Who controls the narrative of the failures of October 7: politicians or the military?

The dispute between Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir takes on a dimension that goes beyond mere administrative discussion or professional disagreement; it fundamentally reflects a deep crisis of trust between the political and military levels in Israel, at a sensitive stage where the repercussions of October 7 still cast heavy shadows over Israel and its institutions. It may seem strange that this clash has erupted between two men who have long been classified as among the most loyal figures to Benjamin Netanyahu personally, but the irony reveals the depth of the rift caused by the shock of the attack, and the failure of the system to anticipate, prevent, or respond to it in a timely manner.
Since Katz ordered a review of the external investigation conducted by retired General Sami Turjeman regarding the failures of October 7, tensions have taken a sharper form, as Zamir saw the move as a clear attempt to politicize the report or to question the professionalism that went into months of effort collecting testimonies from officers, operational documents, and analyzing the flaws that struck intelligence, operational, and organizational levels. The situation reached its peak when Zamir announced that the reviewed investigation does not belong to politics, but is a professional document prepared for the army to draw lessons from and correct its mistakes, while Katz, on the other hand, emphasizes that his responsibility as Minister of Defense requires him not to allow procedures that may wrong officers or burden others with what they cannot bear or exceed the elected political level.
In this charged atmosphere, a crisis of dismissals and freezes erupted; Zamir made the decision to dismiss a group of senior officers due to their failure to manage their units on the eve of the attack, during the first forty-eight hours, which left a large number of casualties and hostages. He based his decision on the recommendations of the Turjeman Committee, which described the errors of the southern command, intelligence, and tactical units as structural and deep. Katz's response was no less sharp when he announced a freeze on senior military appointments for a full month, a move seen by many as an attempt to place the army under direct political pressure, while Katz viewed it as a necessary measure for comprehensive review and to prevent the army from slipping into hasty actions under the pressure of public anger and the desire to offer scapegoats.
The clash did not stop there; Zamir made an unprecedented statement when he called for the formation of an independent non-governmental investigative committee, with full powers to investigate not only the army's performance but also the performance of the political level before and during the attack. This statement is capable of igniting a constitutional crisis within Israel, as it touches on a red line that chiefs of staff have avoided for decades; namely, holding politicians directly accountable for security failures. Nevertheless, Zamir did not back down, but rather affirmed that the moment Israel is going through is "historic," and that the army cannot be reformed from within without correcting the flaws in the political decision-making processes that ignored repeated intelligence warnings and encouraged the diversion of army resources to tasks far from monitoring the Gaza borders.
This proposal faced sharp rejection from Katz, who reminded Zamir that the political authority is the one that determines the directions of the military institution, and that the army is part of the state, not an independent entity imposing its conditions on the government. It seems that the minister is trying to recalibrate the relationship that he sees has begun to lean towards excessive military intervention in the political sphere, especially after reports surfaced about senior officers advising behind the scenes to hold early elections or change Netanyahu's approach. Despite the denial from the military command of these reports, they heightened Katz's sensitivity, who fears that the investigation into October 7 will be used as a tool to weaken or confuse the government.
At its core, the current crisis cannot be separated from the broader political context. Netanyahu is going through one of the most complex phases of his rule; opinion polls have indicated for months that he is losing significant popularity to figures from the right and center, and even from within Likud itself. When public pressure from the families of the dead and hostages was mounting, October 7 turned into a real test for every political player. If the government has tried from the beginning to shift responsibility onto the army, the military leadership is now trying to restore the equation to its natural place: acknowledging the mistakes of the military institution, in exchange for demanding an investigation into the responsibilities of the political leadership. This is something Netanyahu cannot bear given the fragility of his government and his judicial situation.
The disagreement between Zamir and Katz is not just a struggle over a report, but a struggle over the narrative: who owns the explanation of what happened? Who determines responsibilities? And who leads the process of drawing lessons that will shape the state in the post-October 7 phase? Many Israeli analysts have seen Katz's move to freeze military appointments as fundamentally an attempt to clip Zamir's wings before he becomes an independent power center capable of threatening Netanyahu's position or pushing him toward actual political accountability, especially since Zamir enjoys