Salah Shehadeh and the sophistries of Israel's public inquiry into his murder

In 2002, after a smaller bomb failed to murder Salah Shehadeh, then Hamas military commander in Gaza, the IAF dropped a 2,000 pound bomb on a residential apartment building killing him and his entire family: 13 civilians in all along with tens of seriously wounded.

The Israeli NGO Yesh Gvul charged the IDF officers who planned and executed the attack with violations of Israeli and international law and filed a case with the Israeli Supreme Court.  In response, the Court asked the government to create a public commission to examine the charges.  The case languished for several years while various governments dithered about naming members of the commission.  Yesh Gvul went back to court and it finally commanded the government to create the board, which Ehud Olmert did in 2008.  He originally appointed Brig. Gen. Tzvi Inbar to chair the body, to whom he added Gen. Yitzhak Eitan and senior Shabak officer, Yitzhak Dar.  After Inbar’s death, Bibi Netanyahu appointed retired Judge Tovah Sternberg-Cahan to head the board.  I’ll leave it to you to judge whether this was a truly independent and fair investigation.

It’s only taken three years, but the group has finally figured out how to successfully white-wash the crime (English version) in its final report.  The thinking is so perverse, the language so bureaucratically chilling and morally vacuous, that it’s worth quoting extensively from the Walla artcle (which also quotes the lanugage of the report):

Nine years after the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, a special commission found it unnecessary to take personal action against those [IDF officers] involved in the operation.  With that, the commission found that the murder of 13 civilians was “disproportionate and derived from an intelligence failure.”

The commission…determined that there was no legitimate suspicion of commission of a criminal act connected with the operation…It found the operation was a “legitimate preventive attack” and that killing Shehadeh was an “urgent and meaningful.”

It attributed the intelligence “failure” to ‘errors of evaluation’ and ‘mistakes of judgment’ in gathering information and distributing it to various elements involved in the operation.

Those IDF officers charged with involvement in the incident explained the “gap” by noting the need for urgent action once it was determined that Shehadeh was vulnerable to attack.  The commission responded that such reasoning “explained the failure but didn’t justify it,” whatever that means:

The intelligence failure emanated from various reasons which attached more important to killing the target and less weight to ‘endangering’  civilians as a result of this attack…This accompanying result [killing civilians] was unintentional and unexpected.  It did not derived from a disrespect for human life or [depraved] indifference to human life.  Those involved displayed a sensitivity to the issue of [harm] to those uninvolved.  Those engaged in the operation testified to the commission that had they known the severity of the outcome beforehand and with enough time to do so, they would’ve cancelled it.

The board specifically commended then deputy chief of staff , Gabi Ashkenazi, for opposing the killing using the operational plan that had been approved.  Even those who opposed the operation acceded to their superiors and participated in the killing.

The commission advised the IDF how to proceed in future when devising similar plans:

Proportionality is an important principle from which one derives that an attack of this sort is not legitimate if the danger of excessive harm to civilians exceeds the military value of the target.

However, it even permitted a loophole from this protocol by admitting that there may be instances in which pressures of time, place and opportunity which apply to pre-emptive strikes:

In such instances it is permitted to deviate or restrict adherence to such principles except insofar as they might damage principles of law and the precedents of the Supreme Court.

The board’s report approved the continuation of the IDF’s policy of targeted killing:

Despite the result in this case, pre-emptive attacks are a legitimate tool in the war against murderous terror as long as they adhere to the principles of justice and the ethical-moral values that serve as the foundation of Israeli and international justice.

Yesh Gvul has announced that it will appeal to the Supreme Court and ask for the appointment of an official government commission of inquiry.

A few comments on the passages above: any IDF officer who testified that army intelligence didn’t know civilians were in that apartment building or didn’t know civilians would be killed in the attack was lying.  The bomb dropped was specifically designed to destroy the entire building (as it did).  The IDF knew of Shehadeh’s every movement, and certainly monitored his stay in his own home along with the presence of any resident in the building.  To say they didn’t know who was there is simply preposterous.  I expect the military to lie.  But I don’t expect judges to accept such lies wholeheartedly.  But unfortunately this is customary in many national security cases.

