Three papers discuss the issue of whether or not a state commission of inquiry should be established to examine the Government's and the IDF's conduct during Operation Cast Lead:

Yediot Aharonot claims that "There are four good reasons why a commission of inquiry should not be established and not one genuine reason why a commission should be established."  The author cites his reasons as follows:
 

1) Contrary to the claims of the Goldstone report, existing international law is no standard for evaluating conflict between a state and a non-state actor and should not be seen as the benchmark for judging the IDF.  The author says "The only standard by which to judge ourselves is that customary around the world, and if we are stringent – the standards acceptable to the Americans and the British," and suggests that allied conduct in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan would be relevant in Israel's case. 

2) The timing is poor.  The author cites the report that the Government recently delivered to the UN and suggests that convening a commission of inquiry now would be tantamount to saying that "We do not believe our own document." 

3)   The Goldstone Commission and those who appointed it hold the view that almost any military action against terrorists, apart from surgical commando operations, is illegitimate; this view is unacceptable to the Americans. 

4)  The public would strongly oppose a commission "the purpose of which would be to appease foreigners and leave the IDF in the dock without justification." 

The author also notes that "Those who support a commission claim that its establishment would lessen the international pressure on us and reduce the risk of senior Israelis being put on trial abroad," but asserts that "There is no basis to this since the pressure on Israel is political, not substantive."

Ma'ariv says that "Officers and politicians are exposed to international persecution, precisely because there is no commission of inquiry."  The author warns that "Instead of holding the inquiry here, under fair conditions, it is liable to be held before hostile tribunals," and calls for the establishment of a state commission of inquiry "in order to remove the badge of shame that has been affixed to the State of Israel."  The paper adds that "Today, it is clear that the death of the al-Dura boy was a fiction that caused Israel unprecedented damage.  The Goldstone report is the same kind of fiction.  Years – in which the damage will only grow – should not have to pass until the libel is refuted.  It is liable to be too late."

The Jerusalem Post declares that "The Goldstone Report was born in bias and matured into a full-fledged miscarriage of justice," which in addition to everything else also provides terror organizations with a legal alibi to fight from behind civilian populations. The editor does not favor the establishment of a state commission of enquiry, however, and proposes that " the Foreign Ministry’s forthcoming comprehensive rebuttal [should] serve as Israel’s official – 'case closed' – response to the Goldstone Report." In conclusion, the editor ponders the oddity that "While Israel has been forced to justify what should be its inalienable right to stop Hamas from hurling thousands of flying bombs into its territory and traumatizing its civilian population, no UN-body has called to investigate the Palestinian leadership for culpability in the murders of 1,184 Israelis and the wounding of 8,000 others since September 2000."

======================

Yisrael Hayom refers to yesterday's incidents in which Gaza Strip-based terrorist organizations delivered seaborne explosives to Israel's southern coast and says that "Whoever lived under the illusion that the quiet in the south would last forever received a wake-up call yesterday.  In addition to the continuation of the measured, but worrying, increase in rocket-fire from the Gaza Strip, now comes the turn of terrorist attacks, and Gaza returns to its familiar place atop our list of concerns."

Haaretz remarks that the decision to remove M.K. Said Naffaa's parliamentary immunity and the decision to prosecute him due to a visit to Syria and alleged meetings with terrorist leaders, "is unwarranted, harmful and smacks of political persecution based on nationality." The editor feels that "Whether the purpose of a visit is to make contacts in Arab countries to help advance the cause of peace, to see relatives, or to make a pilgrimage, the state should give Arab MKs freedom of action and of movement, on condition, of course, that they do not commit security-related offenses."

[Giora Eiland, Ben-Dror Yemini and Yoav Limor wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma'ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]