The 'Sde Teiman' Video Leak Affair and the Process of Appointing a New Military Advocate General
The Supreme Court in Jerusalem for a petition regarding the Sde Teiman Military Base, January 01, 2025 | Photo by Oren Ben Hakoon/Flash90
The 'Sde Teiman scandal' that has unnerved both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel’s legal establishment, is actually three sperate but related affairs.
It involves the alleged abuse of a Palestinian detainee by soldiers at a military detention facility, the break-in by a multitude of protesters into the Sde Teiman base (where the detention facility was located) and an additional IDF base, and the leak of a video documenting the incident and allegations of cover-up and misleading judicial authorities. The controversy raises profound questions about the rule of law within the military and the independence of the IDF’s legal system.
- The alleged abuse incident itself. Indictments were filed against five of the soldiers allegedly involved, and the case is still pending before the military court
- The break-in by a government minister, members of Knesset, and of Israeli civilians into IDF bases in protest against the investigation of the initial incident by military police. These events are still under police investigation, with some of the elected officials claiming parliamentary immunity and refusing to appear for questions despite being summoned by the authorities.
- The leak of the video allegedly documenting the abuse to a TV news broadcast, and allegations of a subsequent cover-up and false reporting.
This explainer addresses the third element. It covers the background that led to the resignation of the Military Advocate General (MAG), the process for appointing a new MAG, and the wider implications for the rule of law in Israel.
On October 29, 2025, the IDF Spokesperson announced that "a criminal investigation has been opened regarding publication of the Sde Teiman video, and the involvement of individuals in the Military Advocate General’s Corps is being examined". The Attorney General further announced that the criminal investigation was opened following information recently received, and that it is being conducted by the Israel Police Investigations and Intelligence Division, with guidance from the State Attorney’s Office. The Supreme Court, where a petition regarding the investigation of the leak was pending, was notified of the opening of the investigation.
On October 31, 2025, the MAG, Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, informed the IDF Chief of Staff that she was resigning from office. In her letter of resignation, the MAG admitted that she had released the video to the media and that she bears full responsibility for her actions. She refrained from addressing additional claims raised regarding a cover-up of the probe into the leak and misleading the Supreme Court on this matter. Chief of Staff Lt. General Eyal Zamir accepted the MAG’s request to leave her post immediately and pledged to act "to stabilize the MAG Corps and to protect IDF soldiers".
Several accusations have been directed at the MAG and other officials:
- The leak of the video to a reporter which included footage from surveillance cameras at the "Sde Teiman" facility allegedly showing abuse of one of the detainees by those who served there which and constitutes part of the evidentiary materials in the criminal case against them.
- A cover-up and attempt to minimize the probe of the leak. An internal preliminary examination team was formed, headed by the Deputy MAG and comprised of other officials who were said to be not involved in the criminal proceedings regarding the alleged abuse. It is alleged that this course of action – an internal examination rather than an external criminal investigation – was meant to cover up and deflect the inquiry into the source of the leak. The internal examination concluded that the source of the leak could not be identified and recommended ending the inquiry without launching a criminal investigation. All this, it is alleged, while the MAG and other officials knew all along who the source of the leak was.
- Misleading the Supreme Court regarding the probe of the leak’s source. Against the backdrop of the leak and the criminal proceedings against those allegedly involved in abusing the Palestinian detainee, several petitions were filed with the Supreme Court (HCJ 33366-09-24, HCJ 34183-10-24), asking the Court to order a criminal or disciplinary investigation into the leak of the video by a body other than the MAG Corps or the Military Police. In response, the state replied that those involved in the preliminary examination were not tainted by a conflict of interest, and that the Deputy MAG was in contact with the Attorney General regarding handling the matter. The state further claimed that contrary to the petitioners’ position, many people had been exposed to the video before it was leaked, making it difficult to trace the source of the leak. In the court proceedings, it was agreed by the state that the Deputy Attorney General (Special Assignments) would oversee the examination and that the petitioners would retain the right to appeal their conclusions to the Attorney General within 60 days. Against this backdrop, in a judgment dated February 2, 2025, the Court decided to dismiss the petitions after they had exhausted themselves.
Subsequently, another petition was filed with the Supreme Court (HCJ 74997-08-25), in which the petitioners again asked the Court to order the opening of a criminal investigation into the leak’s source that would not be conducted by the MAG Corps or the Military Police, or alternatively, to swiftly complete the above preliminary examination. In the state response filed on September 16, 2025, the Court was informed that the preliminary examination had concluded and that there were no further investigative measures available, and that there was no basis to launch a criminal investigation into the leak of the video.
The investigation of the former MAG – and possibly of additional officers in the MAG Corps – are that they knowingly misled officials in the justice system, including the Attorney General, as well as the Supreme Court, by having the state claim that investigative efforts to discover the source of the leak had been exhausted when, all the while, they knew very well what that source was.
As noted, in her resignation letter the former MAG accepted responsibility for the leak of the video, though it is unclear from the letter who else in the MAG Corps was within the circle of those involved.
The MAG’s role is essential in the IDF and in the justice system, and it has statutory anchoring in the Military Justice Law. The MAG is the authority empowered to determine the interpretation of the law for the military authorities (i.e., what is lawful and what is unlawful) (IDF Order 2.0613 "The MAG Corps", sec. 13), and holds far-reaching powers in law enforcement concerning IDF service members.
The MAG is subject to the professional guidance of the Attorney General. This principle was established many years ago in Supreme Court jurisprudence (HCJ 4723/96 Atiya v. Attorney General) and is now anchored in the Attorney General’s directives ("The Military Advocate General", AG Directive 9.1002).
