The Media Line: Police Say Ex-IDF Legal Chief Found Safe After Coastal Search Tied to Leak Scandal Roils Israel’s Justice System

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

Police Say Ex-IDF Legal Chief Found Safe After Coastal Search Tied to Leak Scandal Roils Israel’s Justice System

The confirmed safety of former Military Advocate General Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi gives way to a fight over who leads the Sde Teiman investigation and how to police alleged misconduct

By Steven Ganot/The Media Line

Israeli police and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) mounted a major search operation on Sunday along northern Tel Aviv’s shoreline for Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the former military advocate general (MAG), after her car was found near Hatzuk/Cliff Beach, and relatives reported her missing. Hours later, police said she was alive and well. The search was launched as investigators and politicians wrestled with the fallout from her admission that, while in office, she authorized the release of a video connected to suspected abuse of a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman military detention facility—an episode that has opened a criminal inquiry and exposed sharp disagreements over who should oversee it and how the state should handle allegations of wrongdoing by its own troops.

Police and first responders converged on the beach area Sunday morning after the vehicle was located, and Tomer-Yerushalmi could not be reached by phone. The IDF said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir instructed the Operations Directorate “to use all the means at the IDF’s disposal in order to try to locate her as soon as possible,” with aerial and ground assets supporting the search. The army also said it would deploy “all available IDF resources” to assist the police. By evening, authorities signaled that fears for her safety had eased, even as the legal and political ramifications from her resignation continued to widen.

Tomer-Yerushalmi, appointed MAG in 2021, stepped down on Friday after acknowledging she approved the release of video evidence from the Sde Teiman case to a television outlet. In her resignation letter, she wrote: “I approved the leaking of evidence to the media in an attempt to confront the false propaganda against the law enforcement officials in the military. I take full responsibility for all of the evidence that was sent out to the media by this unit. Based on this responsibility, I have also decided to conclude my role as the MAG.” In a separate exchange disclosed by the IDF, she told Zamir that “out of a deep sense of responsibility toward the IDF, the unit and my subordinates,” she authorized the release to counter “false propaganda against military law enforcement authorities” and that she accepted full responsibility for any materials provided to the media.

Her admission recast a months-long mystery about the leak into a direct confrontation over institutional boundaries and the rule of law. The Sde Teiman affair traces back to July 2024, when reservist soldiers were accused of abusing a detainee; six defendants were later sentenced in that matter, and separate footage of military police arriving to arrest reservists provoked demonstrations and a break-in at the facility by activists and several members of Knesset. Supporters of transparency argued the public needed to see that the system investigates and prosecutes misconduct. Critics countered that releasing evidence outside formal channels risks tainting trials, violating defendants’ rights, and eroding confidence in the legal process.

The dispute entered a new phase on Saturday when Justice Minister Yariv Levin informed Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara that she was barred from any role in the probe. Levin’s notice said she could not handle “the video itself,” assess alleged miscarriages of justice, or take part in appointing or supervising a successor to the MAG. He argued the restriction was warranted because of the attorney-general’s “personal involvement in the Sde Teiman case, and the high likelihood that you will be called to testify,” citing earlier positions submitted to the High Court of Justice that appeared inconsistent with the former MAG’s admission.

Baharav-Miara rejected that directive outright. “Your political involvement in the investigation is erroneous, baseless, and harmful,” she said, asserting that the justice minister lacked the authority to fence off the country’s top legal officer from a criminal inquiry. Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Gil Limon added in writing that the authority Levin claimed to wield “lacks any factual or legal basis, and is an attempt to illegally influence law-enforcement proceedings.” On Friday, Baharav-Miara ordered a criminal investigation into the leak on the same day Tomer-Yerushalmi resigned; within 24 hours, Levin attempted to sideline her.

Beyond the power struggle, the case has revived a core question for Israel’s civil-military governance: will the state investigate and, when warranted, prosecute soldiers accused of abusing detainees, and will elected officials stand behind those investigations even when they draw fire from coalition allies and activist groups? The Sde Teiman dossier includes allegations that reservists shoved an object into a detainee’s anus and fractured ribs, alongside medical documentation and the leaked footage. Defense lawyers have emphasized claims about process and prejudice stemming from the leak and have pressed for lesser charges; they have not focused on denying the event occurred, according to public case summaries.

The controversy has also laid bare the risks of vigilante actions. In one episode, extreme-right activists and allies forced their way into an IDF base in an attempt to disrupt arrests of soldier-suspects, arguing the troops were being humiliated or that detainees deemed terrorists had no meaningful rights. Legal officials responded that taking the law into one’s own hands undermines discipline and the chain of command, especially during wartime. The incident put pressure on the military legal division and police to show that accountability can be pursued without ceding control to street pressure.

