On Monday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved a bill proposal by Likud MK Ariel Kallner that would establish a politically appointed commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding the October 7 Hamas attack.
The approval came just hours before a separate ministerial committee, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, convened for the first time to outline the scope and authority of the proposed inquiry.
The bill is scheduled to be brought for a preliminary Knesset vote on Wednesday. Under its provisions, the government would retain decisive control over the subjects examined by the commission, including potential scrutiny of the judiciary.
According to the proposal, the commission would comprise six members appointed “by broad agreement” between the coalition and the opposition, subject to approval by a special Knesset majority of 80 MKs. If no agreement is reached, the bill stipulates that appointments would be determined by Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana (Likud).
The opposition has already announced it will not participate in forming the commission, arguing that the framework falls short of a state commission of inquiry under existing law.
In a separate committee meeting on Monday, the coalition blocked a proposal by Blue and White MK Alon Schuster to establish a state commission of inquiry, defeating it by a five-to-four vote.
The dispute reflects a deep rift over how Israel should investigate the failures of October 7. Critics maintain that only a state commission of inquiry – appointed independently by the judiciary and vested with broad subpoena powers – can uncover the full truth and restore public trust.
A government-appointed body, they warn, risks politicizing the process and shielding senior decision-makers from meaningful scrutiny.
Speaking in a recorded address released Monday evening, Netanyahu defended the government’s approach, describing the proposal as the establishment of a “special state commission of inquiry” that would be independent, balanced, and broadly representative.
“This will be an independent commission with full authority, exactly as defined under the Commissions of Inquiry Law,” Netanyahu said. “Politicians will not be members of the commission. Its composition will be determined equally – half by the coalition and half by the opposition.”
Netanyahu added that the panel would include experts in security, academia, and law, and that bereaved parents of October 7 victims would serve as observers.
The prime minister argued that alternative models would lack public legitimacy. While the government could have established a governmental review committee appointed entirely by the cabinet, he said, such a body “would have earned the trust of only part of the public.” At the same time, Netanyahu rejected the opposition’s demand for a commission appointed solely by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, saying it would command confidence from “only a small segment of the public.”
“An unprecedented event like October 7 requires a special inquiry – a broad national commission that is acceptable to the majority of the people,” Netanyahu said. “No side will have any advantage in appointing the members.”
Drawing a comparison to the United States, Netanyahu cited the bipartisan commission established following the 9/11 attacks. “After the greatest disaster in American history, a special law was passed to create a balanced commission between both sides of the political divide,” he said. “Its conclusions earned wide legitimacy precisely for that reason. That is exactly what we are doing.”
Netanyahu further urged the opposition to participate, insisting the inquiry would not be constrained. “Bring any experts you want, ask whatever you want, investigate whoever you want – including me,” he said.
While acknowledging that the government would define the commission’s mandate and boundaries, Netanyahu insisted this was standard practice across all forms of inquiry. “All issues will be examined without exception – diplomatic, security, intelligence, legal – everything,” he said.
Opposition leaders, bereaved families, and legal experts rejected that framing, warning that government control over the commission’s mandate and appointments fundamentally undermines its independence and credibility.
'Intended to mislead the public, obscure truth'
Simultaneously, on Monday, bereaved families and activists protested against the coalition’s move. Members of the “October Council,” a forum representing families of victims and hostages, gathered outside the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, where ministers had met earlier in the day to discuss the inquiry’s outline.
Reut Edri, the mother of Shin Bet officer Ido Edri, who was murdered while off duty at the Nova music festival, said, according to reports, “We will not be staying at home this week.”
Gil Dickmann, whose cousin Carmel Gat was kidnapped and later murdered in Gaza, said that the protesters would not relent. “For two years, the government has evaded responsibility, and now it is evading us as well,” he said. “We will not allow that.”
Earlier in the morning, activists from the Meshanim Kivun (“Changing Direction”) protest group blocked the entrance to the Prime Minister’s Office. Police declared the gathering unlawful and arrested three demonstrators, who were later released without conditions.
Jerusalem District Court Judge Dan Liberman, ordering their release, emphasized the constitutional value of protest.
“I gave weight to the fact that this demonstration was part of the exercise of political freedom of expression in a democratic state,” he wrote, adding that there was no danger posed by the protesters and no justification for barring them from sites “that by their very nature carry special significance for freedom of protest and political expression.”
The legal dispute intensified on Sunday evening, when Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara sharply criticized the proposed framework.
In a statement and accompanying advisory opinion submitted to Justice Minister Yariv Levin, she warned that the model was “riddled with substantive flaws that would prevent reaching the truth and drawing genuine lessons, while prioritizing political considerations over the principles of an independent, impartial, and professional investigation.”
The advisory opinion, authored by Deputy Attorney-General Avital Somplinsky, stresses that Israel’s existing legal regime for commissions of inquiry was specifically designed for moments of national catastrophe and requires a judicially led body insulated from political influence.
Transferring appointment powers from the Supreme Court to political actors – particularly when the government itself is a central subject of investigation – would fundamentally politicize the inquiry, the opinion warned.
Beyond structural concerns, the advisory cautioned that the proposed framework weakens key investigative powers, including procedural safeguards and the ability to compel testimony, undermining the commission’s capacity to investigate a complex, multi-system failure involving the military, intelligence agencies, and political leadership.
The Attorney-General’s Office also characterized the bill as personal and retroactive legislation, tailored to a specific government and a single historical event, potentially designed to circumvent a High Court order requiring the government to justify its refusal to establish a state commission of inquiry under existing law.
An inquiry lacking independence and public trust, the opinion concluded, would fail to meet the public’s right to know the truth and could cause lasting damage by foreclosing the possibility of a future, properly constituted investigation.
Keshet Neev contributed to this report.