But why should we be surprised?  Israel’s Occupation itself is built on a lie.  A lie which many Israelis willingly accept and benefit from in their everyday lives.  Should it surprise us that Israeli officers would lie in order to protect the honor of the IDF and the state it defends?

It’s also important to note that at the time of the assassination the leading Fatah and Hamas figures, Marwan Barghouti and Sheikh Yassine, had agreed to a formal unilateral ceasefire with Israel. The latter’s agreement to the declaration came only two hours before the assassination of Shehadeh.  Israel’s claim all along was that militants controlled the PA and any agreement that omitted them wouldn’t be worth the paper on which it was written.  To that, the Palestinians responded by enlisting the very “terror” groups needed to ensure the success of the ceasefire.  Their declaration was unilateral and unequivocal.  Newspaper articles were being prepared for publication in the Washington Post and Haaretz to herald this constructive development.

Israel’s answer was a 2,000 pound bomb on Salah Shehadeh’s home, thus destroying one of the most promising attempts of the era to negotiate peaceful terms between Israel and the Palestinians.  This is how the military-intelligence apparatus deals with opportunities for peace.  It wrecks them.  Deliberately.  And then takes whatever small amount of heat may come its way.  The heat is worth the danger of serious peace negotiations, which would rock the status quo the IDF finds so comfortable.

International law is predicated on giving an opportunity to nation states to first adjudicate violations that occur on their territory or at the hands of their representatives.  Israel’s attempt to do so has failed.  This leaves the International Criminal Court and other international bodies with no recourse but to agree to accept jurisdiction over this matter.  Israel engaged in a shameful whitewash that has excused all military personnel of any culpability.  But the world community must not let Israel’s military to escape with impunity.

Judge Edna Arbel: rewarding IDF impunity

When Ehud Barak designated IDF general Yair Naveh to be deputy chief of staff, Yesh Gvul filed a complaint seeking an injunction barring Naveh from taking the position because of his approval of targeted assassinations of unarmed Palestinian militants.  It claimed, based on reports by Uri Blau and documents leaked by Anat Kamm, that these murders violated a Supreme Court ruling.  In addition, Naveh flagrantly dissed the Supreme Court itself in remarks he made to Uri Blau.

So for those of you who admire the Supreme Court as the highest expression of Israeli democracy, may want to reconsider when you discover that the Supreme Court, in a ruling written by Judge Edna Arbel, rewarded Naveh for his insolence by dismissing the Yesh Gvul petition, though it did have some mild criticism for Naveh’s effrontery.  This means that the one time when the Supreme Court had an opportunity to weigh in on the question of what these killings did violate explicit Court rulings barring such acts, it chose to ignore the opportunity and punt.  A true mark of judicial courage and the flourishing of Israeli democracy.

The lone Israeli Palestinian judge levelled criticism on Naveh about his crudities:

We must focus on the fact that this individual who filled a high-level position in our society assumes for himself the freedom to express himself in a fashion which alludes to his disparaging views of the judicial system and the principle of the rule of law.  He should remember that his nomination to a public role, let alone a very high level role, conveys on his not just rights, but obligations which continue even after his role is completed.  One of those obligations is to serve as an example to society and to soldiers serving under his command in honoring the rule of law in general and the decisions of the court in particular.

The statements of the respondent are problematic not only because they encourage defiance of the rulings of the court and lack of faith by society in the judicial system and the principle of the rule of law which obligates every citizen.

To which I reply, that’s all very nice and perhaps this lone judge knew he had no support among the others for overturning the appointment, but this is little more than a slap on the wrist.  The decision overall rewards impunity and the words above are worth little unless the judges were willing to back them up with action.  And they weren’t.

