The Battle for Justice: From the Judicial Reform to the October 7 Inquiry

For those who haven’t yet realized, we remain caught in an unresolved debate—one that began with the controversial judicial reform proposed by Yariv Levin in early 2023. Among his proposals, the Justice Minister sought to alter the composition of the judicial selection committee, arguing that the judiciary did not reflect the diversity of thought within Israeli society and that, instead of serving justice, it was beholden to external interests or personal agendas.

“Half the nation does not feel represented by the judges,” Levin explained in defense of his reform. However, rather than instilling confidence, his proposal met fierce skepticism from opponents. Was he truly seeking a more pluralistic judiciary, or was he attempting to bring judges under political control?

This dilemma paralyzed Israeli society in an endless confrontation. For months, the country became the stage for massive protests and heated debates—discussions that, at their core, were not just about legal matters but about the identity of the state and the ever-precarious balance of power within its government branches.

Then came October 7. Hamas did not only massacre thousands of Israelis, devastate kibbutzim, and force Israel into a war on multiple fronts—it also pushed the judicial reform controversy into the background. The debate was put on hold, but it was never truly resolved.

Sixteen months later, the question resurfaces with greater intensity. The call for a national commission of inquiry into the events of October 7 has reignited the debate over who should exercise control over the justice system. Netanyahu has stated:

“It is necessary to thoroughly investigate everything that happened on October 7 and its background, down to the last detail. But this investigation must have the confidence of the people… That is why we demand the creation of an objective, balanced, independent commission—one without political bias, not a commission whose conclusions are predetermined.”

With these words, Netanyahu revives the same argument used during the judicial reform debate. If in 2023 Levin claimed that judges did not represent the people, in 2025 Netanyahu asserts that the investigation commission must.

If the coalition insists on this argument, it may be time to dust off old political theory books that lay out the basics of the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the fundamental role of judges in protecting individual rights over the shifting tides of public opinion.

In The Spirit of the Laws, published in 1748, Montesquieu argues that the judiciary must be independent of the executive and legislative branches to prevent tyranny. If judges are elected, they may become politically dependent on voters and politicians, undermining their ability to check government power.

One of the fundamental dangers of electing judges is that it would subject judicial decisions to the influence of popular opinion, potentially undermining the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional rights and the rule of law. In Democracy in America (1835), Tocqueville has already warned us all that democracy, while a powerful system of government, carries the risk of what he called the tyranny of the majority. In simple terms, this means that democratic majorities, when unchecked, can impose their will in ways that harm minorities or restrict individual freedoms.

If judges are elected, they may feel pressure to align their rulings with political ideologies rather than legal principles, eroding the impartiality of the courts. In Poland, judicial reforms under the Law and Justice (PiS) party have led to courts issuing rulings that align with the government’s political agenda, including decisions restricting media freedom and judicial independence (sound familiar?). In Venezuela, judges who owe their positions to political appointments have consistently ruled in favor of the Maduro regime, blocking opposition candidates and endorsing policies that undermine democracy.

Yet, the debate is even more consequential. It is no longer just about the balance of powers in a democracy—it is about the pursuit of truth regarding one of the darkest days in Israel’s history and one of the most devastating for the Jewish people since the Shoah.

The silence of the obliterated kibbutzim, the cries of the Nova festival victims, and the pain of the hostages—both those who returned and those still trapped in Hamas tunnels—demand that we rise to the occasion. Israeli society deserves a commission that will uncover the truth, not a political battle disguised as an investigation.

Israeli soldiers walking next to buildings destroyed by Hamas terrorists in Kibbutz Nir Oz on October 7, 2023, near the Israeli-Gaza border, in southern Israel, November 21, 2023. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

Only a truly national, non-political state commission (mamlachti) can ensure that Israeli society—and the world—receive a thorough and credible investigation into the events leading up to October 7. Such a commission must clarify the facts surrounding Israel’s policies toward Gaza over the past decade, cut through speculation to establish what truly happened on the night of October 6-7, and, most importantly, determine accountability—both for those who have acknowledged their role and those who have yet to do so.

Rising to the occasion means the coalition must not delay its creation any further. It means the opposition must ensure its independence and prevent it from becoming a partisan spectacle. But above all, it means that Israel’s political establishment must not drag us back into the same conflict and polarization that existed before October 7.

Please, no. We have suffered enough. We do not need more polarization. It is unhealthy for our society. It is dangerous for our security. It threatens our ability to live together.

Will we all rise to the challenge?