For a number of days now, Israel has been abuzz over an incident in Hebron in which an IDF soldier shot a Palestinian in the head. Some facts concerning this incident are undisputed: The Palestinian was an attacker, who stabbed other soldiers before he was shot and killed. The Palestinian was lying on the ground, wounded (if not already dead) when he was shot in the head. The soldier was not under threat.
The story became a firestorm because of one reason: it was filmed by a volunteer of the NGO BTselem. The IDF was embarrassed and arrested the soldier for investigation. The political and military leaderships of Israel were quick to condemn the shooting – but soon a backlash from other leaders and from the public arrived. Two thirds of the Jewish public believe that no matter what the investigation reveals, the soldier should not be prosecuted. Many Israelis also don’t understand why killing a terrorist is something that should be condemned.
As usual, the debate fast became a shouting match. It fast became a blend of many things, some of which are irrelevant, some not much more than political propaganda. Here is an attempt to put it in some order.
The incident
That is the key — and the problem for us is that the door is still locked. We have footage, we have leaks from the investigation, but we do not yet have the full picture and an answer to the crucial question: Why did the soldier decide to kill a man who posed no threat to him or his friends?
The possibilities are as follows:
1. He perceived him to be a threat even though he was not.
In such case, there are two possibilities:
A. His judgment was wrong, and hence he is guilty of unprofessional behavior that does not befit a soldier (but certainly not of murder).
B. In these tense circumstances, he made what seemed a reasonable judgment, and hence the soldier is guilty of nothing. In such a tense situation, some mistakes can be expected.
2. He decided to kill him even though he knew there was no threat.
In such case, there are two possibilities:
A. He believed an attacker should be killed, IDF instructions notwithstanding, and should be prosecuted for disobedience and possibly murder.
B. He did not understand the IDF instructions and did not realize that shooting a person who poses no threat is forbidden. If that is the case, it is a failure of the IDF.
The response
Many Israelis were unhappy with the rapid response by the political echelon to the incident. They felt Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, in condemning the shooting in strong terms, were essentially throwing a soldier under the bus to appease international public opinion. Here, again, we have to parse the main claims that were made against them:
1. They should have waited for the investigation to be completed before issuing a condemnation.
2. By condemning the soldier early, the leaders made it much more difficult for the soldier to be treated fairly and investigated impartially.
3. Israel should not publically condemn its own soldiers, even when they make a mistake.
The first of these claims makes some sense. But the prime minister and defense minister would counter that in today’s world of instant communication and aggressive media, waiting to condemn would have greatly damaged Israel’s image. No media outlet will hold off its report until the investigation is over, therefore it was essential for Israeli leaders to issue a strong response immediately.
The second claim also makes sense. It is important for the investigators and (if it comes to that) judicial system to try not to be influenced by the political brouhaha surrounding the case.
The third claim merits discussion. If a soldier makes a mistake on a battlefield, he should still feel backed by the IDF and the state. If a soldier acts criminally, disobeying orders and damaging Israel — both morally and in the court of public opinion — no such shield should be extended to him.
The attacker
The mother of the soldier cried that her son is seen as a criminal while the Palestinian attacker is portrayed as a saint.
The attacker was not a saint. The debate is not about him — whether he deserved to die or not. Had he died during the attack, there would be no issue. The debate is about us — whether we kill attackers who are no longer a threat.
The politicians
Politicians do what their job requires, and they do what the public wants them to do. The prime minister and defense minister condemned the shooting. The public seems to feel their condemnation was somewhat premature. Their colleague and rival — the education minister — took advantage of this sentiment, and put himself at the head of the camp demanding backing for the soldier and patience with the investigation.
Is the prime minister justified in being upset with Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s political ploy? Of course he is.
Is it legitimate for Bennett to capitalize on this incident and make it a political tool? That’s politics in Israel.
The public
Four worrisome signs concerning the (Jewish) Israeli public:
1. The public seems to be too ready to cast aside established moral and legal rules in the wake of recent Palestinian attacks. This is not surprising; when people feel threatened, they have less patience with requirements such as to not shoot an attacker who is already subdued.
2. The public seems to have lost patience with the government’s inability to put an end to Palestinian attacks and is looking for quick fixes for a situation with no quick fixes.
3. The public seems to confuse its love for IDF soldiers with the need to maintain law, order and morality in Israel. Soldiers are not above the law. The IDF is not above criticism.
4. The public seems incapable of an unbiased, apolitical, detached discussion. Loving the IDF is not right wing. Expecting morality is not left wing. Fighting terrorism is not right wing. Opposing murder is not left wing.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.