Supreme Court President Isaac Amit on Tuesday transferred to his deputy, Justice Noam Sohlberg, the authority to determine the judicial panel that will hear petitions seeking the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding the October 7 Hamas attack.
Amit wrote that, given the nature of the petitions, which center on the application of the State Commissions of Inquiry Law, he believed it was inappropriate for him to continue making decisions in the matter.
“In light of… the law, I believe, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no place for me to issue decisions in these proceedings,” Amit wrote, ordering that the matter be transferred to Sohlberg.
The section Amit referred to assigns the president of the Supreme Court the authority to appoint the members of any state commission of inquiry, a role that has placed Amit at the center of political criticism from coalition figures opposed to the formation of such a body. The decision makes clear that Amit will not be involved in determining the expanded bench that will now consider whether to convert the conditional order previously issued by the court into a binding directive.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of multiple petitions filed to the Supreme Court demanding the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the events leading up to and during the October 7 attack.
In November, the court issued a conditional order, instructing the government to explain why it had not acted under its authority to establish a commission that would examine the events “independently, professionally and without dependence” on political bodies. The order was issued even as the government announced the formation of a ministerial committee tasked with examining the mandate of a prospective inquiry body - a committee that has convened only once since its creation.
Earlier this month, the government submitted its response, arguing that there was “no legal basis whatsoever” for turning the conditional order into an absolute one, and warning that a judicial directive requiring the establishment of a state commission of inquiry would constitute an “extreme and unprecedented act.”
Original panel rules that determination should be made by expanded bench
The original panel hearing the petitions - Justices David Mintz, Alex Stein, and Yechiel Kasher - ruled in January that the final determination should be made by an expanded bench, to be set by the Supreme Court president. It was that procedural step that prompted Amit’s decision to recuse himself from further involvement in shaping the panel.
According to reports, Amit’s move was designed to counter claims of institutional bias. Coalition figures have repeatedly argued that their opposition to a state commission reflects a lack of confidence in Amit personally, and in the court’s leadership more broadly. A compromise proposal under which Amit and Sohlberg would jointly determine the panel was raised publicly but rejected.
Under Monday’s ruling, Sohlberg alone will now determine the composition of the expanded panel and will oversee the next stage of judicial consideration of the petitions.
The court’s procedural decision coincided with renewed public pressure from families of October 7 victims. On Tuesday morning, members of the October Council, a group representing bereaved families, held a press conference at the Knesset announcing a mass demonstration planned for Saturday night in Tel Aviv’s Habima Square, calling for the immediate establishment of a state commission of inquiry.
Speaking at the event, council chairman Rafi Ben Shitrit, whose son Elroy was killed defending the Nahal Oz base, accused the government of evading accountability. Referring to ongoing political scandals - including the so-called “Qatargate” affair - Ben Shitrit said that “a state that respects its fallen does not fear the truth.”
The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for the expanded panel hearing. With Sohlberg now tasked with determining the bench, the next procedural step is expected to clarify the judicial timetable in one of the most consequential constitutional disputes to reach the court since the start of the war.