A political commission of inquiry won’t truly investigate – or heal

The Knesset is advancing a bill that would establish a “state-national” commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre. This bill has a single purpose: to prevent the establishment of a full, independent state commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Law. Unfortunately, the political commission proposed by the Knesset will harm legitimate attempts to clarify the circumstances that led to the events of October 7 and the ensuing war. It will also hamper the ability of Israeli society to begin to heal the wounds of October 7, or at least to allow them to scar over.

It is sufficient to list a few flaws in the proposed legislation: its proposed method for selecting commissioners, which under every scenario leaves the governing coalition in control; the fact that the commission will have two chairs each with the power of veto over the other; and a clause that disqualifies a long list of officials—judges, generals, ministers, and legal advisors—including those who held these offices in the last 18 years (i.e., since the plan for the disengagement from Gaza was approved). Curiously, the bill does not restrict the possibility of Knesset members and others with political affiliations from serving on the commission. In other words, political appointees are in, professional appointees are out.

In addition, the bill states that observers – two released hostages and representatives of the bereaved families identified with the coalition and two affiliated with the opposition – would also sit on the commission. This would mean not only the politicization of bereavement, but worse, its ranking, as the commission would have to decide which form of loss would be represented.

According to the wording of the bill, these observers will be released hostages or bereaved families as defined by law. But would they include families of those murdered at the Nova festival? Parents of the female surveillance soldiers? The families of combat soldiers killed in the war in Gaza or Lebanon? Representatives of the residents of the Gaza border region? Of the kibbutzim or other rural settlements? What about the thousands of people who have been physically and mentally injured during the war?

The divisions this bill would create are impossible to predict fully. But the mere prospect of deciding which victims deserve a seat at the table is deeply troubling.

Not coherent, not valid

Beyond its substantive flaws, the very fact that this bill is being advanced reflects the extent to which the Knesset has renounced its obligation to represent the public interest. It also demonstrates how completely the governing coalition has subordinated Israel’s legislative branch to the executive.

One reason the coalition is advancing this bill is to blunt the legal petitions challenging the government’s failure to establish a commission of inquiry into October 7. To circumvent the formal system of legal advisors, the government is advancing a private bill rather than government legislation. The result is a proposal that lacks both coherence and validity, featuring ideas such as two chairs, two reports, and even the possibility of the commission operating with only three members, all representing the coalition. The danger is clear: such a commission would begin with a predetermined narrative and end with predetermined culprits.

In today’s Knesset, where committee hearings and plenum debates have too often become arenas for aggressive rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and inflammatory language, one can hope that the next Knesset will once again foster genuine democratic debate. But a commission composed of coalition and opposition representatives cannot impartially investigate the failures before, during, and after the terrible events of October 7, 2023.

This is why the next government formed after this fall’s elections must establish a state commission of inquiry in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Law.

Its members would be appointed according to principles of professional independence, objectivity, and transparency rather than political affiliation. Only such a commission can command broad public confidence, help Israeli society begin to heal, and give its leaders a credible foundation for learning from the failures of the past.