The 'Force 100' soldiers' case has reached the Jerusalem District Court in a major 18 million NIS civil lawsuit. Filed by three soldiers represented by the Honenu organization and the Miron, Prives, Ben-Zion law firm, the suit targets 17 defendants. The list includes senior officials such as Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, as well as state bodies like the IDF and the Israel Police.
Journalist Guy Peleg and Channel 12's news company were also named. According to a report by ice, the lawsuit stems from alleged grievances occurring between August 2024 and March 2026. The plaintiffs claim the matter concluded on March 12, 2026, when current Military Advocate General Itai Ophir decided to drop the indictment following a second hearing. The plaintiffs allege the process was marred by serious failures, including a prolonged failure by enforcement authorities to effectively investigate the leaking of investigation materials, presenting misleading information to the High Court, and covering up for those involved in the leak.
The statement of claim details damages sought for various heads of loss, including false accusation of a serious crime, 15 days of alleged wrongful imprisonment, defamation, filing a flawed indictment, and a cover-up of the leak investigation. The total claim amounts to 18 million NIS. The case appears to follow a previous proceeding in the Magistrates' Court, which was transferred to the District Court due to the complexity of the claims and the amount sought.
Honenu stated that the lawsuit is directed at powerful figures who allegedly acted in concert to harm the soldiers, violating the rule of law and individual rights. It should be emphasized that these are allegations in a civil proceeding that has yet to be determined, and the defendants have not yet presented their defense in court. The issue of handling leaks of investigation materials and their impact on those involved in criminal proceedings lies at the heart of this legal debate, as it touches on individual rights versus enforcement systems and the implications of media exposure on pending cases.