The Silence: Best Kept, or Best Broken?
By Paul Mirbach
Wearing the mantle of having the most moral army in the world is a heavy burden to bear. The distinction is hard earned and paid for in blood by IDF soldiers. Maintaining that distinction in the context of never ending conflict and violence is a labor of Sisyphian proportions.
From its inception, the IDF formulated a code of ethics known as “purity of arms”. Its purpose is supposed to ensure that the army behaves in a manner that can be morally and ethically upheld. Apparently, its basis stems from the Jewish Halacha and it is supposed to be a practical implementation of us Jews – and Israel, being a light unto nations. While these days we may complain about how the world holds our actions to a higher moral standard, our commitment to the doctrine of “purity of arms” practically behooves that upon us.
From as far back as the War of Independence, IDF soldiers have often found themselves faced with moral dilemmas. One such case from the War of Independence, was when a company of the Palmach was deployed to find a route to Jerusalem, in order to break the siege of the Jewish Yishuv. On the way, in the middle of the night, the company came across a lone Arab goatherd. They were faced with the choice of killing the goatherd, or risking their operation being exposed to the enemy. Guided by the ethics of purity of arms and having no evidence to support the risk that the goatherd would expose their position, they let him go. Subsequently, the company was ambushed and massacred. Thirty five were killed. The story of the sacrifice they made for their moral decision has become legend in the annals of the IDF and the Israeli psyche. To honor their memory, comrades from their Palmach unit, established a kibbutz on a point along the route they took, and named it Netiv haLamed Hay (the route of the thirty-five).
Any army that can present credentials such as this sacrifice, has earned the right to claim to be the most moral army in the world. And, throughout the years, these principles have guided Israeli operational decisions in all the armed conflicts Israel has fought. When The IDF decides to send troops into a building to capture or kill terrorists instead of blowing it up, just in case there might be innocent non-combatants in it, thereby risking the lives of our soldiers, it is guided by the doctrine of purity of arms. Therefore, we wear that distinction as a badge of honor, with pride.
So, why have I felt uneasy during the last two weeks, every time I have heard people respond to the testimonies published by Breaking the Silence, with protestations that the IDF is the most moral army in the world? Perhaps they protest too much? Perhaps because perversely, the reporting of testimonies like Breaking the Silence published, and our commitment to investigating them, ensures that we continually labor to maintain that status?
Even in the most moral army in the world, there are bound to be breaches of conduct and unacceptable behavior. The true test is the manner with which we deal with these breaches of conduct.
Violence and terrorism, murder and wars have plagued Israel’s existence since long before the state of Israel was established. Forced to defend ourselves without respite takes a toll on one’s moral standards. It is understandable that a survival mentality of “it’s either us, or them” would develop, and the tragic casualties of the development of this mentality, are our moral values and the erosion of our sensitivity towards the hardships and suffering on the other side. To maintain a heightened belief in humanity of the actions of one’s army, while fighting a bitter enemy with no moral constraints, is not something any other country would do and is not something to be taken for granted.
Having control and responsibility over nearly four million Palestinians for close to half a century, while at the same time having to defend ourselves against their murderous acts of terrorism and provocations, is bound to have a debilitating effect on the soldiers entrusted with keeping them in check, not to mention having to fight against an enemy who eschews any moral constraints when waging their holy war against us. Charged with having to control these territories and having to maintain order and to protect our citizens, over time, the lines between acceptable and unacceptable conduct by our soldiers become blurred. This is where a movement like Breaking the Silence should play an essential part in ensuring that we do not lose our humanity as a controlling force over another people.
I too, was outraged that Breaking the Silence chose to go outside the accepted frameworks and published their testimonies in foreign publications. I too, thought that was completely unacceptable. Not because they are telling lies – every single testimony taken and published is 100% accurate and true – but because they chose to make these testimonies public, thereby playing into the hands of Israel’s detractors, providing them with a veritable treasure of ammunition to exploit, in order to deny Israel’s legitimate right to defend its citizens, and the legitimacy of Israel’s existence itself. By publishing the compilation of these testimonies the way they have, they create a strong impression that such behavior and conduct is the norm in the IDF, and not unacceptable aberrations from it. In this way, they have caused incalculable damage to Israel’s fight for legitimacy to defend itself, not to mention Israel’s public relations. Furthermore, by choosing to accept financing from bodies outside of Israel, who have a vested interest in exposing any information which could damage Israel’s standing, they have compromised their integrity and for that, a question mark as to their motives will always hang over their activities, like a mark of Cain. However, that is not to say that these testimonies should not be reported, or swept under the carpet.
