Jpost
The Knesset’s State Control Committee voted against the proposal for a state commission of inquiry into the events of the October 7 Hamas massacre in 2023 on Wednesday.
The vote tallied 4-6; those against the proposal for the commission of inquiry were all members of the coalition.
Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid), Merav Ben Ari (Yesh Atid), Yael Ron Ben-Moshe (Blue and White), and Walid al-Hawashla (Ra’am) voted in favor of the proposal.
The coalition MKS against the proposal for the commission of inquiry were Moshe Saada (Likud), Osher Shekalim (Likud), Tsega Melaku (Likud), Tally Gotliv (Likud), Yaakov Tessler (United Torah Judaism), and Moshe Abutbul (Shas).
Last week, the High Court of Justice gave the government one month to update it on the progress of establishing an investigative body into the events of October 7.
The wording of its instruction did not specify that it should be a State COI, but rather that there is no debate over the need for a comprehensive investigation, and that the government should move forward with it.
The push for a state commission of inquiry
Over the past two years, bereaved families – many comprising the October Council forum – families of hostages, and much of the public have vehemently pushed for a State COI, arguing that such a massive lapse in preparation and judgment on the part of the government, military, intelligence community, and security officials must be investigated in as broad a manner as possible.
There are two methods through which such a committee can be formed: Both are through the government, but the second relies as well on the authority of the State Comptroller.
Ordinarily, legally – and historically – the public committee that is a State COI is established by the Knesset, usually through the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, after the government has greenlighted it. Its chief purpose is to restore public faith in the government, as it is viewed to be apolitical and all-encompassing.
The Supreme Court president appoints all members of the commission, and its head will always be a jurist – either the Supreme Court president, a district court judge, or a retired judge. So far, the government has made two arguments as to why it hasn’t established a State COI: the first, that it is impractical and inappropriate to investigate individuals in the midst of an ongoing war; and the second, that Supreme Court President Isaac Amit is not trusted or viewed as legitimate by many in coalition, which would undercut the validity and genuineness of a committee steered by him.
The second route to order a State COI is through the direction of the State Comptroller, who can, along with the Knesset’s State Control Committee, mandate its establishment. The committee plays a role in supervising the activities of government entities and local authorities, and pushes forward recommendations made by the State Comptroller in his reports.
This was what was done in the Thursday committee meeting, as the State Comptroller’s report on the failings of October 7 was presented to the panel.
The method involving the State Comptroller has been used less frequently. Since the law permitting the creation of a State COI was passed in 1968, the government has initiated 16, while the State Comptroller has initiated four, totaling 20 overall.
Once formed, the commission would call witnesses to testify and would have the authority to summon any information that might aid in the investigation.
Once the findings are published, the government must discuss its suggestions thoroughly, although it is not obligated to adhere to them. And, despite the built-in tension of having an external group of people probe the government, no government has yet ignored its suggestions, even if they have not all been adopted.
As the government lagged in the decision to order a State COI, State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman and his office have been investigating and publishing timely reports on the failures of October 7 – often at odds with the military.