Comptroller tells heated hearing his Oct. 7 probe essential as bereaved parents yell at justices

State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman insists that his office is empowered to review the failings behind the catastrophic Hamas-led October 7, 2023, invasion and that its ability to do so is critical for preserving the comptroller’s independence with the framework of Israel’s democracy.

Englman makes his comments during a High Court hearing over petitions asserting that the State Comptroller’s office does not have the authority or competence to probe government policy, security strategy, and apparent intelligence failures relating to the October 7 attack.

“What has guided me during the entire review of the war is the Israeli citizen. Fixing the problems, with the institution of the comptroller preserving its independence and not being dependent on any official or the establishment of another [investigative] mechanism, which we see as very important but which we do not think contravenes in any way a state comptroller review,” says Englman in an impassioned address to the court.

During the hearing, two bereaved parents begin shouting at the judges, accusing them of responsibility for the October 7 disaster.

One of the parents screams “They murdered our children because of you,” while another shouts “You forbade soldiers from firing on those who broke through the fence… October 7 is on your hands.”

Their comments reflect a campaign within the right-wing media and political landscape to attribute blame to the High Court for the October 7 invasion. The court in 2018 explicitly rejected petitions against the IDF’s open-fire regulations, and upheld the military’s policy of shooting those who approached the Gaza border security barrier.

In his own remarks, Englman argues that his probe does not come at the expense of a state commission of inquiry but would rather complement it, should the government establish such an investigation. The government has refused to set up a state commission of inquiry, Israel’s highest investigative authority, arguing that it would be biased, despite polls showing most Israeli want one.

He says that his office has focused on details relating to key issues that have arisen from his investigation and that are included in four draft documents that have yet to be published. He listed the interface between intelligence agencies and public diplomacy failures as two examples.

“We very much request that the state comptroller be able to fulfill his role in Israel’s democracy, in accordance with the limits of his authority,” concludes Englman.

But several of the five presiding justices during the hearing appeared skeptical of claims by the state comptroller’s legal representative that the quasi-constitutional Basic Law: The State Comptroller empowers the office to review government policy and security strategy.

They also called into question some of the methods used by the state comptroller in compiling his reports, including claims that some senior security officials have not been granted the right to submit their version of events.