The truth is that only on very rare instances is the Court prepared to do the job that such courts do in other true democracies.  Concerning security matters. the Israeli version almost never questions the national consensus and the State’s position.  The truth is that the Court gets good press it hardly deserves and gets little of the criticism it does deserve.  That’s because apologists like Tom Friedman are busy proselytizing for Israeli democracy while ignoring its flagrant flaws.

It is clear to almost any reasonable observer that the Naveh killings violated a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting assassinations when the victim was unarmed & could be apprehended without murder; or when civilians would be in the line of fire.  Both conditions were violated in this case.  The Court had the evidence clearly in front of it and could have ruled so that similar future IDF procedures would ensure consistency with judicial decisions.  Instead, it chose to defer to the military because, in Israeli society, the military always knows better.  All that this decision has taught IDF generals is that they should keep their mouth shut when they intend to flagrantly violate court decisions.

In other situations the Court behaves no differently.  Years ago it ordered the Apartheid Wall to be moved in certain portions.  Yet the IDF has so far stalled without paying a price for its obduracy.

On a related note, now that Yoav Galant‘s appointment has been vacated by Barak and Bibi, the government is put in the weird and dysfunctional position of not having any fully vetted or kosher candidate.  Knesset members are up in arms and Bibi/Barak’s plan to appoint Naveh as interim chief of staff has run into opposition.  You can’t appoint a chief of staff without vetting the name with the Turkel Commission.  And Naveh’s name hasn’t been vetted.  So the government’s plan to appoint Naveh bypassing Turkel has drawn fire.  Now there are calls to extend the current chief of staff’s term as a stopgap measure.  But Barak hates Ashkenazi with a passion and wants him gone.  It’s a big mess and a perfect reflection of the dysfunction of the current government.

Yair Naveh, interim IDF chief of staff: 'Stop bothering me with the Supreme Court!'

Galant is out.  Naveh is in, at least temporarily.

It appears my fears of yesterday are being realized regarding the replacement for Yoav Galant as IDF chief of staff.  Any sentient person realizes that whoever takes that post will have blood on his hands.  And indeed, the new interim candidate is Yair Naveh, an officer with a past equally tainted as Galant’s was.  It was Naveh who ordered the assassination of unarmed Palestinian militants, a potential war crime which motivated Anat Kamm to leak documents from his office when she worked there.  It was Naveh who, when asked by Blau why he didn’t respect the rulings of the Supreme Court regarding targeted killings said:

“Stop bothering me with the rulings of the Supreme Court.  I don’t know when they apply and when they don’t.  I do know that targeted killings work and prevent terror attacks.  I take my orders from the operations command [and not human rights activists].”

When asked by Blau: “Why do you approve beforehand an attack on an unidentified target [an innocent bystander],’ Naveh answered: ‘These are questions you shouldn’t direct to me.  These matters are approved at the level of the prime minister and what is done is done.

This is what will now command Israel’s national army brought up with its mother’s milk to believe in the concept of the “purity of arms.”  A laughingstock is what it is I’m sorry to say.  Naveh implicitly accepts Blau’s terms by acknowledging that he’s contravened the rulings of the Court by saying that his commanders and prime minister are his ultimate authority and not some puny court.  Is this the rule of law?  Or the law of the jungle?

It’s a bitter irony that in responding to a Supreme Court appeal against his nomination, again by Yesh Gvul, to be deputy chief of staff, Naveh had this to say (now) about the Supreme Court:

As a citizen and soldier of the State of Israel I feel respect for the High Court, its judges, and decisions.  As an IDF commanders, the rulings of the Court are ones that I do not dispute.  This is how I conducted myself when I was senior officer of the Central Command, and how I conduct myself now.

Look.  What do we expect.  Israel’s army and politics, again I’m sorry to say, is a place in which liars, fools, sex fiends, charlatans and thieves rule.  That’s why Galant was tripped up.  It’s why Yair Naveh can lie through his teeth with a straight face when it suits him.

