Israel’s 7 October Massacre: Political Row Over Remembrance Law

The debate began with a word – or rather, a proposal to remove one. A draft bill intended to establish a national day of commemoration for the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks has become the focus of a heated political debate over memory and accountability after the Prime Minister’s Office requested the removal of the term “massacre” from its title.

Originally, the bill establishing a state authority for remembrance of the October 7th events explicitly included the word “massacre” in its title. Representatives from the Prime Minister’s office intervened, successfully advocating for its removal and requesting the bill be renamed during a discussion in the Knesset Education, Culture and Sports Committee.

The bill proposes establishing a national memorial day for the devastating attack of October 7, 2023 – the deadliest in Israel’s history – on the 24th of the Jewish month of Tishrei. A draft circulated during the committee session was titled “Memory and Commemoration of the events of Simchat Torah,” with the previous title containing the word “massacre” crossed out. The attack occurred during the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah.

Culture Minister Suggests ‘Massacre’ Implies Victimhood

The subsequent remarks of Culture Minister Miki Zohar ignited further outrage. He argued that the term “massacre” conveyed a “victim mentality” and was incompatible with a strong Israel. He suggested that the days when Israel could be massacred were over, a sentiment many found inappropriate for legislation intended to emphasize national strength and unity.

For many bereaved families, the proposal feels like a minimization of their experiences. They question who has the right to soften the language used to describe the events. More than 1,200 people were killed in the attacks by Hamas and other militant groups in southern Israel, and 251 women, men, and children were abducted to Gaza.

Initially, the acting committee chairman, Yosef Taieb of the Shas party, appeared to reject the proposal, stating, “The issue will not be whitewashed. We all know today that a massacre took place. My concern is whether our children and grandchildren will still know that.” however, the committee agreed to the request to remove the word “massacre,” though Taieb indicated the matter would be revisited before a final vote.

Hila Abir: “There was a massacre on October 7th. We cannot deny that.”

Hila Abir, sister of Lotan Abir, who was murdered by Hamas terrorists on October 7th, spoke emotionally before the Knesset committee. She criticized the removal of the word “massacre” from the bill as a form of historical erasure. In an interview with Channel 12, she said Zohar’s remarks made him appear like a “Holocaust denier.”

“I am surprised by nothing anymore, not even the words of Minister Zohar,” she stated. “What differentiates him from Holocaust deniers? There was a massacre on October 7th. We cannot deny that.” She also accused the Prime Minister of obstructing a thorough investigation into the events.

In response to the heated debate, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement claiming that “contrary to recent reports, the word ‘massacre’ is explicitly included in the bill.”

However, for the families of victims, “massacre” is not a political category or a point for debate, but a description of the horror they experienced. “If this wasn’t a massacre, then what was it?” a mother of a survivor asked in the Knesset. She emphasized that language is not a detail, but a part of the truth.

Opposition Claims Government Seeks to Instrumentalize Remembrance

The opposition also voiced strong criticism, accusing Prime Minister Netanyahu of instrumentalizing remembrance policy. Opponents argued that removing the word was an attempt not only to control the narrative but also to indirectly obscure political responsibility.

Avigdor Liberman, chairman of Yisrael Beiteinu, directly criticized the Prime Minister for removing the term and accused him of evading responsibility. He stressed that an undeniable massacre involving murder, rape, and the abduction of Israelis had occurred. “Netanyahu cannot escape this responsibility.”

Another opposition politician described it as a “dangerous attempt to rewrite history.” Even within the governing coalition, some voices expressed unease, warning against deepening the pain of those affected through semantic debates.

At Its Core, the Issue is About Accountability for Failure

At its core, the dispute over a single word touches upon a larger question: who is responsible for the failures of October 7th? Israel has been grappling with this question for months, examining why warning signs were ignored and why the army and security forces were unprepared for the attack. Reports suggest that there were indications of Hamas’s invasion plans years prior. Former military officials and security experts point to miscalculations, strategic complacency, and political focus on other priorities.

Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to establish an independent inquiry commission, while the Israeli army and intelligence agencies have conducted their own investigations and taken personnel actions. However, a coalition-led investigation, where the governing politicians investigate themselves, is planned at Netanyahu’s direction.

the wording in the memorial law is more than mere symbolism for survivors and families. They demand that the state acknowledge what happened and take responsibility, so that such a massacre never happens again.

Lee Siegel, brother of hostage Keith Siegel, who has since been released, spoke on behalf of the Kibbutz Kfar Aza community after the committee meeting, emphasizing the absolute necessity of remembering history “because otherwise the future is lost.”