Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is exploring legal ways to “amend” the State Commission of Inquiry Law so that the clause empowering the commission to issue personal recommendations against officials would be deleted — or modified to prevent it from naming individuals. Several sources close to the prime minister confirmed the details to ynet's outlet sister Yedioth Ahronoth.
Under the proposed amendment, the commission would no longer be able to make recommendations regarding specific officials, including senior defense figures and elected representatives. Instead, it could only issue institutional findings and recommendations for systemic reforms.
Following a Supreme Court order requiring the government to report on the establishment of a commission by mid-November, Netanyahu has in recent days intensified his efforts to promote an inquiry into the October 7 massacre. One option under legal review is to amend the existing State Commission of Inquiry Law.
Netanyahu is reportedly seeking two key changes: first, the removal of Section 19, which grants the commission legal authority to make personal recommendations. Although the government can limit the inquiry’s mandate to institutional issues, the law still allows such recommendations unless the section is repealed.
The second change would remove the authority of Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit to appoint the commission’s chairperson and members. Instead, the prime minister wants to introduce an alternative mechanism — possibly one in which the government appoints part of the panel while other members are chosen in coordination with judges or opposition representatives, without giving the Supreme Court president veto power.
Netanyahu is weighing three possible paths to form the inquiry: amending the existing law; advancing a private member’s bill, initially drafted by Likud MK Ariel Kallner but now shelved; or establishing a governmental commission of inquiry with similar powers but appointed directly by the cabinet.
According to political sources, Netanyahu prefers pursuing the amendment route to secure broader public legitimacy and withstand judicial scrutiny. However, he understands that the changes he seeks could face challenges from the Supreme Court, widespread public opposition, and a lack of cooperation from the opposition if its involvement in appointments is limited. Should that option fail, Netanyahu is expected to move forward with a governmental inquiry instead.
The idea of abolishing personal recommendations highlights Netanyahu’s intent to avoid an investigative body that could assign him responsibility for the October 7 massacre and the intelligence and strategic failures that preceded it. Despite their public impact, such recommendations are not binding and carry no formal consequences — ultimately, politicians are judged by voters at the ballot box.
Attorney Dori Klagsbald, a prominent legal expert on inquiry commissions, supports eliminating personal recommendations from state inquiries. He argues, in public and academic forums, that personal findings draw attention away from the substantive lessons and reforms that such commissions are meant to produce.
According to Klagsbald, personal recommendations also slow down the inquiry’s work, as commissions spend excessive time handling sensitive individual cases instead of addressing institutional failures. He further contends that nonbinding personal conclusions erode the commission’s credibility and may undermine public acceptance of its broader findings.