Legislation10/4/2026

How the Parties Propose Investigating the October 7 Failure

Israel’s political parties are divided over the mechanism for investigating the events of October 7, 2023. Most opposition forces support a state commission of inquiry under the existing law, new parties propose alternative models, while most parties in the current coalition have not stated their position.

Key facts

•Events to be investigated: October 7, 2023
•Legal basis for the proposals: Commissions of Inquiry Law, 5729–1968
•“Yashar!” refers to Section 1 of the law
•“Likud,” “Otzma Yehudit,” Shas, and “United Torah Judaism” did not state their positions
•“Likud’s” bill to establish a “national” commission was not approved

What Supporters of a State Commission of Inquiry Propose

“Yashar!,” “Beyachad,” “Yisrael Beiteinu,” “The Democrats,” “The Joint List,” and “Blue and White” expressed support for a state commission of inquiry. “Yashar!” explicitly referred to Section 1 of the Commissions of Inquiry Law, 5729–1968, while “The Democrats” noted that the President of the Supreme Court should appoint the commission’s members, as stipulated by law. “Blue and White” believes the existing mechanism is appropriate because politicians and representatives of the defense establishment should not participate in selecting the commission’s members.

Positions of the Coalition Parties

“Likud” did not provide an official response, even though after October 7 many of its ministers initially supported a state commission of inquiry and later reversed that position. The party attempted to advance a bill to establish an alternative “national” commission, but it was not approved by the end of the term. “Otzma Yehudit,” Shas, and “United Torah Judaism” also did not respond; the only coalition party to present a detailed position was “Religious Zionism,” which supported an independent “national” commission and opposed having its members appointed by the President of the Supreme Court.

The New Parties’ Alternative Models

“Amcha Yisrael” proposes a secret vote in the Knesset to select the commission’s chair and deputy chair from among retired judges, after which they would choose its remaining members. “Zehut” supports equal participation by the coalition and opposition in appointing a commission with broad powers. The joint list of the Reservists’ Party and the Economic Party supports a state commission of inquiry, preferably established on the basis of broad consensus and with Justice Noam Sohlberg given preference for participation.

The Scope of the Future Investigation

“The Democrats” propose examining the entire chain of decisions and failures that led to October 7, as well as the conduct of the war, the setting of its military objectives, the diplomatic measures, and the decisions concerning deals to release the hostages. Ra’am is not making the issue of the commission a focus of its election campaign, but it supports a comprehensive and independent investigation. “The Joint List” additionally proposes examining the government’s broader policy preceding the attack.

What this means for you

The choice of model will determine who appoints the commission’s members, how independent it will be from politicians, and which decisions it will be able to examine. For Israeli residents, this will affect the public determination of responsibility and the scope of the official conclusions, but the publication does not indicate that any of the proposed models has already been approved.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings