“It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation.”
So writes Major Danny Zamir, laying to rest claims that the IDF engaged in planned, coordinated war crimes in Gaza. Emphasis added. In any case, read the rest.
Thanks to Petra for bringing this to our attention.
Here is an article from Walzer and Margalit which was published in the Hebrew editon of Haaretz. I wonder if anyone here could translate it since its being commented on blogs unfriendly to Israel and I don’t trust their view of the article:
אבישי מרגלית ומייקל וולצר | כך לא מנהלים מלחמה צודקת
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1077277.html
Here is the commentary that I don’t trust:
“Michael Walzer and Avishai Margalit Condemn Israel’s Conduct of the War in Gaza”
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/04/michael-walzer-and-avishai-margalit.html
Your help will be appreciated.
Please do translate it indeed! I would defintely like to read it too.
There was a translation here:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2009/04/09/no-thanks.aspx#comments
It was translated by Noga and was posted on April 12, 2009 7:49 AM.
The date and time is the easiest way to find the post.
jackson, thanks for the link to the very interesting debate over at the spine
Haaretz was critical of Kasher’s views already back in February — see here:
“The philosopher who gave the IDF moral justification in Gaza”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062127.html
So the Walzer/Margalit piece now is a “second helping” with philosophical credentials…
However, I think it’s important to note that when Harel interviewed Kasher back in February, Kasher said:
“The article [by Kasher and Yadlin on military ethics in fighting terror] was translated into English and published in a military ethics journal and is still being debated around the world,” Kasher said. “The feedback is generally positive, although the message is difficult to digest. In the end, everyone acknowledges that they conduct themselves this way. There is no army in the world that will endanger its soldiers in order to avoid hitting the neighbors of an enemy or terrorist. The media don’t understand the nature of international law. It’s not like tough traffic laws. Much of it is customary law. The decisive question is how enlightened countries conduct themselves. We in Israel are in a key position in the development of law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. This is gradually being recognized both in the Israeli legal system and abroad. After the debate before the High Court of Justice on the issue of targeted killings there was no need to revise the document that Yadlin and I drafted even by one comma. What we are doing is becoming the law. These are concepts that are not purely legal, but also contain strong ethical elements.”
For an outline of the Kasher-Yadlin arguments, see here:
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-8.htm
or, more detailed/academic, here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x54w034215g7850r/fulltext.pdf
Thanks for the links, Petra. They are very useful.