A major Israeli defence contractor disclosed a large number at a military conference in London in early July 2026: 850,000 targets. The company, Elbit Systems, said this figure came from Israel's military command system over roughly 2.5 years of conflict in Gaza and Lebanon.

That breaks down to roughly 1,000 targets per day. But within hours, Elbit disputed what the number actually means. The company said it did not refer to military targets in the traditional sense, but to "system activity and operational data" — essentially computer log entries and sensor readings.

The person presenting, Miki Edelstein, is a retired Israeli general now working for Elbit. He presented the number at a RUSI conference — a major defence and security forum in Britain — alongside NATO's second-ranking military officer and a British Army brigadier.

What Does "Target" Actually Mean?

Why the disagreement matters: in military doctrine, a "target" is a specific location or object chosen for action because it serves a military purpose. A sensor ping or a data log entry is not a target — it is just information flowing through a computer system.

Elden described the real-time targets as enemies that "pop up" from hiding or by moving position, and said the Israeli military does not have enough ammunition to attack all of them immediately. This language sounds like he was talking about actual military targets, not computer logs.

A former Pentagon targeting analyst, Wes Bryant, told journalists the figure was alarming. If accurate, it would suggest Israel had classified up to half of Gaza's entire population and infrastructure — roughly 2.3 million people before the conflict began — as potential targets. Bryant was clear that this is his interpretation, not a proven fact. But the scale is extraordinary compared to past conflicts of this type.

Why People Are Paying Attention

The location and timing add to the tension. RUSI is where senior military officers and defence officials from across NATO meet and discuss strategy. Having NATO's deputy commander sitting next to an Israeli executive while he presented active-conflict data — data his own company then disputed — raises questions about transparency and who knew what in advance.

Western governments are already under pressure from their own parliaments and voters over military support for Israel. Elbit's company statement now directly contradicts what its own executive said on stage, which makes the situation harder to explain.

There is another issue ahead: Elbit recently won a contract to add artificial intelligence to this targeting system. Adding AI to a system that processes 1,000 potential targets per day raises serious legal and ethical questions about AI and weapons. These are questions that experts in international law have been pressing Western militaries to address clearly. The conference panel did not appear to engage with those questions in depth.