The Knesset’s State Control Committee voted on Wednesday against the proposal for a state Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the events of the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.
The vote tallied 4-6; those against the proposal were all members of the coalition.
Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid), Merav Ben Ari (Yesh Atid), Yael Ron Ben-Moshe (Blue and White), and Walid al-Hawashla (Ra’am) voted in favor of the proposal.
The coalition MKs against the proposal for the commission of inquiry were Moshe Saada (Likud), Osher Shekalim (Likud), Tsega Melaku (Likud), Tally Gotliv (Likud), Yaakov Tessler (United Torah Judaism), and Moshe Abutbul (Shas).
Levy, the committee chairperson, vowed that there would be a revision vote to come.
During the committee discussion, parts of the State Comptroller’s report were presented, pointing to failings by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on October 7, along with other ministers and IDF senior officials.
Coalition MKs came in, toward the end of the discussion, to vote.
During the discussion, family members of those who were murdered on October 7 spoke on the urgency of conducting a State COI.
Reut Edri, mother of Ido Edri, who was murdered at the Supernova music festival, told the panel that she had been promised a state commission of inquiry by ministers after repeatedly coming to the Knesset since the start of the war.
“For me, there is no recovery. If a State Commission of Inquiry is not established, we will take the people to the streets,” she said, adding, “We will not accept any alternative that is not a State Commission of Inquiry. We will take the people to the streets, and we will not give up.”
Last week, the High Court of Justice gave the government one month to update it on the progress of establishing an investigative body into the events of October 7.
The wording of its instruction did not specify that it should be a State COI, but rather that there was no debate over the need for a comprehensive investigation and that the government should move forward with it.
The push for a state commission of inquiry
Over the past two years, bereaved families – many comprising the October Council forum – as well as families of hostages and much of the public have vehemently pushed for a State COI, arguing that such a massive lapse in preparation and judgment on the part of the government, military, intelligence community, and security officials must be investigated in as broad a manner as possible.
There are two methods through which such a committee can be formed. Both are by the government, but the second also relies on the authority of the State Comptroller.
Ordinarily, legally – and historically – the public committee that is a State COI is established by the Knesset, usually through the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, after the government has greenlighted it. Its chief purpose is to restore public faith in the government, as it is viewed to be apolitical and all-encompassing.
The Supreme Court president appoints all members of the commission, and its head will always be a jurist – either the Supreme Court president, a district court judge, or a retired judge.
The second route to order a State COI is through the direction of the State Comptroller, who can, along with the Knesset’s State Control Committee, mandate its establishment. The committee plays a role in supervising the activities of government entities and local authorities, and pushes forward recommendations made by the State Comptroller in his reports.
This was the attempted route used in the Thursday committee meeting, as the State Comptroller’s report on the failings of October 7 was presented to the panel.
The method involving the State Comptroller has been used less frequently. Since the law permitting the creation of a State COI was passed in 1968, the government has initiated 16 such commissions, while the State Comptroller has initiated four, totaling 20 overall.
Once formed, the commission would call witnesses to testify and would have the authority to summon any information that might aid in the investigation.
Once the findings are published, the government must discuss its suggestions thoroughly, although it is not obligated to adhere to them. And, despite the built-in tension of having an external group of people probe the government, no government has yet ignored its suggestions, even if they have not all been adopted.
As the government lagged in the decision to order a State COI, State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman and his office have been investigating and publishing timely reports on the failures of October 7 – often at odds with the military.
So far, the government has made two arguments as to why it hasn’t established a State COI: the first, that it is impractical and inappropriate to investigate individuals in the midst of an ongoing war; and the second, that Supreme Court President Isaac Amit is not trusted or viewed as legitimate by many in the coalition, which would undercut the validity and genuineness of a committee steered by him.