The IDF’s General Staff Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism (FFAM) conducts factual assessments of exceptional operational incidents. According to the IDF, those assessments inform commanders’ decisions and assist the Military Prosecution in deciding whether to initiate a criminal investigation. An FFAM review is therefore not itself a criminal trial or a finding that every action was lawful.
From incident review to prosecution decision
The IDF’s published account of its examination process describes the FFAM as a permanent mechanism established to examine exceptional incidents. It gathers relevant material and produces a factual assessment. The Military Prosecution then considers whether the facts warrant a criminal investigation. If one is opened, the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division conducts it; prosecutors later assess whether criminal proceedings are appropriate.
The IDF’s published case examples show that outcomes vary. In its account of five incidents reviewed by the FFAM, the Military Prosecution ordered criminal investigations in two cases, while other incidents resulted in command measures or no criminal investigation. In the April 2024 World Central Kitchen incident, the initial examination led to removal of two officers and formal reprimands for three commanders; the prosecutor later concluded that the available facts did not establish reasonable suspicion warranting a criminal investigation. These are the IDF’s stated determinations and illustrate the different stages rather than prove the mechanism’s independence or overall effectiveness.
What a review can establish
A factual assessment can clarify operational decisions, available information, orders, and conduct. Its findings may inform command accountability and prosecution, but they do not automatically resolve every legal or factual dispute. A decision not to open a criminal case is not the same thing as a court judgment after trial. Conversely, a referral for investigation is not a conviction.
Israeli law also permits judicial review of decisions by public authorities, including decisions by military legal officials. The High Court’s role is legal review when a petition is brought; it is not routine advance approval of each battlefield strike. The ICRC identifies proportionality in attack as a customary rule in Rule 14. The governing attack standards are described in the proportionality test and Israel’s targeting review framework.