In the absence of such a report, the IDF learned two lessons: first, that they could get away with murder. Second, the lesson that they internalized and put into practice in Gaza, was that they needed to kill more civilians and minimize their own casualties, which led to political fallout at home. Operation Cast Lead was a military exercise testing this hypothesis.

The excuse that “Israel has the right to defend itself” was accepted in the case of Lebanon, so it is little wonder that it was dragged out again to excuse the massacre of Gaza. One evil leads to another when the world stands by and does nothing.

Two points of slight disagreement. The Fact Finding Mission’s mandate was to investigate “violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” so it seems that the question of whether the entire operation was legitimate self-defense or naked aggression seems beyond its scope. Still, it is quite significant that this extremely important issue, which I think should be resolved against Israel, is presumed in Israel’s favor. In other words, the report gives Israel a huge undeserved break. (Uri’s link to Victor Kattan’s analysis is a must-read on this issue.)

Second, Falk criticizes the report for paying undue attention to Shalit and recommending his release while ignoring Israel’s thousands of prisoners. However, most of the references to Shalit are quite compelling, as they repeatedly criticize Israel for imposing collective punishment on the Gaza population for his detention. Shalit’s detention is much more significant in the entire conflict because Israel has used it is an excuse to blockade goods from 1.5 million people. It is true that his life had no more or less value than any of those imprisoned in Israeli prisons, but I am not at all offended at the conclusion that he should be released. On the whole, the Shalit issue is treated appropriately by the report, with emphasis on the evil of collective punishment.

link to jurist.law.pitt.edu

I can’t. I also can’t view prior posts. Can you?

They doubt that Hamas and Hezbollah had a change of heart.

They also site that the Arab world has issued few and relatively moderate complaints about the actions, compared to prior situations.

The situation is a dilemma for a liberal Zionist, as it is unpalatable to support or appear to support likud’s approach of incremental annexation.

And, it is unpalatable to support or appear to support Hamas’ terror and propagation of hate.

And, it is increasingly unpalatable to support even indirectly the agenda of the regime in Iran.

I would expect the more left wing to have and to express those quandries as well.

I don’t see success in getting either the Arab world on the run, or Israel on the run. And, the current political setting is that. Those that end up functionally articulating Hamas’ thesis re: Israel, agitate for war.

It is in others’ home, not our own, and amounts to a comparable chicken-hawk approach to what is criticized when articulated by neo-conservatives (rightly).

I don’t hear the insistence on reform as goal of this report, but only of rage at the politics of it. I haven’t heard a word from Hamas, that they will reform their methods in accordance with international law, and I haven’t heard a word from Adam or Phil indicating that they consider that of any consequence.

My thesis on the Hamas behavior, as I’ve said, was that it appeared to me that they desired, insisted, that Israel respond militarily, to have PR points in the Arab and dissenting world for its own street cred. That that strategy either intentionally or negligently used Gaza civilians as “human shields” in a general sense (not in the sense of individually blocking fire).

I see three possible attitudes towards this report, relative to the question of the actual politics and PR war.

1. Solely condemnation of Israel – Thereby contributing to the functional human sheild strategy of Hamas, in the odd twist of the Gandhian maxim – “the purpose of civil disobedience is to evoke a response, an excessive response”
2. Solely condemnatory of Hamas – Thereby granting Israel absence of accountability internally or externally for its actions and policies and absence of motivation for reform
3. Witness – Identification of the cyclical nature of the conflict (an escalating dialectic, an infection that hurts periodically but is never healed)

It certainly is horribly frustrating to observe the appearance of denial on the part of the Israeli military. And, on Israel’s side, it is horribly frustrating to observe the appearance of partisan and inconsistent application of human rights law.
3.