Call for ‘independent’ inquiry removed from coalition bill establishing Oct. 7 probe

A clause calling for a “full, thorough and independent” investigation of the state’s failures on and leading up to Hamas’s assault on October 7, 2023, has been removed from a controversial Likud bill aimed at establishing a politically appointed probe into the matter.

Instead, a copy of MK Ariel Kallner’s bill shared with lawmakers this week stated that the commission would be established in a manner that provides “for the best response to the difficult public dispute surrounding the identity of the body that appoints the committee members, by appointment by consensus or in an equal manner between both sides in the Knesset.”

Asked about the change, Kallner told the Ynet news site that “the words were not deleted intentionally,” blaming their deletion on a “clerical error.” However, he also apparently contradicted that statement, saying the new phrasing was “intended to clarify the purpose, which is to provide a response to the public controversy.”

The legislation, which passed its preliminary reading in December, is intended to establish a politically-appointed commission rather than an independent state commission of inquiry and has been strongly criticized by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who said last year that it was “tailor-made” for the “personal” needs of the government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected such a state commission of inquiry because its members are selected by the judiciary, which he claims is biased against him — despite polling showing that most Israelis support a state commission of inquiry. Netanyahu’s government has engaged in a years-long effort to weaken the court system.

The October 7, 2023, attack saw thousands of Hamas-led terrorists cross into Israel from Gaza, killing some 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and taking another 251 hostages.

In addition to the removal of the clause calling for an “independent” investigation, the latest version of the legislation also calls to exclude current and former High Court judges, attorney generals, officers over the rank of major general, Shin Bet chiefs and members of the national security cabinet from serving as members of the proposed inquiry.

Addressing the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on Wednesday, Kallner argued that given the need to investigate events going back years, “we must ensure that those who will have to provide answers regarding their responsibility for Israel’s security do not sit in the committee seats.”

However, these changes prompted strong pushback from legal officials, with a Justice Ministry representative stating that it was “very irregular not to set positive eligibility requirements but simply to disqualify a string of people due to roles they held even in the distant past.”

“This is different from cooling-off periods, which are usually limited to a timeframe,” the official stated, prompting Kallner to reply that he would again amend it so as to expand the disqualification to all government ministers.

The representative also criticized the removal of the reference to the proposed panel’s independence, insisting that such language constituted “basic principles for any commission of inquiry.”

Committee legal adviser Gur Bligh also raised similar objections regarding the change in language and Kallner’s decision to allow “the government to determine the scope of the investigation.”

“The law is intended to separate the ‘appointers’ from the ‘investigated,’ yet here he lets the Government, which is certainly one of the investigated bodies, set the mandate,” he said, adding that the lawmaker was “removing a list of people who are certainly experts in security matters,” thus depriving the probe of “relevant knowledge of how to investigate the subject.”

“There is no public dispute over the definition of the mandate,” Kallner countered — insisting that his bill was necessary because under the current law, those in charge of Israel’s security agencies could be appointed to an investigative commission.

“We have enough people left with judgment and decision-making skills who can ask questions,” he hit back, arguing that “there is no question at all that this is a thorough, independent, and autonomous investigation.”

Under Kallner’s proposal, the investigative commission would consist of 6-7 members appointed by the Knesset who would be joined by four supervisory members representing bereaved families.

It stipulates that within two weeks of the law’s passage, the Knesset Speaker, currently a member of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, would send lawmakers a proposed list of potential members following consultation with both the coalition and opposition.

Should the nominees fail to obtain support from at least 80 out of 120 lawmakers, the chairman of the Knesset House Committee and the opposition leader would each choose three members, who would then select a chairman. If no chairman is chosen, both the chairman of the Knesset House Committee and the opposition leader would be entitled to appoint co-chairs.

Should either not put forward candidates within two weeks of the beginning of the process, those missing will be appointed by the state comptroller.

This is a change from a previous version, which stipulated that if either the coalition or opposition did not cooperate in the process or could not settle on a candidate, the Knesset speaker would choose instead, giving the coalition effective control, as opposition figures have pledged to boycott the commission.

Late last month, the High Court of Justice gave the government until July 1 to come up with a “suitable framework” to investigate October 7, stopping short of ordering a state commission of inquiry into the onslaught.

The government has argued that the court has no authority to order it to establish a state commission of inquiry.