The Walla report on this story notes that Naveh did not dispute that he uttered these words to Blau, but rather that the reporter ‘misinterpreted’ them, the language of scoundrels everywhere caught out in a lie they seek to take back.  He finesses the matter now by saying that he relied on the orders he was given by his superiors presuming that they followed the rulings of the Court.  I don’t know about you but I think I’m going to be sick.

I’d almost rather have Moshe Feiglin be chief of staff.  At least you know he wouldn’t waste his breath with nonsense like this.  He would tell the Court to shove it and dare the Court to take action against him.  Then we could have a real test of democracy and see who would win.  But with liars and scoundrels like Naveh, democracy and the rule of law don’t stand a chance.  The Court laps up what Naveh put before it today and will gladly approve his nomination because it wants to trust him.  It doesn’t have the guts to doubt him.  That’s the tragedy of Israeli democracy.  No one is minding the shop.

And as if we don’t have enough to be disturbed about regarding Naveh, it was he who, as CEO of the Jerusalem light rail project, determined that cars be segregated by gender so as not to offend the sensibilities of the Haredi community.  When women’s groups were up in arms, he responded by saying he was honoring the civil rights of the Orthodox community!  Clearly, this is a guy with a Teflon mouth capable of talking his way out of almost any embarrassing situation.

Yoav Galant's home and stolen land (Edo Erez)

Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, the prime minister’s choice to be the next IDF chief of staff, has an almost insurmoutable obstacle in the path to his assuming his new job.  He stole (or ‘appropriated’ if you prefer niceties) government land and annexed it to his home, lied about it, and now has lost the support of the government legal advisor who would defend him before the Supreme Court, if he could be defended.  An Israeli NGO, Yesh Gvul, brought suit in the Supreme Court claiming Galant wasn’t fit to assume his job because of his unethical behavior.  Most Israelis believed this issue was a mere fly in the ointment.  The land theft had been publicly exposed many months earlier and it didn’t appear to harm his career then.

But that was until government lawyers starting poring over Galant’s testimony in court about the land and how it ended up in his hands.  Then he became indefensible.

But as Gideon Levy writes, they appear about to reach the right decision but for the wrong reasons.  It’s ironic that of all the unethical things Galant has done in the IDF, this was the one likely to do him in.    Galant grabbed a piece of land for himself, true.  But what are a few dunams compared to the vast amount of territory Israel has stolen from the Palestinians?  Let’s not lose the forest for the trees.

Not to mention Galant’s role as commander of IDF forces during Operation Cast Lead, whose second bloody anniversary was commemorated last month.  The bloody hand that killed 1,400 Gazans, 1,100 of them civilians, was about to be raised in a salute to the nation.  The officer responsible for the war crimes committed then, for killing 250 unarmed police cadets, for killing the Samounis, for raining white phosphorus.  That’s the reason Galant didn’t deserve his promotion.  Not a case of petty corruption that characterizes the life of just about every Israeli politician, general or CEO.

One thing we can say though is that Galant’s brazen act of theft and his attempted coverup characterize public life for just about any Israeli of power or means.  The way to the top is paved by deals and lies and payoffs.  Chiefs of staff are no different.

Israel, of course, has its priorities screwed up.  But you know what?  I’ll take the right outcome for the wrong reasons anyday.  Cynics, though, will say: what does it matter whether the new chief of staff is Yoav Galant or Benny Gantz, one of the other contenders?  Aren’t they all the same?  Perhaps yes.  But to me opposition to this appointment is like the way you play defense in basketball.  You harrass your opponent every way you can.  You try to deflect him from his game.  You do everything you can to stop him.  Every little thing helps.  You just don’t know what will be the decisive act that does him in.