The soldiers who provided testimonies to Breaking the Silence, are all combat soldiers who saw action and served their country loyally. Not a single one refused an order (unlike right wing national religious soldiers ordered to dismantle an illegal settlement). They acted as we were instructed to do: unless it is a patently illegal order, follow the orders given you and report the incident afterwards. Many served in elite units, like Duvdevan, Maglan and the IAF. That is testimony to their commitment to Israel’s security and their loyalty to the country. All continue to do reserve duty willingly and without complaint. So, what made them decide to go outside the normal, acceptable frameworks and reveal to the world our transgressions? It could be that the movement has been taken over by extreme Left wing activists with a political agenda. These leaders may have come to the conclusion that the only way to pressure Israel to stop the building of settlements and to push for a two state solution based on territorial compromise, is to employ the “help” of other countries. It could be that they feel that their reports are ignored; I remember from when I was in the army that one would report to one’s direct commander, who would pass it up the chain of command. A soldier who reports in this manner runs the risk of being victimized and ostracized by fellow comrades in his unit. The more severe the breach of conduct, the greater the risk of being ostracized. Furthermore, what does one do if one does not trust that one’s commander will follow through with the report? After all, the commander could have other considerations he takes into account, like the unit’s cohesiveness. What if the report is against one’s commander and going above him would place his commanding officer in a position of divided loyalties? This would explain why they would wait and prefer to report to Breaking the Silence. It would also explain why some of the testimonies are made anonymously.
We need to accept that even the most moral army in the world has its bad apples, and while for every story of a breach of conduct there are two of how soldiers have gone out of their way to aid Palestinians in need, we will be judged by the actions of these bad apples and how we deal with them, not by the acts of kindness shown towards the Palestinians.
I will also break the silence. Just before the first intifada in 1987, I was doing reserve duty in the Tulkarem area. During the night we heard about the hang glider attack on a Nahal base on the Lebanese border, where six soldiers were killed. (By the way, the operations officer found negligent in the incident, had been my platoon commander during basic training). That night, six of us went out on patrol in the fields surrounding our base of operations. We came to rest in a field the size of about a quarter of an acre, which was planted with melons almost ripe for picking. Three soldiers went from row to row, bursting the melons with their boots until I finally managed to stop them, by which time half the field had been destroyed. All the time they expressed their anger at Arabs because of the glider attack, and that all Arabs were the same scum. The other two on patrol with us just stood by and did nothing. On the way back, all that seemed to worry them was how hard it was going to be to polish their boots the next day.
I reported the incident to my platoon commander, who said he would look into it. The soldiers were not court-marshaled, or even censured. Maybe they were privately spoken to, I don’t know. For the rest of the miluim, those soldiers ignored me, as if I was the one who did something wrong. (Just as an anecdote, one of the soldiers later sat in jail for about five years for planning to assassinate a Palestinian mayor. He lived in Kiryat Arba. For reasons of privacy, I will not reveal his name).
This is an example of a non-violent incident, why a body like Breaking the Silence is needed. Personally, I am completely convinced that a body like Breaking the silence plays an essential part in maintaining the purity of arms in the IDF, which is the source of where it draws its strength, the consensus it enjoys across the political spectrum and society in Israel, and the total commitment of combat soldiers to make their service meaningful. I am just as convinced it is in all our best interests, regardless of one’s political views, that the IDF maintains its purity of arms and therefore we need a body like Breaking the Silence. Therefore, I believe we need to create a mechanism for reporting incidents and giving testimony that is completely independent and cut off from the military hierarchy. I would propose that a department be set up under the auspices of the State Comptroller’s office, which would provide autonomy in investigating the incidents, free from conflicting considerations. It is essential that the whistleblowers be protected by anonymity and confidentiality, similar to that which is given to victims of sexual harassment, thus ensuring no repercussions against soldiers of conscience who choose to report. I believe that this is the only way that we can provide a reliable mechanism of self-monitoring, without the need to turn to foreign outlets.
So, should we keep the silence, or break it? I believe that we need to break the silence, but in a way which we can deal with it ourselves, reliably and with integrity. We have enough real enemies, without declaring our children or those among them who have a conscience, our enemies as well.
[The opinions, facts and any media content are presented solely by the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Jewish Media Agency.]
