Bereaved families seek criminal probe of Netanyahu over October 7 account

Bereaved families filed a criminal complaint against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, asking authorities to investigate whether he deliberately misled the state comptroller and the public to distance himself from responsibility for the October 7 disaster.

The complaint centers on Netanyahu’s 55-page response to the comptroller, submitted in December 2025 and published in February 2026. The families allege that it selectively quoted classified documents, omitted warnings, and distorted discussions about Hamas and the threat it posed before the attack.

Addressed to Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and the head of Israel Police’s Investigations and Intelligence Division, the complaint seeks an investigation into alleged attempted fraud under aggravated circumstances, fraud and breach of trust, and unlawful disclosure of classified information and material from the comptroller’s examination.

The families argue that the benefit Netanyahu sought through the alleged deception was acceptance by the comptroller and the public of his account absolving him of responsibility.

Bereaved families of slain soldiers among complainants

The complainants include Hagit and Ruby Chen, whose son, tank soldier Itay Chen, was killed fighting on October 7 and whose body was taken to Gaza, and Sharon and Eyal Eshel, whose daughter, surveillance soldier Roni Eshel, was killed at the Nahal Oz base.

Lawyers Navot Tel-Zur, Tal Shapira, Ron Berkman and Shoni Albeck submitted the complaint. Retired Jerusalem District Court judge Nava Ben-Or signed a statement endorsing its factual allegations and legal analysis.

The complaint draws on investigations by Ronen Bergman and Yuval Rubovitch published by Ynet and Yediot Aharonot, an October 8 interview with Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Avi Gil, and a defamation lawsuit filed against Netanyahu by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar on Wednesday.

“The document published to the public does not reflect what I saw, heard, or the discussions I attended,” Gil told Channel 12.

Gil also distinguished warnings of weakening deterrence from advance knowledge of the attack, saying there had been no specific, focused warning of such an assault from Gaza.

Netanyahu's Hamas policy central to dispute

One central dispute concerns Netanyahu’s policy toward Hamas. The complaint challenges his assertion that maintaining calm and containing the organization were never part of his directives, citing records that the families say show repeated instructions to preserve quiet in Gaza and postpone confrontations.

It also disputes his presentation of the assessment that Hamas was deterred as a uniform position of the security establishment. The families contend that Netanyahu himself promoted that assessment while his account omitted warnings pointing to growing danger.

Another issue is what Netanyahu knew about Hamas invasion plans. The complaint challenges his denial of receiving or being briefed on the “Jericho Wall” plan, citing earlier descriptions of a large-scale ground assault. Whether he received that specific document is distinct from whether he was briefed on similar plans.

On targeted killings, Netanyahu’s account portrays him as pressing for action that security officials resisted. The complaint argues that the reporting and Bar’s lawsuit show the reverse: proposals were repeatedly brought to Netanyahu, who declined to approve them.

The families also seek scrutiny of his account of Qatari funding diverted to Hamas’s military wing and his handling of warnings before the attack.

Beyond the document’s contents, the complaint alleges that publishing classified material and information from the comptroller’s examination violated restrictions on disclosure.

“We expect the attorney-general to order an immediate criminal investigation and the head of the Investigations Division to launch a comprehensive, impartial investigation as quickly as possible,” the families said in a statement.

The families’ lawyers argue that an investigation would give police access to classified documents needed to test the allegations, including original records establishing what information Netanyahu received and when.