Three years after October 7, Israel still has no commission of inquiry.I4 Ask almost any major party whether there should be one, and the answer is yes. Ask who should pick the people who run it, and the country splits in two. That split is what this episode is about.
The positions come from what each party published. Where Ben Greenberg gives his own view, it is marked as his view, as it is on screen.
This is Close Read, and this is the first of five episodes this week where I put the major parties according to the latest polls side by side on one issue, and where I tell you what I think. The positions come from the parties themselves. When I'm giving my own view, you'll see it marked on screen.
The map
Israel has a law for this, from 1968. The government decides to set up a state commission of inquiry, and the President of the Supreme Court appoints its members.I4 It's the only kind of inquiry that can compel witnesses to testify.I3 The outgoing coalition wants something else: a bill for what it calls a "state-national" commission passed its first reading in July, 59 to 0, with the opposition boycotting the vote.I5I3
Here's where the thirteen parties land. Six want a state commission under the existing law: Yashar, B'Yachad, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, the Reservists and the Joint List.Yashar 18B'Yachad 3Yisrael Beiteinu 1The Democrats 3The Reservists and the Economic Party 3I1 Three want a model where the political sides shape who sits on it: Likud, Religious Zionism-Zehut and Amcha Yisrael.Likud 19I1I2 And four have no position or no model. Shas, United Torah Judaism and Otzma Yehudit didn't answer when Ynet asked, and Ra'am said the question "is not currently at the center of Ra'am's agenda."I1
Everyone says yes
Ben Greenberg's view I want to start with the agreement, because it's wider than the campaign makes it sound. Nine of these thirteen parties say there should be a commission. Netanyahu himself has said "we believe there should be a national commission of inquiry."Likud 19 Nobody major is arguing that October 7 doesn't need investigating.
Ben Greenberg's view So why, three years later, is there nothing? Because saying yes costs nothing. The decision that costs something is who gets to choose the investigators, and on that question every party's answer tells you what it's afraid of.
Who picks the investigators
Under the coalition's bill, six members would need the support of 80 members of Knesset. Without that, the coalition and the opposition would each appoint three.I5 The commission could start work with three members, and the commission itself would set the scope of the inquiry.I3
Ben Greenberg's view Look at what each model is guarding against. The state commission camp is afraid of the people being investigated choosing their own investigators. The other camp is afraid of a Supreme Court that a large part of the country no longer trusts. I think both fears are real, and I think each camp is better at describing the other side's danger than its own.
Ben Greenberg's view Here's the danger I see in the half and half model. If both sides take part, three and three is a recipe for a tied commission and two reports, one for each camp. If the opposition keeps boycotting, the bill lets the commission start with three members, which could mean the coalition's three alone, setting their own scope. Either way, I don't see how that produces a finding the country accepts.
Ben Greenberg's view And here's the danger on the other side. Most of the state commission parties talk as if the trust problem doesn't exist. A commission that half the country rejects before it opens has the same problem as a tied one.
Two of the smaller lists are trying to build a bridge. The Reservists back a state commission but want broad agreement on its members, and their platform has a line I'll read as written: "The word 'state' has become an excuse not to investigate. It's time to investigate."The Reservists and the Economic Party 2I1 Amcha Yisrael would have the new Knesset choose the chair and deputy from a list of retired judges, with the top two vote getters taking the posts, so each side would likely get one.I2
Ben Greenberg's view I don't know if either design would hold up in practice. But I notice that the attempts to solve the trust problem are coming from the edges, and the largest parties on both sides are offering the model their own voters already like.
Same words, different meanings
Listen to the adjectives. Religious Zionism wants a commission that is "national, independent, genuine and fair."I1 Ra'am wants an "independent, impartial" investigation.I1 The state commission parties use the same words for the opposite model.
Ben Greenberg's view When every party calls its commission independent, the word stops telling you anything. The questions that tell you something are who appoints it, who decides what it looks at, and whether it can make people testify.