IDF regulations explicitly provide that despite the MAG’s command subordination to the Chief of Staff and membership in the General Staff, in professional matters "he is subject to none but the authority of the law" (IDF Order 2.0613 "The MAG Corps", sec. 9(a)). Hence the importance of ensuring the MAG’s independence as a central "gatekeeper" and his/her non-dependence on superiors on processional matters.
The importance of ensuring the MAG’s professional independence from superiors is also reflected in the manner of appointment, which was given specific legislative treatment years ago and has been the subject of deliberations by public commissions over the past decade:
- Section 177(a) of the Military Justice Law 1955 states that: "The Minister of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Staff, shall appoint a Military Advocate General who is a military advocate and has at least seven years of legal experience". ("Military advocate", under sec. 177(c), is an officer who has at least four years of legal experience appointed by the Chief of Staff on the MAG’s recommendation.)
- The Turkel Commission (established by the government following the 2010 flotilla incident, and which also examined mechanisms for reviewing and investigating complaints and allegations of violations of the laws of armed conflict) recommended that, to ensure the MAG’s independence, the method of appointment be changed so that the MAG would be appointed by the Minister of Defense, but on the basis of the recommendation of a professional-public committee similar in composition to the committee that recommends the appointment of the Attorney General. It was further recommended that the Attorney General serve as chair or a member of that committee (Recommendation 7: Independence of the MAG, pp. 389-392, 428 of the Turkel Report).
- The Ciechanover Team, established to examine implementation of the Turkel Report, decided to diverge from those recommendations and instead recommended: "The MAG will be appointed by the Minister of Defense upon the recommendation of the Chief of Staff and with the consent of the Attorney General. For this purpose, section 177 of the Military Justice Law, which regulates the appointment of the MAG, must be amended to anchor the appointment method in legislation" (sec. 79 of the Ciechanover Report).
- The Security Cabinet adopted the Ciechanover recommendations on July 3, 2016. However, the amendment to section 177 of the Military Justice Law was never completed. In practice, for the last two MAG appointments the Attorney General was involved and the appointments were made with his/her blessing.
- The bottom line —
- The authority to appoint a new MAG lies with the Minister of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Staff.
- Although the Cabinet’s decision to amend the law so that the Attorney General’s consent would be required has not yet been legislated, it would be proper for the Minister, the Chief of Staff, and the Attorney General to act accordingly, particularly under the current circumstances, when it is of utmost importance to restore public trust in the military justice system, in Israel and internationally, including by ensuring the MAG's professional independence.
Another complexity concerns appointing an acting MAG. Section 178A(a) of the Military Justice Law states that "if the MAG’s position becomes vacant, and so long as the new MAG has not begun to serve … his deputy shall carry out the functions incumbent upon the MAG".
The question is what to do if there are suspicions, not yet verified, that the current Deputy MAG is not free of involvement in the affair under investigation. It appears that the statute’s determination that the Deputy MAG serves as acting MAG is automatic and not subject to the discretion of the Chief of Staff or any other authority. The law grants the MAG numerous exclusive powers that require the position to be filled at all times (for example, the power to approve indictments in certain cases).
A more complex question may arise if the current Deputy MAG also leaves his position. Section 177(b) of the law provides that appointing a Deputy MAG is within the Chief of Staff’s authority upon the MAG’s recommendation. The law does not provide an answer as to how a Deputy MAG can be appointed in the absence of a MAG. Under these circumstances, institutionally and constitutionally, the proper course of action requires the involvement of the Attorney General.
Appointment of a new MAG
The affair now under investigation – the video leak and, especially, the allegations of a cover-up of the leak investigation and misleading the Supreme Court and justice-system officials about it — is an event that has unnerved both IDF and the legal system. A thorough investigation is essential for upholding the rule of law and for restoring public trust in the military justice system. Decisive action is now required by the Minister of Defense, the Chief of Staff, and the Attorney General to stabilize the military justice system and restore trust in it, by appointing a new MAG as soon as possible. This must be accompanied by the efficient advancement of the investigation ordered by the Attorney General.
In appointing a new MAG, it is important to insist on a proper appointment process and a worthy candidate with high legal and ethical stature. The appointment process must not be politicized, nor should the crisis be exploited to attack and weaken the justice system in general and the MAG’s independence in particular. It is essential that the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff act in concert with the Attorney General.
Ensuring accountability of IDF soldiers
This affair cannot serve as a pretext not to investigate and prosecute cases where there is reasonable suspicion of violations of the law of armed conflict and IDF orders, including in the context of the treatment of Palestinian detainees held by the IDF. This also applies to the ongoing criminal proceedings regarding the alleged abuse of the Palestinian detainee at the "Sde Teiman" facility.
In this context, the claims made by the Minister of Defense and many others in the political sphere and public discourse that the criminal proceedings constitute a "blood libel", and the calls to cancel the ongoing criminal proceedings are troubling.
Preserving the professional independence of our military justice system is vital not only to the rule of law but also to Israel’s legal and diplomatic resilience internationally, and thus to our ability to protect IDF service members from legal risks around the world. If the IDF justice system, headed by the MAG, is not perceived as professionally independent, Israel will struggle to argue that there is no place to advance overseas legal proceedings against soldiers and commanders alleged to have violated the law of armed conflict, and that the Israeli justice system should be given primacy in handling suspects. It should be noted that while in Israel the military justice system is responsible for investigating allegations of violations of the law of armed conflict by IDF service members, in most Western democracies this authority rests with the civilian justice system. As the Turkel Commission determined, the professional independence of the MAG and of MAG Corps officers is what ensures Israel's justice system compliance with international law.