The choice of Galant by Netanyahu indicates terrible weakness in the vetting process.  In this country, the FBI and others go through the backgrounds of candidates for high government positions with a fine tooth comb.  Those who nominate or appoint them want to know what they may face when the promotion is announced publicly.  It’s a sign of how much consideration is given to such ethical issues that a known flagrant incident from Galant’s past wasn’t considered sufficient to disqualify him for the job.  And poor Galant has the rug pulled out from under him only two weeks before he was to be sworn in for the plummiest job any IDF officer could secure.

Kudos to Yesh Gvul on their expected victory in this case.  I’ll take such a win any way I can get it.

Yoav Galant, IDF chief of staff designate and war crimes suspect (AFP)

Yesh Gvul adds that until this happens, Galant will be hounded throughout the length of his appointment by charges and investigations by international judicial bodies which will prevent him from properly fulfilling his role.  Today’s news brings word that former Shin Bet director and current MK Avi Dichter cancelled a planned speech in Spain for fear he will be arrested on an international arrest warrant.  He asked for assurance from the Spanish he would not be arrested and they could not assure him.  In an Israeli context, the wages of the sins of Occupation are an international arrest warrant.

It should also be noted that yesterday I reported that Galant lobbied heavily against a military investigation of Givati brigade commander Col. Ilan Malka for his role in approving the airstrike that killed nearly 30 members of the extended al-Samouni clan in January 2009.  Galant appears to have been overruled as the military prosecutor general has opened an investigation into the incident.

I know what happened to the U.S. generals who lied and tried to impede an investigation to determine who Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan.  Though one was Stanley McChrystal, whose career was not damaged, others didn’t get off as easily.  So if the IDF were any sort of accountable military organization, Galant would run the risk of damaging his career by hindering a legitimate military investigation.  Since the IDF is nothing of the sort, there’s no chance either Yesh Gvul or the High Court will stand in his way.  But it is good that the issue is being raised in a credible legal venue so that Israelis and the world will be forced to examine the issue, even if only for a second or two (in the case of the Israelis).

This is a follow up on a post I wrote a few days ago based on a Gush Shalom posting. It noted that Israeli deputy prime minister Avigdor Lieberman charged on Israeli TV that the Israeli peace group, Yesh Gvul, and a lawyer representing it in bringing war crimes charges against Israelis officers, were “kapos.”

As I wrote then, Lieberman is known for shooting his mouth off in such settings. And while this is odious stuff it’s far from the first time that he’s said such things. Hard to imagine how such a brutish thug can get to be a senior cabinet minister.

Adam Keller provided a link to the Google Video for the Hebrew interview which I’ve translated (roughly–leaving out some of the back and forth Crossfire-type flame-throwing between Lieberman and the interviewer, Geula Even) below:

Lieberman: I think anyone who examines this will find there is a small group, all of which it engages in is incitement, an attempt to incite all of the Israeli people against another group of people. This same group called Yesh Gvul, which brought a charge in London against a chief of staff, two chiefs of staff, Dan Halutz and ‘Boogie’ Yaalon…The very same Daniel Machover…who brought a charge against a general of the State of Israel, Doron Almog, in London. The same Machover who–when it became clear that they were flying Almog back to Israel–brought a legal complaint against the [Israeli] ambassador and the ambassadorial staff because they brought Almog back [to Israel].

We have a small group on the left looking for something over which to incite…the same group which announced a boycott against those artists celebrating Gush Etzion’s 40th anniversary…

There simply can’t be a situation in which people try to break the national consensus. Gush Etzion is an absolute consensus created and supported by governments of Mapai and Mapam who were not right-wing extremists…

It is time to uproot this group that attempts to incite the State of Israel at every chance. It’s time to compare this group to those kapos who served in the concentration camps.

Even: No, No.

L: From my perspective these people are no less than…

Even: You are comparing this lawyer in London to a kapo?

L: This Israeli who lodges a charge against an Israeli general is exactly the same as a kapo and nothing less.

Even: Will you regret this? This is incredible what you say.

L: This is entirely credible and no less and this is the way we should treat these people.

