Can an IDF Legal Adviser Stop a Strike?
Israel’s Foreign Ministry states IDF legal opinions are binding on individual attacks; a senior commander then approves, suspends or aborts.
Legal opinions of the Military Advocate General’s Corps “are binding upon the IDF, including with regard to the legality of individual attacks,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated in its May 2015 report on the 2014 Gaza conflict. In the process that report describes, a legal adviser gives a binding opinion on a planned attack, and a senior commander then approves it, suspends it or aborts it. The IDF states that the decision to strike rests with an authorized operational commander, and the IDF’s own presentation “Process of target attack”, supplied to IsraelFact, puts legal review at step 7 of 9, before commanders’ approval.
| Figure | What it counts | Who published it | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Options open to a senior commander once the binding legal opinion is in: approve, suspend or abort, the Ministry’s account of the IDF’s process | Ministry of Foreign Affairs | 2014 conflict, report dated May 2015 |
| 2007 | Year since which the IDF’s International Law Department has been expanded in hostilities by “dozens” of law of armed conflict experts | Ministry of Foreign Affairs | Since 2007, as stated in May 2015 |
| 9 | Steps in the IDF’s targeting process, with legal review at step 7 and commanders’ approval at step 8, the IDF’s own account | Israel Defense Forces presentation, supplied to IsraelFact | Undated presentation |
| 5 | Conditions on a redacted IDF target card whose legal review is marked “Conditional”; 4 are ticked | Israel Defense Forces presentation, supplied to IsraelFact | Undated presentation |
| 2 | Bodies before which a Military Advocate General decision can be challenged: the Attorney General and the Supreme Court | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
The Ministry states a legal adviser’s opinion is binding on the IDF
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sets out the position of the IDF’s lawyers in paragraph 238 of its May 2015 report, as its own account of the IDF’s structure:
- Military lawyers “are not subordinate to the commanders they advise”
- The Military Advocate General “is appointed by the Minister of Defence (a civilian authority), not by the IDF Chief of General Staff”
- High Command Orders state the Military Advocate General is “subject to no authority but the law”
- “Legal opinions of the MAG Corps are binding upon the IDF, including with regard to the legality of individual attacks”
The Ministry’s Key Legal Aspects paper of 2 November 2023 restates the reporting line for the current war: “IDF legal advisers are not subject to the IDF chain of command on professional matters, but report directly to the Military Advocate General, whose conduct is subject to scrutiny by the Israeli Attorney General.”
A senior commander has 3 options after the legal opinion
The Ministry’s May 2015 report describes pre-planned attacks as passing through “a highly-regulated, multi-tiered process,” and names the legal adviser’s part in it: “a legal adviser’s binding opinion regarding the legality of an attack, plus any stipulations for its execution.” Then, in the Ministry’s words, “a senior commander may (i) approve the attack (where appropriate, subject to certain conditions), (ii) suspend the attack (for instance, because more information about potential collateral damage is necessary), or (iii) abort the attack altogether.”
| Stage | What the Ministry says happens | Paragraph |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | Information on the target and its surroundings is collected | 245 |
| Objectives | Commanders set the objectives of the attack | 245 |
| Planning | Operational planners assess means and methods | 245 |
| Legal review | A legal adviser gives a “binding opinion regarding the legality of an attack” | 245 |
| Decision | A senior commander approves, suspends or aborts | 245 |
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The 2014 Gaza Conflict: Factual and Legal Aspects, Chapter VI, dated May 2015.
The IDF states the same division for the current war, as its own account, on its data-technology page of 18 June 2024: “The decision whether to strike is made by the commander after considering this information and input, as well as operational, policy, humanitarian, and legal considerations.” A question the IDF added to that page on 14 September 2026 gives its answer in one line: “The decision to approve an attack rests with an authorized operational commander.”
The IDF’s presentation puts legal review at step 7 of 9
The IDF’s presentation “Process of target attack”, supplied to IsraelFact and not published by the IDF, lays out its targeting process in 9 steps, from intelligence collection to execution. Legal review is step 7 and commanders’ approval is step 8, the IDF’s own account of its procedure.
The IDF’s presentation describes the approving commander, on its slide 16, as “an officer who has been professionally and operationally qualified for this role and possesses the authority to authorize strikes against designated targets.”
A redacted IDF target card marks its legal review “Conditional”
The IDF’s presentation shows a target card, redacted as supplied, whose legal review carries the status “Conditional”. The objective is recorded as “Arms cache and operational meeting place in a residential building”, the condition is “the provision of an effective advance warning”, and the recommendation is “Real-time visual surveillance”. Its checklist carries 5 conditions:
| Condition on the card | Ticked |
|---|---|
| Real-time visual surveillance | Yes |
| Nighttime | Yes |
| Individual warning to civilians in the target | Yes |
| Legal conditions | Yes |
| Individual warning to civilians in surrounding structures | No |
Source: Israel Defense Forces, “Process of target attack”, slide 15, supplied to IsraelFact; not published by the IDF.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reproduces a Target Card from the 2014 conflict in its May 2015 report and records the same shape: “the legal advisers conditioned their approval on the provision of an effective advance warning,” recommended “real-time visual surveillance,” and the commander required “that the attack be conducted at night.”
