The following letter was sent to the editors of Haaretz this morning:
Regarding ” The blindness of political purity, ” August 06, 2002
There is no small irony in the editorial position adopted byHaaretz in the matter of Gush Shalom. The peace organization hascorrelated testimony by Palestinian civilians, regardingallegedly illegal actions by the IDF, with press statements byofficers who participated in those actions, and has raised thepossibility of providing this material to legal authoritiesinside and outside of Israel. In the editorial’s centralargument, Haaretz acknowledges the importance of civilianoversight of the military, but sees that oversight as limited toa moral persuasion that inspires public opinion. Yet, on theother hand, Haaretz regards the possibility that public opinionwill fail to ” turn against blatantly illegal orders given orexecuted in the territories ” as a real and present danger. Ifthis is the opinion of the Haaretz editors, then it appearsdisingenuous to accuse others of harboring contempt or announcing” a blunt vote of no confidence in the institutions and publicopinion in Israel ” . Moreover, Haaretz is certainly aware thatthe creation of International Criminal Court in The Hague wasmotivated by the difficulty of obtaining justice, or even dueprocess, in societies which tolerate the execution of ” blatantlyillegal orders ” , and that the court hears cases when due processhas been demonstrably denied.
The editorial’s objection seems to be that Gush Shalom hassomehow violated the boundaries of good taste imposed onnon-party peace movements in this country. By this etiquette,the proper place of the extra-parliamentary left is to meet,discuss, form opinion, announce that opinion at publicdemonstrations, issue statements to the press, and hope for goodcoverage in Haaretz. Prominent placement in Haaretz assures thatthe truth will set us free. The problem is known — surelysomeone will now do something about it. Gush Shalom and variousother left organizations with which Haaretz has taken issue inthe past, has essentially asked the question, ” Now that theproblem is known, how do we insure that something will be done? “In a democracy, opinion is free — the hard work of democracy ismoving beyond opinion to influence.
Dr. Martin Land
Jerusalem