Orit Strook: Here's the real story of our debate on an October 7 commission

Minister Orit Strook released a statement today (Monday) providing a detailed description of the government's dilemmas in deciding on when and how to form a commission of inquiry.

Here is the statement in full:

Good morning friends,

I woke up this morning to a series of media reports describing an event I supposedly participated in: last night's government meeting, but nothing in these descriptions reflects what actually happened there.

As written in the Torah portion: "None came near the other all night" - that's largely the feeling...

Therefore, I find it necessary to share with you what happened yesterday in the discussion about establishing a state commission of inquiry.

First, it's important to understand the bizarre situation: The Attorney General, who doesn't represent the government in this petition, comes to a meeting that the government convened on its own initiative (the discussion was per Supreme Court's demand, but not per the Attorney General's demand) and demands from the government what the Supreme Court didn't demand at all: to decide here and now on establishing a state commission of inquiry (from now on, abbreviated as SCI). The Supreme Court only demanded to discuss the question, the Attorney General demands to decide yes.

The Attorney General reads the law's text, according to which the government may establish an SCI, yet still insists that the government must, and if it decides not to do so - the burden of proof is on it. She supports her demand with a series of very strange, and therefore also outrageous claims.

Here are the main bizarre claims made by the Attorney General:

We committed to the ICJ in The Hague to establish an SCI (I'll note the truth about this later)

Against the government's position that it's not right to establish an SCI during wartime, so that all potential "subjects of investigation" can focus efforts on the war and not have to hire lawyers and focus on their own defense, the Attorney General argued that the Chief of Staff's agreement to start the State Comptroller's examination because "the war is no longer intense" - should also dictate the possibility to proceed with an SCI.

This is an unprecedented security event both in terms of casualties and duration.

And of course - the Shin Bet chief's position supporting establishing an SCI now. The Attorney General was upset that his position wasn't shared with government members (to which most ministers responded that his position isn't relevant, as he doesn't determine: neither if the war is over, nor what type of committee/investigation should be conducted).

The Attorney General also noted that the law offers the possibility of establishing a governmental investigation committee in situations where there's no place for an SCI but argued that SCI is the exclusive tool for our case because of:

The Attorney General couldn't explain in what "capacity" she's actually appearing before the government with her demand that doesn't align with the law's requirements: after all, she

This is the framework within which to understand the ministers' positions as leaked to the media. For example:

When Bezalel tells the Attorney General that her opinion is as important as Simona from Dimona's opinion.

When the PM says the Shin Bet chief's position isn't relevant because he doesn't determine when the war ends

When Bezalel asks if it's possible the Shin Bet chief supports establishing an SCI because he wants the war to end now

When Bezalel announces he won't fund an SCI if it's established "over our heads" while taking away the government's authority set in law to determine whether and when to establish an SCI. Even Minister Elkin, who supported establishing an SCI, told the Attorney General "you did a very bad service to the matter, you should have promoted proper discussion, not dictate to the government that it 'must'."

On the substance of the discussion:

All ministers clarified and explained extensively that it's very important to investigate, examine, and draw conclusions. However, they raised a series of relevant questions:

When? During wartime? In a way that will harm the ability to fight? Many ministers expressed concern about this, Minister Dichter expressed it well, sharing his experiences as an investigate in the Or Commission, when he had to arrive equipped with a lawyer, during very difficult security events that he, as then-Shin Bet chief, needed to manage. (In my opinion, this was the most relevant "Shin Bet chief position" in the discussion...). Dichter, like @Ophir Sofer, and other ministers, expressed great concern that the very existence of the discussion and its leak to the media would create a wrong and very harmful impression that the war is over.

Who are the subjects of investigation? Many ministers believed that Supreme Court judges too, who throughout all the relevant years harmed the IDF's ability to fight terrorism - should be investigated (in this context, an excellent booklet by the Movement for Governability and Democracy was presented in the discussion, which greatly angered the Attorney General and her team, who thought the government secretariat distributed the booklets. Of course, this isn't true).

What needs to be investigated? And from when? Many ministers said it should start from Oslo. (I argued it should start from what led to Oslo: the '92 elections and the political connection there between the PLO and the Labor Party).

How to create an investigating body that will receive public trust? Most ministers believed Yitzhak Amit cannot appoint the committee members, as a large part of the public doesn't trust him in light of the forceful way he was appointed as Supreme Court President, and the serious suspicions against him. Some ministers also said that the very fact that Supreme Court judges cooperated with Amit's problematic selection method - disqualifies them all... Many creative and serious proposals were raised in the discussion about how to establish an investigating body that would receive trust from a large majority of the public. It was clear from the ministers' words that there's a significant desire to enable investigation and not evade it, but to find the right way, tools, and timing.

Regarding the Attorney General's claim that an SCI is "mandatory" because this is a very long war with many casualties and therefore must establish an SCI - Minister Sa'ar responded that the Second Intifada was no less long and claimed more than a thousand murdered, but no SCI was established. And ministers also referenced the Winograd Committee which was governmental and not state. But really, almost every minister who spoke suggested how to investigate, this was the main discourse.

And perhaps most interesting: The Attorney General's claims about commitment to the ICJ in The Hague - were refuted by the Government Secretary, who told about dialogue with the court about establishing an investigation committee in a different format, where they were willing to listen, but the Attorney General torpedoed this initiative... (truly unbelievable!) And he also noted that hopefully with Trump administration's help, the Hague issue is behind us, so certainly this isn't the reason to establish an SCI.

I'll end where I began: waking up in the morning and discovering the distorted way this discussion was presented in the media - raises serious concern that Avi Dichter and Ophir Sofer were right...