The difference between Israel and some

The Israeli establishment has been under Arab attack for decades, and arguably for centuries and millennia. Given this constant threat, some Israeli politicians have approved tactics that may break international law, which gives little leeway to countries under unending attack. And yet despite Israel's faults, it is liberal and democratic, and it has recourse for rule-breakers. The Israeli Supreme Court forced the government to change the route of the security fence multiple times after human rights groups complained. The IDF punished a soldier recently who illegaly used a Palestinian youth as a human shield on his Jeep, after a civilian shot a video of the act and submitted it to the Army. And, today, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz temporarily halted a government plan to cut electricity to Gaza until it can "evaluate the risks that such measures could have on the civilian population." Ehud Barak, the Defense Minister, has threatened the move in response to frequent Qassam rocket attacks.
It's pretty amazing that in the two-plus years since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the government has neither re-occupied the Strip nor instituted this kind of punishment before, even despite Qassams and a war that was started when Hamas operatives captured Gilad Shalit in summer of 2006. Israel will not gain anything by instituting collective punishment on Gaza's citizens, assuming they are allowed to do so. But some countries (critics of Israel, of course) have committed far worse injustice for far less provocation than this. One wonders if we might find this kind of democratic recourse for citizens in any other country having suffered from thousands upon thousands of terrorist incidents over the last 60 years.