It’s dogged Powell in a low-grade way in recent years; he’s claimed he wasn’t equipped with enough information to find out the truth about My Lai. Ultimately, what made the massacre incontrovertable were photos– shades of Abu Ghraib.

Middle and Haim advocate different standards. Haim wants a low threshold for reporting, given the gravity of potential offenses and institutional resistance. Middle thinks the potential for a PR hit is too great. But democracy is a messy thing; dirty laundry and, yes, false accusations are intrinsic to it.

You’ll never hear about Army abuses in Damascus and Tehran.

The way things are in the world today is not the way things would be in an ideal world. Israel is vilified in many corners at an hysterical pitch. The problem it faces in situations such as these, is that the press is quick to pick up on the accusation and slow to get to either the truth or denials of the original accusation when it is proven false.

As an example, the UN school that was supposedly bombed has been covered extensively. I was listening to an NPR interview with an outraged UN official who simply could not hold back his torrent of anger towards Israel. Well, apparently he either lied or misconstrued the facts on national radio. This story was front page material across the world but it turns out to be untrue in many respects.

The damage to Israel is done, and is unfair in general. This incident is no different. The story is out there now and will become part of the body of attacks Israel faces in the public image sphere daily. After all, part of this war is fought in the public opinion sphere and not just on the ground in Israel and its neighbors.

So I ask you, as a journalist, is the idea to simply throw up any story that comes your way and wait to see which stick and which don’t? Or should the idea instead be to ensure that a story is true. Reporting about these accusations by soldiers can be considered news, but doesn’t have to be news until you check out their claims.

I will also add that just as you say the IDF may have had a motive in lying here, we can say that Zamir also appears to have a political motive here. He’s no more innocent than they are just because he’s an individual.

So we agree that it’s vital that soldiers have the ability to speak out. We agree it’s vital that the IDF act ethically in all of its operations and that both soldiers and the IDF be held to the highest standards of morality when it comes to fighting this war. Where I think our disagreement lies is in how the story is expressed and spread forth. Publications have a good reason to make compelling headlines and articles to gain readers, but when the story is only half covered, what we see is a salacious attempt to cause a reaction, and not necessarily the kind of reporting that was deserved for this type of situation.

On the discussion here: the soldiers at the Rabin seminar were not testifying in court. They were relating their experiences in the war. They didn’t name names. Thank God that we have soldiers who feel ill at ease when they hear stories like the ones they told, and thank God that we have someone like Zamir who teaches soldiers to be shocked by such things. It’s *vital* that soldiers feel that they can say out loud that they heard that such things happened. Even if it turns out that they were mistaken, the act of speaking up is one that must be encouraged. To discipline them or Zamir because the investigation reached a different conclusion would be to silence soldiers in the future. Again, I don’t claim that the army investigator lied. I’m just saying that his investigation is not conclusive. Remember that Ben-Gurion and the army first claimed that the stories about the massacre at Kufr Qassem were false. The army and the government have strong incentives to deny such things.

I think the question is where you draw a line? Do you never draw a line? Why can’t you accuse somebody who libeled/slandered you of doing so? Their “hearsay allegations” were reported by themselves as factual, first hand encounters. It was the IDF’s investigation after the firestorm the allegations raised that brought to light that this was all based on rumors the soldiers heard.

I’m all for fair and honest speech.

Antisemitism is unacceptable to me, and I refuse to become a platform for somebody’s antisemitic views.

And I’m not advocating that Ha’aretz needs to be shut down at all. But surely they can be criticized?

When one sets speech, on the one hand, against the prestige and image of the nation, on the other, one starts down a very, very dangerous road.

Setting aside the damage done to the reputation of the nation at a time when every anti-Semite is salivating to find opportunities to demonize the Jewish state, the fact that Danny Zamir [the man who released the stories to Ha'aretz] is permitted to continue retaining his present role surely borders on the insane. Likewise, for a purportedly serious daily newspaper like Haaretz to report such unsubstantiated accusations in order to promote a political agenda is mind boggling.

Who needs enemies when we have Jews in Israel exploiting freedom of expression to disseminate unsubstantiated and false allegations of immorality as a means to defame the nation and provide fodder for anti-Semites, Israel bashers and all who seek to harm if not destroy us? Even worse, promoting such falsehoods may create a climate among our soldiers in which they incur major casualties by hesitating to implement defensive measures to protect themselves against enemies renowned for hiding behind children and sending forth their women as suicide bombers.

As for skepticism regarding closing the investigation, I think that’s fine and I think reporters across Israel should actually do some investigative work and learn what they can. Zamir is known, I assume the graduates’ names are known and I’m sure there are plenty of opportunities to speak to neighbors who fought in Gaza.

If the IDF behaves unethically, this information has to come out and the army needs to be held responsible. Maybe it’s my personal bias, but I just can’t bring myself to believe that the top legal counsel in the IDF would put his name to a lie or would be so stupid as to close an investigation that didn’t warrant closing. It’s not as if reporters would have a problem tracking down the people involved and checking out his office’s claims.

The libel I’m talking about is the one of which Israel is accused after every military operation against these non-army foes. It is the charge that the IDF isn’t ethical and doesn’t attempt to be. I’ve met some crazy Israelis in my time and can see how they could behave inappropriately in war situations. However, somehow the military didn’t give them the option by giving them different roles. So let’s assume that in a large army you’re going to get people who act unethically even after the efforts of the military to reign them in. Does that still make the IDF as an institution guilty of the charge that it was callous towards Palestinian civilians?