Hundreds of parents, widows, and siblings of those murdered, fallen, or kidnapped on and since October 7, 2023, are calling for the establishment of a public commission of inquiry with broad consensus. However, in a letter addressed to President Yitzhak Herzog, the families expressed deep distrust in an investigative commission whose composition would be determined by the Supreme Court.
In Israel, a State Investigation Committee is a public committee established under the Commissions of Inquiry Law, by decision of the Government of Israel or by decision of the Knesset’s State Audit Committee, and appointed by the President of the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court President Judge Yitzhak Amit failed to earn the endorsement of Justice Minister Yariv Levin, over several accusations of minor violations of municipal laws, as well as presiding in cases where Amit clearly had a conflict of interest – most notably a case involving his brother.
The families’ letter follows Herzog’s recent actions and statements, which they see as undermining the government. Herzog proposed a compromise initiative that would grant Supreme Court justices the authority to determine the commission’s makeup—an idea the families vehemently reject.
In their letter, the families call for a comprehensive investigation into the full scope of failures and for drawing the best possible lessons. However, they object to the Supreme Court President setting the committee’s date, citing the court’s increasing politicization in recent years. They also highlight the court’s past involvement in security matters and its role in decisions leading up to the war—issues they believe the court is not equipped to investigate impartially.
The families also demand direct representation on the committee once it is established.
The families wrote, “We, over 300 bereaved parents and widows who lost our most precious loved ones in the Simchat Torah massacre of October 7, 2023, and the Iron Swords War, along with parents and spouses of the kidnapped, demand the establishment of an independent investigative committee to examine the events and failures that led to the massacre. The current President of the Supreme Court—whose appointment ceremony was boycotted by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Speaker of the Knesset—is not an impartial figure and therefore cannot have the authority to determine the composition of the committee. This is not an ideal situation, but we cannot ignore the reality we now face.”
COURT MESSING WITH RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
In April 2018, two petitions were filed by some of Israel’s most prominent far-left organizations, including Yesh Din, the Association for Civil Rights, the Center for the Protection of the Individual, and Adalah. Yesh Din questioned, “Why shouldn’t any provision allowing soldiers to fire live ammunition at Gaza Strip protesters on Israel’s border be repealed if they are not directly endangering human life?” Adalah added, “Why shouldn’t the policy of opening fire on Gaza protesters be deemed illegal?”
Despite the clear dangers involved, the Supreme Court did not immediately dismiss the petitions. While Gazans carried out violent demonstrations against IDF soldiers, the state was forced to respond to the left-wing petitioners, ultimately declaring stricter open-fire regulations than expected. The state asserted that soldiers were not permitted to use live fire solely because a person was in the buffer zone, near the perimeter fence, or participating in a violent riot linked to Hamas.
The result was a ruling without being an explicit ruling. The petition was unanimously rejected by the justices, but the stricter stance shaped the discussion, inevitably restricting IDF soldiers’ ability to defend themselves and attack the enemy.
“The danger will be addressed first and foremost through verbal warnings and non-lethal means,” wrote Justice Hanan Melcer, adding that only in cases of “real and immediate danger” could a precise shot be fired at the legs of a riot leader or instigator.
Then-Supreme Court President Esther Hayut emphasized, “The premise is that civilians are entitled to protection from harm and that the use of force against military targets when it is likely to result in civilian harm, should not be permitted if the harm is disproportionate to the expected military benefit.”
A new report by the Movement for Governance and Democracy, recently presented to government officials under the title “High Court of Justice’s Involvement in Israel’s National Security Policy,” examines numerous Supreme Court rulings that pressured the IDF into adopting overly rigid and restrictive policies—ultimately endangering Israeli soldiers and civilians.
The report highlights how a series of seemingly tactical decisions, such as restrictions on using live fire to prevent perimeter breaches or limitations on targeted assassinations, were influenced by what has come to be known as the “spirit of the High Court.” In practice, these judicially driven constraints caused significant strategic harm, limiting the IDF’s ability to respond effectively to threats.
Is the high court now qualified to appoint the committee members who would examine its own shameful failures that led to the deaths of so many Israeli victims?