Even: In memory of the Holocaust, don’t you think…Do you think there is a place for such a comparison?

L: There IS a place for such a comparison. It is imperative to treat these people in precisely this way.

Some background is in order. Yesh Gvul and several Israel human rights lawyers (including Daniel Machover mentioned above) have lodged legal complaints in Israel and England against Israeli generals responsible for attacks against Palestinians which murdered civilians. Lieberman refers to an incident in which Gen. Doron Almog flew to England to attend a Jewish communal event only to be confronted with a legal charge against him by a Palestinian group (and supported by Yesh Gvul). The Israeli embassy arranged for Almog to be spirited out of the country and back to Israel in order to avoid arrest. To this day, Almog cannot return to England for fear of being charged.

Lieberman is angry because Gush Shalom announced a boycott of the Israeli musicians who performed at the concerts celebrating Gush Etzion’s 40th anniversary. The Jerusalem Post reports:

…Avigdor Lieberman caused a political storm on Tuesday when he declared the Left responsible for all the lives lost in the Arab-Israeli conflict and for everything wrong with the country.

Lieberman, speaking to Army Radio, was responding to calls by the left-wing group Gush Shalom to boycott musicians who performed at a Sunday event commemorating 40 years since the resettlement of Gush Etzion in the West Bank.

“All our troubles, all our problems, all our victims are because of those people,” Lieberman said, referring to the Left. “I have no complaints against the Arabs or against the world. My claims are aimed against those in the Israeli Left, who are trying to break us from within at any cost and to breach every consensus.”

Lieberman himself lives in Nokdim, part of Gush Etzion.

I liken Lieberman’s performances to Ann Coulter’s right-wing sturm und drang theater. It seems like Lieberman knows his audience wants red meat and he gives them the juiciest pieces he can think of using the foulest smears possible. This is what the extreme nationalist right wants to hear and he gives it to them in spades.

Gush Shalom, which created the Gush Etzion boycott and is included in the “kapo” comment, is considering whether to bring defamation charges against Lieberman since in Israel it is a crime to falsely charge someone with being a kapo or Nazi. They are trying to weigh whether suing him will not bring him greater notoriety and support among the wingnut right. I’ve encouraged them to sue him since I think such vile bullying hate must be confronted. Otherwise it only becomes worse when the right is emboldened. This is precisely what happened in the case of Rabin’s assassination when charges like this flew fast and furious against Rabin picturing him in a kapo uniform at right-wing demonstrations.

There is every chance there is another Yigal Amin [Correction: thanks Andy for correcting my mistake--it's 'Amir' of course] listening to interviews like this one and believing they would be doing their country a favor by ridding it of these meddlesome lawyers and leftist traitors. So sitting back and taking it is not a stance I relish.

Zvi Solow, Ben Gurion University professor and Israeli peace activist, also adds an interesting perspective on Lieberman’s rantings:

Liberman is first and foremost a Russian-produced racist. He thinks that “Europeans” – meaning whites– are much more “cultured” (a Russian term) than others. For internal political reasons he doesn’t say what his opinion is of Ethiopian Olim.

His understanding of the ME conflict is that it is ethnic, not territorial. That is why he keeps looking for ways to “get rid of” Israel’s Palestinian citizens. He is not opposed to withdrawing from part of the Occupied Territories – his logic is one of a power balance and not of “holy God-given land”. So he suggested that in the framework of exchanging Israeli territory for some of the settlement blocks Israel transfers Vadi Ara & Um el Fahm, complete with its population.

Now he came out in favour of withdrawing from some of the Palestrinian neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, which made him a heretic in the eyes of the religious right. “Liberman will divide Jerusalem” heckled the Religious Right MK’s. The “kapo” statement was a calculated attempt to draw predictable fire from the left & center, in order to regain “respectability” with the “Arab” hating right.