Then there's what each side wants investigated. Yashar's draft looks back ten years, to the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014.Yashar 18 The Joint List wants the mandate widened to what it calls the occupation, the blockade and the government's peace policy.I1 Netanyahu has said the inquiry must include the Oslo Accords, the disengagement from Gaza and the protests against the judicial overhaul.I3 Liberman wants it to look at the decision to let Qatari money into Gaza.Yisrael Beiteinu 17
Ben Greenberg's view Notice that every proposed mandate reaches toward decisions the other side made. That's natural in a campaign, and some of those subjects belong in an inquiry. But a commission asked to judge thirty years of policy could take years and end up saying very little about what failed in the days and hours before that morning. I'd want a mandate wide enough to find the causes and narrow enough to finish.
The gaps
Of the thirteen, Yashar is the only party I found with a written draft: five members, a ten year lookback, a budget of 25 million shekels.Yashar 18 The Democrats are the only ones who commit to implementing the conclusions in full.The Democrats 3
Ben Greenberg's view That leaves a lot unsaid. Nobody tells you how long the inquiry should take. Almost nobody tells you what happens to the report once it's written. And the opposition parties have vowed not to cooperate with the coalition's commission, which tells me what they're against.I3 I haven't heard what they'd do if that bill passes anyway.
Then the silence. Shas, United Torah Judaism and Otzma Yehudit have published nothing on a commission into October 7, and the one inquiry Otzma Yehudit does call for is into the attorney general.I1Otzma Yehudit 15
Ben Greenberg's view Three parties of the outgoing government have no position on the worst failure in the country's history since 1973. I said in my earlier reflection that we deserve more. Here I mean it in the most concrete way I can: if you're asking for my vote, tell me how you'd find out what went wrong.
Close
Ben Greenberg's view If you get the chance to ask a candidate about this before Tuesday, skip the question of whether they support an inquiry. Nearly all of them do. Ask who picks it, what it's allowed to look at, and whether they'll accept what it finds.
Tomorrow night, Haredi military service.
Every source I used is linked in the description. The Close Read is free to watch, and if you'd like to support it, you'll find me at patreon.com/TheCloseRead, linked in the description.
Sources
New sources for this episode. A party's own sources are linked by name, to the list on that party's episode page.
- I1
- I2
- I3
- I4
- I5
Transcript
The words as spoken in the episode, from its captions. Select a time to listen from there.
Full transcript
Intro
Three years after October 7th, Israel still has no commission of inquiry. Ask almost any major party whether there should be one, and the answer is yes. Ask who should pick the people who run it, and the country splits in two. That split is what this episode is about. This is Close Read, and this is the first of five episodes this week where I put the major parties according to the latest polls side by side on one issue and where I tell you what I think. The positions come from the parties themselves. When I'm giving my own view, you'll see it marked on screen. Israel has a law from this. From 1968, the government decides to set up
The map
a state commission of inquiry and the president of the Supreme Court appoints its members. It's the only kind of inquiry that can compel witnesses to testify. The outgoing coalition wants something else. A bill for what it calls a state national commission, passed its first reading in July 59-0, with the opposition boycotting the vote. Here's where the 13 parties land. Six want a state commission under the existing law. Yeshar, BeYachad, Yisrael, Beiteinu, the Democrats, the Reservists, and the Joint List. Three want a model where the political sides shape who sits on it. Likud, Religious Zionism Zehut, and Amcha Yisrael. And four have no position or no model. Shas, United Toward Judaism, and Otzma Yehudit didn't answer when Wynyd asked, and Raam said the question is not currently at the center of Rahm's agenda.
Quote, I want to start with the agreement, because it's wider than the campaign makes
Everyone says yes
it sound. Nine of these 13 parties say there should be a commission. Netanyahu himself has said, we quote, we believe there should be a national commission of inquiry, end quote. Nobody major is arguing that October 7th doesn't need investigating. So why? Three years later, is there nothing? Because saying yes costs nothing. The decision that costs something is who gets to choose the investigators. And on that question, every party's answer tells you what it is afraid of. Under the coalition's bill, six members would need the support of 80 members of Knesset.
