BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry allows people to express and understand themselves

Poetry is hardly the only way to teach people how to express themselves; if we are interested in self-expression for democratic purposes then children should be taught politics. If they are to express their ideas about nature then other art forms are just as important. Unfortunately poetry as a form of self-expression can only be crippled as a result of students’ lack of knowledge of the basics of language. The priority of government should be to achieve a basic level of literacy for all students; only then can the luxury of teaching art be introduced. There is no use in children being able to effortlessly quote Shakespeare if they have no idea how to spell his name.
National security should come before freedom of information

Anat Kamm did not leak information that could ever result in the destruction of the Israeli state. Her lawyer argued "It was never her intention to harm the security of the state” and this was accepted by the Israeli state as shown by the plea bargain in which it dropped the charge having the intention to harm the security of the state.[1] If the state’s survival was not at stake then the right to freedom of information clearly applies. [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011.
It is right that illegal acts by the state be exposed

Anat Kamm was correct when she said “I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes.”[1] Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh was documented as saying “This is an arrest operation… But in case [the soldiers] identify one of the senior leaders of the Islamic Jihad, Walid Obeid, Ziad Malaisha, Adham Yunis, they have permission to open fire in accordance with their appraisal of the situation during the operation.”[2]  As attorney Michael Sfard states "In other words, the use of words referring to arrest when in fact there is no real intention of carrying out an arrest, but the reference is to assassination."[3] This was despite a supreme court ruling in 2006 that militants must be detained.[4] Kamm may be incorrect when considering this action a war crime as Israel was not at war at the time however assassination is clearly illegal under international law.[5] The press has four roles in a democracy; holding power to account, highlighting issues that need attention, educating citizens, and connecting people to create civil society.[6] In this particular case all of the first three roles were clearly being performed. [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010. [2] Izenberg, Dan, ‘Stamp of approval from attorney-general’, Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2010. [3] Blau, Uri, ‘License to kill’, Haaretz, 27 November 2008. [4] Guarnieri, Mya, ‘The killing of Zuhair al-Qaissi exposes Israel’s attitude to its supreme court’, guardian.co.uk, 14 March 2012. [5] Wachtel, Howard A., ‘Targeting Osama Bin Ladin: Examining the Legality of Assassination as a tool of U.S. Foreign Policy’, Duke Law Journal, Vol.55, No.677, 2005, p.677. [6] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005.
The public have a right to know what is committed in their name

“There were aspects of IDF operations which I thought should be brought to the attention of the public.”[1] Kamm is correct; in any state, but especially in a democracy like Israel, the military is there to protect the state and its people. It is paid for by the people through their taxes. The military is composed of the people through conscription. And as a result what it does is in the name of the people. The accountability of the instruments of the state, including the military, is at the core of what it means to be a democracy. It is therefore essential that the people know what it is doing in their name. Many democracies have laws giving a “right to know” for example the United State’s Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment right of access.[2] It is therefore in the public interest to expose activities that may be detrimental to the state. In this case the military was exposed doing something it has been specifically ordered not to do by the courts so exposing a military that was disobeying civilian authority. [1] Collins, Liat, ‘My Word: Questions and secrets’, Jerusalem Post, 5 November 2011. [2] Papandrea, Mary-Rose, ‘Under Attack: The Public’s Right to Know and the War on Terror’, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Vol.25, Issue 1, pp.35-80.
The military can only be held to account if there is transparency

States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.”[1]  The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy.[2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions. This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished.[3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people. [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009. [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.
Leaking military secrets puts lives in danger

The right to life is the most fundamental right of all. No one should have the right to leak information that might result in someone losing their life. As the documents that Kamm collected included details of IDF deployments and plans for military operations[1] the leaking of this information could clearly have provided terrorists such as Hezbollah or Hamas the opportunity to kill Israeli soldiers. Moreover while the information she gave to Haaretz reporter Uri Blau may not have all been published Kamm herself admitted that she had lost one of the CD’s she copied.[2] [1] Edelman, Ofra, ‘Tel Aviv court accepts plea bargain in Anat Kamm espionage case’, Haaretz, 6 February 2011. [2] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.
National security should come before freedom of information

The Security of the Nation comes before other considerations such as the freedom of information. This is especially true in a nation such as Israel which is surrounded by enemies who will take advantage of any information that they can use to damage Israel. Israel’s security situation is aptly described by Yitzhak Rabin as one of “dormant war” that every few years becomes an active conflict.[1] When the state’s survival is potentially at stake as is the case in Israel then individual rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of information have to be subordinated to the greater collective rights of the nation. [1] Dahan, Michael, ‘National Security and Democracy on the Internet in Israel’, C. Ess and F. Sudweeks (eds). Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology ’98. University of Sydney Australia, 189-192.
Individuals do not have the right to decide what information should be publicly available.

