Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenIsrael
AnalysisIsrael

Israeli government refuses independent inquiry into responsibility for Oct 7

Netanyahu’s refusal to allow an independent inquiry has turned the question of his accountability for 7 October into a broader fight over the future of Israeli democracy.
Shahar Burla
Print this
Netanyahu

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a joint press conference with the US Secretary of State in Jerusalem on September 15, 2025. (NATHAN HOWARD/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Published: 20 November 2025

Last updated: 20 November 2025

At the end of the war, almost everyone responsible for Israel’s failures on 7 October has resigned or been dismissed — the defence minister, the chief of staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and several senior IDF officers. The one person who has taken no responsibility is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On Sunday, the government took another step towards distancing itself from accountability, announcing it would establish its own investigation into the failures surrounding the Hamas invasion and massacre on 7 October 2023.

This decision bypasses the formation of a state commission of inquiry, the long-established mechanism for major national disasters , and one supported by a strong majority of Israelis. On Wednesday, the High Court of Justice issued a preliminary order instructing the government to justify its refusal to establish such a commission.

Although the government describes its probe as “independent”, its mandate, scope and likely membership will be determined by cabinet ministers. The decision states that the inquiry will have “full investigative authority”, but the extent and limits of that authority have not been publicly defined. Netanyahu has also insisted that the inquiry devote significant attention to the alleged role of the High Court and the anti-government protest movement, arguing that these contributed to the failures of 7 October, a claim rejected by most security officials.

The refusal to establish a state commission is part of a wider effort to weaken independent institutions

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, architect of the government’s judicial overhaul, will chair the ministerial panel determining the inquiry’s mandate. Other members include Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister Orit Strock, Minister Amichay Eliyahu and four additional ministers. Except for Ze’ev Elkin, all were serving in senior roles on 7 October.

The announcement drew sharp condemnation from opposition politicians, civil society groups and families of victims and hostages. Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused the government of appointing political loyalists rather than independent experts, and argued that those shaping the inquiry’s mandate are themselves among the officials who bear responsibility for the failures of 7 October.

The October Council, a coalition of bereaved families and families of the kidnapped, said the government had chosen “cover-up and abandonment” over accountability. They condemned the decision to let ministers who were in power during the disaster determine the scope of the investigation. The council has called for a mass protest in Tel Aviv’s Habima Square on Saturday night to demand an immediate state commission of inquiry, warning that any alternative is “a spit in the face of the citizens of Israel”.

Vast majority of Israelis back a state commission

Despite Netanyahu’s repeated claims that most Israelis oppose a state commission, public opinion surveys consistently show the opposite. A poll by the Institute for National Security Studies in late October found that nearly three-quarters of Israelis (74%) support establishing a state commission, compared to just 17% who oppose it. Even among voters in Netanyahu’s own governing coalition, a majority supported establishing a state commission. Support among opposition voters was near-unanimous.

Netanyahu fears , and knows,  that an impartial inquiry would hold him and his government responsible

A Maariv poll similarly showed a clear majority of Israelis back a state commission headed by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit. Even among Likud voters, Netanyahu’s base, more people supported a state inquiry than opposed one. During a recent Knesset session, members of the October Council turned their backs on Netanyahu as he insisted that “half the country” would reject the findings of a state commission. 

State commission vs government inquiry

Under Israeli law, the government may decide to establish a state investigation committee, but once it does so, the President of the Supreme Court , not the government, appoints the members. The government may define the subject and scope of the inquiry, but it does not control who conducts it. A state commission must be chaired by a serving or retired judge, reinforcing independence and public trust.

State commissions have extensive legal authority. They may compel witnesses to testify, demand documents and evidence, and exercise the powers of a court, including imposing penalties for perjury or evasive testimony. Refusing to appear without justification is a criminal offence that can carry a prison sentence. These powers ensure that state commissions can conduct a thorough and objective investigation.

Since Israel’s founding, 20 state commissions have been formed, including after major wars. The Agranat Committee, established after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and the Kahan Commission, formed after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982, were both established within weeks of the events they examined. Their findings shaped Israeli political culture and helped embed norms of public accountability. In some cases, their recommendations led to major reforms, such as amendments to the Basic Laws.

By contrast, government investigative committees have historically suffered from low credibility. Under a 1921 law, ministers may form committees with mandates and membership they fully control. Dozens of such committees have been created, often when governments sought to avoid the scrutiny of a state commission. Experience has shown that political inquiries can be used to limit criticism rather than reveal the truth.

Critics argue the government’s newly announced inquiry fits this pattern, particularly because many of the ministers shaping it were themselves in positions of responsibility on 7 October.

Why Netanyahu opposes a state investigation

The core reason Netanyahu opposes a state commission is the very feature that gives such bodies their legitimacy: independence. A state commission’s authority, public trust and legal powers mean its findings are far more likely to be accepted by the Israeli public, by the international community, and ultimately by history.

Netanyahu fears , and knows,  that an impartial inquiry would hold him and his government responsible for the systemic failures that enabled Hamas’s assault. A government-appointed committee, by contrast, allows him to shape the scope of the investigation and influence its conclusions.

The refusal to establish a state commission is part of a wider effort to weaken independent institutions, dilute the Attorney General’s authority, undermine the media and reshape public understanding of Israel’s legal and democratic frameworks. The fight over the form of the inquiry is therefore not only about investigating 7 October; it reflects a broader struggle over the future of Israeli democracy.

At stake is who will shape the historical record, determine accountability and ensure that Israel’s institutions remain capable of genuine, independent oversight.

.

READ MORE 

The war in Gaza is over, but the fight in Israel for accountability has barely begun (CNN) 

Decision to nix state commission of inquiry buys more time for Netanyahu (Yossi Verter, Haaretz) 

A new scheme dishonoring victims of Oct. 7 — hatched by Israel’s own government (Dan Perry, The Forward)

You might also like
  • New evidence Netanyahu was warned about October 7
    Shahar Burla
  • The Altalena should be a warning, not a political weapon
    Shahar Burla
  • Bennett’s balancing act: can he win over the right without losing the centre?
    Shahar Burla
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Yoav Segalovitz Mansour Abbas
    Israel Votes 2026OpinionIsrael

    Because of my Zionist values, I’m joining an Arab party

    Yoav Segalovitz 1
    Segalovitz Abbas
    Israel Votes 2026AnalysisIsrael

    Segalovitz decision to join Arab party is a paradigm change for Israel

    Eetta Prince-Gibson
    Ofer_Winter_2026
    Israel Votes 2026AnalysisIsrael

    Who is Ofer Winter and could he upset Netanyahu’s election?

    Shahar Burla

About the author

Shahar Burla

Shahar Burla

Dr Shahar Burla is a Sydney-based researcher, lecturer and Contributing Editor of TJI. Shahar holds a Master’s degree in political science from Hebrew University and a PhD in political science from Bar-Ilan University. He is the author of Political Imagination in the Diaspora: The Construction of a Pro-Israeli Narrative (2013) and co-editor of Australia and Israel: A Diasporic, Cultural and Political Relationship (2015).

More from the author

FeatureIsrael

New evidence Netanyahu was warned about October 7

OpinionIsrael

The Altalena should be a warning, not a political weapon

AnalysisIsrael

Who is Ofer Winter and could he upset Netanyahu’s election?

AnalysisIsrael

Bennett’s balancing act: can he win over the right without losing the centre?

Comments

No comments on this article yet. Be the first to add your thoughts.