Who picks the investigators
Without that, the coalition and the opposition would each appoint three. The commission could start work with three members. And the commission itself would set the scope of the inquiry. Look at what each model is guarding against. The state commission camp is afraid of the people being investigated choosing their own investigators. The other camp is afraid of a Supreme Court that a large part of the country presumably no longer trusts. I think both fears are real, and I think each camp is better at describing the other side's danger than its own. Here's the danger I see in the half-and-half model. If both sides take part, three and three is a recipe for a tied commission and two reports, one for each camp.
If the opposition keeps boycotting, the bill lets the commission start with three members, which could mean the coalition's three alone, setting their own scope. Either way, I don't see how that produces a finding that the country accepts. And here's the danger on the other side. Most of the state commission's parties talk as if the trust problem doesn't exist. A commission that half the country rejects before it opens has the same problem as a tied one. Two of the smaller lists are trying to build a bridge. The reservists back a state commission but want broad agreement on its members. And their platform has a line I'll read as written. The word state has become an excuse not to investigate. It's time to investigate.
Amcha Yisrael would have the new Knesset choose the chair and deputy from a list of retired judges, with the top two vote-getters taking the post. So each side would likely get one. I don't know if either design would hold up in practice, but I notice that the attempts to solve the trust problem are coming from the edges. And the largest parties on both sides are offering the model that their own voters already like. Listen to the adjectives. Religious Zionism wants a commission that
Same words, different meanings
is, quote, national, independent, genuine, and fair, end quote. Raam wants a, quote, independent and impartial, end quote, investigation. The state commission parties use the same words for the opposite model. When every party calls its commission independent, the word stops telling you anything. The questions that tell you something are who appoints it, who decides what it looks at, and whether it can make people testify. Then there's what each side wants investigated. Yashar's draft looks back 10 years to the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014. The joint list wants the mandate widened to what it calls, quote, the occupation, the blockade, and the government's peace policy.
Netanyahu has said the inquiry must include the Oslo Accords, the disengagement from Gaza, and the protests against the judicial reform or overhaul, depending on who you ask. Lieberman wants it to look at the decision to let Qatari money into Gaza over all those years. Notice that every proposed mandate reaches towards decisions that the other side made. Now, that's natural in a campaign, and some of those subjects belong in the inquiry. But a commission asked to judge 30 years of policy could take years and end up saying very little about what failed in the days and the hours before that morning of October 7th.
I'd want a mandate wide enough to find the causes, but also narrow enough to actually finish the investigation. Of the 13 parties, Yashar is the only party I found with a full
The gaps
written draft for a proposal. Five members, a 10-year look back, a budget of 25 million shekels. The Democrats explicitly commit to implementing the conclusions of that investigation, of that inquiry, in full. That leaves, however, a lot unsaid. Nobody tells you how long the inquiry should take. Almost nobody tells you what happens to the report once it's written. And the opposition parties have vowed, have vowed, not to cooperate with the Coalition's Commission, which tells me what they're against. I haven't heard what they'd do if that bill passes anyway.
Then the silence. Then the silence. We need to talk about the silence. Shas, United Torah Judaism, and Itzmar Ben-Gavir's Otzma Yehudit have published nothing, have published nothing, on a commission until October 7th. And the one inquiry Otzma Yehudit does call for is into the Attorney General. Three parties of the outgoing government have no position on the worst failure in the country's history since 1973. I said in my earlier reflection that we, as a country, deserve more. Here, I mean it in the most concrete way I can. If you're asking for my vote, tell me how you'd find out what went wrong.
If you get the chance to ask a candidate about this before Tuesday,
Close
skip that question of whether they would support an inquiry. Because nearly all of them do. Ask who picks it, what it's allowed to look at, and whether they'll accept what it finds. Tomorrow, we dive into Haredi military service. Every source I use is linked in the description. The Close Read is free to watch and free to listen, and if you'd like to support this work, you will find me on Patreon at patreon.com slash thecloseread linked in the description.
