Hamas was prime culprit in Gaza attack

The United Nations’ Goldstone report is little more than a melodramatic sideshow, yet it has evolved into somewhat of a battle cry for advocates of the poor Palestinians. Now they can wave the report in the air and compare the Israel Defense Forces to Hitler’s storm troopers.

Israel’s invasion of Gaza more than a year ago amounts to a far more nuanced episode. Israeli leaders and their advocates in the United States and elsewhere must cease being so defensive. There are reasonable responses to be found. To its credit, Israel has made a respectable comeback with its formal response to the report; it was composed of a UN commission headed by former South African Justice Richard Goldstone.

Israel’s needs to expand on its reason for attacking Gaza; explain why civilians were victimized; take the UN to task for its sweeping and unsupported accusations; apologize for refusing to cooperate with investigators; acknowledge mistakes; and take a hard look at its military operations.

Israel’s foremost lapse was its understated characterization of the three-week war that began in late December 2009. Israel’s persistent line was its goal of stopping rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel. How does that sound in the context of what ensued? Hamas clearly commits an act of war by firing thousands of missiles, but must Israel respond by killing 1,400 people that includes a countless number of civilians? Israel could not even meet its objective - eliminating Gaza’s threat of firing more missiles.

If I believed that was Israel’s main reason, I would have taken to the streets in protest.

It does not take a military strategist to figure out why Israel invaded Gaza. Hamas, which controls Gaza, was obviously building a war machine intended to damage and perhaps one day destroy Israel as a proxy for Iran.

It makes sense. Arab extremists have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea long before the state of Israel was created. A century later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel as he engineers the development of a nuclear device. Hamas has been habitually smuggling weapons into Gaza for years, kidnapped an Israeli soldier in 2006 and seized control of Gaza the following year in a violent coup. All the while, they progressively fired rockets with greater ranges into Israel.

Israel had to react forcefully. They probably sought to weaken Hamas as much as possible, and they likely succeeded for the time being. Unfortunately, Hamas is believed to be rebuilding its arsenal, which would mean that another confrontation is inevitable.

When Israel swooped in, they fought an enemy that infiltrated the public at large. Hamas forced civilians to act as human shields, causing them to be caught in the crossfire. Israel had to choose between the safety of Gaza civilians and that of Israeli civilians.

The commission wrecked its credibility when it accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians without producing sufficient evidence. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired off a detailed analysis of the report to the U.N. Secretary General complaining of “the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.”

Dershowitz tackles the report’s reference to Israeli officials who proclaimed that Israel should bombard Gaza’s infrastructure. Maybe some Israeli leaders and extremists feel that way, but how does this mindset translate to public policy? There is no hard evidence that this notion is equivalent to the Israeli government’s tactics.

Dershowitz hotly disputes this allegation, and so should Israel. The U.N. must be placed on the hot seat for this.

Nonetheless, Israel undermined its credibility by refusing the commission’s request for cooperation. It makes Israel look guilty, and in turn Goldstone and his investigators might believe the worst. Prosecutors tend to come down very hard on evasive suspects.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Israel produced a formal response conceding that the IDF was spurred to examine its actions in part by pressure from the Goldstone report and various human rights groups. “We take a look at ourselves and where we were right and where mistakes were made,” said Capt. Barak Raz. “I can’t deny that these reports also contributed to our ability to be made aware.”

Israel’s response reveals that it launched 150 separate investigations that were either initiated by the army or in reaction to complaints from Arab civilians and other outside sources. So far, 36 probes led to criminal prosecutions that include 19 involving shooting toward civilians and 17 linked to using civilians as human shields, mistreating detainees and theft, according to JTA.

Israel’s decision to conduct 36 prosecutions does not indict the entire IDF, but it compounds the disclosure after the 2006 war that Israel’s military is plagued by severe problems. At the time, reservists could not find ammunition and supplies, and they lacked sufficient training for the fighting in which they participated. On three occasions in recent years, terrorists slipped through boundaries of military bases to kill or kidnap IDF soldiers.

It is no wonder if the IDF misfired, literally, during the latest hostilities. Whatever the cause, transgressions on Israel’s part cannot be justified. The IDF is due for a housecleaning.

The issues involved with the Goldstone report still amount to a sideshow. Had Hamas lived in peace with Israel, we would not be squabbling over a Goldstone report today.