A British-Israeli IDF soldier who was subjected to bogus legal proceedings in the UK has filed a complaint with the Israel Bar Association's Tel Aviv District Ethics Committee, asking it to investigate an Israeli lawyer who provided the prosecution's expert opinion.
As The Jerusalem Post has previously reported, UK organization the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) attempted to bring a private prosecution against a dual British-Israeli citizen (called Soldier A) who served in a reserve IDF unit after October 7, 2023.
The ICJP made the application for the summons of Soldier A on November 6, 2025, with the aim that he be charged under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.
Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ultimately ruled on April 8, 2026 that ICJP’s application was “fundamentally misconceived in law,” as the FEA does not apply to dual nationals.
He also deemed ICJP’s antics “egregious” and “inexcusable” and ordered ICJP to pay costs to Soldier A.
Pomeranz provides Expert Witness Report to prosecution
In order to build the prosecution, ICJP reached out to Israeli attorney Michal Pomeranz to provide an Expert Witness Report, which she did on Oct 18, 2025, in her capacity as a member of the Israeli Bar.
Pomeranz was asked to provide testimony about the Israel Defense Forces, specifically to what extent those who agree to engage in service with the IDF can be inferred to have “enlisted in the [Israeli] military,” and whether the IDF (and therefore Israel) can be considered to be “at war”.
In the expert report, Pomeranz acknowledged that the ICJP intended to initiate a private prosecution against at least nine named British citizens known to have traveled to Israel to participate in reserve duties since 7 October 2023. As such, by providing the report, she was essentially aiding the prosecution in this attempt.
Pomeranz goes on to say that an Order 8 or what is known as “Tzav shmoneh” (referring to an enlistment order according to article 8 of the Reserve Service Law) does not explicitly apply to return to Israel for those residing abroad or traveling while they receive an order 8.
Complaint says expert opinion helped target IDF reservists
Soldier A's central argument in his complaint to the Bar is that Pomeranz may have violated Israeli professional ethics by providing an expert opinion that helped an organization pursue criminal proceedings against him and potentially other dual British Israeli citizens solely for serving in the IDF.
He argues that her statement about reservists not being required to return to Israel if they are abroad is "misleading."
Citing an expert legal opinion he received, Soldier A said "a reservist may not ignore a call-up order, and certainly not an emergency call-up order."
"As a general rule, an emergency call-up order is binding on every reservist to whom it is issued, even if he is abroad, and he may not unilaterally decide whether to report," he wrote.
Soldier A said this point is critical because the British proceedings' thesis sought to argue that the he "enlisted" or "accepted an engagement" when he chose to return to Israel. However, if returning to Israel is an action by a reservist subject to an existing legal obligation under Israeli law, then this is not a new enlistment and does not constitute voluntary entry into the service of a foreign military.
"Therefore, it was precisely on this point that an objective, accurate and unbiased expert opinion was of particular importance," Soldier A said.
Complaint says report misrepresented reserve service rules
"Attorney Pomeranz's actions are therefore serious in every respect. Not only did she provide an expert opinion in proceedings whose purpose was to turn IDF service itself into a criminal offense, an act that is improper in itself; she also presented Israeli law partially and misleadingly on a material point, in order to support the argument that reserve service by someone staying abroad is a personal choice rather than fulfillment of a legal obligation, thereby supporting the argument advanced by the ICJP."
Soldier A proceeded to argue that the mere submission of Attorney Pomeranz's expert opinion in the British proceedings constitutes a disciplinary offense by an attorney under the Israel Bar Association Law.
Soldier A also said that Pomeranz's actions constitute a real harm to national security and "contains a substantial moral defect that harms public confidence in the legal profession and its practitioners."
Accordingly, he requested that the Ethics Committee open an urgent disciplinary inquiry against Attorney Pomeranz; examine whether the expert opinion was provided in violation of her duties as an Israeli attorney; and file a disciplinary complaint against her for violation of Section 53 of the Israel Bar Association Law.