At rowdy meeting, cabinet delays for 3 months decision on state inquiry into Gaza war

A cabinet meeting called to discuss forming a state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack saw Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ministers rally against the attorney general, who favors establishing a probe, and ultimately postpone a decision on the matter, according to leaks carried by Hebrew media.

During the Sunday meeting, Netanyahu reportedly labeled Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar a “bureaucrat” and insisted that the war has been only temporarily stopped by the current ceasefire. Ministers were also said to argue that the High Court has no authority to intervene in the matter of setting up a probe panel.

After four hours of deliberations, ministers decided to hold another meeting on the subject in 90 days.

Opposition figures panned the government, saying the meeting showed it is shirking responsibility for October 7, when Hamas led thousands of terrorists to invade southern Israel, killing 1,200 people, and abducting 251 hostages to the Gaza Strip. The attack opened the Gaza war, which was paused last month amid a complex, three-phase ceasefire agreement that includes the release of hostages.

The cabinet meeting was convened only due to a December 2024 ruling from the High Court of Justice, which ordered the government to hold a hearing on the establishment of a state commission of inquiry within 60 days.

Netanyahu has repeatedly ruled out investigating October 7 until the war is over and has firmly rejected establishing a state inquiry at all, claiming half of the public would not have faith in its findings. He said at the White House on Tuesday that he does want an inquiry at the appropriate time, however, and that its findings “will surprise a lot of people when it happens.”

Critics have alleged he seeks to establish a panel with fewer powers than a state commission and with representatives of his own choosing, because he fears a state commission — which would typically be headed by a retired Supreme Court justice, appointed by the current Supreme Court president — would implicate him in the disaster.

“What a state commission of inquiry would mean is that Netanyahu goes home,” MK Moshe Gafni, a member of the United Torah Judaism party, was heard telling a group of bereaved families in audio broadcast on Israeli television Sunday night.

Who told The Hague?

Ministers trickled out of Sunday evening’s cabinet meeting and by its end there were only six left, reports said. An hour and a half into the gathering, Netanyahu reportedly said he was leaving for a moment and then did not return.

Channel 12 news reported on Monday night that he left the meeting in order to prepare for his Monday testimony at his criminal trial.

Before that, Netanyahu reportedly clashed with Gali Baharav-Miara, the attorney general, who was said to have reminded him that Israel had told the International Criminal Court in The Hague that it would form a state commission of inquiry. “We can’t go back on that,” she reportedly said.

“Who approved saying that?” Netanyahu reportedly demanded.

“You, sir,” responded Baharav-Miara.

The attorney general had in the past said that assuring the ICC that Israel would probe the war could stave off the court issuing arrest warrants on war crimes charges for Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant. While it is not clear what assurances Israel gave the court, the ICC did eventually issue warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

At the cabinet meeting, Baharav-Miara reportedly told ministers that a state commission is the “appropriate legal tool” to investigate the matter. A state commission is the most powerful investigative body, and the only one empowered to subpoena witnesses. She insisted that if the government doesn’t set one up, it must clearly explain why not.

What does the Shin Bet chief have to do with it?

Ahead of the meeting, Shin Bet Director Ronen Bar had asked to attend so that he could give his opinion but was denied. He instead wrote his opinion and asked that it be given to ministers, but it was not. Bar in conversations before the meeting gave his support for establishing a state commission of inquiry, the Kan public broadcaster reported.

Baharav-Miara asked why the opinion was not given to ministers and Netanyahu then reportedly launched a scathing attack on Bar.

“This is absurd! What authority does he have to express his opinion without being asked, and without it even being relevant to him at all?” the prime minister said, with one report claiming he banged on the table in fury.

“He is a bureaucrat. What has he got to do with the decision to set up an inquiry commission?” Netanyahu said, according to Haaretz. “No bureaucrat — whoever he may be — will define for us when [the war] will end. Those who are managing the war and achieving peace are not the bureaucrats. It is the elected Israeli government.”

Nonetheless, he added, “We must probe what happened — but down to the last detail. Not partially, and not in a biased way. I insist on that and I will not be satisfied with less than that,” Haaretz reported.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who has said he does not recognize the recent installment of Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, protested that the court should not be allowed to order the government to form a commission.

Other ministers also reportedly impugned the court’s right to rule regarding the commission, among them Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and far-right Settlements Minister Orit Strock, who both seized on a real estate controversy that surfaced regarding Amit before his election.

Dissenting voices

With most of the ministers said to be in agreement with Netanyahu on the matter, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar reportedly backed the establishment of a state inquiry and offered a proposal intended to appease the ministers who are opposed to the idea of Amit being in charge of the panel’s makeup — as the law mandates — given that some of them have already said they will refuse to recognize his authority.

Instead, Sa’ar suggested that a former Supreme Court president of the cabinet’s choosing pick the members of the committee.

He was also said to reject Netanyahu’s claim that it is not yet the right time to establish a state commission and said that unless the commission is planning to probe the entirety of the war, and not just the events leading up to October 7, 2023, there is no reason not to establish it in the immediate future.

He was backed up by Minister Zeev Elkin, who proposed that the Supreme Court chief and his deputy appoint members to the committee and that it begin with an investigation into the lead-up to, and events of, October 7, Army Radio reported.

Opposition leader MK Yair Lapid in a post to X said, “The government is doing everything it can to avoid taking responsibility.”

The cabinet meeting, he said, was “a disgraceful display for the families of victims and those who were abducted.”

“The subjects of the investigation cannot choose the investigators,” National Unity party chief MK Benny Gantz said. “An independent state investigation committee, in accordance with the law — it shall be established.”

The Movement for Quality Government watchdog, in a statement, said the cabinet meeting was “a new record in the shirking of responsibility and contempt of the public.”

It said Netanyahu’s behavior and that of the ministers only served to prove the need for establishing an independent state inquiry.

Petitioners had told the High Court that a commission must be established as the government is in a serious conflict of interest by being entrusted with approving whether to investigate its own failures.

Retired chief justice Esther Hayut would be a potential choice to head a state commission of inquiry, after her tenure as president of the top court ended 16 months ago. But Netanyahu is reportedly vehemently opposed to her appointment, due to her outspoken criticism of his government’s contentious effort to radically overhaul the judiciary.

Hebrew media reported in December that Netanyahu has been trying to push legislation that would ban the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the Hamas-led terror onslaught, in favor of a political commission of inquiry chaired by one coalition lawmaker and one opposition lawmaker.