The Ministry says fact-specific legal advice is not always available in real time
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs states in paragraph 247 of its May 2015 report that “the exigencies of combat do not always allow for a targeting process involving this level of deliberate pre-planning and pre-approval,” and that “certain input, such as fact-specific legal advice, will not be available in real time.” For those targets, in the Ministry’s words, commanders “rely on the training they have received, as well as directives that specify the checks and authorisations required prior to carrying out attacks.”
The Military Advocate General answers to the law, the Corps states
The Military Advocate General’s Corps describes its own position on its page updated 3 August 2024:
- “The MAG is subject only to the law on professional matters and operates with full independence”
- Its decisions are “subject to civilian oversight and can be challenged on appeal in front of Israel’s Attorney General, as well as before the Israeli Supreme Court”
The Ministry’s May 2015 report adds, in paragraph 240, that “since 2007, in times of active hostilities the International Law Department has been expanded by dozens of additional Law of Armed Conflict experts,” deployed to the Regional Command and Divisional levels as the Operational Law Apparatus.
No Israeli publication read here counts strikes stopped on legal advice
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the IDF describe the legal adviser’s role and publish no figures for how it is used. Absent from the Israeli publications read here:
- A count of attacks a legal adviser found unlawful, since 2014 or since October 2023
- A count of attacks approved on conditions, suspended or aborted after legal review
- A count of time-sensitive attacks carried out without fact-specific legal advice
Where these figures come from
Every statement here is a party’s own account of its own procedure: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the IDF’s conduct in 2014, the IDF and its Military Advocate General’s Corps on the current war. They record the stated process, not how any strike was decided. The May 2015 report describes 2014, not the current war. The presentation is the IDF’s own and was supplied to IsraelFact, not published by the IDF, and its target card is one redacted example, not a count. The 2007 in the table is a year, not a number of lawyers.
Questions readers ask
Is an IDF legal adviser’s opinion binding?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that legal opinions of the Military Advocate General’s Corps “are binding upon the IDF, including with regard to the legality of individual attacks.”
Who decides whether a strike goes ahead?
The IDF states that “the decision to approve an attack rests with an authorized operational commander,” after operational, policy, humanitarian and legal considerations.
What can a commander do after the legal review?
In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ account of 2014, a senior commander may approve the attack, suspend it or abort it altogether.
Where does legal review sit in the IDF’s targeting process?
The IDF’s presentation, supplied to IsraelFact, puts legal review at step 7 of 9, before commanders’ approval at step 8.
Do IDF legal advisers answer to the commanders they advise?
No, on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ account: military lawyers “are not subordinate to the commanders they advise” and report to the Military Advocate General.
Who appoints the Military Advocate General?
The Minister of Defence, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “not by the IDF Chief of General Staff.”
Can a legal adviser attach conditions to a strike?
Yes, on both Israeli accounts read here: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes “stipulations for its execution,” and the IDF’s presentation shows a legal review marked “Conditional” on an advance warning.
Is there always a lawyer before a strike?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that for time-sensitive targets “certain input, such as fact-specific legal advice, will not be available in real time,” and commanders rely on training and directives.
How many lawyers does the IDF deploy in wartime?
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that since 2007 “dozens of additional” law of armed conflict experts join the International Law Department in hostilities; it gives no exact number.
Can a Military Advocate General decision be challenged?
The Military Advocate General’s Corps states its decisions can be challenged before Israel’s Attorney General and the Supreme Court.
How often have lawyers stopped a strike?
No Israeli publication read here gives a count of strikes found unlawful, conditioned, suspended or aborted after legal review.
Sources
- Israel Defense Forces, 2024, updated 2026. The IDF’s Use of Data Technologies in Intelligence Processing. Dated 18 June 2024, last updated 14 September 2026. idf.il. Official or primary record, a party’s own account of its own procedures.
- Israel Defense Forces, 2026. “Process of target attack”, a presentation on targeting and civilians, slides 6, 15 and 16. Supplied to IsraelFact; not published by the IDF. The IDF’s own account of its procedure.
- Israel Defense Forces, Military Advocate General’s Corps, 2024. Addressing Alleged Misconduct in the Context of the War in Gaza. Published 24 February 2024, updated 3 August 2024. idf.il. Official or primary record, the party’s own account.
- Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015. The 2014 Gaza Conflict: Factual and Legal Aspects, Chapter VI: IDF Conduct of Operations During the 2014 Gaza Conflict. Dated May 2015, released 14 June 2015. gov.il. Official or primary record, a party’s own account of its own conduct.
- Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2023. Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Key Legal Aspects. Updated to 2 November 2023. gov.il. Official or primary record, a party’s own statement of its legal position.
