Attorney General attacks politically driven Oct. 7 inquiry
Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara issued a strong rebuke on Sunday to a government-backed bill proposing a commission of inquiry into the events of October 7, 2023. She described the initiative as a “tailor-made” instrument designed to serve the current coalition’s political needs rather than to deliver a fair, independent investigation into the Hamas invasion and the ensuing atrocities.
The proposed legislation would establish a highly politicized, appointed commission tasked with probing failures and decisions surrounding the October 7 assault. Baharav-Miara argued that the structure would undermine public trust by placing oversight in the hands of those with direct political incentives, rather than an independent body insulated from electoral considerations.
Her condemnation underscores a broader debate in Israeli public life about how best to investigate crises that expose systemic gaps in security, intelligence, and governance. Proponents of the inquiry say it is essential for accountability and reforms, while critics warn that partisan control could politicize the process and distort findings.
In her remarks, Baharav-Miara emphasized the importance of a truly independent inquiry that can examine not only what happened on October 7 but also the preparedness, decision-making, and communication protocols leading up to it. She cautioned that any commission with political appointment risks a loss of public confidence and could become a tool for factional agendas rather than a mission of national transparency.
What the government’s plan entails
The bill lays out a framework for a commission appointed by the government, with limited judicial oversight or oversight by a neutral body. Supporters argue that a formal inquiry is necessary to produce clear recommendations that can prevent future failures and reassure the public and international observers. Critics, including Baharav-Miara, contend that the appointment process itself creates a conflict of interest, enabling the governing coalition to influence the inquiry’s scope, scope, and conclusions.
Observers note that the timing of the bill adds to the controversy. With a national conversation already heated over security policy, intelligence-sharing, and civilian protection, a politically motivated inquiry could polarize the discourse further rather than paving the way for consensus reforms.
Implications for democracy and accountability
Independent investigations are often praised for their ability to rise above partisan divides and present objective findings. Baharav-Miara’s stance aligns with a longstanding expectation in democracies that inquiries into grave national incidents maintain a degree of separation from current political calculations. If lawmakers proceed with a commission perceived as beholden to the coalition, opposition voices may demand greater transparency, additional checks and balances, or alternative mechanisms to ensure accountability without compromising impartiality.
Public confidence in government oversight depends on the perception that investigations are driven by truth-seeking rather than political advantage. The attorney general’s critique could influence the debate around what institutions best serve the interests of victims, national security, and the rule of law in times of crisis.
Positions from different sides
Opponents of the bill warn that delaying accountability or altering the process to suit political goals will only prolong public mistrust. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that a formal inquiry with defined timelines and authoritative powers is preferable to ad hoc inquiries or weaker inquiries that may yield incomplete recommendations.
As the debate unfolds, the central question remains: can a commission of inquiry be both effective and independently credible if it is closely tied to the very political forces it seeks to scrutinize? The attorney general’s criticisms place significant pressure on lawmakers to consider more robust safeguards for independence and integrity in any proposed mechanism to investigate October 7.
