Calls for a “state commission of inquiry” into the failures surrounding October 7 are justified, necessary, and unavoidable. Israel has always examined its darkest moments, often more rigorously than any other democracy. Accountability is not a weakness; it is a national strength.
As public pressure grows – from former security officials, legal experts, and segments of the political opposition – so does the importance of the “language” used to frame that inquiry. Phrases now appearing with increasing frequency, such as “how a catastrophe of this scale was allowed to happen,” may sound responsible. They are not neutral.
To say that October 7 was “allowed” to happen implies “foreknowledge,” “capacity to prevent,” and “a conscious failure to act.” That is not a procedural description; it is an accusation. It risks turning a commission of inquiry into a pre-verdict.
There is a critical distinction between asking how Israel’s defenses failed under conditions of deception and surprise, and asserting that the state somehow permitted the mass murder of its civilians. The first is essential. The second smuggles moral culpability into the investigation before evidence is examined.
Historical perspective
History provides useful perspective.
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States convened multiple inquiries. They were unsparing, detailed, and in some cases career-ending. Yet the core framing was careful. The question was how warnings were missed, signals misread, and assumptions exploited – not why the United States “let” Japan attack. No serious investigation treated Pearl Harbor as an act of permission rather than failure amid deception.
The same was true after September 11. The 9/11 Commission documented intelligence breakdowns, bureaucratic silos, and flawed threat assessments in meticulous detail. But even amid fierce political recrimination, the attacks were never described as something the US government “allowed” to happen. The language acknowledged an adaptive enemy whose central tactic was concealment and surprise.
Israel's reckoning
Israel now faces a comparable reckoning – under far harsher scrutiny and in the midst of ongoing military activity in Gaza, Lebanon, and the territories.
Hamas deliberately cultivated a false image of deterrence and governance, lulled Israeli intelligence into flawed assumptions, and then executed a meticulously planned massacre designed to maximize civilian casualties and psychological trauma. That reality does not absolve Israeli institutions of responsibility for failures. It does, however, matter profoundly when assigning intent, negligence, or moral blame.
Language like “let this happen” collapses that distinction. It shifts the focus from “failure” to “acquiescence,” and in doing so, aligns with international narratives eager to dilute Hamas’s responsibility and recast October 7 as a consequence of Israeli decision-making rather than a terrorist atrocity.
A commission of inquiry must clarify responsibility, not linguistically assign it in advance. Democracies do not conduct investigations by embedding indictments in their phrasing.
Precision is not evasion. It is the foundation of justice.
Israel owes its citizens honest answers: where intelligence failed, where command structures broke down, where doctrine proved dangerously outdated. It does not owe anyone a confession encoded in a headline.
As Israel undertakes the difficult but necessary work of national self-examination, words must be chosen with care. History will judge not only the conclusions reached but also whether they were reached through inquiry or presumption.
The writer is president of the Religious Zionists of America (RZA.) He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and the author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.