The federal government has appointed former ADF chief Mark Binskin to monitor Israel's response to its air strikes which killed Australian Zomi Frankcom and six other aid workers.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the purpose of the appointment was to shed further light on what he called "a completely unacceptable situation" which Australians were "quite rightly outraged by".

What is the role of a special adviser, and how does the government envisage Mark Binskin will ensure the "full accountability" it seeks?

Who is he?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin was the Australian Defence Force chief for four years. His background is in the air force, and he has experience in the targeting of air strikes.

During his tenure, Australia joined the US in undertaking conventional air strikes targeting Islamic State militants.

Also during his tenure, the ADF considered buying Israeli-made armed drones but ultimately did not do so.

He is now a non-executive director of BAE Systems, Australia's largest defence company, but has agreed to stand aside from that role for the duration of this new role.

Mr Albanese said he was "well regarded globally, as well as in Australia", an assessment shared by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, who said he was "beyond reproach and an incredible individual", though he criticised the creation of the role.

What will he do?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin's job is not to investigate the air strike. It is to investigate Israel's response.

So far, Australia has been unimpressed with that response. Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the air strike could not be "brushed aside" after Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said it was something that "happens in war".

She also suggested she was not satisfied with Israel's own preliminary investigation, which found the strike was a "grave mistake" but did not suggest operating procedures should change.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin will more closely examine this response and advise the minister on whether it is appropriate, and whether there should be a "further investigation", perhaps by someone independent.

But his ability to do so will depend on Israel's cooperation. It will up to Israel to decide what information, if any, it wants to share with Air Chief Marshal Binskin.

So far, it has given the Australian government no indication of whether it will cooperate, and it has not been forthcoming on previous requests.

For example, it failed to answer Australia's request for further detail on allegations that staff at UN agency UNRWA participated in the October 7 attack. It has also not yet provided Australia with a written copy of its preliminary findings.

A government spokesperson was not able to confirm whether Air Chief Marshal Binskin would travel to the region, whether he would provide formal written advice, whether this advice would be made public, or when his work would conclude.

But the PM said he was "confident that [information] would be available" and that Australia "expect[ed] full cooperation" from Israel.

"It is in Israel's interest as well for there to be transparency around these incidents … At this point, we believe that there has not been an adequate explanation for how this occurred."

What do we already know?

Israel's explanation, from its own investigation, is that the strike was a "serious failure due to a mistaken identification". It determined those who approved the strike "were convinced that they were targeting armed Hamas operatives and not [aid] employees".

"The incident should not have occurred … The [Israeli Defense Forces] will learn the lessons of the incident and will incorporate them into the IDF's ongoing operations."

But World Central Kitchen [WCK], whose workers were killed, has questioned the credibility of this investigation.

WCK had co-ordinated the movement of its three trucks with the IDF. And it said: "The IDF's own video fails to show any cause to fire on our personnel convoy, which carried no weapons and posed no threat."

WCK wants an independent investigation, saying: "The IDF cannot credibly investigate its own failure in Gaza."

Human rights groups and United Nations officials have also accused Israel of consistent failure to adequately protect civilians.

"There is a very long history of Israel giving essentially impunity to its own forces where allegations of violations have occurred," said Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counter Terrorism.

"This isn't an isolated incident. We shouldn't just be concerned about holding Israel accountable when foreign nationals die," he said.

"Over 110,000 people have been killed or injured in this conflict and there have been numerous documented allegations of potential war crimes by Israeli forces that need full investigation."

Israel last week "emphasise[d] its commitment to fighting against the Hamas terrorist organisation, while upholding the values of the IDF, the laws of war, and avoiding harming civilians".

The question of war crimes

The question of whether the strike on the aid workers constitutes a war crime will be explored further. Israel has dismissed two officials and reprimanded three and has referred the matter to military prosecutors.

Professor Saul said that was "the right thing, because under the Geneva conventions [on the conduct of war] they've got an obligation to do that if there's a suspicion of violation of international humanitarian law or potential war crimes that have been committed".

He noted the strike could have been a war crime even if it was a mistake because combatants are obliged to "do everything feasible … to make sure that it's a military target, that it's not civilians, [before] you launch an attack".

Professor Saul said further investigations of credible allegations of war crimes committed by Hamas fighters and by Israeli soldiers were warranted.

"There's been no doubt about the commission of war crimes by Hamas," he said. "The October 7 attacks, it's well-trodden ground that they were deliberately murdering civilians, they were torturing civilians, there was sexual violence, they were taking hostages. All of those things are war crimes."

The question of operating procedure

Air Chief Marshal Binskin is not an expert in international humanitarian law and is likely to instead focus on Israel's own operating procedures, forming his own view on whether they were followed and whether they need to change.

In this he may draw comparisons between the IDF's rules and procedures for protecting civilians in combat, and the ADF's own standards in combat situations.

Human rights organisations have long accused the IDF of lagging behind other countries, including the US, with its civilian protection procedures. An investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in March accused the IDF of presuming anybody seen in its zones of operation was a combatant. Israel says it takes special care to protect civilians.

What could the outcomes be?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin has been unilaterally appointed by Australia. As such, he will not advise Israel on the appropriateness of his actions, and his appointment is not expected to lead to any change in IDF procedures, other than by adding to international pressure.

Instead, the most likely possible outcome is convincing Australia to take further steps of its own. One option, advocated by Professor Saul, is for Australia to impose sanctions on IDF officials associated with the air strike, or with other actions of which Australia disapproves.

Professor Saul suggested Australia could use the Magnitsky sanctions regime to do so, a regime which allows the sanctioning of individuals.

Australia has used a different sanctions regime, related to terrorism, to sanction more than two dozen people associated with Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The government has given no indication that it will consider Magnitsky sanctions on Israeli officials, although it has a policy of not telegraphing sanctions in advance.

But any such response would be received negatively by the Coalition.

Senior Coalition figures have been divided on the response to the creation of a special adviser role.

On Sunday, foreign affairs spokesperson Simon Birmingham was ambivalent about the appointment of a special adviser but said Israel needed to change its procedures to avoid future "mistakes".

On Monday, national security spokesperson James Paterson said it was "important that Australia has its own perspective on [Israel's] investigation" and said the appointment was "appropriate".

But later on Monday, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said Air Chief Marshal Binskin's job was "mission impossible … because this is about a political outcome for the prime minister."

"The Israelis have committed themselves to an open investigation," he said.