Sounds like a strictly legal state inquiry, not good enough - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '167'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '9'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Logios
    • 08.06.10 | 21:33 (IDT)

    Israel should want to know more than what the law is: 1. What intelligence was there about the passengers and cargo? 2. What options were there for accomplishing the Israeli goals? 3. How and why was it decided that the helicopter raid method should be used? 4. Were the troops trained well for the mission, including awareness of possible civilian responses? 5. What actually happened. 6. Were the military action and Gaza "siege" legal. The commission of legal experts will only answer the last two questions (assuming they could accept the hearsay testimony of IDF investigators instead of the commandos themselves) which the "world" is most interested in, but will not be able to answer the first four, which have to do with the competence of the political level that decided on the military raid. Israel must find the answers to these questions if it wants such a clumsy operation not to be repeated, but this may hurt the politicians and they are trying to divert the public's attention. Incidentally, all the legal questions were probably raised already before the fact with the attorney general and he must have approved the "siege" and the operation from a legal point of view. Here, the political level is already protected by his opinion, so no problem for them in such a commission.

    from the article: Britain: No quid pro quo deal on Gaza blockade
    First published 21:16 08.06.10 | Last updated 21:16 08.06.10
Haaretz Headlines
Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump speaks to supporters, May 03, 2016.

In Indiana, Trump completes hostile takeover of the GOP

After the New York billionaire’s Indiana victory, many Americans pinched themselves and said: It’s the end of the world as we know it.

Car-ramming in West Bank

Ministers rap PM for returning Palestinian attacker's body

A month after Netanyahu ordered the defense minister not to return terrorists' bodies to their families, he gives the responsibility back to the defense and public security ministers.

Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu

'Clinton believed Mideast peace efforts would hurt her White House run'

'Alter Egos' by N.Y. Times' Mark Landler contains never-before published details about U.S.-Israel ties during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

Jeremy Corbyn at a pro-Palestinian rally in London, 2014.

Why U.K's Labour Party won't confront Muslim anti-Semitism

Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community.