Speaking in the Knesset on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the idea of establishing a State Commission of Inquiry into the events of October 7 with a passion he does not often exhibit.
“It is important and necessary to investigate deeply what happened to us on October 7 and what came before, down to the last detail,” Netanyahu said in a raucous Knesset debate. Then came the “but.”
“This investigation has to merit the trust of the people or at least the vast majority of them. So we are demanding an objective investigative committee,” he said, his voice rising. “Balanced, independent – not one that is tilted politically. Not a commission whose conclusions are predetermined, already written.”
He made it clear that such a committee cannot be politically homogeneous or drawn from a narrow ideological camp.
“Do you think we are children?” he railed at the opposition, which was clamoring for the immediate establishment of a State Commission of Inquiry. “That we don’t understand what’s going on?” He dismissed the notion that a committee is objective simply because it bears the title “State Commission of Inquiry.” “We want one that is truly objective, balanced – not tilted.”
With those words, Netanyahu laid bare the deep and corrosive lack of confidence between the government and the Supreme Court.
Opposing a State Commission of Inquiry
Because what was Netanyahu essentially saying? That a fully independent committee will not be the product of any commission chosen by recently selected Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit.
His appointment last month came despite swirling conflict-of-interest allegations. In response, Justice Minister Yariv Levin declared he would have nothing to do with Amit. That declaration left many wondering about its implications.
On Monday, the country saw one: The government’s adamant refusal to establish a committee whose members would be appointed by the chief justice. In the “us vs. them” equation Netanyahu often employs, Amit is squarely part of “them.”
To be clear, Netanyahu opposed a State Commission of Inquiry into October 7, long before Amit’s appointment. But his selection – as many predicted – provided another justification for resisting it. Besides coming from the opposing ideological camp, this argument runs, how could Amit, who himself is under scrutiny for alleged ethical shortcomings, be trusted to select the committee’s head?
Despite Netanyahu’s objections, a commission of inquiry with real authority will eventually be established. The government cannot ignore public opinion forever. Poll after poll shows that the public overwhelmingly favors a State Commission of Inquiry formed under the authority of the Supreme Court chief justice over any alternative.
There are three types of investigative bodies the government could establish.
The most independent is a State Commission of Inquiry, formed by the government or the Knesset State Control Committee, with members appointed by the chief justice. It has broad investigative powers, including summoning witnesses and compelling testimony. While it can issue systemic and personal recommendations, it has historically avoided calling for a prime minister’s resignation.
A Government Commission of Inquiry is less independent. It is appointed by a minister, who selects its members. It can be granted the same powers as a state commission, as happened after the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Then-prime minister Ehud Olmert initially appointed a committee led by former Mossad head Nahum Admoni, but under public pressure, he replaced Admoni with retired judge Eliyahu Winograd and expanded its authority.
The least independent option is a Knesset Committee of Inquiry, chaired by an MK with members allocated by faction size. It is highly political and mostly issues recommendations.
Ultimately, some form of inquiry with teeth will be established. Recent IDF investigations into the events of October 7 have reinforced the need for a broader probe. While the military’s internal investigations focus on specific points of failure that day, they have not yet addressed the systemic issues that allowed those failures to happen.
A broader panel will be needed to draw those conclusions.
It is only a matter of time. If the current government does not establish such a commission, then the next government – following elections that must be held by October 2026 – almost certainly will. Is that ideal? No. The longer it takes to set up this commission, the harder it will be to uncover the whole truth. But even with delays, critical issues will still be addressed.
Inquiry can't erase Oct 7 trauma
One caveat: Commissions of inquiry are not a cure-all. They can answer key questions about what went wrong, but they cannot erase the trauma of October 7.
Some are saying that the country’s healing process can only begin when such a commission issues its findings. But the findings themselves will become a source of dispute. They will not magically heal the nation’s October 7 wounds. At best, they can help ease the trauma by leading to corrective action.
History has shown that these commissions do bring about meaningful changes. The Meron Commission of Inquiry into the Lag Ba’omer disaster that killed 45 people in 2021 fundamentally altered the situation at Mount Meron, even though its personal recommendations – saying Amir Ohana and Netanyahu bore personal responsibility – had little impact. Netanyahu did not step down as a result, and Ohana went from public security minister to speaker of the Knesset.
Still, significant changes were implemented after the Meron Commission’s interim findings were released. The site itself was made more secure, and strict limits were placed on attendance for future Lag Ba’omer events.
A similar outcome is likely once a State Commission of Inquiry is established to investigate October 7 – at least to strengthen physical defenses and ensure an adequate military presence to protect border communities.
But that is the bare minimum. The deeper failures that led to October 7 – intelligence, strategy, and leadership failures – require more than just tactical adjustments. They demand a full reckoning.
That reckoning will come. If the current government refuses to confront it, then the next one will be forced to. The public will demand it, and no government – this one or the next – will be able to evade accountability forever.
The only question is whether Netanyahu’s government will start the process or spend the next year-and-a-half fighting a battle it is bound to lose.