Editorial: You Don’t Get Credit Without Accountability

Israel is still living inside the shadow of Oct. 7 — the deadliest day in its modern history. Yet more than two years later, the full causes of that catastrophe remain unresolved. Not because the questions are unknowable, but because the one mechanism capable of answering them credibly — an independent state commission of inquiry — continues to be resisted by the country’s political leadership.

That resistance is becoming harder to justify, particularly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on simultaneously claiming credit for wartime achievements, deflecting responsibility for failures and leveling grave allegations that demand independent scrutiny. Leadership in a democracy does not allow for all three at once.

At a press conference last week, Netanyahu again exposed this contradiction. He emphasized successes: progress toward core war aims, operational resolve and Israel’s perseverance under fire. But when the conversation turned to the broader context — intelligence failures, strategic misjudgments and decision-making before and during the war — the answer was quick dismissal. Calls for a state commission of inquiry were waved aside in favor of a politically appointed alternative, one lacking independence, subpoena power or public trust.

The tension sharpened when Netanyahu chose, unprompted, to accuse the United States of responsibility for Israeli battlefield deaths. He alleged that an arms embargo deprived IDF ground forces of ammunition and directly led to soldiers’ deaths in combat. This was not framed as speculation or concern, but as fact — and as fact with lethal consequences.
That allegation is extraordinary. To date, no official IDF investigation has concluded that

Israeli soldiers were killed because ammunition was unavailable. Throughout the war, military officials consistently stated that operations were not undertaken without adequate means and that troops were not sent into combat without proper support. If those assurances were false, the public deserves to know. If they were accurate, the accusation is reckless.

Either way, such a claim cannot responsibly be made without evidence — and evidence cannot be weighed without an independent inquiry. That is precisely the kind of issue state commissions exist to examine: contested facts, conflicting accounts, institutional failures and the chain of decisions that lead to life-and-death outcomes.

This is the core contradiction Netanyahu can no longer evade. He cannot raise explosive allegations — against allies, institutions or unnamed officials — while blocking the only forum capable of determining whether they are true. He cannot insist that the public trust his account of events while denying the public access to an independent fact-finding process.

The same pattern repeats elsewhere: legislation framed as reform while preserving coalition exemptions, media criticism substituted for transparency and language crafted to distance leadership from the events that launched the war. Each move may serve a short-term political need. Together, they undermine confidence in the integrity of wartime governance.

Israel’s strength has never rested on infallible leaders. It rests on resilient institutions and a public willing to confront painful truths. An independent commission of inquiry does not preordain blame. It establishes facts.

If Netanyahu believes his decisions will withstand scrutiny, he should welcome that process. If he does not, that alone is reason enough to insist upon it.

A democracy at war cannot afford leadership that demands credit without accountability. Israel deserves answers — and only an independent inquiry can provide them