No individual is empowered to decide for themselves what information should be publicly available and certainly not a 23 year old student. A conscript like Kamm will have little idea of the context, whether operations have taken place, or even often what the information they are leaking means. Without all the facts of each case they are in no position to judge if a particular document is in the public interest. They therefore won’t know the consequences of the information they are leaking which in a military situation could mean lives being lost. This is why militaries have systems for declassifying information; so that when it is done it does not cause any harm. As Sarah Honig writing in the Jerusalem Post argues “We could kiss our entire national defense good-bye if each and every soldier would do likewise with no guideline but his/her own youthful hubris.”[1] [1] Honig, Sarah, ‘Another Tack: Loose lips sink ships’, JPost.com, 23 April 2010.
It is right that illegal acts by the state be exposed

While it may be a journalist’s job and duty to call the government to account this is not the duty of a soldier who is supposed to be following orders. The soldier’s duty in such a situation would have been to report up the chain of command. As the Judge in the case concluded: "There is no need to steal thousands of classified documents in order to bring 'aspects of IDF operations to the public's attention,' or investigate 'war crimes.' Any independent body given those documents, even by someone like the defendant, has no (security) clearance to afford it the review of such military secrets… There was also no need to give a reporter thousands of sensitive documents without discretion."[1] [1] Lutvitch, Vered, ‘Kam: History forgives those who expose war crimes’, Ynet News.com, 12 April 2010.
The public have a right to know what is committed in their name

What exactly is the public interest? It is difficult to define in law as Britain is finding in its enquiry into phone hacking,[1] and individuals disagree.[2] Journalists in particular are likely to be much happier about the idea than the rest of the public because it defends their interest to have a broad interpretation. It should not have been up to either Kamm or Haaretz to define what the public interest is. There are some things that have to be left to the state. [1] Sabbagh, Dan, ‘Clarification of the ‘public interest’ defence is badly needed’, guardian.co.uk, 8 April 2012. [2] Elliott, Chris, ‘What do you think ‘public interest’ means?’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2012.
The military can only be held to account if there is transparency

Yes the military has to be accountable but this does not mean that it is directly accountable to the people. Instead the military is accountable to the civilian leadership of the country who is then in turn accountable to the people. The people designate their politicians; their head of state and government as well as minister of defence to control the most senior members of the military.[1] This means that while the military must be transparent it is only necessary for it to be transparent to the civilian government which is at the top of the chain of command not to the people as a whole. [1] Feaver, Peter D., Armed Servants Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, Harvard University Press, 2005, p.5.
Leaking military secrets puts lives in danger

This might be a valid argument if the leaked military secrets really were putting lives in danger, but this is not the case in this particular instance. In Israel there is a military censor which newspapers submit articles that might affect national security to and that censor takes out anything it believes to be harmful to state security.[1] All the materials that were published by Haaretz went first through Haaretz’s editors and then this military censor[2] so if there really were any military secrets published that could have put lives in danger the censors were negligent in their job. [1] Sobelman, Batsheva, ‘Q&A Censorship in Israel: ‘A unique model’’, Los Angeles Times, 3 May 2010. [2] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.
Governments, like companies, can come and go with popular opinion. The market however is enduring and solutions that fail to take it into account will fail

The market is a process in and of itself, not just a collection of government policies or corporate interests. As a result any sensible approach to energy concerns should deal with that reality. Energy standards will improve when there is a profit motive for it to happen and when it creates jobs. Unlike government policy which is likely to change when a new government enters power the profit motive will remain the same. Even if there is a swing in oil prices from being very high (so encouraging energy saving) to being very low companies will keep investing in saving energy because they have seen the volatility of the energy market and do not want to be caught out in the future. Both the private and public sector have a role to play that they need to so within the framework of the free market.
Standards that are enforced by government legislation means that companies know there will be a guaranteed market for innovations

The market will, ultimately, respond to cost. As a result, just as has been the case with tar sands and shale fracking and other non-traditional sources of carbon fuels once the cost justifies it or the demand is created then the market will respond by creating or utilizing new innovations. If the cost of production of fossil fuels rises to a point whereby the investment in new technologies is justified – as it will – then the market will respond. Creating false markets either through subsidies or regulation is unlikely to create technologies that can survive without those regulations or subsidies. There is, after all, no motivation to do so. Presented with a guaranteed market, there is an active motivation to do the bare minimum – in terms of expense – to meet that need as it removes the competitive advantage of exceeding it. Equally the idea that the global energy giants can’t see on their own that this is a market that they will need to prepare for is clearly undermined by the fact that they are already doing so.
Only government is in a position to tie together the necessary legislation in terms of training, jobs and environmental standards

It is in the interest of the providers of infrastructural services such as education to respond to the changing face of the market. Attempting to predict that in advance is almost always reckless as has been routinely seen in the relationship between universities, planning bodies and others in relation to the IT industry. Second guessing the next big thing proves far more dangerous than being left free to respond to changing circumstances. Specifically in relation to universities, research follows the funding and therefore as the energy industry shifts its focus due to changing demands, so the focus of academic departments follows suit. Absolutely none of this requires government intervention; it is worth noting that the history of government long term planning for new sectors of the economy does not have a happy track record as the creation of Soviet heavy industry demonstrated - it simply leaves millions of people unemployable with expertise in an area that does not exist. A priori, the most accurate determinant of who employers are hiring is who they’re hiring.
The government is better placed to consider longer term implications than companies that are legally required to maximize profit

