Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has submitted her official response to the High Court of Justice following petitions demanding the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7 and the subsequent war. The AG's position presents a complex picture, balancing the professional necessity of the legal instrument against the constraints of Israel’s current political reality. In the document filed with the court, Baharav-Miara emphasizes that, in principle, a state commission of inquiry is the most appropriate and designated legal mechanism for investigating the failures, given its professional independence, lack of political bias, and ability to address the unprecedented circumstances of the disaster and the ensuing war.
However, the Attorney General points to a fundamental difficulty arising from the passage of time. She notes that the lack of a formal decision on the commission's format or start date, nearly three years after the war began, is a matter of deep concern. She warns that this prolonged delay harms the effectiveness of a future investigation and could lead to significant evidentiary damage, as uncovering the truth requires immediate action. Despite this, Baharav-Miara maintains that under current circumstances, with the state in the midst of the 26th Knesset election cycle, the government is bound by protocols of restraint. Given that the incumbent government has not made a decision on the matter to date, the Attorney General believes the appropriate step is to allow the next elected government to address the issue and render a decision.
This position was filed in response to the previous government's notice to the court, which claimed that legislative processes on the matter were not completed due to scheduling constraints and that there is no room for judicial intervention in a subject at the heart of political controversy. The Attorney General’s position has drawn criticism from various parties. The Movement for Quality Government argued that one cannot acknowledge the importance of the commission and the damages caused by the delay on one hand, while recommending a postponement on the other, as it could lead to years of further delay in establishing accountability. The "October Council" also expressed reservations, warning that continued foot-dragging hinders the ability to reach the truth and seek personal accountability. The issue of establishing the commission thus remains a focal point of intense legal and public debate, with eyes turned toward the High Court’s ruling on the matter.