A/HRC/10/22 page 26 assiduous conduct should make a party more willing to be subject to scrutiny. Similarly, the suggestion that international monitors lack the expertise or the information required to evaluate compliance precisely begs the question. If accepted, such a critique would undermine the entire concept of international accountability and leave States and others as the only ones qualified to judge their own compliance. Rather than the rule of law, this would be the law of the jungle. 94. While the Israeli military operation in Gaza was but one episode in a long-standing, complex and highly contentious conflict, these characteristics make it more, rather than less, imperative that there be full accountability in relation to alleged violations. The alternative is de facto impunity, which mocks the international legal order, makes hollow the international obligations undertaken and reaffirmed by the parties, increases the likelihood of more flagrant violations in the future, and poisons the prospects for an eventual solution to the conflict. 95. The accountability record to date of both sides should give the Council cause for deep concern. The Special Rapporteur has been requesting an invitation to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territory since June 2006. In that year, the Palestinian Authority issued an invitation but Israel has not done so, despite a series of follow-ups. Specific incidents raised in the context of communications from the Special Rapporteur addressed to Israel have generally drawn either no response or an unsatisfactory one. 96. The responses at the national level to calls for accountability have also been disappointing. Hamas, for its part, has given no indication of its willingness to investigate or respond to allegations directed at it. Israel has announced several inquiries into specific incidents, but these are being undertaken by the military authorities themselves, and the track record of the many such inquiries launched in the past is consistently problematic. During the conflict, Israel refused entry to Gaza to journalists and representatives of international non-governmental organizations seeking to monitor the conduct of hostilities. At the end of the invasion, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, was widely quoted as having promised to provide “State protection” to military personnel who might face foreign war crimes prosecutions, stating that Israel would assist them on that front and defend them. Foreign prosecutions would, however, be both unnecessary and unsustainable if Israel were to honour its obligations to undertake credible investigations and, where appropriate, undertake domestic prosecutions. 97. Several issues of concern that need thorough investigation were brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. These include, inter alia, violations of the principles of conduct of hostilities, the targeting of Palestinian police and members of the Hamas political wing not taking part in hostilities, and the questionable use of certain weapons in densely populated areas, including white phosphorous shells, 155 mm shells and flechette shells. He is also concerned by credible reports of extrajudicial executions of Palestinians attributed to Hamas security forces during the conflict. 98. The above developments highlight the imperative need for the Israeli authorities and those of Hamas to cooperate fully with international endeavours to establish accountability in relation to the conflict. Recognition of such accountability should also include facilitating a visit by the appropriate special rapporteurs.