Bereaved Families Publish Their Own October 7 Probe as Netanyahu Sues the Paper That Started It
With no state commission of inquiry, the investigation of 7 October has migrated to an advocacy body and a newspaper — and both are now being answered with lawsuits and election-season dismissal.
Haaretz reported at 03:18 Israel time on Sunday that members of the October Council, the bereaved-families body, announced on Saturday the findings of their own independent investigation, alleging Netanyahu deliberately concealed information, ignored warnings and dismissed repeated alerts before the Hamas attack. This is an allegation by a non-statutory body, not a state finding; the investigation’s authorship, methodology and document base were not available in the published account. The Council says it speaks for roughly 2,000 bereaved families, including hostage relatives, border-community residents and survivors, and it formed in opposition to the government’s move to appoint its own probe in place of a state commission of inquiry.
The paper trail behind it is contested at every link. On 8 September Haaretz’s Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval reported that UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu in a 45-minute call about ten days before 7 October 2023 that Sinwar was planning a major operation. Netanyahu’s office called it “an absolute lie,” said he “didn’t speak to the president of the UAE during the period in question,” and announced he would sue the paper and both reporters; Haaretz stands by the story, and the UAE “does not comment on media stories or speculation regarding conversations between government leaders.” On 28 September Haaretz reported — on two anonymous people briefed on a secret trip first reported by Channel 12 — that Netanyahu asked bin Zayed to deny the report publicly. On 1 October Trump said he “can’t imagine” Netanyahu was warned.
Assessment: The structural fact of the anniversary is that Israel’s October 7 inquiry has been privatised. Absent a state commission, the work falls to a bereaved-families association with no subpoena power and to newspapers facing defamation suits from the subject of their reporting. That arrangement produces exactly the vulnerability the government needs: findings that cannot be compelled into evidence and can be labelled campaign material three weeks before a vote. Eisenkot has pledged a state commission “as soon as the next government is formed,” which makes the inquiry itself a ballot question. Monday’s test is narrow and answerable — who conducted the October Council probe, on what documents. Until that is published, it remains an allegation.