A.) First, ask yourself, do you know anyone who is _not_ interested in a truthful clarification of the events of Simchat Torah 2024? There isn't anyone, right?
But very few understand what a State Commission of Inquiry actually is.
Israeli law states that a such a commission is established by the government, and the person who appoints its members is the president of the Supreme Court. Yitzhak Amit – whose recent appointment and the functioning of the system he is entrusted with are currently subject to great public controversy.
Will the people of Israel accept the decision of the "state" commission appointed by Amit? Most likely the Left will, and the Right will not.
On the other hand, if a state commission was established in which the Minister of Defense were to choose its members, the Left would never accept such a committee's decisions, deeming it politicized.
This is the issue that needs to be understood here – according to the Right, the president of the Supreme Court is a political personality, and will choose the committee according to his agenda.
The trust of the Israeli people in the judicial system has been falling year after year. After the controversial appointment of Yitzhak Amit alongside Attorney General, Gali Beharev Miara's blatant interference in political issues, it is now dropped to the floor.
In short, conclusions by any committee whose members are appointed by a judge will be deemed illegitimate.
As for the public surveys that cleverly ask the public if they are in favor of a State Commission of Inquiry, most of the respondents say yes only because the media is hiding the process by which such a commission would be established.
For them, the key thing to emphasize is the word "State".
B.) The term 'state' has undergone conversion treatments and mind engineering, like the _Hamachane Hamamlachti_ ("State Camp") political party, and the value of "stateliness" in the IDF.
"Stateliness" according to the Left's way of thinking is the rule of the bureaucrats. As society in general could decide one day to, say, kill all the redheads, it needs a legal system to restrain it. This, of course according to them, is devoid of any political agenda, rather driven only by a "governmental" one.
And because the Right also wants to find out the truth, it opposes a political committee headed by a judge.
Let's go deeper.
C.) In a culture where there is no truth, the guilty will be determined according to who the media decides is guilty, and not according to the degree of responsibility.
Several examples:
Former minister Yoav Galant, who served as defense minister before and after the massacre, received almost no media criticism and there were no demonstrations under his house for him to resign.
Why? After all, he was the defense minister who was responsible for security, so why didn't the hostage headquarters call on him to resign?
The reason is simple – Galant served as the opposition within the coalition, he served the left and did not oust the refuseniks and that is why the Prime Minister fired him, while the Left tried to create "Galant Night", that is, to keep in office a minister who was responsible for the failure that led to the massacre.
Moreover, after that, Galant came to Shlomo Artzi's concert and was received with applause, and a few days ago he was honored with a huge cover story in Yedioth Ahronoth, an interview with Amit Segal and Yonit Levy, and recently it was even announced that he was appointed as a Research Fellow at the Washington Institute. How surprising.
It's like a high-tech company appointing a CEO who destroyed another high-tech company.
That's how it is in a world where everything is built according to narratives and the truth has no value.
Does anyone have any doubt what guilt the court will ascribe to Galant and what to Netanyahu? Will everything really be objective there?
Furthermore, there were no demonstrations under the house of the Chief of Staff and the head of the Shin Bet and no incisive investigations in the media against them, for the simple reason that they were seen by the Left as "gatekeepers" who protect the security apparatus from the corrupt political echelon that represents the people.
In their opinion, the bureaucracy should receive special shelter and protection for its part in protecting democracy from the people.
The share of the head of the Shin Bet and the Chief of Staff will also be small in the politicized inquiry established by Yitzhak Amit. After all, the heads of the security apparatus are the ones who saved the justice system from a coup d'état, they deserve to be rewarded for that.
About a week ago, the Kan broadcasting authority broadcast an hour-long film about Yahya Sinwar and the fact that the State of Israel was blind to October 7th.
According to the movie – everyone is guilty. Except that one character disappeared from the film – Aharon Haliva, the head of Military Intelligence, who has a very large share in the failings. You must be asking how this happened, all the more so given that we are talking about the "stately" and "objective" public broadcasting corporation (financed by taxpayer money).
The reason is that the filmmaker is Shira Margalit, the mother of Haliva's children.
By the way, Shira is currently married to Ilan Shiloh, CEO of Makan, an international advertising group with very large media and public influence. Therefore, every time you see an investigative report about the failure, it is likely that Haliva's share of the blame will be very small.
The media creates a very clear narrative for citizens: those who belong to their party will be sheltered from all criticism, because they are on the correct side. Not only is the coalition political, but the judiciary system and the media too.
D.) There is a political dispute here as to who will appoint the committee and who will head it. The fact that the media constantly echoes that there is only the possibility of establishing a "state commission of inquiry" in which the judge appoints the composition, this is intentional mind engineering to pre-mark the political guilty ones and clear or minimize the part of the officials, just as they do in interviews and media investigations.
E.) Another question that must be asked is whether the justice system itself has a part in the failings surrounding the October 7 massacre.
Who allowed the "return marches", who interfered with opening fire commands, and there are more questions. It is absurd that a system that interferes so greatly in security issues will not take responsibility in an event like this. It is possible that the committee will clear them of guilt, but it is appropriate to investigate them as well.
F.) Beware of puritanism – there are right-wing and religious people who say that everyone is guilty and therefore a committee should immediately be established to place the blame on everyone. But the Left does not think that the officials are to blame, only the political echelon, and therefore they insist only on a State Commission of Inquiry. Anyone who does not understand that the composition of the committee will mark and clear the accused in advance, doesn't understand what's going on here.
G.) What do we do?
I don't know exactly, but I do know what not to do. By no means should there be a State Commission of Inquiry'.
There must be an investigation, but if a political minister or a political judge appoints the committee, its conclusions will not be acceptable to all the people of Israel and the truth will not come out. Such a committee would not be governmental, but factional.
A proposal was made for a nation-wide investigation committee that would include all public representatives as members, headed by a member of the coalition and the opposition, they would appoint professionals and each of the parties could appoint their own representatives, this is a committee whose conclusions might be accepted by the general public and its conclusions would be implemented.
