On March 19th, Israeli daily Ha'aretz published a report describing the alleged incidents in a closed-door meeting of Israeli soldiers at a military prep program, where they described multiple accounts of immoral orders and actions taken by the Israeli military during the recent Gaza operation ‘Cast Lead’. Their testimony runs counter to the IDF claim that Israeli troops observed a high level of moral behavior during the operation, but falls in line with stories coming from Palestinians, describing multiple Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Danny Zamir, the program founder, had invited combat soldiers and officers who graduated the program for a lengthy discussion of their experiences in Gaza. They spoke openly, but also with considerable frustration. The session transcript was published and quickly picked up by multiple media outlets. Zamir: “I don't intend for us to evaluate the achievements and the diplomatic-political significance of Operation Cast Lead this evening, nor need we deal with the systemic military aspect [of it]. However, discussion is necessary because this was, all told, an exceptional war action in terms of the history of the IDF, which has set new limits for the army's ethical code and that of the State of Israel as a whole. “This is an action that sowed massive destruction among civilians. It is not certain that it was possible do have done it differently, but ultimately we have emerged from this operation and are not facing real paralysis from the Qassams. It is very possible that we will repeat such an operation on a larger scale in the years to come, because the problem in the Gaza Strip is not simple and it is not at all certain that it has been solved. What we want this evening is to hear from the fighters.” Amira Hass stresses the importance of these testimonials on the Democracy Now blog: “the soldiers actually confirm what Palestinians have been telling for the past three months, and journalists who listen to Palestinians and believe Palestinians and know their work of taking affidavits and testimonies from Palestinians have done so during the last three months. This is the main importance.” The chief army prosecutor, Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit, announced the criminal investigation after the accounts became public. However, on March 30th he said he would not file charges, claiming crucial components of the soldiers’ descriptions were based on hearsay. Mendelblit was quoted as saying: “the majority of the soldiers’ descriptions were rumors, not told from personal knowledge”. In his blog, Ori Heitner claims that mainstream media totally missed Danny Zamir's message: Danny provides a complex message, dealing with a complex reality. The argument was tempestuous, ranging between the two poles of simplicity and extremity. My critique for Danny is that he did not take the necessary steps to remove those who leveraged his message to slander and hurt the IDF's image – first and foremost Ha'aretz newspaper. He continues on to publish Zamir's reaction to the Israeli uproar against his claims: The need to investigate IDF's failures in order to preserve its spirit and ethical code cannot be considered an action “against” IDF. On the contrary, it is an action that comes from a place of responsibility and partnership with the events happening in the military, which is composed of use all. The claims that this exposure of our soldiers actions will fuel Israel haters, is wholly improper. Those who hate Israel do not need specific descriptions such as theres. However, I have no doubt that a naiive, western civilian who is mulling over Israel's image, will see the acknowledgment and reaction to our failures as evidence to a healthy and very much alive democratic society, dealing with its difficulties. Danny ends his essay with a final sentence: “Enough critique, enough hatred and lies. Morality is a strength – not a weakness.” A thorough explanation written by Danny Zamir himself, was recently published in the Jerusalem Post: It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation. ….