One day, this war that we’re about to have (?) will be over. Or it won’t happen. Or it won’t happen for now. No matter how this plays out, though, there will come a time, probably not too long from now, when the war will no longer make it impossible to focus on anything else.
And when that happens, and when Israel “gets back to business,” the issue of a commission of inquiry about October 7th will return to the news. It will certainly be a key issue in the upcoming election campaigns.
So, what’s at stake? What is it that the PM wants? And how is that different from what the opposition and most of the public want?
Following the near-catastrophic failures of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel established the Agranat Commission — a classic state commission of inquiry, named after Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat who chaired it. Its members were appointed by the president of the Supreme Court rather than by the government, giving it independence from the politicians whose decisions were under scrutiny. The commission had broad investigative powers, including the ability to subpoena witnesses, and its findings carried enormous legal and political weight. It ultimately led to the resignation of IDF Chief of Staff David Elazar and other senior military figures, and its conclusions deeply shaped how Israelis understood the war's failures. This model — independent, judiciary-appointed, with real enforcement authority — became the gold standard for investigating major national disasters in Israel.
Rather than a traditional state commission of inquiry, Netanyahu has pushed for what critics call a government-controlled alternative. Israel has traditionally appointed an independent state commission of inquiry, led by a retired judge, following major governmental failures, but Netanyahu's government has instead moved to establish its own probe, with the commission's mandate determined by cabinet ministers. Crucially, members of Netanyahu's proposed commission would be picked by the Knesset (which Netanyahu essentially controls) rather than by the Supreme Court president, as mandated under the current law for state commissions of inquiry.
So, it would seem cut and dried that one version makes sense while the other does not. But as we hear from Uri Kaufman today, there are alternative views. Kaufman explains what the advantages of each are, what the dangers for Netanyahu are in each case, and why one can make a very good argument for precisely the kind of commission that Netanyahu seeks.
Many in the opposition would take issue with some of what Uri Kaufman believes, but that is all the more reason to be exposed to this worldview. If his explanation of what’s at stake leaves you wondering which route makes more sense … well, that’s the whole purpose of this project.
Uri Kaufman has been on our podcast before, when we discussed his book, Eighteen Days in October: The Yom Kippur War and How It Created the Modern Middle East (St. Martin’s Press), soon after it appeared. Kaufman’s book was the first history of the Yom Kippur War to be released in twenty years, and drew from never-before-seen declassified documents.
Uri Kaufman has been published in Foreign Affairs, Mosaic, and The Forward. After putting himself through CUNY’s Queens College at night, he attended New York University School of Law and graduated with honors in 1989. Uri subsequently became a real estate developer, specializing in adaptively restoring historic buildings, winning awards at the national and state level.
To Uri Kaufman’s website, click here.
For our paid subscribers
The link at the top of this posting will take free subscribers to an excerpted portion of today’s conversation.
For paid subscribers, the link at the top will take you to the full conversation; below, paid subscribers will also find a transcript for those who prefer to read, as always.
