Sir,
it was with deep sadness that i saw you being cornered to a position ofde-facto defending the ” right ” of war criminals to act undisturbed whileattacking the right of gush-shalom activists to publicly draw theirattention to the meaning of their action. those are really harsh times,and a newspaper, as everybody else, has to survive, but one should notcross the lines beyond which one’s very soul and essence will be denied.unfortunatelly,olive-green uniforms imprinted with hebrew initials donot render anybody imune from comitting such crimes anymore than othercolours and initials, past and present, did.
your definition of ” officers in an army that operates under the law in asovereign state, according to the instructions of an elected government ” can beapplied to manycases in the local and world recent history in which war crimes wereperpetuated. sadly enough, the mainstream press reaction in those casewas, up to a certain point, also similar to your reaction. this changedonly when the trend of public opinion turned against such policies. so,in order to see in your paper an editorial that unechivocaly criticizessuch crimes, we have to wait until the moment in which such an editorialwill not matter very much anyway. gush shalom did not want to wait untilthen, and tries to stop soldiers from both killing and crying. this isnot a reason for your paper to attack gush shalom.
shlomo jacobson
carmiel