Letters to the Editor: Responses to Ari Zivitofsky on the Sde Teiman Affair

Letters to the Editor: Responses to Ari Zivitofsky on the Sde Teiman Affair

Professor Zivitofsky selectively applies dan le-kaf zekhut to the Israeli soldiers who were accused of abusing a prisoner – but not to the military police whose responsibility is to investigate such accusations. The Israeli army has a moral code, and there are standards in international law for treatment of military prisoners. If Israel doesn’t maintain these standards and allows abuse of prisoners, it damages its moral position. There is no justification for government officials to break into the prison and disrupt arrests. Prior to this incident, there were no complaints that the military courts were prejudiced against Israeli soldiers and predisposed to believing the alleged Hamas prisoners. It is reasonable to assume that in this case there was objective evidence of abuse, besides the accusation by a prisoner, that led to the arrests. It appears that the investigation was initiated following a report by a military doctor. 

Does lifnim mi-shurat ha-din mean that criminal behavior should be ignored? If found guilty, the previous record of the accused should be taken into account in determining punishment, but it is not a justification for failing to investigate whether criminal acts have occurred. What did those who broke into the prison know that the military police had ignored? 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.

Yosef Blau

I read “The Sde Teiman Incident: A Retrospective” with concern, not because it engages an incredibly difficult subject–of course it should–but because what could have been a serious discussion about justice, evidence, and Torah values instead reads like an exercise in retrospective vindication, dismissing complexity with sweeping assertions in a partisan voice.

Serious analysis demands respect for all human experiences, including the gravity of the allegations at the heart of this matter, which in broader reporting were described as involving sickening violence and abuse. By centering a narrative that repeatedly positions one group as blameless and aggrieved while downplaying or omitting the suffering of detainees documented elsewhere, the piece abandons the balanced empathy that Jewish ethics itself calls us to uphold.

Moreover, the tone throughout is defensive and accusatory rather than reflective – a choice that undercuts the author’s stated goal of invoking Torah values. Empathy isn’t simply a rubric to justify a predetermined conclusion; it’s a rigorous moral demand that respects the dignity of all involved. A discourse rooted in compassion would better serve the Torah community. Justifying sexual abuse is always wrong, regardless of the perpetrator or victim, and choosing to platform such justification is at odds with basic Torah values. 

In loving tochecha,

Jonah Winer