Gaza Division Intelligence Officer Appealed His Dismissal and the Publication of His Name

What the Officer Sought

Amidaror argued that the termination of his commitment to career service was arbitrary, discriminatory and selective. He said that, among the commanders bearing responsibility for the events of October 7, only he had actually lost his position and his social and pension rights. He also sought to keep the publication ban on his name in place.

The Dispute Over the Intelligence Materials

The officer argued that he was the first to notice that the collection of information for assessing Hamas's capabilities had stopped, and that he had ordered an analysis of its exercises. According to his account, the soldier V. prepared the relevant material pursuant to that directive, and his comments were intended to deepen the analysis rather than diminish the significance of the warnings. Amidaror's representatives also argued that he had not been provided with all the investigations and materials on which the deputy chief of staff based his conclusion.

The State's Position

The State Attorney's Office responded that this was an administrative rather than criminal proceeding, and that the officer was not entitled to review all IDF investigations concerning October 7. According to the state's position, the deputy chief of staff's conclusion identified specific professional errors, shortcomings in activity during the night between October 6 and 7, and command responsibility for the Gaza Division's intelligence unit failing to provide a warning. The state also argued that the demand to transfer the matter to a senior, independent reserve officer had no normative basis and contradicted the established military procedure.

What the Court Ruled

The court dismissed the administrative petition and permitted an advisory committee to be convened regarding the termination of Amidaror's commitment to serve in the IDF. His requests to continue serving and to preserve his anonymity were also ultimately denied. Following an application by representatives of Ynet and Yedioth Ahronoth and a review by the chief military censor, the state changed its position on publication, and the Supreme Court permitted the officer's name to be disclosed.

Latest legal news

• Netanyahu seeks cancellation of 18 hearings in criminal trial
• Maccabi Tel Aviv shareholder asks court to block share deal
• Mea Shearim unrest: stun grenade deployed and young teen detained
• High Court to hear Yair Golan’s petition over denial of security detail