This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
The decision on "whether to open a criminal investigation should not in any way be dependent on the results of operational investigations conducted by the army, contrary to the IDF's position on the matter."
Turkel's second report followed its first one. It reflects too little too late and much more.
A retired senior Israeli commander once said delayed investigations compromise reliability. They don't substitute for immediate ones.
Arriving on the scene too late accomplishes little. "By then the commanders and their soldiers have coordinated their version" of events. Chances are "you'll never know what really happened."
Turkel 2.0 arrived years too late. It deals with "Israel's methods of investigating claims that its security forces violated the rules of war or international law," said Haaretz.
Perhaps it's to burnish Israel's image. Lots more than high-minded second thoughts are needed. Actions speak louder than words.
Commission members interviewed government officials, representatives of human rights groups, and international law experts.
They reviewed dozens of files. They pertain to prior IDF investigations. They examined procedures used. They considered the process of deciding whether investigations should be opened.
Israeli procedures were compared to ones in America, Canada, Great Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
