Israel’s police chief fills unsigned posts—but can the officers stay?

Commissioner Danny Levy’s solution to the unsigned appointments was an arrangement called “operational attachment.” It separated the responsibilities of a post from the completion of the appointment: selected officers could begin doing the work while National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s signatures remained outstanding. That is a practical staffing decision, not proof that the appointments—or any associated rank promotions—were completed.⁠1⁠4

The most consequential named officer in that gap is Commander Dana Amit. Selected by the senior command staff to lead the Police Prosecution Division, she had begun performing its head’s duties, according to Ynet’s November 13 report. Ben Gvir had not signed her appointment. No cancellation notice naming her has been established in the available reporting.⁠1⁠4

Amit’s assignment matters because this division does more than manage police personnel. It directs police prosecution policy and the filing of criminal indictments. Its leadership helps guide a major criminal justice function, with consequences for defendants and proceedings—not simply for the officers waiting to move up.⁠1

Her predecessor, David Zamir, had finished his tenure, leaving the division without a permanent commander for a period whose length has not been established. Amit’s operational attachment put someone into that leadership role in practice without resolving the missing ministerial approval. The vacancy explains why staffing the post mattered; it does not, by itself, answer whether Levy’s chosen mechanism was legally available.⁠1

Ynet described the division’s reach as indictments against approximately 90% of defendants in Israel. That figure needs a substantial qualification: no current official breakdown or measurement period has been established to verify that defendants-share claim. A 2014 Israel Democracy Institute publication described police prosecutors as bringing almost 90% of criminal prosecutions, but that is an older figure with a differently worded denominator—not independent confirmation of a current share of defendants. Neither figure is a conviction rate.⁠1⁠17

The institutional point does not depend on treating that percentage as a freshly measured statistic. A dispute over who can direct criminal charging policy is more consequential than an argument over titles. At the same time, the reporting does not establish that particular indictments or proceedings have been invalidated by the leadership dispute.

Levy’s stated case was operational urgency. Ynet quoted him as saying in private conversations that key posts needed to be staffed while the appointments remained held up. His words explain why he acted; they are not a legal determination that he could.⁠1

Ynet also quoted Levy as saying, “Nothing will deter the police from continuing to fulfill its duty to protect public safety.” The argument is straightforward: the organization’s work cannot wait indefinitely for a signature. The objection is equally specific: operational need does not settle who has authority to make an appointment or whether an alternative arrangement lawfully avoids the approval requirement.⁠1⁠4

Channel 14’s November 12 account described two stages of legal resistance. First, the attorney general objected to promotions proceeding without the required ministerial approval. Levy then pursued operational attachments, allowing officers to perform their intended duties without completing their rank promotions. According to that report, a legal opinion rejected the alternative mechanism too.⁠4

Levy had informed Ben Gvir and the relevant officers about the arrangement, Channel 14 reported. Some officers subsequently began receiving cancellation notices. That is a reported legal objection and a reported personnel consequence—not an identified court judgment, and not evidence that every placement was cancelled. The underlying opinion and an officer-by-officer status list are missing.⁠4

The chronology prevents an easy conclusion. Ynet’s November 13 report is later than Channel 14’s cancellation account and describes about 15 officers already working. But it does not say whether cancellations were reversed, whether different officers were affected, or whether the reports describe an unresolved difference over the same assignments. The later report therefore updates the account of officers performing duties without settling the status of every attachment.⁠1⁠4

For the same reason, “about 15” is the reported number placed in their selected roles, not a verified current staffing count. And Amit’s position cannot responsibly be described as either a completed formal appointment or a placement definitively rescinded: the former lacks Ben Gvir’s signature; the latter lacks a cancellation naming her.⁠1⁠4

Ben Gvir’s refusal to sign is established, but his specific reason for withholding approval from this group—or from Amit individually—is not. Ynet reported a broader political clash in which the minister accused Levy of trying to please the left after the elections and of acting unlawfully against ultra-Orthodox people. Levy’s office rejected those allegations. That exchange supplies context, not a demonstrated motive for any particular unsigned appointment.⁠1

What would resolve the immediate uncertainty is concrete: a signed appointment, a cancellation identifying the affected officer, or an authoritative clarification of which attachments remain effective and on what legal basis. Until then, the distinction at the heart of this dispute remains intact. Officers have begun exercising responsibilities; whether all can continue, and whether Amit can keep directing the prosecution division under this arrangement, remains unresolved.⁠1⁠4