Netanyahu Government Criticized for Opposing State Inquiry into Disengagement Link to October 7
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
The Netanyahu government is criticized for opposing a state commission of inquiry that could have investigated the link between the 2005 Gaza disengagement and the October 7th attack. By rejecting this, the government lost the chance to define the commission's scope. The article argues that avoiding this connection would undermine the commission's credibility. A future government might establish its own commission, potentially focusing on a later period and excluding the disengagement from its mandate.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- The Netanyahu government is criticized for opposing a state commission of inquiry into the disengagement's link to October 7.
- The government could have mandated the commission to examine the disengagement's connection to the Hamas attack.
- Avoiding the disengagement link would undermine a commission's credibility, according to the article.
- The President of the Supreme Court, Yitzhak Amit, would be tasked with appointing objective commission members.
- A future government might establish its own commission, potentially excluding the disengagement from its scope.
The current Netanyahu government is criticized for opposing the establishment of a state commission of inquiry that could have examined the connection between the 2005 Gaza disengagement and the October 7th Hamas attack. By refusing to establish such a commission, the government missed an opportunity to define the scope of the investigation, which, according to the State Commissions of Inquiry Law, is determined by the government itself. The article argues that the government could have mandated the commission to investigate not only the past decade but also the two decades prior, specifically the link between the disengagement decision under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the October 7th massacre.
This approach, the author suggests, would have served as a litmus test for the commission's objectivity. A commission that avoids examining the potential link between the disengagement and the massacre would, justifiably, lose its credibility. The establishment of a state commission would also place President of the Supreme Court Yitzhak Amit under scrutiny to appoint objective and trustworthy members, ensuring public confidence from across the political spectrum.
The article raises critical questions that any commission must address, including how the withdrawal from Gaza enabled Hamas's military buildup, why a similar event did not occur in the West Bank, and the impact of the disengagement on the IDF and Shin Bet's intelligence capabilities. It cites a Shin Bet inquiry that pointed to limited intelligence due to operational constraints and difficulties in closing intelligence loops in Gaza.
If a new government is formed after the upcoming elections, it may establish its own state commission of inquiry. However, such a government might choose to begin its investigation from 2009, when Netanyahu first came to power, potentially ignoring the events of 2005. This scenario suggests that the Likud party may have not only forfeited the chance to establish the commission but also the ability to dictate its investigative focus.
Mentioned
