The Netanyahu government’s decision to launch its own investigation into the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, instead of ordering an independent inquiry, has snowballed into a major controversy. Rather than forming the traditional state commission of inquiry that is usually convened for national disasters, the cabinet has opted for a government-led investigation. Justice Minister Yariv Levin will head a special ministerial panel responsible for determining the mandate of the new body, a move seen by many as placing the government in charge of scrutinising its own actions.
Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs announced that Levin’s panel will outline the topics and time frames to be examined and will deliver its recommendations within 45 days. The group includes some of the most influential ministers in the coalition: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Settlements and National Missions Minister Orit Strock, and Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu. Several Likud ministers will join them, among them Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel, and Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli. Minister Ze’ev Elkin of the New Hope faction will also serve on the panel. Nearly all these ministers were in office at the time of the October 7 attack.
Critics swiftly condemned the decision. Opposition leader Yair Lapid argued that the very figures whose policies and conduct are under question cannot be entrusted to investigate themselves. He has repeatedly warned that the government’s judicial overhaul, led by Levin, helped distract Israeli institutions from mounting threats, leaving the country exposed before the Hamas assault. Good governance organisations labelled the new inquiry a “transparent attempt” to avoid an independent investigation, and bereaved families described it as a “cover-up commission” designed to shield political leaders rather than reveal the truth.
The controversy has drawn renewed attention to Israel’s established mechanisms for investigating systemic and governmental failures. The most rigorous of these is the state commission of inquiry, regarded as the highest and most independent investigative instrument under Israeli law. Once such a commission is created, it operates independently of the government. The 1969 Law for Commissions of Inquiry authorises the government to establish a state commission for issues of vital public importance, yet the crucial point is that the Supreme Court president appoints its members. The chairperson must be a serving or retired judge, usually from the Supreme Court. Historically, these commissions have investigated major national traumas such as the Yom Kippur War and the Sabra and Shatila massacre and have issued findings that have ended political careers.
The alternative is the government commission of inquiry. But the appointment of the members and the mandate of the commission are decided by the cabinet, making it somewhat subservient to the political executive. An example is the Winograd Commission, which explored the failures of the Second Lebanon War and was created as a government commission, although it was given strong investigative authority.
Following the October 7 attacks, in which Hamas killed some 1,200 people and triggered the Gaza war, many Israelis expected the government to establish a state commission. Instead, the cabinet resisted this path. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that a state commission would be appointed by a judiciary that some coalition members believe cannot be trusted to choose a fair-minded chair. He claimed that only a body formed with broad agreement could maintain public trust. Critics counter that the real concern is the possibility of personal accountability. State commissions have in the past issued severe criticisms of prime ministers and defence officials. Netanyahu, unlike several senior figures, has not publicly accepted responsibility for the failures that allowed the Hamas assault.
There are further concerns that the government intends to broaden the scope of its commission to dilute scrutiny of its own decisions. Reports suggest the coalition wishes to include an examination of whether anti-government protests or past High Court rulings might have influenced Hamas’s decision to attack. Opposition politicians and civil society groups argue that such an approach diverts attention from the central failures in intelligence, policy, and military preparedness.
Public sentiment is firmly on the side of a fully independent investigation. Surveys show that nearly 75 per cent of Israelis support the creation of a state commission of inquiry, including a majority of right-wing voters. Thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets demanding such a probe, and the High Court of Justice has signalled that there is no serious argument against establishing a state commission with full investigative authority.
The debate has become a test of trust between the government and the public. To its critics, the government’s decision resembles allowing a suspect to select their own forensic team. Though the coalition insists its commission will be granted extensive powers and will seek broad approval, opponents argue that any inquiry controlled by those in power will lack the independence needed to assess the grave failures of October 7.
