"Although the report attempts to present at least an appearance of balance, let's remember that beauty is only skin deep. Unfortunately, the report is replete with faulty legal analysis, unjustified presumptions and an astounding willingness to take Hamas's claims at face value coupled with an unrelenting skepticism about Israeli efforts to comply with the law of war...
The principle of distinction ... requires ... that persons who are fighting distinguish themselves from those who are not - if you are a soldier or fighter for an armed group, you must differentiate yourself (by uniform, arm band, insignia or other method) from civilians, those who are not fighting...
And yet the commission simply omits this aspect of the principle of distinction altogether...
In the context of conflict in Gaza, where Hamas and other armed groups deliberately - as they themselves proclaim - comingle with the civilian population and turn the failure to distinguish into an art form, this omission is remarkable in its shortsightedness and the message it sends about the report's methodology...
The ... commission makes no recommendations at all with regard to the use of civilians as human shields, comingling with the civilian population and using civilian objects and infrastructure for military purposes (such as launching rockets from hospitals, mosques or United Nations schools), or fighting while disguised as civilians. When these fundamental legal principles get short shrift in the statement of the legal framework, their wholesale absence from the recommendations section is a foregone conclusion...
[T]the report hands Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups a free pass to continue their modus operandi. A report analyzing the conduct of Israel and Hamas under the law of war has to use all of that law. The report's glaring omissions of foundational legal principles emasculate the law, weakening the essential tools for the protection of civilians and emboldening those who use civilians as pawns for their own strategic gain."