A dual British-Israeli soldier who faced legal challenges in the UK has lodged a formal complaint with the Israel Bar Association’s Tel Aviv District Ethics Committee. The complaint centers on an Israeli lawyer who contributed expert testimony for the prosecution against this soldier, referred to as Soldier A.
Background of the Legal Proceedings
As highlighted by The Jerusalem Post, the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) attempted to initiate a private prosecution against Soldier A, who was part of a reserve unit in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) following the events of October 7, 2023. On November 6, 2025, the ICJP sought a summons targeting the soldier under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, claiming that his role in the IDF constituted unlawful enlistment.
However, in a ruling dated April 8, 2026, Westminster Magistrates’ Court Judge Paul Goldspring rejected the ICJP’s application, deeming it “fundamentally misconceived in law” on the grounds that the Foreign Enlistment Act does not apply to dual nationals. The judge criticized the ICJP’s actions as “egregious” and mandated them to cover the costs incurred by Soldier A.
Expert Testimony and Its Implications
To construct their case, the ICJP engaged Israeli attorney Michal Pomeranz to provide expert testimony on the IDF. On October 18, 2025, she submitted her report addressing the nature of enlistment in the IDF, questioning whether joining the military could be interpreted as active military engagement. Importantly, Pomeranz’s testimony acknowledged that multiple British citizens had traveled to Israel to fulfill their reserve duties since the beginning of the conflict on October 7.
Soldier A asserts that Pomeranz’s interpretation of Israeli law was misleading. The crux of his complaint is that her analysis enabled a framework to criminalize IDF service, detrimentally impacting him and other reservists. He argues that when reservists return to Israel, this action aligns with their legal obligations, rather than indicating voluntary enlistment in a foreign military force.
According to Soldier A, Pomeranz’s statements about the obligations of IDF reservists vacate crucial legal nuances, misrepresenting the implications of returning to Israel under a call-up order. He claims that under Israeli law, such orders are binding even when individuals are abroad.
Consequences and Requests for Ethical Review
The complaint filed by Soldier A is serious in its allegations, suggesting not only a breach of ethical standards but also a potential threat to national security. In his view, the expert opinion provided by Pomeranz was constructed in a manner that misled the court, which could have severe consequences for public trust in the legal system.
As a resolution, he has called on the Ethics Committee to conduct an urgent inquiry into Pomeranz’s actions and to evaluate whether her submission constituted a disciplinary violation under the Israel Bar Association Law. He has asserted that her actions threaten public confidence in legal practitioners, thus necessitating immediate attention from the Bar.
In summary, this case encapsulates complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding the role of reservists in the IDF and the potential implications of foreign legal actions. Soldier A’s complaint against attorney Pomeranz not only raises questions about personal responsibility among legal professionals but also addresses broader issues of national security and the integrity of the Israeli legal framework.