The High Court of Justice was set to hear on Monday morning a petition challenging the state’s handling of discharged soldiers and reservists who died by suicide after their military service, in cases where their deaths may have been connected to their service in the Gaza war.
The hearing, scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., was set to be held before Justices David Mintz, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Yechiel Kasher, with bereaved families expected to attend.
The petition, filed in January by the Jerusalem Institute of Justice and Forum Yahalomey Krav, an advocacy organization for war-related post-trauma, is directed against Defense Minister Israel Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir. It asks the court to halt implementation of the recommendations of a committee headed by former IDF Manpower Directorate chief Maj.-Gen. (res.) Moti Almoz.
At the heart of the case is a painful legal and moral gap: When a soldier is killed while in active service, the path to military burial and recognition as an IDF fallen soldier is clear. But when a soldier or reservist returns from war, is discharged or no longer under an active call-up order, and later dies by suicide, allegedly because of trauma from that service, the state says the legal answer is not the same.
The Almoz Committee was appointed to examine the response given to families of such soldiers in circumstances that may be connected to their military service. According to the state, the committee recommended an interim support track for families while the formal recognition process is examined, including IDF accompaniment, assistance in approaching the Defense Ministry, and military elements at a civilian funeral, such as commanders in uniform, a military wreath, and participation by unit representatives.
But the committee did not recommend automatic recognition as IDF fallen soldiers, nor full military burial. The petitioners say the committee instead created a lesser category of “died after service.” They argue that this creates an intolerable hierarchy between physical and psychological wounds. In their view, if the causal link between combat service and death can be shown, there is no principled difference between a soldier who dies later from a physical injury sustained in service and a soldier who dies later from post-traumatic injury caused by service.
They are also challenging what they describe as a limited and inadequate process, arguing that the committee’s conclusions were adopted without proper participation by public representatives, organizations representing post-traumatic soldiers, and the bereaved families most affected.
Attorney calls case ‘moral and public struggle’
In comments sent ahead of the hearing, JIJ attorney Gai Akoka, who is representing the families, called the case “a first-of-its-kind moral and public struggle in Israel,” saying the court should cancel the committee’s conclusions and rule that such soldiers and reservists should be recognized as IDF fallen soldiers, “just like a fighter who fell on the battlefield.”
Avi and Ola Pankinsky, whose son Gil Pankinsky, a Shayetet 13 fighter, died by suicide in November 2024, said ahead of the hearing that since their son’s death, they had felt “transparent” to the state and the army that sent him to difficult missions.
“We hope the High Court will correct the historical injustice and the fracture in our hearts,” they said, calling for full recognition for Gil and for other families whose loved ones died after “their souls broke on the battlefield.”
State asks court to dismiss petition
The state, in its preliminary response on behalf of the defense minister and chief of staff, asked the court to dismiss the petition, saying that it did not minimize the pain of soldiers struggling with mental trauma or of families whose loved ones died by suicide – especially amid the consequences of the war – but argued that the law currently gives military burial only to those who were in active military service at the time of death, along with specific categories set out by statute.
The state also stressed that the specific legal recognition is a separate question from military burial. A family may still seek recognition if it can prove a causal link between the soldier’s service and death, but that process requires a factual and medical examination, especially in suicide cases where the link to service can be complex.
In other words, the state’s position is that the Almoz Committee did not close the door on recognition, but rather created a temporary support framework for families during the period between the death and the Defense Ministry’s final decision.
For the petitioners, that is precisely the problem: They say the state’s response offers symbols and accompaniment, but stops short of the recognition they believe the soldiers and families are owed.
