Even if its wording and its conclusions were slightly more balanced in comparison to the Goldstone report, no one was surprised by the fact that the report from the investigative committee appointed by the UN Human Rights Commission indicated that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the war in Gaza last summer. The most important point in the report was about the possible ramifications - the committee members aimed high and far. High, at Israel’s highest ranking politicians and military officers, and far, at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Through detailed display of information and analysis of events, the committee described the horrible cycle that has engulfed Gaza over the last decade. Military conflict between Israel and Hamas, cease-fire agreements, international investigative committees, conclusions and recommendations that go unimplemented, ad nauseam.

Aside from tactical, operative recommendations and conclusions, the committee members also tried to draw more strategic conclusions. They claim that the policy governing use of force formulated by senior politicians and military leaders should be looked into more than the actions of soldiers following orders.

Meaning, the problem is not just the artillery fire aimed at Shujaiyeh that hit civilians, the pilots that blew up multi-story dwellings in Gaza or the tank soldiers that shot everything that moved during the “Black Friday” in Rafah. The problem is also the decisions made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, as well as GOC Northern Command, Maj. Gen. Sammy Turgeman, Israel Air Force Commander Amir Eshel and others.

These conclusions aren’t drawn from reports originating with pro-Palestinian organizations, or left-wing Israel-hating groups, but rather the government report compiled by a committee led by former Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel, that examined Israel’s policies on investigating possible war crimes. Turkel and his colleagues suggested attributing direct criminal responsibility to military commanders and government officials for crimes committed by their subordinates.

Even if they don’t say so clearly and directly, the investigative committee members aimed their report at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is currently conducting a preliminary check to see if there is a necessity for a criminal investigation into war crimes during the fighting in Gaza. The report hints that after all other measures have failed; the ICC is the only thing that can actually deter the two sides from yet another round of fighting.

The committee offers a way out – holding an independent and transparent Israeli investigation that would reexamine the military’s policies on the use of force. After all, one of the ICC’s principles is “complementarity” – it does not investigate a country if that country can prove it seriously investigated itself. Although the Military Advocate General did launch an investigation contrary to the position of the chief of staff, the investigation was not as strict as could be. In the end, Israel preferred to just another thick hasbara report and hope for the best.

In contrast to Netanyahu’s attacks on Monday, the UN report is not the handiwork of anti-Israeli jurist William Schabas, who stepped down from his position leading the committee a few months ago. His replacement, American judge Mary McGowan-Davis, is not an Israel-hater, and she produced a relatively balanced report, considering the Israeli reaction to it.

The report published on Monday has given rise yet again to a familiar question. Was the government’s decision to boycott the committee wise? Just reading a summary of the report is enough to understand that the answer is a clear and concise no. In every instance that the committee received information or testimony from the Israeli side, like that of former Eshkol Regional Council head Haim Yellin, who traveled at his own initiative to Geneva to testify, that information was given comprehensive coverage in the report.

The impression is that if Israel had allowed the committee members access to the sites, and allowed them to meet with Israelis that live near Gaza, and get briefings from IDF officers, or even Netanyahu himself, the final result would have been much better.