Is that how a democracy should handle the matter?

This was not the response many were expecting.
Instead of launching an impartial investigation into the conduct of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) during Operation Cast Lead, last winter’s onslaught on Gaza, as required by the Goldstone report, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council last week, the Israeli government decided to establish a special lobby.
Composed of seven cabinet ministers, its mission will be to urge the US to use its veto should the report’s recommendation that Israeli officials be prosecuted for war crimes following their refusal to launch their own inquiry within six months, be examined by the Security Council.
The lobby will also do its utmost to convince other countries of the legitimacy of Israel’s case, particularly democratic nations.
Israel claims that the report undermines its right to defend its people. Our struggle is to delegitimize the continuing attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel. The most important sphere we need to work in is the sphere of public opinion in the democratic world, Prime Minister Netanyahu said. We must continue to put holes in this lie (that Israel committed war crimes in its December-January war with Hamas), which is being spread with the help of the Goldstone Report. Weapons are being stockpiled all around us with the aim of targeting Israeli civilians. I want to make it clear that no one will damage our ability and right to protect our children, civilians and communities, he added.
In fact, no serious observer either seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel, or prevent it from protecting its citizens.
Every nation has the right and, indeed, the obligation to shield its people from harm.
The questions posed by Israel’s conduct during the war on Gaza are the following: in ethical terms, how far should one go to fulfill that obligation?
When fighting against a terrorist organization, and, in the case of Hamas, one that is also a resistance movement democratically elected by the people to administer its territory, what constitutes a legitimate target?
What means can be used against an enemy that has no qualms about firing crude rockets on Israeli neighborhoods, but that has no army, no air force, no weapons to speak of?
The UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict came to a number of disturbing conclusions. In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction, wrote the head of the mission, Richard Goldstone, in the Jerusalem Post.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimates that $2 billion will be necessary to repair infrastructure damage.
In addition, PCHR ( the Palestinian Center for Human Rights) also reports that 215 factories and 700 private businesses, 17 universities or colleges, 15 hospitals and 43 health care centers, and 58 mosques were destroyed or damaged during the attacks. The United Nations says that 298 schools were destroyed or damaged, wrote Electronic Intifada.
6,400 homes were obliterated, 52,000 others damaged, according to the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
The crux of the matter resides in one’s definition of the word civilian.
In Gaza, it seems that the Israelis did not consider that there were very many civilians to be found, and thus spared.
Those individuals belonging to the Hamas government, movement or militia were obviously legitimate targets, as far as the IDF were concerned.
Yet, what about police officers and other civil servants who were paid by the government but did not necessarily belong to the movement itself?
On the very first day of the onslaught, several hundred police officers were killed and wounded during a graduation ceremony by Israeli fire.
Should these be considered militants, therefore terrorists?
According to international law, the answer is no.
Furthermore, Israel’s policy concerning the whole of Gaza since Hamas was elected by the people to rule the strip following free and fair elections conducted in January 2006 is revealing. Hamas had soundly defeated the incumbent Fatah, winning 74 seats to 45.
Israel imposed economic sanctions after the Islamic movement stipulated that it would not be bound by previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority.
A total blockade was imposed following the Battle of Gaza (in June 2007), when, after five days of armed conflict, Hamas routed Fatah (which, according to some reports, had organized a putsch against the Islamic movement, supported by Israel and the Bush administration), wresting military control of the territory away from Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
Hamas was then expelled from the national government and outlawed by President Abbas.
What does a total blockade entail?
According to the UN, 3,900 truckloads had been allowed to enter Gaza from January to May 2007. From January to May 2009, only six were authorized….
Since 2007, only humanitarian aid, food and medicine has been allowed in, no construction material, no agricultural or manufacturing equipment, nothing that Hamas could possibly make use of.
Many essential items, such as fuel, are smuggled in through underground tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt, but not in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the population.
Israel obviously considers all Gazans to be responsible for Hamas’ election victory.
Everyone in the strip, including women and children, is being punished for having made what Israel considers an unacceptable, unconscionable error, supporting Hamas, instead of Palestinian Authority President Abbas’ Fatah, the corrupt and feckless party that now presides only over the West Bank.
It is probable that the Israelis were hoping to pressure the Gazans into repudiating Hamas so that the siege would be lifted.
Israel clearly intended to punish the entire population, and not solely the Hamas administration.
Needles to say, collective punishment is a violation of international law.
Clearly, if Israel makes no distinctions between Hamas and civilians in time of peace, why should there be any in time of war?
Hamas was not ousted (could one seriously hope to threaten a people into doing one’s bidding?), but is firmly in control, fundamentally unscathed by the Israeli winter onslaught on Gaza.
Gazans appears to be holding Israel responsible for their plight, and not Hamas.
The bombs and guns that killed so many, after all, were Israeli…
Yet, why were there so many young victims during the conflict?
