President Yitzhak Herzog secretly met with self-appointed supreme court president Yitzhak Amit last Thursday to discuss establishing a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre, without Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s knowledge.
Herzog told Justice Amit that since the October 7 massacre, thousands of citizens—including many bereaved families and families of hostages—who have met with him have repeatedly demanded a thorough investigation of the tragedy through an independent inquiry.
Netanyahu’s circle responded, “The public deserves a genuine, impartial investigative committee—one that truly represents the majority and examines everyone without exception. Unfortunately, that is not what is being proposed here.”
Let’s unpack.
1. The reason I emphasized that Justice Yitzhak Amit was self-appointed was not because I’m a mean-spirited individual. Amit was appointed against the wishes of Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who pointed to a list of violations that may border on crimes in Amit’s past, and which disqualified him from serving as the highest arbiter of justice in Israel. Amit’s suggested illegitimacy becomes a huge issue regarding a state commission of inquiry.
According to the Commissions of Inquiry Law, 5729–1968, the authority to establish the committee rests with the Israeli government when there is an issue of vital public importance that requires investigation. Following a government decision to form a committee of inquiry, the President of the Supreme Court appoints the committee members, who are typically three, or a larger odd number.
However, if the government rejects the legitimacy of the supreme court president, how can it turn to him or her to take up the process of appointing the committee members?
2. But wait, there’s an even more crucial problem here. In several testimonies and other documentation of the failures of the IDF to protect the citizens of the Gaza Envelope settlements from the invading Hamas murderers, the reason for the failure is presented as the rules of engagement with enemy civilians. The soldiers who could do something to stop the waves of attacks hesitated to fire into what could be perceived as unarmed civilians. This perverted set of rules of engagement seriously sabotaged the IDF’s ability to fight, and it had been imposed on the army in over 30 years of court rulings.
How can the court be trusted to pick committee members who would examine its own role in the failure of October 7?
3. Herzog suggested to Amit that if a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre were created, Amit would determine its composition in consultation with Judge Noam Solberg. Solberg is considered by some to be a sympathizer with the political right, because he lives in Alon Shvut in Gush Etzion and leads a religious lifestyle. However, over the past three years, as the high court was rushing the barricades of judicial reform in the most militant fashion – Solberg was as cowardly as could be expected of a Dati Mahmad (religious pet).
Likud’s Communications Minister, Shlomo Karhi, tweeted that the new Herzog-Amit initiative is “at best a not particularly funny Purim joke.” He argued that “Amit, Solberg, and the other Supreme Court justices should not lead the investigation—they should be among those being investigated.”
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also voiced his opposition: “The terrible disaster and its causes will be investigated after the war only by a committee that will earn the trust of the majority, not one formed by the president of a politically-driven Supreme Court, who was appointed by force and is not worthy of trust.”
4. The obvious faults of this Herzog-Amit scheme suggest these two have little respect for Israel’s rank-and-file citizens. Indeed, the only Israelis who would go along with this primitive attempt to grab the investigation would be those who are fed their daily doze of propaganda on the country’s mainstream media, most notably channels 12 and 13.
The rest of us are left wondering: do they really think we are baboons?
