Rights10/3/2026

Who Can Limit the Use of the Emergency Call-Up Orders Known as “Order 8”?

The emergency call-up order known as “Order 8,” issued on the morning of October 7, 2023, has been repeatedly extended and has effectively become a permanent mechanism for mobilizing reservists. The author of the Ynet article argues that the military and the Knesset can limit this practice, and that if they fail to act, the issue may reach the High Court of Justice.

Key facts

•Basis for mobilization: Section 8 of the Reserve Service Law
•Alternative arrangement: Section 9 of the Reserve Service Law
•“Order 8” was declared on the morning of October 7, 2023
•Threshold under Section 9: 25 days
•Government threshold for 2026: 55 days
•Expenditure in 2025: approximately 27 billion shekels

Why the Question of Restrictions Arose

“Order 8” makes it possible to mobilize reservists without the usual restrictions on the length of service, notice periods, and intervals between periods of service. In the author’s view, the prolonged use of the emergency mechanism deprives reservists and their families of certainty and increases the social and economic burden. However, the source does not report that a petition has been filed or that a judicial decision has already been issued.

What the Law Provides

Section 8 of the Reserve Service Law authorizes the Minister of Defense to call up reservists in emergency circumstances if the minister is satisfied that state security requires it. Those called up may serve for as long as the order remains in effect. The author emphasizes that the law expressly refers to emergency circumstances, not merely to a complex situation, a prolonged operational need, or multiple fronts.

An Alternative Legal Arrangement

Section 9 of the same law regulates reserve service in a special situation and establishes a more limited mechanism. The article cites a threshold of 25 days and a requirement to explain in writing why no other suitable measure is available. The author believes that the duration of the period itself may be amended by law, but that the hierarchy among routine conditions, a special situation, and emergency circumstances—as well as the restrictions, the duty to provide reasons, and oversight—must be preserved.

Who Can Intervene

The Knesset can amend the legislation and establish a framework suited to the current situation. In the author’s view, the IDF Chief of Staff and the General Staff can, even without legislative amendments, voluntarily set a quota of days, notice periods, and intervals between periods of service; the Ministry of Finance does not have formal authority to revoke the order, but it can exert influence through funding. If these mechanisms do not operate, the author raises the possibility of petitioning the High Court of Justice on the grounds that the prolonged practice exceeds the bounds of reasonableness. However, such a petition has not yet been heard, and its outcome is unknown.

The Cost of Prolonged Mobilization

According to Bank of Israel data cited in the article, payments and grants to reservists in 2025 alone totaled approximately 27 billion shekels. The Chief Economist Division at the Ministry of Finance estimated the monthly cost to the economy of such service at approximately 68,000 shekels for each reservist aged 31 to 39. At the beginning of 2026, a government resolution set a threshold of 55 days of reserve service per year, but according to the source, the IDF is not meeting it, and there is no separate mechanism for addressing any overrun.

What this means for you

For a reservist, the continued validity of the open-ended “Order 8” means the possibility of repeated and prolonged mobilization without the restrictions that apply under arrangements for less severe emergencies. Possible restrictions could be established through an amendment to the law, internal IDF rules, or judicial review, but the source does not report that any of these avenues has already resulted in the order being revoked or restricted.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings