BBC Verify has expressed concern that the IDF has not yet published updates on more than 250 war crimes investigations into events that occurred between October 7, 2023 and August 19, 2026. Its investigation misses vital context.
Be under no illusion: the IDF deployed some 300,000 soldiers to fight in Gaza, in one of the most brutal urban conflicts in recent years. It would be astounding if no war crimes had been committed; prosecutions should be expected. The obvious problem with BBC Verify’s complaint, however, is how long war crimes investigations take.
Let us look at some other militaries for comparison. The Australian Brereton Report investigated 39 unlawful killings across 23 incidents in Afghanistan. It took from 2016 to 2020 to complete. It took a further six years to charge Ben Roberts-Smith with murder in 2026. The British murder of Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003 saw charges brought in 2005 and a conviction in 2006 after a guilty plea. In 2013, Sgt Alexander Blackman, Marine A, was convicted of murder 14 months after footage of him killing a wounded Taliban fighter was found.
These cases involved killings. For comparison, the British Camp Breadbasket investigations into the lesser war crimes charges of detainee abuse still took 21 months to reach a conviction. The point here is that for a spread of war crimes allegations spanning three years – some concerning events as recent as August 2026 – the IDF is not taking an unusually long time to investigate. The cases mentioned above all involve individuals, and in many cases, the investigators were not working on any other cases. Investigating hundreds of separate allegations should absolutely be expected to take years.
But why does it take so long? The Blackman case was unusual: he was on video committing the crime and admitted breaking the Geneva Conventions. This was an outlier. In other cases, the first problem is reaching the scene. Fighting may prevent access. Evidence can be destroyed or moved before investigators arrive. Bodies may already have been buried without forensic examination. Even when a weapon is recovered, investigators must establish how it was handled and whether it could have been tampered with. Witnesses may have been killed or forced to flee. Survivors may be too frightened to give evidence. Someone who has lived through a battle may struggle to remember exactly what happened, even when they are trying to help.
I recall one conversation in Afghanistan when, even immediately after a short fight, my section commanders and I could not conclusively agree on which direction enemy fire had come from.
Finding out what happened is only part of the investigation. Prosecutors must establish who committed the alleged crime and prove the intent or knowledge required for that offence.
A case against a senior commander raises further questions about the troops under their command. Investigators must examine what the commander knew, or should have known, and whether they failed to take the steps required to prevent or punish those crimes.
For an attack that killed civilians, investigators need to examine the information available when it was authorised. What target had been identified, and what precautions were taken to protect civilians?
Assessing proportionality requires comparing the civilian harm anticipated at the time with the expected military advantage. Answering those questions can require access to classified intelligence. Footage of the aftermath, however appalling, may leave unresolved much of what a prosecutor needs to prove.
The IDF has an established process for examining these allegations that is comparable to other militaries. Cases that immediately raise reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct can go straight to criminal investigation.
Others go to the Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism, which gathers information to establish what happened. Its findings go to the Military Advocate General (MAG), who decides whether a criminal investigation is warranted and may request further inquiries before deciding. Breaches of military rules may lead to disciplinary action even where criminal proceedings are unwarranted. Any decision to bring criminal charges follows the MAG’s criminal investigation.
Investigators are also limited in what they can say publicly while this work continues. Publishing evidence too early can influence witnesses’ accounts or allow suspects to destroy material they now know investigators are seeking. Military cases may involve intelligence sources whose identities must be protected. Public statements can also prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial, potentially damaging the prosecution itself.
The IDF should provide progress updates where it can do so without compromising an investigation. That still limits what it can disclose, and the absence of an update does not mean a case has stalled, especially when dealing with a caseload of this volume. It tells us little about the evidence already gathered or the work still required before charges can be brought: something the BBC should have found easy to verify.
BBC Verify’s fixation on Israel has produced a remarkably selective standard of scrutiny. The experience of our own armed forces should be an obvious benchmark for assessing the IDF’s investigations. Omitting that comparison while inviting suspicion about unpublished updates gives readers a distorted account of how military justice works.
The BBC is entitled to demand accountability from Israel. It owes its audience an explanation of why the standard changes when Israeli soldiers are involved.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.