Since October 7, Israel has lived through war, a hostage crisis, and deep internal division.

Now the country faces a different kind of question.

Not how to fight. Not how to rescue. But how to respond to failure.

Once a state or government commission completes its investigation, what should happen next? Should those have found responsible face public hearings and potential criminal proceedings? Or should the focus be on extracting lessons and ensuring such a disaster never happens again?

This debate is not simple.

Much of the public discussion has focused on Southern Command and its officers responsible for Gaza border security. Questions have been raised about readiness, force deployment, and the state of the perimeter before the attack. There has also been debate about the Air Force’s response time in the early hours and whether faster aerial engagement could have reduced casualties.

Questions have also been raised regarding the Shin Bet and the intelligence assessments preceding the attack. If intelligence failures or missed warning signs are established, they will inevitably become part of the national reckoning.

And the debate does not end with the security establishment.

Government policy over the years shaped the strategic environment in which Hamas strengthened itself prior to October 7. Decisions regarding deterrence, containment, financial arrangements, and long-term strategy were made at the political level. While operational responsibility rests primarily with the IDF and the Shin Bet, strategic responsibility cannot be separated from the elected leadership that defined policy.

But political responsibility is not automatically criminal responsibility.

And here lies the core dilemma.

Should senior officers and political leaders who dedicated decades to serving the state face criminal prosecution if serious failures are identified? Or should the emphasis remain on institutional accountability and reform?

October 7 was not a minor mistake. It was a catastrophic failure that cost hundreds of lives and shattered public confidence. It is natural that families of the hostages, the murdered, and the wounded demand accountability. Their pain is real. Their need for answers is legitimate.

But accountability and revenge are not the same thing.

Criminal prosecution requires proof of unlawful conduct or criminal negligence at a defined legal threshold. Strategic miscalculations, flawed intelligence assessments, or incorrect policy assumptions — even catastrophic ones — do not automatically constitute crimes.

Israel must decide what it seeks from this process.

Is the goal punishment? Deterrence? Reform? Restoration of trust?

After such prolonged crisis and national exhaustion, the country must also ask: will reopening every painful detail help Israel heal, or pull it backward into anger and political warfare?

Some believe that only public exposure and visible consequences can restore trust. Others warn that turning the process into a spectacle — televised confrontations, public humiliation, and politicized hearings — could fracture society again.

I understand the families who seek those responsible. I understand the instinct to identify individuals and demand consequences.

But I also believe in progress.

What happened on October 7 cannot be undone. No prison sentence will bring back those who were murdered. No public shaming will erase the trauma. Doing harm to someone else does not transform tragedy into something positive.

If an investigation uncovers criminal wrongdoing, the legal system must act. But if what emerges is systemic failure, flawed assumptions, and institutional blindness, then reform must be the priority — not retribution.

Israel does not need spectacle. It needs correction.

It needs stronger readiness, clearer doctrine, better intelligence coordination, and leadership that learns from mistakes. It needs structural change that ensures October 7 never repeats itself.

The families deserve answers. The public deserves transparency. But the country also deserves a future not permanently anchored in its darkest day.

Justice is necessary. Vengeance is not.

A healthy democracy must be capable of accountability without self-destruction. It must confront failure without collapsing into endless internal warfare.

For that reason, the investigation should remain professional and conducted behind closed doors, not turned into a public spectacle. Its purpose should be to produce clear findings, real lessons, and structural change — not humiliation for public consumption. Preventing the next disaster is more important than broadcasting this one.

The true tribute to those we lost is not punishment for their own sake.

It is ensuring that October 7 never happens again.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)