Israel must have a state investigation after October 7 - opinion

At the hostage-family ceremony marking one year since October 7, an alternative to the state-run ceremony, almost no applause was heard.

The chilling testimonies, the moving and tragic stories, and the songs, every word of which took on a new and profound meaning following the events of that day – each of these brought the audience and the many viewers at home to tears – evoked painful memories of those who are no longer with us and wishes for the return of those still held hostage.

There was, however, one message that the audience applauded time and again.

When the father of the late Hadar Cohen called for accountability and for the establishment of a state commission of inquiry – and when Yonatan Shamriz, the brother of the late Alon Shamriz, declared that we must continue to seek the truth and pursue answers in the face of the absence of personal example, vision, leadership, and accountability – the audience responded with applause.

The demand for a state commission of inquiry – tasked with investigating the facts and revealing the truth while assigning responsibility through its recommendations to political and professional officials – enjoys broad public consensus.

The public wants an investigation

A survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in July 2024 revealed that an overwhelming majority of the public believes the events of October 7 must be investigated and that a majority of the public, including a significant portion within the right-wing camp, supports the establishment of a commission of inquiry.

The public also sees the commission’s important roles as ascertaining facts, deriving lessons, and determining personal responsibility for officials at both professional and political levels.

From the discourse, it is clear that such a commission would address numerous issues. The general public – and particularly those who lost loved ones on that dreadful day – is looking not only for a review of the processes that led to the failure (e.g., disregarding warnings from female soldiers regarding suspicious Hamas activities in Gaza), but also for an investigation into what exactly occurred that day – in the outposts, on the bases and settlements, at the Nova music festival, and on the surrounding roads. The public also wants clarity on how decisions were made regarding crucial matters, such as the negotiations for the return of hostages.

Various security organizations support the establishment of a state commission to examine what led to the failure – namely the creation and maintenance of the “conception” through political decisions and how the political echelon responded to evaluations and assessments provided by the security organizations.

Some want the commission to investigate the role of government ministries on that day and in its aftermath. Why did the general public and civil society organizations respond more effectively than the “state,” which seemed to disappear? In other words, there is a need to examine government ministries’ lack of preparedness in emergencies.

The attorney-general and other senior officials are demanding the establishment of an official inquiry commission primarily to investigate conduct during the war in Gaza (and possibly in Lebanon) within the context of international law, to address claims made at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. One argument is that establishing a state commission of inquiry would fulfill the “principle of complementarity,” demonstrating that Israel is investigating itself, thus negating the need for international legal intervention.

Senior officials push for comission

PRESIDENT ISAAC Herzog has also called for the establishment of an inquiry commission, and even Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has expressed support for such a move. Given this, why does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu oppose the formation of such a commission? Why is he striving to delay the establishment of an investigative body or attempting to propose alternative investigation frameworks?

Aside from the inherent reluctance we might expect from any individual or institution to be subject to investigation, Netanyahu’s primary concern appears to be fear of the truth and of being held accountable.

Essentially, anyone calling for this inquiry is demanding the discovery of the truth and the assumption of responsibility. But why are truth and responsibility so important? The truth will not change the course of events. Still, it can achieve two immensely significant objectives: First, it can document what transpired, enabling society to begin confronting its collective pain and anger. The truth is the only path through which an open, bleeding wound can start to heal. Second, unveiling the facts and exposing the truth will allow us to draw lessons for the future, learn from mistakes, and strive to avoid them going forward.

Assuming responsibility will not turn back the clock; return those we have lost; or erase the trauma of October 7. Yet, acknowledging responsibility is essential for restoring a sense of order and control in a chaotic world of powerlessness. It is crucial to rebuild trust in the state, its elected officials, and its institutions, as well as the belief that we have reliable leaders to turn to when we are in trouble.

As articulated by the late French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, to be responsible means to be humane toward the other. However, when the prime minister cannot look the citizens in the eye, he certainly cannot advance efforts to establish an inquiry commission, which would compel him to confront the truth and take responsibility.

Although an investigation alone is not a remedy, the trauma we have experienced – and continue to experience daily since October 7 – cannot be forgotten or erased. Yet, as citizens and a nation, we must move forward and grow precisely from where it hurts the most. Therefore, establishing a state commission of inquiry is the civic, moral, and public duty of the highest order. And it must be done now.

