The publication of the administrative petition filed by Lieutenant Colonel Aryeh Amidaror, who served as the intelligence officer for the Gaza Division on October 7, reveals the arguments raised by the officer in his legal battle to continue his military service. The petition was filed following the military's decision to terminate his permanent service contract, a process that ended with the court rejecting his requests. At the core of his arguments, Amidaror claimed that his dismissal from the IDF was carried out in an "arbitrary, discriminatory, and selective" manner, adding that he is the only officer paying a heavy personal and financial price for systemic failures.
Amidaror's attorneys argued during the hearing that the officer feels he is the subject of a "targeted elimination," noting that the State Attorney's Office withheld access to internal investigations that served as the basis for the opinion of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Major General Tamir Yadai. Amidaror emphasized that even before the massacre, he worked to challenge conventions and instructed Warrant Officer V. to conduct exercises to understand enemy capabilities.
Conversely, in its official response to the petition, the State clarified that the administrative procedure was conducted lawfully. According to the State's position, the Deputy Chief of Staff's opinion was based on in-depth investigations indicating significant professional errors, both on the night of October 7 and in the months preceding it. It was noted that Amidaror's conduct fell short of the expectations for an intelligence officer required to challenge existing perceptions.
The State further argued that the demand to transfer the decision-making power to an external entity lacks a normative basis in military regulations, and that the military's authority to determine its own personnel is at the heart of its command responsibility. Counsel for Amidaror questioned the criteria for selecting dismissed officers, claiming that parallel commanders did not face similar consequences. The State Attorney's Office replied that the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted within an orderly framework and that this was an administrative, not criminal, proceeding, wherein not all military investigations are subject to the petitioner's review. The court ultimately rejected the petition and allowed the proceedings to continue as determined by the military system.