The Media Line: Israel’s Government Advances Alternative Inquiry on October 7, Prompting Claims of Political Self-Investigation 

Israel’s Government Advances Alternative Inquiry on October 7, Prompting Claims of Political Self-Investigation  

By Gabriel Colodro / The Media Line  

Israel’s government is pressing ahead with legislation to establish a new investigative body into the Oct. 7 massacre, even as bereaved families publicly denounce the initiative as a politically engineered attempt to evade accountability.   

At a press conference in Tel Aviv this week organized by the October Council, which represents families of Oct. 7 victims, Rafi Ben Shitrit, a bereaved father and former mayor of Beit She’an tore up a printed copy of the draft law, calling it a mechanism designed to obscure responsibility rather than expose it.   

Standing alongside him, Jon Polin, whose son, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, was abducted and later killed, rejected the government’s claim that a new inquiry model is required, arguing that Israel’s existing State Commissions of Inquiry law already provides a clear and credible framework for uncovering the truth.  

The draft bill, submitted by Likud lawmaker Ariel Kallner, calls for the creation of a “state–national investigative commission” to examine the Oct. 7 attacks, the outbreak of the Gaza war, and the circumstances that led to them. According to the text, the commission would operate under parts of Israel’s 1969 Commissions of Inquiry Law but with key structural modifications.  

Most notably, the bill removes the Supreme Court of Israel from the appointment process entirely. Instead of the Supreme Court president selecting the commission’s chair and members, the law assigns responsibility to political actors within the Israeli parliament.  

Under the proposal, the commission would consist of six or seven members. The Knesset speaker would first attempt to assemble an agreed-upon slate in consultation with coalition and opposition factions. That slate would then require approval by a supermajority of 80 lawmakers. If such approval is not achieved, the law outlines a fallback mechanism: three members would be appointed by coalition representatives and three by the opposition. Should either side fail to complete its appointments within 14 days, the speaker would step in to fill the remaining seats.  

The bill further stipulates that if the commission’s members cannot agree on a single chair, two co-chairs—one from each political bloc—would be appointed. In that case, powers normally vested in a chair would require joint agreement, effectively embedding political parity into the commission’s leadership.  

Beyond appointments, the draft law assigns a central role to the executive branch in defining the investigation itself. One clause states explicitly that the government will determine the subjects of inquiry and retains the authority to expand, clarify or narrow that mandate during the commission’s work. Critics argue that this provision gives the political leadership ongoing leverage over what may ultimately be examined.  

The commission would submit its findings to the government and publish a final report to the public, in accordance with existing inquiry law. Its hearings would be held publicly and broadcast, unless a majority of members determine that closed sessions are required for security, diplomatic or privacy reasons.  

To address public trust, the bill introduces a novel element: the appointment of four representatives of bereaved families as “inspectors.” According to the text, these inspectors would be permitted to attend all hearings, submit written questions and comments, and provide remarks prior to publication of the final report. However, they would hold no voting rights and no authority over conclusions or recommendations.  

Opposition figures argue that distinction is decisive. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has already announced that his bloc will refuse to cooperate with what he describes as a politically engineered inquiry. Civil groups representing families of victims have gone further, accusing the government of constructing an accountability mechanism in which those responsible for policy, preparedness and oversight failures effectively oversee their own examination.  

The legislative initiative comes as the Supreme Court weighs petitions demanding the establishment of a formal state commission of inquiry. The government has been required to justify its delay, adding urgency to the coalition’s effort to advance an alternative before judicial intervention becomes unavoidable.  

At the center of the controversy is the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu and the broader question of how Israel confronts institutional responsibility after Oct. 7. As the proposal moves through preliminary votes, the dispute has sharpened into a fundamental test: whether Israel’s reckoning with Oct. 7 will be anchored in institutional independence or negotiated within the political system itself.