The writer is an Israel Democracy Institute research fellow and research consultant.At the hostage-family ceremony marking one year since October 7, an alternative to the state-run ceremony, almost no applause was heard.

The chilling testimonies, the moving and tragic stories, and the songs, every word of which took on a new and profound meaning following the events of that day – each of these brought the audience and the many viewers at home to tears – evoked painful memories of those who are no longer with us and wishes for the return of those still held hostage.

There was, however, one message that the audience applauded time and again.

When the father of the late Hadar Cohen called for accountability and for the establishment of a state commission of inquiry – and when Yonatan Shamriz, the brother of the late Alon Shamriz, declared that we must continue to seek the truth and pursue answers in the face of the absence of personal example, vision, leadership, and accountability – the audience responded with applause.

The demand for a state commission of inquiry – tasked with investigating the facts and revealing the truth while assigning responsibility through its recommendations to political and professional officials – enjoys broad public consensus.

A survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in July 2024 revealed that an overwhelming majority of the public believes the events of October 7 must be investigated and that a majority of the public, including a significant portion within the right-wing camp, supports the establishment of a commission of inquiry.

The public also sees the commission’s important roles as ascertaining facts, deriving lessons, and determining personal responsibility for officials at both professional and political levels.

From the discourse, it is clear that such a commission would address numerous issues. The general public – and particularly those who lost loved ones on that dreadful day – is looking not only for a review of the processes that led to the failure (e.g., disregarding warnings from female soldiers regarding suspicious Hamas activities in Gaza), but also for an investigation into what exactly occurred that day – in the outposts, on the bases and settlements, at the Nova music festival, and on the surrounding roads. The public also wants clarity on how decisions were made regarding crucial matters, such as the negotiations for the return of hostages.

Various security organizations support the establishment of a state commission to examine what led to the failure – namely the creation and maintenance of the “conception” through political decisions and how the political echelon responded to evaluations and assessments provided by the security organizations.

Some want the commission to investigate the role of government ministries on that day and in its aftermath. Why did the general public and civil society organizations respond more effectively than the “state,” which seemed to disappear? In other words, there is a need to examine government ministries’ lack of preparedness in emergencies.

The attorney-general and other senior officials are demanding the establishment of an official inquiry commission primarily to investigate conduct during the war in Gaza (and possibly in Lebanon) within the context of international law, to address claims made at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. One argument is that establishing a state commission of inquiry would fulfill the “principle of complementarity,” demonstrating that Israel is investigating itself, thus negating the need for international legal intervention.

PRESIDENT ISAAC Herzog has also called for the establishment of an inquiry commission, and even Defense Minister Y

Yoav Gallant has expressed support for such a move. Given this, why does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu oppose the formation of such a commission? Why is he striving to delay the establishment of an investigative body or attempting to propose alternative investigation frameworks?

Aside from the inherent reluctance we might expect from any individual or institution to be subject to investigation, Netanyahu’s primary concern appears to be fear of the truth and of being held accountable.

Essentially, anyone calling for this inquiry is demanding the discovery of the truth and the assumption of responsibility. But why are truth and responsibility so important?

The truth will not change the course of events. Still, it can achieve two immensely significant objectives: First, it can document what transpired, enabling society to begin confronting its collective pain and anger. The truth is the only path through which an open, bleeding wound can start to heal. Second, unveiling the facts and exposing the truth will allow us to draw lessons for the future, learn from mistakes, and strive to avoid them going forward.

Assuming responsibility will not turn back the clock; return those we have lost; or erase the trauma of October 7. Yet, acknowledging responsibility is essential for restoring a sense of order and control in a chaotic world of powerlessness. It is crucial to rebuild trust in the state, its elected officials, and its institutions, as well as the belief that we have reliable leaders to turn to when we are in trouble.

As articulated by the late French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, to be responsible means to be humane toward the other. However, when the prime minister cannot look the citizens in the eye, he certainly cannot advance efforts to establish an inquiry commission, which would compel him to confront the truth and take responsibility.

Although an investigation alone is not a remedy, the trauma we have experienced – and continue to experience daily since October 7 – cannot be forgotten or erased. Yet, as citizens and a nation, we must move forward and grow precisely from where it hurts the most. Therefore, establishing a state commission of inquiry is the civic, moral, and public duty of the highest order. And it must be done now.

The writer is an Israel Democracy Institute research fellow and research consultant.