Accountability is famously a word in English that does not have a direct translation into Hebrew. There are phrases that attempt to approximate it, but none that fully capture its meaning – an obligation to accept responsibility, to answer for decisions that are made, and to face their consequences.
That absence of the word is not merely linguistic. It reflects something deeper about Israeli political culture and what has become a constant in the country: Try to avoid responsibility, deflect blame, and do everything to remain in power.
That deficiency helps explain more than the current debate over a commission of inquiry. It also explains something no less disturbing: how, despite the scale of the failures of October 7 and the war that followed, Israeli politics are almost exactly the same as they were before.
The same figures are once again vying for power ahead of the elections that will be held in the second half of 2026. The same names are in the polls, from the politicians currently in the Knesset to those who were there just a couple of years ago.
It would have been natural to think that, in the aftermath of the greatest disaster in our national history, new leadership would have already emerged. Someone – or even multiple people – would be electrifying the country, showing that things can be done differently and that there are alternatives to the current cadre leading us now or vying to lead us in the future.
But there aren’t, and this is striking. Israel is a country known for its innovation, creativity, and courage. It produces world-class entrepreneurs, military commanders, scientists, and civil-society leaders. Yet when it comes to politics, the system seems stuck.
Even the party that claims to represent the reservists who fought in Gaza and Lebanon over the last two years – a movement that should carry one of the most morally compelling voices today – is being led by a former failed politician. Not a new figure, but by someone from the same old political class.
The reason this is the case, I believe, is because systems that avoid accountability also suppress renewal. When failure carries no real consequences and leaders do not step aside, those watching from the outside are taught a clear lesson: Politics is not a path to service, but rather a place where staying on the wheel and in the game come first. It is less about what you do and more about how long you can be there.
Who investigates the investigators?
It is through this lens that the Knesset vote on Wednesday must be understood. The legislation advanced this week, aimed at giving the government the ability to establish a commission of inquiry and appoint its members, stands in stark contrast to a state commission of inquiry – Israel’s highest investigative authority – whose composition is determined independently by the judiciary.
Both options are flawed and will be rejected by about half of the people. If the state commission is appointed, the half that does not trust the Supreme Court will not believe a word that the commission writes. If the government-appointed committee moves ahead, the same will happen, just from the other side. Either way, to some extent, Israel is stuck – there is no perfect option.
But beyond the numbers of who supports what, something even more basic is at stake and should be the determining factor.
Anyone detained by the police does not get to choose the detectives handling the case. When citizens appear before a zoning or planning commission, they do not get to select the panel that will hear their appeal. When people go to court, they do not get to decide who the judges will be.
In every functioning system, this principle is non-negotiable. The moment a suspect chooses the investigator, the investigation ceases to be credible.
Yet in this case, we are being told that the same ministers who failed in the years leading up to October 7 – and on October 7 itself – should determine who will investigate those failures.
In what world does this make sense? And in what reality does this lead to accountability? It doesn’t. With such a commission, there is only one result – evading responsibility.
Israelis deserve to know what went wrong before and on October 7. Not for political gain, and not for revenge, but to ensure that such a catastrophe never happens again. Accountability is not about settling scores. It is about learning, correcting, and preventing.
And we already have a clear indication of how a politically appointed commission would function.
All one had to do was listen to the first meeting of the committee tasked with appointing it. Instead of focusing on decisions taken in the years leading up to the war, the discussion immediately drifted backwards – to the Oslo Accords, to the disengagement from Gaza. Other MKs spoke of the need to investigate the judiciary and the attorney general.
Was there any serious discussion of the policy of containment crafted by the prime minister and adopted by successive governments? Any real reckoning with the Qatari cash transferred to Gaza with the approval of all prime ministers over the last seven years? Any willingness to examine decisions made at the highest political level within this government?
Of course not.
And that brings us back to the absence of renewal. When accountability is avoided, truth is delayed. When truth is delayed, leaders cling to power. And when leaders never step aside, new leadership cannot emerge.
The choice facing Israel, therefore, is not just technical and about what model of inquiry we should adopt. It is between two different approaches to power.
One seeks to uncover the truth, however uncomfortable it may be, with the purpose of rebuilding. The other is designed to protect those in power from the consequences of their own decisions.
After October 7, Israel does not need another round of blame or the re-litigation of historical events with, at best, tangential relevance to October 7. The country needs a reckoning rooted in independence and integrity. It needs accountability – precisely the one thing that cannot be obtained by those who fear it most.
The writer is a co-founder of the MEAD policy forum, a senior fellow at JPPI, and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His newest book is While Israel Slept.