The question of the nature of the investigation following the events of October 7, 2023, is a subject of intense public debate in Israel. While a state commission of inquiry deals with functional and structural accountability, a criminal investigation focuses on identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. This article examines the roles of both approaches, their advantages, and their implications for public trust.
The missed early information and its implications for the investigation
According to leaks from the IDF investigation, as published over the past week by members of Knesset and several media outlets, it appears that the security establishment allegedly had advance information on the evening of October 6 and the morning of October 7 about the intention of Hamas terrorists to attack the settlements in the encirclement.
If the publication is indeed accurate, it should be investigated how it happened that the police approved the holding of the mass event and set security conditions for regulating traffic and public order that would allow this event, with the participation of thousands of people. The critical information, if it existed, did not lead to a mass evacuation or warning of participants..
If there was indeed advance information, the question arises as to who is responsible for the omission: was it due to misjudgments, lack of professionalism, or fear of exposing intelligence sources?
This question, in my opinion, is at the center of the demand for a criminal investigation that will examine whether the various parties' failures caused death through negligence.
State Commission of Inquiry: Public Responsibility Without Criminal Sanctions
A state commission of inquiry is appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, but the scope and content of its activities are determined by the government. Its main function is to examine the decision-making processes and responsibilities of officials at the systemic and personal levels.
Unlike criminal proceedings, this committee does not seek to identify perpetrators or impose criminal sanctions. An example of this is the Cohen Committee that investigated the Sabra and Shatila events, which found Defense Minister Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible and recommended his removal from office. Despite this, Sharon returned to the political arena and became Prime Minister, illustrating the limitations of the power of a state commission of inquiry.
Criminal investigation: Bringing those responsible for the omission to justice
According to the Israeli Penal Code, causing death by negligence is an offense that requires a criminal investigation. Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law imposes an obligation on the police to open an investigation when there is suspicion of acts or omissions that caused the death of people.
This investigation focuses on identifying those responsible at the individual level – whether it is Shin Bet personnel who received information and did not pass it on in a timely manner, or commanders and officers who decided not to evacuate the Nova party.
Unlike a commission of inquiry, the police do not examine strategic considerations, but only the outcome – in this case, the deaths of hundreds of party participants and surrounding communities.
Police independence in the face of concerns about foreign considerations
The criminal investigation is conducted solely by police investigators appointed by the Commissioner, without the involvement of political parties, senior Shin Bet officials, or the Attorney General's Office. However, the independence of the police may be undermined due to internal interests. For example, senior police officials were among those held responsible in the Meron Commission report, which dealt with a disaster in which 45 civilians died. The concern is that opening a criminal investigation into the Nova affair could trigger similar demands from the families of the Meron victims, which could deter senior police officials from opening an investigation that would reveal additional failures in their performance.
Parallel proceedings that do not harm each other
The question of whether a criminal investigation may harm the work of a state investigation committee receives a clear answer: These are separate proceedings that have no direct influence on each other. While the criminal investigation focuses on the actions and omissions of individuals and ends with indictments, the investigation committee examines systemic failures and does not deal with the enforcement of justice.
Gossiping orders and the confidentiality of core documents prevent cross-contamination between the two proceedings, but ensure that the relevant information is available to both the police and the committee.
The public's role in revealing the truth
The sources of information for the criminal investigation are not limited to the security system. Any citizen, observer, or bereaved parent may provide testimony and evidence that will help the police map the chain of failures that led to the events of October 7. The court may order the disclosure of confidential information for the purposes of the investigation, while maintaining the principles of the law and the need to protect state security.
Public trust depends on revealing the truth.
The question of blame for the events in Nuba and the surrounding settlements goes beyond legal aspects alone – it touches on the core of public trust in state authorities and the law enforcement system. A professional, independent criminal investigation, free from political influence, is the only way to ensure that those whose actions or omissions caused the deaths of many will be held fully criminally responsible. Only the fulfillment of the law, along with drawing systemic lessons, can restore the public's sense of security and trust in state institutions.
Joke, the Ben Gvir police will be an independent investigative body… Letting the pig guard the garbage can
The police did not authorize the event. The authorization to hold the event came from the General Staff. The government had no information about what was about to happen, not on the morning of the massacre, because otherwise what was the head of the Intelligence Directorate looking for in a hotel? Shouldn't he have such information in the headquarters at a meeting with the leaders of the security establishment and the Prime Minister? There should undoubtedly be a criminal investigation against those who incited against the government every Saturday because these are the same people who are directly connected to the massacre.
I completely agree with the approach. Happy and blessed Shabbat.
Hello Boro
I completely agree with the approach. The question is who the biased and independent Bahati investigators will be and how to carry it out. Apparently, the main culprits who bear direct responsibility for the results of the massacre are known. The head of the Shin Bet, the Chief of Staff and other generals in the General Staff (not all of them). The head of the Operations Division in the police and perhaps some of her subordinates and other field ranks in the Southern Command.
Through their direct negligence in failing to fulfill their duty to protect the State of Israel from the enemy, they caused many deaths that have never been seen since the establishment of the state. To put that into perspective, on 7/10/23, 20% of all those killed in the War of Independence were murdered and killed. 1200 people, women and children. This is the number of those killed in the convoys and the campaign for Jerusalem in the War of Independence.
Unbelievable. I agree with the principle that the label and now the problem is the mechanism, the objections of the legal system that will fear a review of the judicial decisions that led the enemy to exploit them and of course vested interests. There is a serious Gordian knot here to break.