At the same time, the episode unfolded against years of partisan trench warfare over the justice system. The corruption case against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shaped a climate in which leaks and counter-leaks became political weapons. Supporters of the legal establishment say sustained political attacks weakened public trust and encouraged a view that prosecutions are partisan; critics argue that elements of law enforcement responded with their own improper disclosures to influence opinion before trial. Into that fraught environment came the Sde Teiman leak: an admitted unauthorized disclosure by a senior legal official, now the subject of a criminal probe.

Former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant recently accused Tomer-Yerushalmi of having “deliberately lied” to him about the status of the leak investigation when he asked why it had stalled. Likud spokesperson Guy Levy blamed Attorney-General Baharav-Miara’s handling of the matter, charging: “All this madness we are seeing now is a direct result of the outrageous obstruction carried out by the attorney general for more than two weeks — she did not detain the military advocate general, did not seize her phones, did not take her statement, and did not even place her under protective custody. The attorney general must be detained and questioned tonight.” The attorney-general’s office did not publicly respond to Levy’s remarks.

The institutional stakes extend beyond Israel’s borders. Whether Israel’s legal system can credibly investigate alleged offenses by its own forces factors into assessments by international partners and tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. Successive US administrations have said that credible, independent investigations help sustain security cooperation and political support. Advocates of strong internal accountability argue that when credible evidence points to serious abuse, pursuing cases in Israeli courts is the best way to uphold standards, counter hostile narratives, and maintain backing in Washington and European capitals. Skeptics worry that publicizing such cases during conflict unfairly tars soldiers and fuels adversarial propaganda. Tomer-Yerushalmi framed her decision as an effort to counter “false propaganda,” but the method she chose—unauthorized release of evidence—has brought criminal scrutiny and a crisis of confidence in the very institutions she said she sought to defend.

Inside government, the clash over who directs the investigation could reshape relations between the political echelon and the attorney-general for years. Levin’s move to block Baharav-Miara is an unusual step by a sitting justice minister, raising questions about ministerial power to define conflicts of interest and sideline the state’s chief legal adviser. The attorney-general’s office counters that no law permits a minister to fence her out of a criminal file, particularly one involving senior officials and competing claims about prior court submissions. The dispute touches the appointment and oversight of the next MAG, with Levin insisting Baharav-Miara should have no role and critics warning of an attempt to politicize a professional legal process.

Meanwhile, investigators continue to untangle the timeline. According to public reporting, the leak investigation initially stalled; an internal review created the impression of progress while leaving core questions unresolved. The probe regained traction after a polygraph during a routine interview reportedly cracked the case open. Tomer-Yerushalmi’s resignation followed shortly afterward, along with her written acceptance of responsibility. Police indicated she would be questioned under caution as part of the criminal inquiry into suspected offenses that could include leaking classified material, obstructing an investigation, and making a false affidavit.

Sunday’s events brought the human dimension back into view. The discovery of Tomer-Yerushalmi’s car, the mobilization of search teams, and the eventual confirmation that she was alive served as a reminder that even the fiercest institutional battles involve people who have served at senior levels under extreme pressures. The IDF’s posture—devoting resources to locate a recently departed commanding officer while the military justice apparatus examines her conduct—reflects the dual commitments of duty of care and duty to enforce rules.

The coming period is likely to feature decisions on several fronts: whether charges will be filed over the leak and any alleged cover-up; whether the justice minister can lawfully curtail the attorney-general’s oversight; how and by whom a new MAG will be selected; and how the state intends to handle the broader questions of detainee abuse, activist interference, and political rhetoric aimed at investigators. Each track points to the same test: can Israel demonstrate that its institutions are strong enough to examine the powerful, protect defendants’ rights, and sustain public confidence during a prolonged conflict?

For all the attention on the leak, the heart of the matter remains whether the legal system, supported by the political leadership, will move forward with credible investigations when evidence of serious abuse comes to light. One Sde Teiman case has already produced a conviction, showing that misconduct can be proven without compromising national security secrets. The path forward need not rely on unauthorized disclosures. Democracies typically manage these tensions through structured mechanisms: military police investigations, prosecutor oversight, judicial review, and public reporting that educates the public without jeopardizing trials. If those channels are defended and used well, they can make the case for accountability more persuasive than any leaked video ever could.

For now, Israeli politics is grappling with intertwined stories: a high-profile search that ended with reassurance about a former general’s fate, and a high-stakes contest over who gets to decide what accountability looks like in wartime. How leaders handle both will shape not only the resolution of a single case but the credibility of the justice system far beyond the coastline where Sunday’s search began.