A Politically Appointed Investigation
On July 7, 2026, the Israeli Knesset announced that legislation establishing a “State-National Commission of Inquiry” into the events surrounding the massacre had been approved in its first reading. However, the mechanism for selecting investigators remains the central point of contention, as the current draft allows the governing coalition to appoint up to three members if a full consensus cannot be reached.
The proposed legislation initially stipulates that an 80-member Knesset majority should approve the six members of the investigative commission.
This structural arrangement raises an unavoidable question regarding credibility. Can a government credibly investigate failures that occurred while it was responsible for running the country if that same government helps choose the investigators? Bereaved families and protest groups contend that the process risks becoming a political exercise designed to control the investigation’s membership, direction and conclusions from the outset.
Opposition Boycotts the Vote
The legislation passed its first reading with a vote of 59–0, a result achieved because opposition lawmakers refused to participate in the chamber. Their boycott was not an indication that the proposal had unanimous political support; rather, it was a deliberate attempt to reject the legitimacy of the process altogether. The opposition has accused the coalition of constructing a commission capable of shielding Netanyahu and his government from responsibility for the events of October 7.
The 59–0 result therefore reflects the depth of the political divide rather than a national consensus on how to handle the tragedy. Families of victims, survivors and former hostages have also been among those demanding an independent state commission, arguing that the purpose of an investigation is not merely to assign blame but to understand how warning signs were missed.
For many of those families, the goal is to determine how Israel’s defences failed and what must change to prevent another attack. The opposition insists that a formal state commission of inquiry is necessary under Israel’s existing system, where such commissions have traditionally been used to investigate major national disasters and failures.
The Inquiry’s Scope Could Also Become Political
Netanyahu has stated that the inquiry should examine historical issues including the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the 2023 protests against his government’s judicial overhaul.
The danger is that the inquiry becomes a battle over competing political narratives rather than a focused examination of accountability. A commission investigating everything risks clearly explaining nothing.
Accountability Cannot Be Written by Those Facing Scrutiny
The Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, killed about 1,200 people in Israel and resulted in 251 people being taken hostage. It represented the deadliest single day in Israel’s history and one of the country’s greatest intelligence and security failures. Since then, responsibility has become a major political battle, with military and intelligence officials facing scrutiny over operational failures, ignored warnings, inadequate preparation and the slow response once the attack began.
But the responsibility of Israel’s political leadership must also be examined. Netanyahu was prime minister when the attack occurred, and his government was responsible for national security policy, the political strategy toward Hamas and the decisions that shaped Israel’s approach to Gaza before October 7. A credible investigation cannot begin with predetermined conclusions. It must be able to examine the military, intelligence agencies, previous governments and the current government without political restrictions.
This includes asking what Netanyahu and his ministers knew, what warnings were presented to them, what decisions they made and whether political priorities contributed to the conditions that allowed the attack to happen. The president of Israel’s Supreme Court selects the commission’s members in a traditional state commission model, helping separate the investigation from the government being examined. Instead, the current coalition has supported a structure giving politicians a direct role in choosing the investigators.
October 7 was not an ordinary political controversy. It was a national catastrophe that devastated families, shattered public confidence and exposed serious failures within institutions responsible for protecting civilians. Any investigation must therefore be strong enough to examine those institutions without fear or favour.
The real argument is about independence. An inquiry can interview witnesses, review documents and publish hundreds of pages of findings.