If there’s one thing most Israelis agree on after nearly a year and a half of war, it’s the urgent need for a thorough, impartial investigation into the catastrophic events of October 7. This inquiry aims to dissect what went wrong that day, in the lead-up, and possibly in the aftermath. The demand for such an investigation has intensified, echoed by gaunt ex-hostages and the outgoing, guilt-ridden military chief of staff.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to resist this investigation. The rationale behind his reluctance is clear: a serious probe could likely implicate him in the failure to prepare for Hamas’s attack. The conclusions of such an inquiry might resonate with the sentiments expressed during street protests: You’re the boss. You’re guilty.
In Israel, commissions of inquiry serve as the standard mechanism through which the government assesses its response to extraordinary events. The legal procedure for establishing one mandates that the cabinet votes to initiate the commission and outlines its scope. Members are appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court, with a senior or retired judge serving as chair. In the most significant investigations, the chief justice has chaired the commission. This panel has the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents, along with the power to identify individuals responsible for both actions and inactions. While the findings do not result in criminal convictions, they can lead to recommendations for the dismissal of high-ranking officials.
[Yair Rosenberg: Why 70 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign]
Historically, some of the best-known inquiry commissions hold near-mythic status in Israeli memory. One notable investigation analyzed how Israel was caught off guard at the onset of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, with its preliminary report prompting the resignation or dismissal of top generals and eventually Prime Minister Golda Meir, marking the end of her political career.
Another significant inquiry examined Israel’s involvement in the 1982 massacre of Palestinians by a Lebanese Christian militia in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. The inquiry’s most notable conclusion held Defense Minister Ariel Sharon personally responsible, stating that he “ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed” from the militia. Sharon resigned, and even when he later became prime minister, he refrained from taking on the defense portfolio again, unlike some of his predecessors.
Typically, the law governing commissions of inquiry necessitates that the government investigate itself. This procedural flaw often undermines the integrity of such inquiries. However, public pressure has historically proven effective in compelling the government to act. Meir ultimately decided to form the commission that led to her ousting in response to widespread public outrage, fueled by army reservists returning home from the front. Similarly, Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s administration recognized the need to respond after an estimated 400,000 demonstrators converged on central Tel Aviv, marking the largest protest in the nation’s history.
This historical context elucidates why the public today demands an inquiry commission and why Netanyahu is hesitant to appoint one: Disasters prompt commissions, and such investigations can lead to significant political upheaval.
Recent polling indicates that up to 83 percent of Israelis, including a substantial majority of ruling coalition voters, favor a state inquiry into the October 7 incident. Pressure for an inquiry has intensified in recent days, partly due to the release of numerous internal army investigations that scrutinize, among other aspects, the failure to defend border communities during the attack, as well as years of overly optimistic assessments regarding Hamas’s capabilities.
These inquiries corroborate earlier press reports based on leaks and provide alarming details. The Military Intelligence Directorate had ceased real-time monitoring of Hamas communications, despite having acquired their invasion plan and dismissing it as unrealistic. The military misjudged Hamas, believing that previous confrontations would deter an attack, leading them to overlook critical signs of the impending assault in the hours leading up to it.
The army’s investigation, alongside a parallel one by the Shin Bet counterintelligence agency, details the mistakes made by both bodies. However, these reports only indirectly reference governmental decisions or negligence. This approach is understandable; an army investigation into the actions of elected officials could be perceived as a coup. Nevertheless, the release of military probes draws attention to the government’s refusal to undergo scrutiny.
This scenario fits a broader pattern. Generals have acknowledged their failures; however, Netanyahu has not followed suit. The military chief of staff during and after October 7, Herzi Halevi, resigned shortly after the current cease-fire began in January and left office last week. He stated, “The disaster occurred on my watch, and I bear responsibility.” He further emphasized, “It’s not right that only the Israel Defense Forces investigate an event like this. Establishing a state commission of inquiry is necessary and essential.”
Earlier this month, opposition parties succeeded in compelling the Knesset to debate the establishment of a state commission. During this debate, an opposition parliamentarian shared a letter from Yarden Bibas, who was taken captive on October 7 and released during the initial phase of a now-stalled hostage deal. Bibas, still mourning the loss of his wife and two young children, whose remains were returned from Gaza, urged the Prime Minister to “unite the people of Israel, bring peace to our souls, fulfill the will of the people and the [victims’] families. Announce today the establishment of a state commission of inquiry.”
In response, Netanyahu delivered a lengthy speech that included jabs at the opposition and an attempt to link former Prime Minister and outspoken critic Ehud Barak to Jeffrey Epstein. Concerning the inquiry, he acknowledged the necessity of a thorough investigation into the events of October 7, yet contended that a state commission would be “politically tilted” and its “conclusions known in advance.”
What he and “a majority of the people” seek, he claimed, is an “objective, balanced” inquiry panel. He seemingly referred to plans that his inner circle had reportedly considered to circumvent the commission law, potentially by forming an ad hoc parliamentary panel comprising both coalition and opposition members. Under the commission law, Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit would select the panel, and retired Chief Justice Esther Hayut could chair it. However, Netanyahu and his coalition perceive both judges as overly liberal and independent. Instead, they seem to propose a panel selection based on party affiliation, which would be overtly political and lack the established precedent and legal framework of a state commission.
[Read: How Netanyahu misread his relationship with Trump]
Netanyahu served as prime minister for 13 of the 14 years leading up to October 7. A commission of inquiry might investigate his strategic decision to allow Hamas to maintain control over Gaza as a means of dividing the Palestinians. It could also assess whether the belief that Hamas was deterred—and thus posed no immediate threat—was a military assessment that Netanyahu failed to question, or whether military leaders tailored their evaluations to align with the prime minister’s preferences. Such an inquiry could identify warning signs that Netanyahu may have overlooked in the days and years preceding the calamity.
In Israel, a state commission of inquiry transcends mere judicial function or fact-finding; it serves as a ritual of national closure, enabling citizens to process events and move forward. The commission’s summary of errors and horrors, its accountability assessments, and its future recommendations all play a crucial role in transforming trauma into historical understanding.
Netanyahu is acutely aware of the potential revelations an inquiry might uncover, extending beyond what the public already knows. The more he resists a state commission, the stronger the perception grows that he will be judged and found wanting.
