Israel’s High Court of Justice faced a critical decision Thursday that has been mounting for over two years: whether the government can continue postponing a comprehensive investigation into the October 7, 2023 failures, or if the court must step in and mandate one.
Ruby Chen, whose son Itay Chen was an American Israeli soldier killed during the October 7 attack and whose remains weren’t recovered until November 2025, expressed frustration with suggestions that voters could decide the matter in upcoming elections. “That’s the easy way out,” Chen told The Media Line. “We need to make a decision, not just for this time, but maybe for other times as well.”
When asked if he believed the justices grasped the families’ perspective, Chen replied, “I think they understand, but they understand it’s a hot potato.”
Tensions from outside the courtroom spilled inside during the proceedings. Court sessions were temporarily suspended when demonstrators tried to force entry, while grieving families clashed outside over what type of investigation Israel should conduct.
Chen noted how serious the situation has become. “If something similar would have happened in the US Supreme Court, you would see the FBI and people handcuffed,” he observed. After a pause, he added, “We are living in a different place.”
The case centers on a petition demanding the court compel the government to create a state commission of inquiry under current law. Stav Livne Lahav from the Movement for Quality Government in Israel’s legal team explained that while the request appears simple, its consequences are complex.
“We asked the court to order the government to use the authority it already has and establish a state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7,” she stated.
Livne Lahav outlined the legal framework as organized and systematic. “In Israel, this kind of proceeding is a two-stage process,” she noted. “First, we have to show there is a real legal basis. If the court agrees, it issues an order requiring the government to explain why it is not acting. At this stage, the burden is on the government.”
She confirmed that initial phase has been completed. “The court issued a conditional order. That means the government now has to justify why it is not establishing a commission, under a law that clearly exists for this purpose.”
According to Livne Lahav, the core question isn’t about governmental authority, but how that power is being exercised. “No one disputes that the authority is with the government,” she said. “But authority in a democracy is not unlimited. It must be exercised reasonably, without improper considerations, and without conflicts of interest.”
She contended that the extended postponement has gained legal importance. “You cannot wait two-and-a-half years after the biggest failure in the country’s history and claim that nothing has been decided,” she argued. “At some point, inaction becomes a decision.”
The government has proposed an alternative: a politically appointed investigation body. Livne Lahav completely rejected this approach.
“First of all, this is not even law,” she explained. “It has not passed the legislative process. You cannot ask a court to rely on something that does not exist.”
She also questioned the proposed structure’s effectiveness. “A state commission of inquiry is designed to reach the truth,” she said. “It is headed by someone with judicial experience, usually a retired judge, with the tools and the independence to investigate complex events.”
In contrast, she cautioned that the government’s approach could politicize the investigation. “What they are proposing creates a situation where there will be negotiations over the truth,” she warned. “Instead of finding out what actually happened, you will have competing versions, shaped by political positions.”
Livne Lahav emphasized the broader implications beyond legal considerations. “The public should go to elections knowing what happened,” she said. “If we prevent the establishment of a body that can examine this, we are blocking the public’s ability to know.”
Chen echoed this sentiment directly. “Who knew? What did they do? What did they not do?” he questioned.
Chen also highlighted what he sees as inconsistent explanations from officials. “At the beginning, it wasn’t time because we were at war,” he said. “Now they say the court is not authorized. So, what is it? You can’t change each time and give a different excuse.”
For Chen, the postponement carries personal weight affecting how families cope with their losses. “We are still waiting,” he said. “How can you move forward without answers? We’re here at the cemetery now.”
On the opposing side, Likud legislator Tally Gotliv, who was ejected from the courtroom during the session following repeated disruptions, presented a completely different perspective. After her removal, she accused the court of overstepping boundaries and worsening the divisions it claims to address.
“The Supreme Court cannot look bereaved families in the eye,” she declared. “It cannot bear their pain, their criticism, the accusations people feel toward it.”
Gotliv claimed the justices were deliberately silencing certain voices. “The court distances and removes bereaved families from the hall,” she said. “And what is worse, it creates division between them.”
She argued this division was intentional. “There are families who want a state commission and families who do not,” she noted. “And the court is fueling that conflict.”
She went further, alleging political manipulation of the situation. “Left-wing organizations are using this pain, using this division, to advance political interests,” she claimed.
Gotliv characterized her ejection as part of this pattern. “Expelling me is a violation of parliamentary immunity,” she said. “The law is clear. You cannot remove a member of Knesset like that.”
For Gotliv, the matter extends beyond procedure to symbolism. “When they remove me, they remove the people,” she said. “This is part of the contempt the court shows toward the government and the coalition.”
She challenged the entire premise of the hearing. “The court should not be dealing with this issue at all,” she stated. “This is not a question of whether it has authority or not. It simply should not be discussing it.”
Instead, Gotliv advocated for institutional changes. “This is exactly why the power of the court needs to be restrained through legislation,” she said. “There needs to be clear limits on what it can and cannot do.”
Gotliv also disputed claims that the government was avoiding responsibility. “The government has already agreed to establish a mechanism,” she said, referring to the proposed political inquiry. “The question is not whether there will be an investigation, but what kind.”
She maintained the decision shouldn’t come from judges. “This is a decision for the elected government,” she insisted. “Not for the court.”
The divide between these viewpoints is stark. Petitioners like Livne Lahav see the lack of a state commission as governmental failure requiring court intervention. Legislators like Gotliv view judicial involvement as a violation of democratic separation of powers.
Between these opposing positions stands a public still grappling with October 7 and increasingly split over how the events before, during, and after the massacre should be examined.
The court hasn’t issued its decision yet. However, Thursday’s session demonstrated that the question has expanded beyond how October 7 should be investigated. It now encompasses whether Israel’s institutions and society still agree on who holds the authority to establish truth and when such inquiry must commence.
