It seems that the prime minister’s main objective nowadays is to prevent the establishment of a
state commission of inquiry
to examine the breakdowns that led to this situation
October 7, 2023
In the event of an attack by Hamas on Israel, if this necessitates removing two key figures advocating for such action—the chief of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the attorney-general—he sees no issue with making these changes.

President Isaac Herzog
On the contrary, he aims to accelerate the formation of the commission. To achieve this, he proposed an unconventional step allowing Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg to influence its structure. However, Netanyahu, steadfast in his pursuit of his goal, promptly dismissed the idea.

If an artificial intelligence program were tasked with outlining the traits suitable for a judge in Israel, it might propose someone possessing characteristics quite similar to those of Sohlberg.

When Sohlberg was initially appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, critics swiftly highlighted his status as a “religious settler” and his conservative views, along with various other perceived shortcomings.

However, after over ten years on the judicial bench, he has shown an aptitude for acting in alignment with his personal beliefs while still allowing room for inspirations inherent to his upbringing – all within the framework of the legal system.

His voice has introduced a distinct, occasionally discordant note into the judicial ensemble, enhancing the combined intellectual and cultural richness of the Supreme Court in a manner that more accurately mirrors the diversity of identities within Israeli society.

Nevertheless, when Herzog’s suggestion, approved by Chief Justice Isaac Amit, proposed that Sohlberg and Amit together decide the makeup of a national investigative committee regarding the failures leading to the October 7 attack by Hamas, Netanyahu promptly dismissed it.

Even though his dislike for Amit is well known, why doesn’t he have faith in Sohlberg? There isn’t even a hint of anything personally negative about him. The reality is that his objection stems from the notion itself—that any judge should be partaking in an investigation. In this view, judges are seen as untrustworthy by their very nature.

Politicization of trust

This serves as yet another stark and severe indication of a critical ailment impacting Israeli democracy: the transformation of public confidence in state institutions and their leaders into a politically charged issue. The divide between the Right and Left concerning faith in judicial bodies, the office of the attorney-general, and the head of the Supreme Court is widely recognized and extensively recorded.

In the legal sphere, an extreme case can be seen with how people view the State Attorney’s Office: A tiny fraction of right-wing and centre-right Israeli citizens have faith in it (3% and 23%, correspondingly), which starkly contrasts with the substantial confidence shown by those from left-wing and centre-left backgrounds (83% and 81%, respectively).

This harmful divide seeps into every aspect. According to surveys conducted by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) as part of its monthly Israeli Society Index, public confidence in state institutions—which were previously central to national unity because of their role in ensuring our shared safety—is now predominantly influenced by one’s political alignment.

Most right-wing and center-right Israelis exhibit low levels of confidence in the upper tiers of the IDF (with only 19% trusting them highly) as well as in the higher-ups at Shin Bet (where just 13% express strong faith). In contrast, a significant majority of those with left-leaning political views demonstrate considerable trust in both the IDF’s leading officers (trusted by 63%) and the key figures within Shin Bet (supported by 83%).

Demand for inquiry

What remains indisputable? Endorsement for a state commission of inquiry.

More than 75% of the population is calling for this change, which includes a significant portion of right-wing supporters across different factions.

The government recognizes this fact but refuses to carry out the will of the people, for obvious reasons. The public outcry – including tens of thousands whose family members were murdered or injured as a result of the terrible cascade of failure, or who were displaced from their homes – goes unanswered by elected officials.

Up until now, the reason given for not investigating what has been deemed our biggest historical failure was the untrustworthiness attributed to Chief Justice Amit. The plan put forth by Herzog, designed to overcome this obstacle, gained support from most Israelis but was turned down nonetheless. Previously regarded as the quintessential “right-wing poster judge,” Sohlberg has become questionable in the view of the current right-leaning administration simply because he holds a judgeship.

The government is certainly open to setting up an inquiry commission, with its makeup decided by the Knesset. However, this would imply that the ruling coalition, led by the prime minister, could wield veto power over the selection of anyone who may impartially hold investigatory powers.

That is why the current legislation permits an autonomous body, specifically the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to appoint the members of the commission.

In its distress, the government escalates the argument against the court, and claims that it, too, should be investigated for its role in the failure and hence stripped of its appointment authority. One might find humor in this if the stakes weren’t so high.

The incident where Judge Sohlberg was run over by the racing cart of the division serves as more than just a standalone lesson. It conveys a much wider message: No organization or individual within the public domain remains untouched by the erosion of their credibility due to the increasing politicization of our daily existence.

We are consciously stripping away our capacity to recognize areas of true common ground or methods for reaching accord. This represents a significant erosion of collective understanding and undermines the spirit of nation-building. Even once we restore the security frameworks that faltered during the events of October 7, this societal harm will persist among us.

The author serves as the president of the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) and is a professor emeritus of law at Bar-Ilan University.