All the Tricks and Maneuvers in the Bill for a National Inquiry Commission

MK Kalner has placed on the Knesset table a new draft of a bill for a state-national commission of inquiry into the events of the Oct. 7 massacre. This new wording, which he presents as improved and as answering the problems in previous drafts, is nothing more than another performance in the circus of the government's “tricks and maneuvers,” a government doing everything it can to thwart the investigation into the events of Oct. 7.

The basic mantra around the “State-National Commission of Inquiry Law” is that it is a balanced law, in which half the commission’s members will be appointed by the government and the other half by the opposition, and “there is no greater equality than that.” This imaginary equality is meant to throw sand in the public’s eyes and market a law whose sole purpose is to block the investigation into the October events, as if it were the optimal procedure for examining the truth of what happened.

The changes from previous drafts: in earlier drafts of the law, a committee would be established and would appoint seven members. In Kalner’s latest revision, the number was changed to six members. This substantive change is intended to ensure that the government, which appoints three members, will receive veto power over any decision that is not to the government’s liking. Since they make up half the committee, they can prevent any decision whatsoever.

In the law’s purpose clause, it says it is intended to establish a committee “by broad consensus among representatives of the people.” But a committee, half of whose members were chosen by half of the people, and who may be detested by the other half, does not deserve to be described as a committee chosen by broad consensus. On the contrary, in the proposed format, there may well not be a single committee member in whom the majority of the public has confidence.

In previous drafts, it was determined that the committee could operate so long as its membership had not fallen below five. In Kalner’s draft, the number was lowered to three. This amendment is intended to ensure that the committee can operate even if it consists only of coalition appointees, and thus a commission of inquiry could function with all of its members coming only from the coalition.

In interviews Kalner gave, he explained that this was meant to prevent the opposition from paralyzing the committee by failing to appoint members. However, as we will yet see, the entire structure of the law is intended to allow the coalition endless means of sabotaging and paralyzing the committee’s work. In other words, the law ostensibly guards against paralysis by the opposition, but leaves the coalition full room to paralyze the committee.

It is important to remember and stress this: on the face of it, the coalition has a clear interest in preventing an inquiry into the events of Oct. 7, as demonstrated by its conduct to date. By contrast, the opposition has a strong interest in examining the events quickly and professionally. Therefore, the law should be analyzed not only by the supposedly neutral provisions contained in it, but also by the map of the parties’ interests and the ability to exploit the law’s provisions to realize those interests.

Demonstrators at the Supreme Court for and against a national inquiry commission (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

The struggle over control of the committee

The opposition’s basic claim is that there is a need to establish a state commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme Court justice. All the fabrications about lack of trust in Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit collapsed the moment it was proposed that Justice Solberg be the one to establish the committee, and even that was refused.

In any event, the government knows that the opposition is categorically opposed to a “law bypassing a state commission of inquiry,” so any proposed law must take that opposition into account and offer a fair and independent mechanism even in the event that the opposition does not take part in it. Such a law would be required to entrust the selection of committee members to nonpolitical figures, such as the current presidents of district courts, or a retired Supreme Court president who left more than 18 years ago, in whom, as we will see, Kalner does place trust.

But the coalition is not seeking a real, independent committee at all. It wants tight political control over the committee, with veto power and the ability to thwart every step. Therefore the bill stipulates that politicians will appoint the committee members, and not just any politicians, but those over whose heads the cloud of blame also hangs.

The law grants powers to the Knesset speaker, who is certainly a political figure belonging to the governing party, one of the main subjects under investigation. The law also gives representatives of hostages and bereaved families observer status on the committee. But their identities must also be chosen by the committee, and here too coalition appointees have veto power. All this instead of allowing the hostages themselves to choose their representatives, and likewise the bereaved families.

The current law also does not even bet on coalition appointees. From the wording of the law, it is possible to see that its drafters feared that a committee member chosen by the coalition might show independence and, by mistake, behave as though the committee were really meant to seek the truth. Accordingly, the law states that just two committee members are enough to require the committee to exercise the broad investigative powers available under the Commissions of Inquiry Law, and thereby paralyze the committee through a proliferation of proceedings and witness summonses without end.

How dangerous witnesses are blocked

It is clear to everyone that a substantial and important part of the testimony will necessarily have to be heard behind closed doors. However, the proposed law effectively states that coalition appointees have veto power over holding a closed session. Accordingly, any witness from the security establishment who might testify against the government, the most threatening witnesses, and ones who are clearly not willing to testify without a closed session, can have their testimony thwarted by refusing to hold the hearing behind closed doors.

The absurdity of the eligibility conditions

Another absurd clause, which must be addressed, is Section 5, titled “Eligibility of Committee Members.” Eligibility clauses in legislation set minimum threshold rules for appointing a committee member. One would have expected that for the committee meant to investigate the greatest disaster to strike the Jewish people since the Holocaust, threshold rules would be set to ensure the selection of professional members with extensive knowledge and understanding of the issues under investigation.

But a major disappointment awaits. The lack of seriousness and contempt the coalition feels toward the investigation are reflected in this section, which states that there is no threshold condition except that the committee member be an Israeli citizen. Under the proposed law, there is nothing to prevent Likud members from serving on the committee, and there is also nothing to prevent a kindergarten child from serving on it.

The drafters’ eyes were not on who would sit on the committee, but only on who would not sit on it. Therefore, the eligibility clause only specified whom it would not be possible to appoint. The bill says that no one may be appointed who, after Oct. 7, 2005, held one of the following positions, this is not a mistake, 2005: Supreme Court justice, prime minister or minister, officer of the rank of major general or above, head of the Shin Bet and his deputies, attorney general, legal adviser to the Shin Bet, and military advocate general.

The scope of the list and the historical depth of the disqualification testify more than abundantly that the purpose of the bill’s initiators is not to investigate the events of Oct. 7, but to deal with stale issues from the distant past and create a large smoke screen that obscures the real investigative points.

The “justification” for the list of disqualified people is that all those named are part of the group under investigation and therefore, according to Kalner, there is a conflict of interest in choosing them. And one must ask: Are Likud members not tainted by a conflict of interest? Are members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee not tainted? Clearly, it was not a conflict of interest that guided the bill’s drafters, but rather a vile attempt to prevent the opposition from appointing professional and worthy people.

There is not enough room here to detail additional distortions contained in the proposed law. But all the distortions have one common denominator: the bill does not intend to investigate the October massacre. It itself comes to carry out a massacre of the idea of establishing a commission of inquiry, and it creates a mechanism capable of generating an alternative narrative that will free the prime minister and his associates from the weight of the responsibility that rests upon them.