The Media Line: October 7 Bereaved Father Criticizes Court Hesitation on Inquiry: ‘That’s the Easy Way Out’ 

October 7 Bereaved Father Criticizes Court Hesitation on Inquiry: ‘That’s the Easy Way Out’ 

As Israel’s High Court weighs forcing a state commission of inquiry, families, lawmakers, and petitioners clash over how to investigate the massacre—and who has the authority to decide 

By Gabriel Colodro / The Media Line 

On Thursday, Israel’s High Court of Justice confronted a question that has been building for more than two years: whether the government may continue delaying a full investigation into the failures surrounding October 7, 2023, or whether the court must intervene and order one. 

“That’s the easy way out,” Ruby Chen, the father of Itay Chen, an American Israeli soldier killed on October 7 whose body was returned only in November 2025, told The Media Line, referring to the suggestion raised in court that the issue could be left to voters ahead of elections. “We need to make a decision, not just for this time, but maybe for other times as well,” he said. 

Asked whether he thinks the judges understood the families’ position, Chen responded, “I think they understand, but they understand it’s a hot potato.” 

The tension inside the courtroom reflected a broader rupture outside it. The proceedings were halted briefly after protesters attempted to force their way into the hearing, while outside, bereaved families confronted one another over the kind of inquiry Israel should pursue. 

For Chen, the scene showed how far the situation has escalated. “If something similar would have happened in the US Supreme Court, you would see the FBI and people handcuffed,” he said. Then he paused. “We are living in a different place.” 

At the center of the case is a petition asking the court to order the government to establish a state commission of inquiry under existing law. Stav Livne Lahav, a member of the legal department at the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, told The Media Line that the request itself is straightforward, even if its implications are not. 

“We asked the court to order the government to use the authority it already has and establish a state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7,” she said. 

Livne Lahav described the legal process as structured and methodical. “In Israel, this kind of proceeding is a two-stage process,” she explained. “First, we have to show there is a real legal basis. If the court agrees, it issues an order requiring the government to explain why it is not acting. At this stage, the burden is on the government.” 

That part of the process, she said, has already been met. “The court issued a conditional order. That means the government now has to justify why it is not establishing a commission, under a law that clearly exists for this purpose,” she said. 

For Livne Lahav, the central issue is not whether the government has authority, but how it is using that authority. “No one disputes that the authority is with the government,” she said. “But authority in a democracy is not unlimited. It must be exercised reasonably, without improper considerations, and without conflicts of interest.” 

She argued that the prolonged delay itself has become legally significant. “You cannot wait two-and-a-half years after the biggest failure in the country’s history and claim that nothing has been decided,” she said. “At some point, inaction becomes a decision.” 

The government, for its part, has pointed to a proposed alternative: a politically appointed inquiry body. Livne Lahav dismissed that option outright. 

“First of all, this is not even law,” she said. “It has not passed the legislative process. You cannot ask a court to rely on something that does not exist.” 

Beyond that, Livne Lahav questioned the structure itself. “A state commission of inquiry is designed to reach the truth,” she said. “It is headed by someone with judicial experience, usually a retired judge, with the tools and the independence to investigate complex events.” 

By contrast, she warned, the government’s model risks turning the process into a political negotiation. “What they are proposing creates a situation where there will be negotiations over the truth,” she said. “Instead of finding out what actually happened, you will have competing versions, shaped by political positions.” 

Livne Lahav stressed that the stakes go beyond legal theory. “The public should go to elections knowing what happened,” she said. “If we prevent the establishment of a body that can examine this, we are blocking the public’s ability to know.” 

That concern echoed directly in Chen’s remarks. “Who knew? What did they do? What did they not do?” he asked. 

Chen also pointed to what he described as shifting explanations from the government. “At the beginning, it wasn’t time because we were at war,” he said. “Now they say the court is not authorized. So, what is it? You can’t change each time and give a different excuse.” 

For Chen, the delay is not abstract. It affects how families process loss. “We are still waiting,” he said. “How can you move forward without answers? We’re here at the cemetery now.” 

On the other side, Likud lawmaker Tally Gotliv, who was removed from the courtroom during the hearing after repeated disruptive outbursts, framed the events in entirely different terms. Speaking after her removal, she accused the court not only of overreach but also of deepening the rifts it claims to manage. 

“The Supreme Court cannot look bereaved families in the eye,” she said. “It cannot bear their pain, their criticism, the accusations people feel toward it.” 

Gotliv argued that the justices were actively excluding those voices. “The court distances and removes bereaved families from the hall,” she said. “And what is worse, it creates division between them.” 

According to Gotliv, that division is not incidental. “There are families who want a state commission and families who do not,” she said. “And the court is fueling that conflict.” 

She went further, accusing political actors of exploiting the situation. “Left-wing organizations are using this pain, using this division, to advance political interests,” she claimed. 

Gotliv argued that her removal was part of the same pattern. “Expelling me is a violation of parliamentary immunity,” she said. “The law is clear. You cannot remove a member of Knesset like that.” 

For Gotliv, the issue is not only procedural but symbolic. “When they remove me, they remove the people,” she said. “This is part of the contempt the court shows toward the government and the coalition.” 

She rejected the premise of the hearing altogether. “The court should not be dealing with this issue at all,” she said. “This is not a question of whether it has authority or not. It simply should not be discussing it.” 

Instead, Gotliv called for a structural response. “This is exactly why the power of the court needs to be restrained through legislation,” she said. “There needs to be clear limits on what it can and cannot do.” 

Gotliv also pushed back on the idea that the government is avoiding action. “The government has already agreed to establish a mechanism,” she said, referring to the proposed political inquiry. “The question is not whether there will be an investigation, but what kind.” 

For her, the answer should not come from the judiciary. “This is a decision for the elected government,” she said. “Not for the court.” 

The contrast between the two positions could hardly be sharper. For petitioners like Livne Lahav, the absence of a state commission represents a failure of governance that requires judicial intervention. For lawmakers like Gotliv, judicial involvement itself represents a breakdown of democratic boundaries. 

Caught between those positions is a public that is still processing October 7—and, increasingly, is divided over how the events before, during and in the aftermath of the massacre should be examined. 

The court has not yet ruled. But Thursday’s hearing made clear that the question is no longer only about how October 7 should be investigated. It also concerns whether Israel’s institutions—and its society—still agree on who has the authority to define the truth, and when the inquiry must begin.