How the Military Advocate General’s Corps Examines Alleged Misconduct, and What It Has Published
The Military Advocate General’s Corps reported 74 criminal investigations opened as at 3 August 2024, on its own count, under a reasonable-suspicion standard.
The Israel Defense Forces’ Military Advocate General’s Corps reported 74 criminal investigations opened into alleged misconduct in the context of the war in Gaza as at 3 August 2024. The count is the Corps’ own count of its own processes, and it is a count of investigations opened rather than of findings, indictments or convictions. It is also a function of the threshold the Corps applies, which the Corps publishes alongside it.
| Figure | What it counts | Who published it | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| 74 | Criminal investigations opened, the Corps’ own count of its own processes | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
| 44 | Of those, investigations concerning the death of detainees held by the IDF | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
| 13 | Of those, investigations into alleged pillaging or stealing | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
| 8 | Of those, investigations into alleged detainee mistreatment | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
| 6 and 3 | Of those, alleged illegal use of force, and alleged destruction of civilian property without military necessity | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
| Over 1,000 | Incidents referred to the General Staff’s Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism, a floor | Military Advocate General’s Corps | As at 3 August 2024 |
What threshold produces the count of 74?
Reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and the Corps states in the same publication what that does not include. In its own words: “death or injury to a civilian or harm to civilian objects, while tragic and regrettable, in most cases do not by themselves indicate a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, as they can be explained as reasonable aftermath of lawful operational activity.”
That sentence is what makes the number interpretable. A count of investigations opened is a function of the standard applied to open one, so 74 set against a far larger incident count, with no threshold stated, is a ratio a reader cannot read.
What are the 74 investigations about?
The Corps published a breakdown by subject, and detainee deaths are most of it.
| Subject of investigation | Number | Who published it |
|---|---|---|
| Death of detainees held by the IDF | 44 | Military Advocate General’s Corps |
| Alleged pillaging or stealing | 13 | Military Advocate General’s Corps |
| Alleged detainee mistreatment | 8 | Military Advocate General’s Corps |
| Alleged illegal use of force | 6 | Military Advocate General’s Corps |
| Destruction of civilian property without military necessity | 3 | Military Advocate General’s Corps |
Source: IDF Military Advocate General’s Corps, Addressing Alleged Misconduct in the Context of the War in Gaza, updated 3 August 2024. All figures are the Corps’ own count of its own processes.
What happens before an investigation is opened?
A separate body assesses the facts. The Corps reported that over 1,000 incidents were identified as requiring factual assessment and referred to the General Staff’s Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism, with hundreds still undergoing material collection and assessment at the time of writing.
The Corps states that the Mechanism was created during the 2014 Gaza conflict on a recommendation of the Turkel Commission, and now operates as “a permanent body which conducts factual assessments”.
What does the Corps say about its own independence?
Two things, in its own words. On its position: “The MAG is subject only to the law on professional matters and operates with full independence.” On review of its decisions: they 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.”
Both are the Corps’ own description of its own arrangements, published by a party to the events it examines, and this page reports them as that.
What standard does the IDF publish for its own conduct?
The Spirit of the IDF, the army’s published ethical code. Its Purity of Arms value states, in the IDF’s own words: “An IDF soldier will only exercise their power or use their weapon in order to fulfill their mission and only when necessary. They will maintain their humanity during combat and routine times. The soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”
- Human Life: the soldier “will recognize the critical importance of human life”, and in combat “will put themselves and their fellow soldiers at risk only to the extent required to fulfill their mission”.
- Discipline: the soldier “will ensure they are only giving out legal orders, and do not follow illegal orders”.
- The remaining stated values are Professionalism, Camaraderie and a Sense of Mission.
This is the standard the IDF sets for itself. It is evidence of the requirement and never evidence of conduct against it, and quoting the code establishes nothing about any particular action.
What has Israel published about its own failures?
One example is on the record from the Israel Security Agency. The agency published findings of its own investigation into 7 October 2023 in 2025, reporting that Hamas invasion plans were detected by Israeli intelligence in 2018 and again, in greater detail, in 2022. In the agency’s own words, “these plans were never fully processed as an imminent threat, which led to a lack of preparation.” The agency states that the attack could have been prevented had it acted differently.
That is a party investigating itself, and the findings reach a reader through press reporting of the agency’s publication.
Where these figures come from
Every figure on this page is a party’s own count of its own processes, published by the body being counted, and none is independently verified. The 74 are investigations opened, and may never be restated as findings, indictments or convictions.
The count is a function of the reasonable-suspicion threshold quoted above, so the threshold travels with the figure wherever it is used. The “over 1,000” referrals is a floor and is not restated here as an exact number, and it may not be divided into the 74 to produce a rate, because the two count different objects at different stages. The ethical code is doctrine and carries no quantity at all; the Security Agency findings are the agency’s account of its own conduct, relayed through press reporting.
Questions
How many criminal investigations has the IDF opened over Gaza?
74 as at 3 August 2024, on the Military Advocate General’s Corps’ own count.
Are those convictions?
No. They are investigations opened. The Corps publishes no findings, indictment or conviction count in that publication.
What is the threshold for opening one?
Reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The Corps states that civilian death or injury in armed conflict in most cases does not by itself indicate such a suspicion, because it can be explained as the reasonable aftermath of lawful operational activity.
What are most of the investigations about?
The death of detainees held by the IDF, which accounts for 44 of the 74.
How many incidents were reviewed but not investigated criminally?
The Corps reported over 1,000 incidents referred for factual assessment, with hundreds still under assessment. That is a floor, and it is not a count of incidents rejected.
What is the Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism?
A General Staff body that conducts factual assessments. The Corps states it was created during the 2014 Gaza conflict on a recommendation of the Turkel Commission and is now permanent.
Who reviews the Military Advocate General’s decisions?
The Corps states that its decisions are subject to civilian oversight and can be challenged before Israel’s Attorney General and before the Israeli Supreme Court.
Is the Corps independent?
The Corps states that the Military Advocate General “is subject only to the law on professional matters and operates with full independence”. That is the Corps’ own description of its own position.
Are these figures verified by anyone outside the IDF?
No. They are the IDF’s own counts of its own processes, and this page labels them as that rather than corroborating them.
What does the IDF’s ethical code require?
Its Purity of Arms value states that a soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners, and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.
Does the code prove anything about conduct?
No. It records what the IDF requires of itself, and it is not evidence about any particular action.
What did the Israel Security Agency say about 7 October?
That Israeli intelligence detected Hamas invasion plans in 2018 and in greater detail in 2022, that the plans “were never fully processed as an imminent threat, which led to a lack of preparation”, and that the attack could have been prevented had the agency acted differently.
Is that an independent inquiry?
No. It is the agency’s investigation into its own conduct, and it is labelled here as that.
When were these figures last updated?
The Corps publication is dated 24 February 2024 and updated 3 August 2024. The Security Agency findings were published in 2025.
Sources
- Israel Defense Forces. The Spirit of the IDF: the ethical code and its values. idf.il. Official record (published doctrine).
- 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 record (a party’s own reported counts).
- Israel Security Agency, 2025. Findings of its own investigation into 7 October. Reported by Ynetnews and The Times of Israel. Official record (a party’s own inquiry into its own conduct).