Israel’s government is “rebelling” against the rule of law by ignoring a High Court of Justice ruling from June that the Attorney-General is the sole interpreter of the law for the government and the government must abide by her opinions, former prime minister Ehud Barak said at his testimony at the civilian inquiry committee into the October 7 Hamas massacre.Barak commended protesters against the judicial reforms, including reservists who threatened that they would cease volunteering for reserve duty if the reforms passed. Their designation as people who “refused to serve” was wrong, since they had the right not to risk their lives at the orders of a non-democratic regime, Barak said.The central responsibility for the weakening of Israel ahead of the October 7 massacre laid at the feet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who set off the series of events during 2023 by launching the judicial reforms, Barak said.
Netanyahu refused to convene the national security cabinet to discuss the warnings from the security establishments about negative strategic developments due to the social upheaval over the reforms. This was an abuse of his authority, as the prime minister did not have the prerogative to ignore such a demand to convene the cabinet, Barak said.Barak listed three concepts that crumbled on Oct. 7, all of them conceived by Netanyahu. The first was that Hamas was an “asset”, while the Palestinian Authority was a "burden". Barak mentioned the NIS 1.5 billion in cash installments over five years that Netanyahu approved for Hamas as an example.
The second concept was that one cannot lead Israel without making difficult decisions. According to Barak, Netanyahu has attempted to delay and avoid making difficult or unpopular national security and policy decisions through over the years. The third concept that crumbled was that Israel could achieve peace with the Arab world while ignoring the Palestinians, which were the “elephant in the room,” Barak said.
Netanyahu's strategy and planning failures
Barak listed four limitations on Israel’s actions that should have been taken into account at the start of the war: releasing the hostages; preventing the expansion of the war to the North; a short window of international legitimacy, from a few weeks to a few months, which should have been taken into account from the get-go; and the necessity to talk about the day after the war from the very beginning.Taking these limitations into account, Barak believes Israel should have first stormed into Gaza with immense force to topple Hamas’s rule as quickly as possible, within days or weeks, while destroying as much of Hamas’s military capabilities as possible. In the meantime, Israel should have prepared an alternative government to replace Hamas based on moderate Arab states, and later on representatives of the Palestinian Authority. Barak argued that Israel should also have stated from the get-go that it had no intention to rule Gaza.The key was that Israel should have set toppling Hamas’s sovereignty as a goal of the war, and not destroying its entire military capabilities, which could take years. According to Barak, Netanyahu’s insistence on IDF presence along the Philadelphi Corridor to prevent Hamas rearmament was based on the premise that Hamas would continue to rule. However, if Israel focused on toppling Hamas’s sovereignty and replacing it with an armed international force, there would be no need for this, Barak argued. The end game should be the entry of a recognized Palestinian body taking over, finishing the job against Hamas, and then running civilian affairs.Meanwhile, Israel could have retained freedom of military operation when necessary, he said.This would be a real victory for Israel, while victory for Hamas would simply be remaining in power. The fact that Netanyahu “systematically refused” to hold discussions about the day after was a “monumental strategic mistake,” Barak said.The committee was formed in July by families of those killed on October 7, representatives from the attacked kibbutzim, and civil society groups. The primary goal of the committee, which is comprised of legal and security experts, is to initiate the foundation of a state probe; the political echelon has said one will happen only once the war is over. The committee has already heard from several former ministers and senior security officials.