Q&A: A Mistaken Attitude?
A Mistaken Attitude?
Question
I wanted to ask the Rabbi what he thinks about the attitude toward organizations like Breaking the Silence. Is it proper to boycott them, as some politicians or institutions do, or should one listen to what they have to say and examine each specific case they raise, and see them as a group that purifies the army of war crimes? Instead of denouncing them, maybe it would be better to address their claims substantively?
Or perhaps that is a naive approach, and it is impossible to defend the state without sweeping under the rug actions that are not exactly glatt kosher? Maybe if we put every soldier who went astray on trial there would be unrest among the public and enlistment would be harmed, and that is why people are afraid of groups like Breaking the Silence? And that would imply that it is impossible to defend the state without moral corruption, since prosecuting soldiers would erode the army’s strength, and we therefore have to cover up actions (if there is no camera in the field) so that we can continue living here
Answer
I don’t think the question is relevant. What difference does it make whether one should like them as an organization or not? As individuals, I assume there are all kinds among them (that is, some with good motives and some with less good ones). For our purposes, what matters is the arguments and facts they raise, and those certainly should be heard and examined on their merits, like any argument made by anyone. A justified claim should lead to a trial without being afraid of anything. Our image would be better if we put every soldier on trial. If we did not prosecute soldiers, an image would be created (and in that case justifiably so) that there is a great deal of corruption and evil and that we do not deal with it. Therefore, even in terms of public image, this should not harm us.
Discussion on Answer
That is already a tactical and political question. Bibi’s step was political, not moral or value-based, and therefore it should be judged in terms of whether it was useful or not useful. I was addressing only the value dimension.
But as the Rabbi wrote, even on the tactical and political level it is better to try soldiers who went astray. So Bibi was mistaken not only morally but tactically as well.
What does one have to do with the other? It is possible to try soldiers who went astray, and still fight politically so that this organization is not given recognition and legitimacy. For example, if in general its intentions are problematic and it is harmful, then one can examine the facts it presents and act accordingly if it turns out they have substance, while at the same time acting politically against the organization.
Politicians relate to Breaking the Silence as a collective. See, for example, the story with Bibi and the German foreign minister. So does the Rabbi think that Bibi was mistaken and should have refrained from boycotting the German foreign minister when he met with representatives of Breaking the Silence, and that in general the establishment’s attitude toward these groups is mistaken?