The two big shifts stated and implied in the op-ed were that absence of intentionality to harm civilians, that the military action was acknowedged (by Goldstone) to be a military one, and not an intentionally sadistic one. The next related implication is that the scope of the military action was then an admissable choice of scope given the conditions on the ground, and assertions by Hamas of their intentions and preparations. The Hamas preparations turned out to be untrue. Unlike Iraq in which no weapons of mass destruction after Saddam Hussein denied possessing them, there were no material cashes of weapons (not speaking of WMD's) found in Gaza after Hamas declared that they DID have them. Any exceptions to that mistake remain. And, if Israel had conclusive evidence that Hamas was not prepared to fight at the scale that they claimed, and Israel used that for PR only, then there are severe questions. War is horrible, inevitably and violently disproporationate between an unarmed civilian and any armed. The relationship between an unarmed civilian in a community and a rocket is a disproportionate violent relationship. War crimes are only incrementally more horrible than war itself. The initiation of war was the crime. And, that is BOTH Hamas and IDF fault. From my read of Hamas escalating shelling until Israel invaded, is an indication that Hamas (or cadre) desired that Israel invade, as sick as that sounds. I think it IS that sick, that rage controlled decisions, and not reason.
Protests in southern Syrian city after Druze cleric's death (AP)
from the article: Goldstone has paved the path for a second Gaza war