Gershom Gorenberg’s Minister for National Fears provides a chilling account of the political “rise and rise” of Avigdor Lieberman and highlights his solutions for dealing with ethnic conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Aftermath of 2002 Shehadeh attack (AP)

When I first read the headline in Haaretz, Panel to Look into Civilian Deaths in 2002 IAF Attack on Shehadeh I was pleased and surprised that one of the bloodiest civilian massacres of recent IDF history would finally be investigated. But I quickly realized that there is probably less here than meets the eye:

The State Prosecution has agreed to establish an independent commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the targeted assassination of Hamas’ former military leader in the Gaza Strip, Salah Shehadeh, in June 2002.

Shehadeh died when the Israel Air Force dropped a one-ton bomb on a Gaza City neighborhood, killing 14 innocent people – mostly women and children – in the process.

The panel will establish whether a criminal investigation should be opened against those involved in the decision to bomb the neighborhood. The State Prosecution told the High Court of Justice of its decision during a hearing on a petition filed the peace organization “Yesh Gvul.”

The organization filed the petition in September 2003 against then-military prosecutor Menachem Finkelstein, who refused to order a criminal investigation into the deaths of the 14 civilians.

This incident is the source of the famous comment by Dan Halutz, then IAF commander, when asked if he felt anything when he dropped a bomb on a Palestinian target. “Just a slight tremble of the wings [of the plane] is all,” was his mordant reply. Any number of famous Israeli commanders are well known for similarly cold boasts, and this one stuck with Halutz. The IDF commander at the time of the raid was Doron Almog, who was nearly arrested at a London airport under an international warrant for his role in the massacre.

Which takes us to the issue of why there may be less here than meets the eye. Yesh Gvul, the Israeli group, sued the IDF for this incident, taking the case all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court. The Court was put in what for it was a terrible bind. Clearly, the IDF had engaged in a horrible massacre which in the normal course of legal events should be reviewed. But also clearly, the Court was loathe to second guess military commanders even when they stepped over a moral-legal line (as they certainly did here). The justices knew they should review the case, but detested the idea of doing so. They held off for years on hearing it.

When Israeli human rights lawyers began pursuing the case outside Israel under the jurisdiction of international law, then the Supreme Court’s inaction made it look witless. Then they finally devised a way out of their predicament that preserved a fig leaf of judicial probity. They heard a separate case about targeted assassinations and ruled (don’t ask me how they reached this conclusion) that they were legal under international law in limited circumstances.

This allowed them at least to ratify the commanders’ original decision to kill Shehadeh. But they still had to deal with the other deaths. Which brings us to the independent commission concept:

Three months ago, the High Court ordered the state to declare whether or not it would agree to the establishment of an independent panel. When the court ruled in December 2006 that targeted assassinations are not illegal under international law, it also determined that the state is obligated to “objectively” investigate decisions taken by the Israel Defense Forces in cases where innocent civilians have been killed.

“Despite the fact that the regulations determined by the High Court’s verdict on the policy of targeted assassinations are not applicable to the incident in question,” wrote deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, “the state agrees that the circumstances under which innocent civilians were hurt [!!] in the course of the action against Shehadeh will be examined by an objective investigative committee that will be appointed for this purpose by state authorities.”

The attack in July 2002 leveled an entire residential building in Gaza City. High Court justices repeatedly delayed the hearing on the petition, deciding it would be heard only after ruling on the targeted assassinations policy.

My guess is that the Supreme Court has just engaged in a bit of a nod and a wink to the state prosecutor which allows both of them to say that they dealt with the issue without dirtying their hands with it. There will be an independent commission which will find that despite the terrible loss the judgment of the commanders was sound and the civilians were an unfortunate casualty of a nasty but necessary war on terror.

Cynical? Perhaps. But if you don’t become cynical watching how Israel operates regarding matters like these then you’re either a flag-waving true believer or Pollyana. And I’m neither. That being said, one always preserves the hope that some justice will be done in this case and some officer’s judgment will be questioned if not excoriated.