Energy efficiency is an important part of any plan not only for its environmental benefits but also because of its impact on the balance sheet. This reality is being discovered not only by individuals and SMEs but by global corporations who are, increasingly building into their corporate strategy[i]. While it may be true that energy companies want everyone to use more energy for most companies the opposite is true. The market ensures that companies want to cut their costs and so reduce energy consumption. At the same time companies know that consumers too want to reduce their energy consumption so as to cut costs so make their products as energy efficient as possible It is, in fact, the best example of real change taking place because it has a market benefit. Government activity by contrast has mostly revolved around meaningless and largely unmet targets. Environmental concerns may be seen as a fringe issue by politicians but there is nothing fringe in the issue of reducing costs within the business community. As a result the market is far more incentivized to address this issue than recalcitrant politicians reluctant to admit that people really do have to give up their cars, insulate their houses and reduce their consumption. It’s a good example of the market beating regulation hands down. [i] Economist Intelligence Unit. “Unlocking the Benefits of Energy Efficiency: An Executive Dilemma”.
It is simply not the role of government to interfere with the choices of private consumers

This is simply not the reality. This approach has so far created the absurdity of “clean Coal”[i] and the notion that there is any such thing as an environmentally friendly car that ignore the polluting implications of their production. Generally speaking ‘Green’ has been seen as a great advertising strategy but the reality that moving towards a zero carbon economy requires a significant reduction in total global consumption and therefore in the use of the resources that underpin the modern economy – notably energy – has mostly passed manufacturers and others by. Nobody enjoys compulsion but most accept that it is necessary in many circumstances, ranging from taxation to legislation. It is interesting that exactly the people who tend to be reluctant for the government to have those roles seem to be having difficulty with this one as well. There are plenty of people in the world who are not consumers either because they are part of the majority of the world who can’t afford the products of Western business or because they haven’t been born yet. For all that business ignores their interests, it’s their world too. [i] Richard Conniff, “The Myth of Clean Coal”. Environment 360. Yale University. 3 June 2008.
Government should be using tax breaks and grants to incentivize new areas of growth rather than legislation and regulations to destroy old ones

The market has been reluctant – some would say obsessively so – to take the lead on any project. In the US it fought everything from desegregation to the creation of the EPA. Worldwide it has always – with a few honorable exceptions – tended to follow the path of least resistance and greatest profit on everything from child labour to minimum wages to pollution controls to job security to any range of others. Historically only regulation or legislation has been able to overcome these hurdles. Opposition might as well be saying, “Well, of course there is a market for Cotton from the free states but government must realize that it will only ever be a minority share of the market…” History tells us that the market requires more than a nudge on these matters.
Governments, like companies, can come and go with popular opinion. The market however is enduring and solutions that fail to take it into account will fail

Of course legislation needs to reflect economic reality and the idea that people are going to support options that hike prices or destroy jobs is simply not the debate. However the market is not a force in its own right. Ultimately the issue of diminishing energy reserves and the impact of pollution is one that will require concerted government action on an international scale. Taking the chance that the profit motive will eventually become compelling once the last pint of oil becomes really valuable as an antique is simply not a viable option. The market, left unfettered, benefits from increasing energy costs to the detriment of the majority of the world’s population and the wider environment.
Standards that are enforced by government legislation means that companies know there will be a guaranteed market for innovations

The market has no interest in altering a model in which scarcity increases profitability as is the case with the current market. Within that context there is little likelihood that they will provide, with no stimulus, the front-loaded investment necessary for the development of new technologies. Instead the state has the capacity to offer both the carrot of guaranteeing a future market and the stick of regulating future carbon emissions. Left unchecked the market has little or no interest to innovate and has the encouragement of the profit motive not to. However, corporations have an interest in the sustainability of their individual businesses so will move to new technologies, even if more expensive, if necessary but that will only be the case if the government creates that market artificially.
Only government is in a position to tie together the necessary legislation in terms of training, jobs and environmental standards

In the process of creating, effectively an entire new industry, there are myriad infrastructural considerations which companies are poorly placed to deliver. Companies rely on government to train graduate and other staff, to plan for and deal with the externalities of industry and, perversely, to regulate them. The energy industry, in particular has not demonstrated a notable capacity to undertake any of these task voluntarily and there is little reason to believe that they would act any differently in the future. As long as there is a market for oil engineers universities and others have little interest in training a new generation of experts, indeed, given the structure of university departments there is an active disincentive to making one’s own field of research redundant. This means the intervention has to come from the government; departments could change their focus to being on renewable energy but it won’t happen without government backing. Similarly engineers could be retrained to work in the renewable industry by the government.