Arbitrator Resigns from Billion-Dollar Dispute Citing Lack of Objectivity

Retired Judge Eitan Orenstein, former president of the Tel Aviv District Court, unexpectedly resigned Tuesday from his role as arbitrator in a multi-billion dollar dispute between diamond magnate Dan Gertler and brothers Moshe and Mendy Gertner. Orenstein stated he could no longer rule on the remaining issues with the required "openness and objectivity." He accepted Gertler's request for his resignation, which Gertler had pursued for the past two years through various legal proceedings. Orenstein criticized Gertler, accusing him of making "baseless accusations" and working for over two years to prevent the arbitration from concluding. Orenstein clarified his decision pertains only to events after his initial arbitration ruling, not before.

Orenstein's resignation came the same day Israeli police announced the conclusion of their bribery investigation into Orenstein and former Israel Bar Association head Efi Naveh. Police believe there is sufficient evidence to indict them, suspecting a quid pro quo arrangement where Naveh allegedly helped secure Orenstein's appointment as district court president in exchange for moving Judge Dalia Gannot from her position. Orenstein maintains his innocence, believing the case should be dismissed.

This is the second arbitrator to withdraw from the complex, 15-year-old case concerning business partnerships and concessions for copper and diamond mining in Congo. Orenstein's predecessor, retired Judge Uri Goren, resigned in late 2020 after discovering he was being surveilled. Orenstein was appointed in January 2021. In April 2024, he issued a 200-page ruling ordering Gertler to pay the Gertner brothers $85 million, a fraction of their $1.6 billion claim, while dismissing Gertler's counterclaim.

Gertler had appealed to the Tel Aviv District Court to cancel the ruling, while the Gertners sought its approval. Judge Iris Iltovitch Segal upheld the ruling's reasoning but acknowledged Gertler's arguments about his right to be heard on his counterclaim, calling it a "complex of flaws" justifying intervention. The case was returned to Orenstein for supplementary rulings on five specific issues. Gertler's appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

Gertler had previously accused Orenstein of bias, alleging his decision to issue the ruling was influenced by fears of Gertler being behind media reports about his appointment, which triggered the criminal investigation. However, a November 2025 district court decision rejected these claims. Gertler's subsequent requests to remove Orenstein were also denied by Orenstein himself and later by the district and Supreme Courts. In mid-October, Gertler again asked Orenstein to resign, claiming his mind was made up and he couldn't be objective. The Gertner brothers opposed this, calling it a bad-faith attempt to delay the proceedings and force Orenstein's recusal.

In his resignation decision, Orenstein stated it was based on events after his initial ruling and his own conclusion that he could no longer proceed objectively. He described the preliminary hearing as tense and noted that while Gertler's accusations were baseless, he felt unable to continue. Orenstein expressed hope that a new arbitrator could efficiently conclude the remaining issues.