This is how Netanyahu is ‘cooking’ a commission of inquiry in his favor

An overwhelming majority of the Israeli public agrees that establishing a state commission of inquiry is the sole effective method to investigate the severe lapses that contributed to the disaster on October 7. The consensus transcends political divides, with only a few exceptions—primarily those implicated in the failures and who fear exposure of their culpability—opposing the move.

The government has also recognized this reality. As a result, the Prime Minister and his associates are concentrating their efforts on the Supreme Court president, who is tasked with appointing the commission members. Consequently, there is also significant contention over the status and authority of the Supreme Court President from those on the opposing side of the debate.

However, only a select few know that this is only a part – significant, yet not exclusive – of the story. Even with the appointment of a commission chair and reputable and impartial members, there is no guarantee of a comprehensive examination and investigation of the issue at hand.

Equally crucial is the wording of the appointment letter and the definition of its objectives, which are determined by the government and its chairman, not by the President of the Supreme Court or the appointed chair of the committee.

I have no doubt that Netanyahu is well aware of this, which is why he is strategically focusing his efforts at different stages—first on establishing the committee and then on the President of the Supreme Court, who selects its chairman. At the same time, he is likely manoeuvring behind the scenes to minimize the committee’s mandate as much as possible, which could allow him to avoid scrutiny of his role in the failures.

Imagine this scenario: The government “compromises” by agreeing to establish a state commission of inquiry and further “compromises” by accepting the authority of the President of the Supreme Court to appoint the commission’s chairman and members. The President then selects the most ideal composition, aiming for the broadest possible consensus among the populace. However, it becomes evident that the commission’s mandate, as defined in the letter of appointment, restrictively sets the timeline starting from October 6. This narrowly scopes the investigation to focus solely on the failures of the military, the Shin Bet, and possibly the Defense Minister, effectively excluding other potential areas of accountability.

It is widely understood that the events of October 6 are neither the sole nor the primary failures. There were numerous shortcomings in preparation and response, but the calamity on October 7 stems from years of grave errors and criminal negligence, as well as a blatant disregard for the warning signs. If the commission’s letter of appointment restricts its investigation scope to that singular day, then our efforts are in vain. The committee will conduct its inquiries, and politicians will voice their discontent as though they are deeply concerned, yet the outcome will merely set the stage for future disasters. Those accountable within the political ranks will likely remain unscathed, continuing their path unimpeded toward the next catastrophe. Given the track record of the Netanyahu government, it’s predictable—whether it’s an earthquake, tsunami, fire, flood, or another military debacle, another disaster is inevitable.

You may wonder how I can be so certain. There is no teacher like experience. The State Commission of Inquiry into the Rabin Assassination serves as a telling precedent. The decision-maker at the time—Shimon Peres and his government, for those curious—chose to steer clear of controversy and complications. Consequently, the letter of appointment narrowly defined the commission’s scope to focus solely on security failures. The dire incitement, sedition, and other contributing factors that led to the assassination were omitted from the letter of appointment and, as a result, also from the commission’s findings. This selective scope resulted in an incomplete investigation of the true breadth of factors at play.

I recognized this oversight in real-time and promptly reached out to Peres, cautioning him that narrowing the commission’s mandate would inevitably exclude many significant factors that contributed to the assassination—factors crucial for preventing future incidents. Alongside me, other ministers also opposed the constrained scope of the letter of appointment. However, Peres dismissed our concerns, metaphorically stating, “The ocean is big and wide, let’s reduce the matter to our small and nearby sea.” He suggested focusing only on what could be swiftly investigated to conclude the matter quickly.

In various interviews before his passing, Judge Shamgar noted that he meticulously adhered to the letter of appointment, which directed him to focus on the security failures. I know that he was displeased with the limited scope of the mandate assigned to him and the committee he led, but he had no choice in the matter. Consequently, many critical issues were sidelined and ultimately forgotten.

From my perspective, this is a crucial moment to issue another warning: We must remain vigilant not only about the call for a state commission of inquiry and the battle over the authority of the President of the Supreme Court but also keep a keen eye on the letter of appointment. It’s vital to monitor the government’s efforts to use this letter to curtail the commission’s mandate, potentially preventing a thorough investigation into the failures that implicate the Prime Minister and his allies.

On the other hand, let’s face the reality: it likely won’t happen. Therefore, anyone who still has faith in the State of Israel and its future should take to the streets. It’s crucial to demand an end to the contentious kidnapping deals, call for the dissolution of the Knesset, and push for new elections. Only through these actions and the renewal of leadership can we hope to truly address and rectify the underlying issues.