If approximately 1,340 Palestinians were killed, and over half of them civilians,
315 were minors, and 235 under the age of 16. 115 were women, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem (thirteen Israelis were killed, including ten soldiers).
Surely Israelis did not consider them to be terrorists.
The safety of children is first and foremost the responsibility of their parents.
The latter should do everything in their power to shield them from harm.
If they do not, then they are to blame. The responsibility is entirely theirs.
If Gaza children died during the war, it is because their parents were reckless.
Had they, their neighbors and the rest of the Gaza population risen up against the Hamas terrorists that govern the strip, Israel would never have had cause to attack in response to rocket fire on its territory.
Their children would still be alive, and they would be able to feed, house and educate them properly, for there would be no blockade.
Consequently, the Gazans, all the Gazans are guilty of being the accomplices of Hamas, either directly by participating in the Hamas movement or administration, or indirectly, by tolerating them.
Israel's only recourse, after it violates the rights of Palestinians, is to deny that such rights exist, wrote the progressive, Jewish blogger Jerry Haber.
In essence, there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan.
They are all terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers.
As a result, the IDF spared no one and made sure that everyone suffered.
Here is our idea of the "laws of war", concluded Larry Derfner, the Jerusalem Post columnist. When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism.
The goal was to teach the Gazans a lesson they would never forget, and remind them that they were at the mercy of the IDF.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Israeli government believed it acted appropriately during the 23-day onslaught, and that those who accuse them of war crimes are Israel haters or anti-Semites.
Interestingly however, last Tuesday, Israel implicitly admitted that it had violated international law, it is in the interest of everyone fighting terrorism to change the laws of war. We must back up the IDF and grant it freedom to act, said Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Current international law, based on the Geneva Conventions, is no longer suited to the conflicts of our age, often pitting modern armies against terrorist movements that have no regard for civilians and innocent life, apologists of Israel explain.
In such conflicts, it is difficult to determine who the enemy actually is, as the terrorists wear no uniforms. They do not fight openly, and fairly but surreptitiously.
As such, yesterday’s norms, restraint, proportionality are obsolete, and are exploited by the terrorists.
Hence, it is international law that must change, and not IDF tactics, the Israeli government contends.
It seems highly unlikely that the Israelis will launch an independent inquiry.
That is unfortunate, for such a development would render the Goldstone report irrelevant, if the Israeli government set up an appropriate, open investigation, it will really be the end of the matter. That's where the report would end as far as Israel is concerned, Mr. Goldstone told the BBC.
Such a reversal however, would create its own set of problems.
A number of inquiries into the war has already been conducted by the IDF.
The armed forces were cleared of wrongdoing in all of them…
There is no need for a committee of inquiry, Barak said Tuesday. The Israeli military knows (how) to examine itself better than anyone else.
The deeply held notion that the IDF is the most moral army in the world could be severely undermined by a thorough investigation.
A report published last July by an organization of Israeli soldiers, Breaking the Silence, has already begun that process.
The testimony of 26 soldiers describes an army far different from the one Mr. Barak so staunchly defends.
According to this testimony, the IDF used human shields, deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and fired phosphorous shells indiscriminately.
Excessive fire power was also often the rule, if you’re not sure, kill. Fire power was insane, one soldier wrote.
You felt like a child playing around with a magnifying glass, burning up ants. A 20-year-old kid should not be doing such things to people, another added.
The IDF dismissed the report and accused the organization of defaming and slandering the IDF and its commanders…
Hence, the genuine risks exists that an impartial investigation would reach conclusions similar to those of the Goldstone report.
That would be deeply embarrassing for Mr. Netanyahu, and humiliating for the IDF.
Its senior leaders could also face prosecution…in Israel…
As a result, it is ethically and politically more palatable to excoriate the UN report, ignore its conclusions, strive to discredit the UN Human Rights Council and Mr. Goldstone, and hope Obama‘s America will utilize that veto if need be…
Is that how a democracy should handle the matter?
It is true that Hamas is under less pressure to follow the report’s recommendations and investigate its own behavior.
Who can reasonably doubt that the firing of rockets on Israeli civilians is indeed a war crime, and should be prosecuted as such?
We held those attacks to constitute serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, wrote Mr. Goldstone in the Jerusalem Post.
No one seriously expects Hamas to abide by international law in Palestine, and prosecute those responsible for launching rockets on Israel.
Hamas is not a democratic organization committed to the rule of law. It considers itself a resistance movement fighting foreign occupation.
We expect much more from Israel, and, in particular, a legitimate impartial inquiry, because it shares the same vision for the future and the same values as we do (to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni), or purports to do so.
Now is the time to prove it anew.
There are precedents.
The Kahan Commission was created after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in September 1982.
In 2006, the Winograd Commission investigated the failings of the Second Lebanon War.
Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be the envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will, asks Mr. Goldstone?
Judging by Tuesday’s decision, the answer, alas, is no…

(the photograph above can be found here)