In a notable public discourse following the recent conflict, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen acknowledged that the government bears responsibility for the events of October 7. This admission came amid ongoing debates about accountability and the measures needed to prevent a repetition of the tragedy that claimed a large number of lives and caused widespread devastation.
During a later interview with a leading Israeli daily, Cohen reaffirmed that the government bears responsibility for the day’s outcomes. He emphasized that, beyond assigning blame, the focus should be on creating a mechanism that can thoroughly examine the sequence of events and the responses of various institutions. He suggested that an independent state commission of inquiry would be an appropriate tool to assess all contributing factors once the immediate crisis had passed and the current hostilities were concluded. Such a commission, he argued, could offer a clear, authoritative account that would guide future policy and security reforms.
In outlining the purpose of accountability, Cohen stressed that identifying specific individuals or groups as primarily responsible remains a complex task. He noted that the full picture of responsibility includes a range of actors and decisions made under extraordinary pressure. The priority, in his view, is to ensure that lessons are learned and that concrete recommendations emerge from the inquiry. These recommendations, he added, should focus on strengthening national resilience, improving interagency coordination, and preventing gaps that might lead to a recurrence of such devastating incidents.
Observers noted that the proposal for an independent commission signals a desire to address the public demand for transparency and accountability without prematurely assigning guilt. The overarching aim, in Cohen’s framing, is not retribution but a clear, governance-oriented path forward. By examining the factors that contributed to the events of October 7, the inquiry could illuminate failures, gaps in oversight, or miscommunications, and translate findings into substantive reforms for security, intelligence, and crisis management frameworks. This approach, he suggested, would help restore public trust and provide a concrete blueprint for reinforcing the country’s defenses and response capabilities in future crises.
While some critics urged that responsibility extend beyond any single branch of government, Cohen asserted that the proposed commission would operate with independence and rigor, ensuring that the investigation remains thorough and credible. By inviting comprehensive scrutiny, the government would demonstrate its commitment to accountability while also offering a path toward healing and reform. The emphasis, once again, was on producing actionable recommendations that could reduce the likelihood of a similar event recurring and on rebuilding public confidence through a transparent, fact-based process.
In sum, the foreign minister’s comments framed responsibility as a broad, systemic issue rather than a straightforward attribution of blame. The suggested independent inquiry would serve as a formal mechanism to parse the chain of events, assess what went wrong, and propose concrete steps to strengthen national preparedness. Until the inquiry concludes, the discourse continues to center on how best to balance accountability with service to the public and the imperative to safeguard civilians and critical infrastructure against future threats.