Israel's Attorney General Halts E1 Housing Tender Amid Election Restraint Rules

The Attorney General of Israel, Gali Baharav-Miara, has frozen a controversial tender for 1,234 housing units in the E1 area near Ma'ale Adumim. The tender was set to close just before the upcoming elections, with winners to be announced a week prior. Baharav-Miara's decision marks a significant application of 'restraint and restraint' rules applicable to interim governments before elections and the formation of a new government.

The E1 area has long been a focus for right-wing governments aiming to create a contiguous built area between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumim, a move widely seen as undermining the possibility of a future sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. International pressure has consistently urged Israel to avoid developing the area. The current government, however, had proceeded with the plans, with initial approvals given in February 2024 and final government approval in December 2025.

The timing of the tender's progression, culminating in its announcement and planned closure during the election period, has drawn criticism. Critics argue that this timing appears to benefit the incumbent government's election campaign by showcasing development in the territories. The Attorney General's office, in a letter from attorney Anat Asif Gil, outlined several factors for evaluating such tenders, including the potential for election-related considerations, the political sensitivity of the policy, and whether the action is a product of established work processes or could be perceived as election propaganda.

In response to the freeze, the Ma'ale Adumim municipality filed an urgent petition with the High Court of Justice. The court has ordered the Attorney General to respond to the municipality's request to unfreeze the tender by Thursday. The article suggests the municipality's petition acts as a proxy for the government, which may prefer to avoid direct confrontation with the Attorney General's office. Government Secretary Yossi Fuchs has argued that the restraint rules should not apply to professional staff if the political decisions were made long before the election period, a claim the article disputes by emphasizing the Attorney General's authority over professional staff and the principle of preventing interim governments from creating faits accomplis.

The High Court's handling of this petition will be crucial in determining whether the judiciary will support the Attorney General's broad interpretation of restraint rules for interim governments, particularly concerning politically sensitive and non-urgent actions that could shape future realities.