State comptroller says public only has ‘partial picture’ of Oct. 7 responsibility, in possible hint to PM’s disclosures

State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman says that office holders, including political and military officials, have “exposed to the public” only partial details about his review of the failures surrounding the invasion and atrocities on October 7, 2023.

It appears that he is referring, at least in part, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent release of a 55-page document of his answers given to Englman for his probe, which included selectively chosen excerpts of security cabinet meetings regarding the situation in Gaza before October 7.

Englman makes his comments in his response to High Court petitions asking the court to order him to end his review and not publish the conclusions and reports on the key issues of the October 7 failings. The court issued an order in December freezing Englman’s probe until it makes a final decision.

“This conduct is improper since in this state of affairs, in which the audit procedures were terminated before the reports were completed and published to the public, the public was exposed to a partial picture, as provided by the aforementioned officials, instead of receiving complete and final review reports, which include the findings of the state comptroller,” says Englman.

The State Comptroller’s Office says that its response to the petitions “disproves one by one” the claims made against Englman’s probe, “and details the damage done to the public interest that has already taken place due to the court order, and the damage which is likely to happen if the court rules in favor of the petitions.”

The Military Advocate General’s Corps’ Military Defense unit and Movement for Quality government petitioned the High Court in September, alleging that there were “substantive flaws” in Englman’s information-gathering processes, and argued more broadly that the ombudsman has no remit to conduct an inquiry into the October 7 attack, since the role of the office is to examine the processes of the agencies under review but not to examine policy and strategy.