The major controversies in juvenile justice in Israel can be viewed in terms of the welfare-legalism dichotomy. The major issues are (1) whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be processed as juveniles or adults, (2) whether more welfarism or more legalism should characterize the juvenile court, (3) whether more emphasis should be given to juvenile court processing or diversion from the court, and (4) whether 9-13 year-olds who commit offenses are 'delinquent' or 'needy.' The welfare orientation currently prevailing in Israel's juvenile justice system is evidenced by the application of juvenile justice proceedings to boys aged 16-17, the proposal to intensify the welfare/treatment emphasis in the course of these proceedings, and the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. On the other hand, a tentative move to redefine offenders aged 16-17 as adults for some purposes has issued primarily from the police, who are the most vocal in their criticism of the raising of the age of criminal responsibility. This suggests that criticism of welfarism is based less on civil liberty concerns or the disavowal of the rehabilitation ideal than on traditional law-and-order pressures. Thus, the pressure in Israel is not so much in the direction of due process legalism as in the United States, as in the direction of crime control. A total of 132 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)