Breaking the rules in the Hebron soldier trial
Op-ed: It has become clear that if the manner in which the trial is conducted does not suit a particular group - then they break the rules and threaten the witnesses. For Eisenkot the norm expected of IDF officers and soldiers is telling the truth, and any attempt to exert pressure on those involved in the legal process deserve harsh condemnation.
When the B'Tselem video that documented Sgt. Elior Azaria's shooting of the Palestinian terrorist in Hebron was exposed, right-wing activists attacked then-defense minister Moshe Ya'alon and IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot for immediately condemning the incident. Even more moderate sources were requesting that a drumhead court-martial not be held, neither by the media nor on social network sites.
They asked to give due process a chance so that the truth could emerge in the confines of the military court, and only there. However, now, when circumstances have changed, it turns out that this principle was for many of those involved a truth for that moment only - and they have no problem twisting ideology in favor of their political agenda.
The trial began three weeks ago, and as the proceedings advance it is becoming clear that the soldier's situation is just getting more convoluted – starting with the video in which the knife is seen to be moved towards the terrorist lying on the ground, then with the pathologist's testimony according to which the shot in the head is what killed the terrorist, and now with Azaria's company commander Maj. Tom Na'aman's honest testimony that although Azaria is an outstanding soldier, in Hebron he fired against orders. "I asked him who authorized him to shoot," testified Naaman, "and he said the terrorist was alive and had to die."
The next witnesses to testify - four young soldiers and after them Lt. Col. David Shapira and commander of the Hebron Brigade Col. Yariv Ben-Ezra - are expected to provide similar evidence of occurred at the scene.
Now it has become clear that if the manner in which the trial is conducted does not suit a particular group - then they break the rules and threaten the witnesses. The first victim is Maj. Na'aman, in what appears to be a combined move designed to derail the trial and send a clear message to the future witnesses: If you tell the truth on the stand, you will be hit with a series of invectives and threats on Facebook.
Lt. Col. Shapira and Col. Yariv Ben-Ezra Shapiro and brigade commander Ben Ezra are mature and strong officers, but it's not certain that the young 20-year-old soldiers will withstand the pressure. What are they supposed to be thinking now?
Azaria's trial is entering a dangerous and worrying stage. What exactly do the insulters and tauters expect? That the exceptional company commander should lie on the witness stand, only because the truth does not suit them? The result is a situation in which any testimony could lead to a drumhead court-martial on Facebook - which is, in fact, an obstruction of justice of the modern era.
IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot for his part continues to clearly define the boundaries of his responsibility- and this is what was behind his phone call with Na'aman. For him there is no compromise; the norm expected of IDF officers and soldiers is to tell the truth, and any attempt to exert pressure on those involved in the legal process deserve harsh condemnation.
Similar statements were heard Sunday from Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, but they can also be pointed to as being among those who led the discourse to its current state part of the factors that led the discourse to its current state – whether it be Bennet's tongue-lashing while speaking at the Knesset's rostrum after the shooting incident, or Lieberman's visit to the military court during Azaria's hearing.
From now on, the goal of having a just trial should govern the public debate – so that Eisenkot doesn't become the only sane voice amid a medley of fervor and incitement.
