The Media Line: What’s Preventing Israel’s Investigation of the Failure of October 7? 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

What’s Preventing Israel’s Investigation of the Failure of October 7? 

As the government blocks a state inquiry and dismisses its own security chief, opposition lawmakers and bereaved families accuse Israel’s leadership of evading accountability for the deadliest day in the country’s history 

By Gabriel Colodro/The Media Line 

Two years after the October 7 massacre, responsibility for Israel’s worst peacetime failure remains unresolved. At the Knesset in Jerusalem, the fight over truth and blame turned procedural this week: two days after a chaotic opening to the winter session, the State Control Committee rejected a bid to create a state commission of inquiry—hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, who had publicly admitted “shared responsibility for the terrible failure of October 7” and called for “a thorough investigation.” 

A state commission of inquiry in Israel is the gold-standard mechanism for apolitical fact-finding: it has subpoena power, runs independently of the government, and is typically chaired by a Supreme Court justice. Past examples include the Agranat Commission after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Winograd Commission after the 2006 Second Lebanon War. By contrast, internal reviews or ministerial panels carry less authority and fewer enforcement tools. 

The one-two punch—Hanegbi’s dismissal, then the committee’s rejection—ignited outrage across the political spectrum and among the families of those killed or kidnapped. During the session, opposition lawmaker Shelly Tal Meron of Yesh Atid declared that “there was no state on October 7,” accusing the government of “refusing to face the truth” and “abandoning the families who deserve answers, not excuses.” 

The vote capped weeks of mounting pressure from bereaved relatives demanding a formal investigation with full subpoena powers. “We were promised a state commission immediately after the war,” said Reut Edri, whose son Ido was murdered at the Nova music festival. “We will not accept any substitute. We will take the people to the streets.” Her plea was met with silence from coalition benches, which hold a narrow majority in the Knesset. 

Confusion marked the start of the meeting. Coalition members were absent when debate opened, prompting opposition Members of Knesset (MKs) to urge Committee Chair Miki Levy to proceed with a vote. Levy paused proceedings instead, saying he would “wait for every member to arrive,” and adding, “There is no democracy without transparency.” He reconvened once coalition lawmakers returned—delaying the process but arguing that accountability must follow due process. 

When the vote finally took place, six coalition members—four from Likud and two from ultra-Orthodox parties—rejected the motion, defeating the opposition’s proposal. 

For lawmaker Efrat Rayten, who leads the Labor–Democrats faction, the outcome confirmed a deliberate effort to shield the political leadership from responsibility. “The State Comptroller’s report, commissioned by Netanyahu himself, exposes severe findings regarding his preparedness as prime minister during his seventeen years in office,” she told The Media Line. “He failed to take serious action to prepare for wartime scenarios. There was no coordinating authority, decisions were not made, appointments were missing, and the civilian system simply collapsed. The finger of blame points squarely at Netanyahu—before and during the war—alongside the finance and defense ministers.” 

Rayten argued that the prime minister’s reaction to criticism follows a pattern. “Every investigation that finds him guilty is dismissed,” she said. “After the Meron disaster, after the submarine affair—each time, he delegitimizes those who investigate him. He is doing the same now with the judiciary and the State Comptroller.” 

Days before the vote, the State Comptroller’s Office described a breakdown in civil defense coordination and emergency management. Yuval Hayo, a senior director in the State Comptroller’s Office, defended the report during the hearing. “Calling a report that deals with the lives of 200,000 residents a ‘footnote’ is simply not serious,” he told the committee. “Constant attacks on oversight institutions erode the legitimacy of democracy itself.” 

A political twist deepened mistrust: Hanegbi’s removal overshadowed the session. His parting statement acknowledged his own share of blame and called for a “thorough investigation to restore fractured public trust.” Yet within hours, Netanyahu thanked him “for his service” and appointed his deputy, Gil Reich, as interim national security adviser. Opposition MKs saw the timing as more than coincidence. “It is proof that anyone in Netanyahu’s circle who dares to admit responsibility becomes expendable,” Rayten said. 

Coalition lawmakers defended the decision. MK Tally Gotliv of Likud told The Media Line she had “called for Hanegbi’s dismissal two years ago.” In her view, his removal was long overdue. “Hanegbi made inaccurate and dangerous assessments before the war,” she said. “He underestimated Hamas, ignored warnings, and failed to answer serious questions in the Knesset. This is not about silencing dissent—it’s about accountability.” 

Gotliv has emerged as one of the coalition’s most vocal critics of a judicially led inquiry. “We are not ready to establish a committee whose members and chairman will be appointed by the president of the Supreme Court,” she said. “Most of the public has no trust in him. The Supreme Court itself has weakened deterrence against terrorists by canceling operational procedures, intervening in demolitions of terrorists’ homes, and tying the hands of our soldiers. We want a commission that will be professional, serious, and acceptable to the majority of Israelis.” 

Legislation for an “independent investigatory committee” is already drafted, Gotliv said, proposing “district judges, senior IDF officers, and representatives of the Nova and hostage families.” She described it as “a middle path between politicized theatrics and genuine accountability.” 

Her remarks reflect a broader right-wing distrust of Israel’s legal and security elite. In the same interview, Gotliv accused military and intelligence officials of withholding information from the government on the eve of the massacre. “Five thousand terrorists do not breach the border unnoticed,” she said. “There were people in the system who knew and chose silence. The army’s top ranks failed to alert the prime minister, and some even acted as if they were leading a bureaucratic coup.” 

Asked how the government plans to restore public trust, Gotliv rejected suggestions that the coalition’s actions had eroded it. “Likud has only grown stronger,” she said. “The people are not confused. They understand that there was an attempted military and bureaucratic revolt, and that we are the ones defending democracy against those who tried to overturn it.” 

Opposition members called that framing denial. “This is not about left or right,” said Tal Meron. “It’s about the state’s obligation to its citizens. Two years later, the victims’ families are still waiting for accountability while the government fires those who ask questions.” 

Rayten, meanwhile, described the refusal to launch a state inquiry as “a moral failure of the highest order.” She told The Media Line that after the Yom Kippur War, “Prime Minister Golda Meir created a state commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme Court justice. It was professional, independent, and non-political—a signal to the public that the state can learn from its mistakes. Netanyahu has done the opposite. He delegitimizes the courts, attacks the Comptroller, and calls every investigation ‘political.’” 

Government ministers argue that blocking a commission prevents politicization and protects national stability. The October Council—a coalition of more than 200 bereaved families—issued a statement after the vote: “Seven hundred and forty-seven days after the greatest disaster in Israel’s history, instead of implementing lessons, the Knesset has chosen to bury the truth.” 

As the session ended, the atmosphere in the committee chamber turned subdued. Lawmakers exchanged brief words as families stood silently. 

Israel now confronts the memory of its darkest day, with the question of responsibility suspended between institutions unwilling to ask—and a public still waiting for answers.