties come from different legal traditions with different privilege concepts.

If you are negotiating an Israeli arbitration clause in a significant commercial contract with a foreign counterparty, expressly incorporating the IBA Rules (2020 edition) is advisable for any dispute expected to involve meaningful document production or expert evidence. The resulting process is more predictable and more defensible if either party later seeks to set aside the award on procedural grounds.

6. Hearing Procedures: Language, Order, and Conduct

The oral hearing — *דיון* in Hebrew — is the centerpiece of evidence-gathering in Israeli arbitration, even in document-heavy international cases. Understanding how Israeli arbitral hearings are structured helps foreign parties and their counsel prepare effectively.

Language and translation

The arbitration language is set in the procedural order. For any case involving a non-Hebrew-speaking foreign party, English is almost always specified as the primary language — or as a co-language alongside Hebrew. The ICCA and ICC both readily accommodate English-language proceedings. Documents in Hebrew that the other party introduces as evidence must be translated by the producing party; the translation obligation runs in both directions. Court-certified translators are preferred for key documentary evidence; working translations are acceptable for supporting materials if the other party does not object.

Order of proceedings

A typical evidentiary hearing in an Israeli commercial arbitration follows this sequence: claimant's opening (usually brief, 30–60 minutes); claimant's witnesses in turn (examination, cross-examination, re-examination, arbitrator questions); respondent's witnesses in turn (same sequence); expert witnesses, either consecutively or concurrently; closing submissions or, more commonly, written post-hearing briefs within 30 days of the hearing. In smaller domestic arbitrations, the arbitrator may dispense with openings entirely and proceed straight to witnesses.

Conduct and decorum

Israeli arbitrators run hearings more informally than Israeli courts, but cross-examination standards are rigorous. Counsel are expected to put their case to adverse witnesses (the rule in *Browne v. Dunn* equivalent exists in Israeli practice), meaning that any factual assertion not put to a witness in cross-examination may be given reduced weight in the award. Foreign counsel acting as lead advocate should be aware of this: "putting the case" is not merely a courtesy — failure to do so is a procedural point the other side will exploit in closing submissions.

7. Practical Tips for Foreign Parties

Foreign companies entering Israeli arbitration for the first time consistently hit the same walls. Most of them are avoidable.

Issue a document hold as soon as a dispute is foreseeable. Israeli arbitral tribunals take adverse inference requests seriously when a party has demonstrably failed to preserve relevant records, and WhatsApp message threads — ubiquitous in Israeli business communication — are evidence the same as email.

Come to the first case management conference with a draft procedural order already written. The order sets the entire evidentiary framework: document production rounds, IBA Rules incorporation, witness statement sequencing, the evidence language. Conceding any of these points at the opening conference is very hard to reverse later, and the tribunal will issue its own order if neither party proposes one.

For witnesses who will appear by video from outside Israel, their written statement is your examination-in-chief. It should cover every material fact you need to establish. The hearing is not the place to introduce facts not mentioned in the statement — Israeli arbitrators will note the gap and so will the other side's closing brief.

Scope your expert mandate tightly. Expert reports that attempt to address the full dispute are expensive to prepare and invite wide cross-examination. Define the specific technical questions only an expert can answer, set them against the specific facts already in evidence, and cap the report's length in the engagement letter. A focused 40-page report is more persuasive than a sprawling 120-page one.

Budget for professional translation of the key Hebrew documents. Israeli contracts, regulatory filings, corporate records, and government correspondence will be in Hebrew. Imprecise working translations of statutory provisions or contractual terms can undermine legal arguments — particularly in disputes that turn on the meaning of a specific clause or regulatory obligation.

In Practice: At an ICC arbitration seated in Tel Aviv involving a US technology company and an Israeli distributor, the US party arrived at the first case management conference without a proposed procedural order and without having agreed on evidence rules. The tribunal — an experienced Israeli-French panel — adopted the ICCA's default procedural framework, which provided for simultaneous document exchange only (no Redfern Schedule process) and witness statements to be filed with main submissions. The US party had planned to obtain key internal sales records from the Israeli counterpart through discovery; when that route was closed, they were left rebuilding their quantum case from their own documents alone. The lesson: come to the first case management conference with a draft procedural order in hand that addresses document production, witness statement exchange, expert evidence, and hearing language. If you do not propose the framework, the tribunal will impose one that may not suit your strategy.