The investigation committee into the events of October 7 has become the most sensitive arena of conflict in Israel, where memory intersects with responsibility, and the truth itself turns into electoral material between the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponents.
In a first reading, the Knesset General Assembly approved on Monday evening the draft law to form an investigation committee into the October 7 attack by a majority of 59 members, without opposition, after the opposition boycotted the session and Netanyahu was absent from it, despite the fact that the draft is being pushed by his political orders. Dafna Liel, Knesset correspondent for Channel 12, reported that the vote took place after the opposition boycotted, and that the law allows the committee to work with an incomplete composition of only 3 members if the opposition refuses to participate.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
Deferred law
Amir Ettinger, political correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, believes that the law for this “political” committee will likely not be advanced in the current Knesset, and that no actual committee will be formed during at least half of the next year. The ruling coalition’s insistence on voting now aims to implement the “continuity law,” so that the next Knesset will be able to complete the legislation if the current camp returns to power.
Here lies the political irony. The coalition obtained a legislative image saying that it was pushing for an investigation, but in reality it moved the decision until after the elections, opening the door to two scenarios: A new government headed by Netanyahu will continue to enact the law in its current form, or a unity/change government will go to an official investigation committee whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court.
Ettinger points to a third, middle possibility, based on the initiative of President Isaac Herzog, which is based on the formation of a committee by agreement between the President of the Supreme Court, Isaac Amit, and his deputy, Noam Solberg, who enjoys wider acceptance among the right.
Political composition
According to Channel 12, the proposed committee will examine the events of October 7, the war and the circumstances that preceded it, and will submit its report to the Speaker of the Knesset and the government. It consists of 6 members: 3 appointed by the coalition and 3 by the opposition, with the possibility of serving with only three members if the opposition boycotts it.
According to Ben Ashkenazi in “Israel Hayom”, the law excludes those who held sensitive positions during the 18 years before the attack, including the prime minister, ministers, supreme judges, senior officers and Shin Bet chiefs. The law proposes the participation of 4 observers from the families of the dead and prisoners without the right to vote, which the “October Council,” which represents the families of the dead victims, considered a second division and a political cover-up committee.
Investigation powers
The proposed formula seeks to grant the committee “all the powers” stipulated in the Official Investigation Committees Law, and according to Yedioth Ahronoth, the powers to summon witnesses and request documents can be activated by a decision of two members, while forcing a person to attend requires the approval of a legal member qualified for appointment to the Supreme Court.
The sessions will also be public and broadcast to the public, but not live, with the possibility of closing sessions to protect state security, the privacy of victims, or the safety of witnesses.
Merit Lavie and Dr. Dana Blander, from the Israel Democracy Institute, said that the official investigative committee has broad powers, including obliging witnesses to appear, requesting documents, imposing fines for false or evasive testimony, and considering refusal to testify without justification a criminal offense that could be punished by up to two years in prison.
The committee is also obligated to warn everyone who may be harmed by its findings and enable them to defend themselves. However, its recommendations are not direct judicial sanctions. They may include institutional reforms or personal recommendations, but they often require a political or administrative decision to implement them, especially if they relate to the prime minister.
Opposition boycott
Hence the opposition’s boycott of the vote, not as a procedural stance, but rather as an early electoral message. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said – according to what was reported by Yedioth Ahronoth – that the opposition will not be part of a “false spectacle” aimed at obliterating the investigation into the disaster, pledging that the next government will establish an official investigation committee in its first month.
Lapid’s position intersected with Avigdor Lieberman, head of the “Israel Our Home” party, who described the committee as a “obliteration committee” whose goal is to confuse revealing the truth.
As for Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Yashar Party and former chief of staff, he went to a more direct form when he said that those who know the truth and fear it are the ones who form a political committee, calling on Netanyahu to reveal the entire protocols to the public.
In turn, Naftali Bennett, former prime minister and head of the Bihad party, summed up the battle with a sentence that serves as an election slogan: “Without investigation, there is no reform.”
Netanyahu accounts
Netanyahu needs a committee to tell the public that he accepts the principle of investigation, but he does not want a committee appointed by the President of the Supreme Court that may have the legitimacy to issue personal recommendations that harm him or his circle. Hence, it is possible to understand the push for the law on the one hand, and its absence from voting on the other hand.
It gives the coalition a legislative achievement, and leaves the opposition with a strong symbolic image, with a prime minister demanding an investigation, then not attending the vote on his committee.
On the other hand, Netanyahu seeks to deliver a message to the public that he accepts the principle of investigation, but he avoids a committee appointed by the President of the Supreme Court that might issue recommendations that would punish him personally, and from here it becomes clear why the law was passed and he personally was absent from the vote, thus turning the issue into a trap for the opposition. If it boycotts, they will be accused of evasion, and if they participate, they will give his committee the legitimacy it needs.
The mood of the audience
Opinion polls show that the committee’s battle is taking place on popular ground that is uncomfortable for Netanyahu. The “Israeli Voice” poll issued by the Israel Democracy Institute in March 2026, prepared by Professor Tamar Herman and Dr. Lior Yohanani and Yeron Kaplan of the Viterbi Center said that 92% of the public supports an investigation into the events of October 7, regardless of the method of investigation.
In May 2026, the Jewish People’s Policy Institute (JPPI) index showed that 63% of Israelis support the formation of an investigative committee as soon as possible, while only 5% support a government committee. The index also showed a division within the right-wing and Likud camps, as 38% of Likud voters supported the establishment of an immediate committee, while the majority preferred to wait or leave the timing to the government.
Thus, the October 7 Committee turned into a mirror reflecting the Israeli political crisis. Netanyahu is searching for a precise investigation to protect his narrative and future, while the opposition is pressing for an official investigation that will turn the upcoming elections into a clear referendum on responsibility.
