Even more than the 1973 Yom Kippur attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria, the October 7, 2023, invasion by Hamas and subsequent massacre was a nadir in the country’s military and leadership preparedness, which was designed to prevent such existential threats.
Within a month after the end of the Yom Kippur War, a national commission of inquiry was set up to investigate how the simultaneous attack by Israel’s two fiercest enemies at the time could have caught the country unprepared, leading to more than 2,000 IDF casualties in the first days of the war.
The Agranat Commission was headed by Supreme Court chief justice Shimon Agranat. It included justice Moshe Landau, state comptroller Yitzhak Nebenzahl, and former IDF chiefs of staff Yigael Yadin and Chaim Laskov.
After months of intensive interviews and investigations, it issued its findings, leading to the dismissal of a number of senior officers and the eventual resignation of prime minister Golda Meir.
There was criticism of the report, particularly the exoneration of defense minister Moshe Dayan. But the findings were overwhelmingly accepted and implemented, without claims of political partisanship.
Times have certainly changed.
Knesset backs political probe into October 7 failures
In the aftermath of the two-year Israel-Hamas War, the necessity of a national commission of inquiry into the causes of the October 7 massacre and the initial failure to contain it is clear as day.
During the war, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightfully insisted that an investigation must wait until the war was finished and the hostages held by Hamas were returned home.
Now that the active fighting is over and the hostages, except for the remains of St.-Sgt.-Maj. Ran Gvili, have been returned, Netanyahu’s government has proposed a politically appointed commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding October 7.
That would prevent the establishment of a national commission of inquiry, which could ultimately put some of the blame on him and his coalition.
Likud MK Ariel Kallner submitted the bill, which passed its first reading in the Knesset on Wednesday.
Under the proposed framework, the commission would be established outside the traditional state commission of inquiry mechanism set out in the 1968 Commissions of Inquiry Law, under which the Supreme Court chief justice appoints the panel.
Instead, the commission’s members would be selected through a Knesset-led process in which the coalition and opposition each appoint three members.
Netanyahu this week cynically framed the proposal as bending over backward to appease the opposition, saying a governmental review committee appointed entirely by the cabinet “would have earned the trust of only part of the public.”
At the same time, Netanyahu rejected the opposition’s demand for a commission appointed solely by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, saying it would command confidence from “only a small segment of the public.”
That may have a kernel of truth, but only because Netanyahu and his coalition have worked overtime from well before the war to delegitimize the judicial system by trying to impose judicial reform.
The dispute reflects a deep rift over how Israel should investigate the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre. Critics maintain that only a state commission of inquiry – appointed independently by the judiciary and vested with broad subpoena powers – can uncover the full truth and restore public trust.
A government-appointed body, they warn, risks politicizing the process and shielding senior decision-makers from meaningful scrutiny.
The opposition said it would not participate in forming the commission, saying the framework falls short of a state commission of inquiry under existing law.
The argument by the government that the country’s judicial system cannot be relied on to conduct an impartial investigation is both scary and dangerous for Israeli democratic values. The October 7 massacre and its aftermath has been one of the worst periods in the country’s history, and its implications are too vast to descend to political considerations.
A commission of inquiry must be taken out of the hands of the coalition and opposition and follow the 1968 Commissions of Inquiry Law, under which the Supreme Court chief justice appoints the panel, or an alternative solution that isn’t controlled politically.
Simultaneously, we cannot ignore that half of the country has lost faith in the judiciary.
We hope that the current Knesset bill does not reach another reading, and that the coalition will rise above its narrow considerations and put the interests of the country above all. In addition, the judiciary needs to understand that it cannot continue without the trust and support of the masses.