These representative examples – they are representative, not cherry-picked – show that the authors approached their investigation with a one-sided and tendentious understanding of the conflict, eager to embrace bogus depictions of facts which could have been easily checked, and with an image of Israeli society unrecognizable to most Israelis. This is crucial, as the single most important finding in the Report is that Israel purposefully targeted the population of Gaza. Even before reading the descriptions of events, it is reasonable to wonder "what Israel" it is the investigators were investigating; it certainly isn't the one its citizens recognize.
Even more baffling than the willingness of the investigators to invent Israeli motives, which at least is not denied, is their refusal to seek evidence of the actions and intentions of the defenders. They made a few feeble enquiries of what they call the Gaza Authorities about the fighters, were rebuffed with the odd response that these authorities had no knowledge of what the fighters of their own side might have been doing, and that was all. Yet in dozens of cases described in their report, the question demands to be answered: if the IDF was firing in this direction, what do the Hamas commanders have to tell about their forces? Had they booby trapped the building? Were they firing from here? Had they laid mines in this field? Were they congregating in this mosque, and for what purpose? Was this farm intended as a line of defense, or that zoo as a trap for advancing IDF troops? In many cases the investigators asked local civilians, but they never asked the fighters or their leaders.Read the whole thing.
Bizarre as it may sound – and it is truly bizarre – the investigators came to what had been the scene of a war, and tried to piece the events together without talking to either of the warring sides. They asked the Israelis, and the Israelis refused to talk. They didn't ask Hamas, so Hamas never even had to refuse. Yet they had the arrogance to tell what had happened.