Israeli Parliament Approves National Inquiry Panel Proposal for October 7 Massacre

The Israeli Knesset approved in a preliminary reading a private member's bill by MK Ariel Kallner to establish a national inquiry committee into the October 7 massacre. Although the bill will not pass during the current Knesset term, it benefits from legislative continuity and can be advanced in the next Knesset session. This means the political battle over the inquiry committee will continue after the upcoming elections.

The proposed inquiry model is parity-based, granting the opposition equal influence in appointing committee members, initially requiring the consent of 80 MKs, and if not achieved, allowing the opposition to appoint half the members. This approach contrasts with previous government-appointed committees, such as the Winograd Commission on the 2006 Lebanon War. The parity model is inspired by the U.S. Congressional inquiry after the September 11 attacks, aiming to build broad public trust in investigating a national tragedy.

However, the article highlights that the real opposition in Israel is not only political parties but also the entrenched judiciary establishment, led by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, who resists any reduction of judicial power. The term "state" committee is misleading, as the law does not specify it, and the key issue is who appoints the members. Amit’s role is criticized as partisan, citing his past conflicts with other judges and statements opposing elected officials’ influence over judicial appointments.

Public trust in government legal advisors and the Supreme Court is reportedly very low, with only 4% and 10% confidence respectively among coalition supporters. The article argues that expanding the Supreme Court president’s power over inquiry committees is not inevitable and recalls historical commissions like the Agranat Commission, which limited political oversight.

MK Kallner’s bill is seen as a balanced attempt to create a more equitable appointment mechanism. If the opposition boycotts, the committee would operate with a government majority, resembling a government-appointed inquiry. The Supreme Court is expected to challenge the bill if passed, likely ruling that appointment authority remains with the judiciary. This ongoing power struggle between branches risks deepening public polarization, with the court potentially viewed as a central source of conflict rather than a moderating force.

The article concludes that the opposition’s refusal to compromise on the inquiry committee reflects a broader judicial-political confrontation, where some prefer to rely on the Supreme Court to secure their interests rather than negotiate with the government.