Three Force 100 soldiers are taking their legal battle to the next level, launching a new offensive—this time against the ousted Military Advocate General and the State Attorney.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the Jerusalem District Court, the soldiers are demanding NIS 18 million in compensation for a series of wrongs they say were committed against them throughout the affair, including “false suspicions, false arrest, invasion of privacy, defamation, the wrongful filing of an indictment and the cover-up of the investigation into the leak.”

The lawsuit follows an initial civil proceeding in the Magistrate’s Court against journalist Guy Peleg and Channel 12’s news company. Now, due to the size of the damages being sought and the allegations raised, the case is moving to the District Court. The lawsuit was filed by attorney Menashe Yado of the Honenu organization and attorneys Dr. Itamar Miron and Elchanan Miron of the Miron, Prives, Ben-Zion law firm.

The defendants named in the new lawsuit include former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, former Chief Military Prosecutor Matan Solomash, Lior Ayash, the Military Advocate General’s Office spokeswoman, the Military Police, the IDF, Guy Peleg and the Israeli News Company, as well as Guy Gofman, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, Gal Asael, Alon Altman, the State Attorney’s Office, the Israel Police and the State of Israel.

The total amount sought in the lawsuit is NIS 18 million. The complaint details a series of alleged damages, including NIS 1.5 million for falsely being suspected of a serious offense, NIS 450,000 for 15 days of false arrest, NIS 3 million for defamation, NIS 1 million for a wrongful indictment and NIS 500,000 for the alleged cover-up of the investigation into the leak, in addition to other damages.

The lawsuit does not focus solely on the media publication in 2024, but on a chain of events that the soldiers say began with the false suspicions against them, their highly publicized arrests and the leaking of investigative materials, and continued with the criminal proceedings and the manner in which the investigation into the leak was handled.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs raise particularly serious allegations regarding the conduct of authorities after the leak was exposed. They claim that those responsible for investigating the leak refrained for months from opening an effective investigation and that a subsequent inquiry was structured in a way that, they allege, could not have uncovered the full truth. They further claim that misleading representations were made to the High Court of Justice regarding the leak and the extent of exposure to the leaked materials.

According to the lawsuit, defendants, including senior officials in the prosecution and law enforcement system, covered for those responsible for the leak and even submitted a position paper to the High Court that the plaintiffs claim was misleading.

The plaintiffs say this subjected them to prolonged legal torment, beginning with the leaking of the investigative materials on August 6, 2024, and continuing until the indictment was withdrawn on March 12, 2026.

The lawsuit further alleges that State Attorney Amit Aisman and other officials were responsible for handling the investigation into the leak but failed for months to order a criminal investigation. The plaintiffs claim that instead of identifying those responsible for the leak and investigating how the materials were transferred to the media, actions were taken that delayed and obstructed efforts to uncover what happened.

The plaintiffs further argue that even after the leak was exposed, the system was obligated to reexamine the conduct of those involved rather than settle for an internal review.

At the same time, the lawsuit sharply criticizes the criminal proceedings themselves. According to the complaint, the Military Advocate General and other officials held a hearing for the soldiers at the request of their defense attorneys but rejected their arguments concerning the leaking of the investigative materials, which the plaintiffs claim constituted a severe conflict of interest.

An indictment was subsequently filed, and the soldiers contend that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed. The plaintiffs point in particular to the decision by the current Military Advocate General, Itai Ofir, to withdraw the indictment. They argue that the indictment’s withdrawal following a new hearing and the acceptance of the defense’s arguments is a significant indication that the original proceedings were flawed, and that had the alleged wrongdoing not occurred, the period during which they were forced to contend with a serious indictment could have been prevented or at least substantially shortened.

Attorney Menashe Yado of Honenu, who represents the soldiers, said: “This is a complex lawsuit against powerful entities, including the former senior command of the Military Advocate General’s Office and Channel 12 News, the most powerful media organization in Israel, which joined together to severely harm the soldiers, as well as against the heads of law enforcement agencies who are protecting the Military Advocate General out of ideological identification and institutional closeness to her, while severely undermining the rule of law and the individual’s equality of rights when facing the law enforcement system.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)