Letters to the Editor: Ari Zivotofsky Responds

Letters to the Editor

I recently published an article in The Lehrhaus that I thought was nuanced and well-argued, although I understood that it dealt with a sensitive and possibly controversial topic. Unbeknownst to me, two brief, highly critical letters were published in response.

These letters did not accurately represent what I had written, and imply assertions that I did not make. My primary response, before addressing specific points, is to request the interested reader to read what I actually wrote.

The first writer makes points which, for the most part, I agree with, yet writes as if he is arguing with what I wrote. Of course, Israel needs to maintain law and order within the military. I never even hinted otherwise. He also notes the obvious point that the military police deserve the benefit of the doubt. It is not a zero-sum game; both the police and the detainees can be given the benefit of the doubt, and stating such does not imply that the police are infallible and that everything they do should be accepted. But the police was not my topic; I was responding to the widespread media and public onslaught on the detainees. He further asserts that, “Prior to this incident, there were no complaints that the military courts were prejudiced against Israeli soldiers…” Wishing it were true does not make it so. There were endless complaints by soldiers that the MAG was tying their hands in Gaza and overly prosecuting them. (See for example here and here). While there are claims in the opposite direction as well, the perception of the soldiers is crucially important.  

I never wrote that the complaint should be ignored, and the respondent’s assertion that, “If the premise of the article was accepted, there would be no military discipline, and those who are looking to accuse Israel of war crimes would gain credibility,” simply does not correspond to what I wrote. The letter writer was making his own points and not responding to me.

The second writer gave “tochecha,” an action that does not leave much room for dialogue or multiplicity of views (core Jewish values). He saw in my article “retrospective vindication” and “a partisan voice,” characterizing it as “dismissing [of] complexity” and “defensive and accusatory.” I leave it to the reader to find those elements in my balanced article, as I don’t see them. He suggests there was “broader reporting” of the accusations, despite there in essence being only one source that was repeated and spread far and wide. Wider dissemination does not increase reliability nor increase the number of sources. I disagree with his statement that there is a need for “balanced empathy” when dealing with people who videoed themselves carrying out crimes too heinous to describe. They deserve basic rights – but no more.  

In a final defamatory sentence, the second respondent implied that I justified sexual abuse. I did nothing of the sort and implying as such is near libel. I did not downplay the allegations nor claim that the accused should not be investigated and tried. I actually explicitly said the exact opposite.