Barely eight days have passed since a soldier from the Kfir Brigade shot a Palestinian terrorist who was already lying on the ground, incapacitated, in Hebron. But it's already possible to say that the battle that the incident sparked is nothing less than a battle for the image of the Israel Defense Forces. This isn't an impassioned debate about the soldier's guilt or innocence; it's about the character of the military, the values that guide it and the source of its command authority. As early as last Thursday, the day the incident took place, the IDF took a clear and severe stance. The army announced that the initial inquiry had unequivocally concluded that the incident was a very serious one and that the soldier had acted in violation of the rules of engagement when he shot the immobilized terrorist. Generally, the Israeli public accepts the results of an army operational inquiry without objection. Not this time. The prompt condemnation of the soldier's actions by Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, along with the fact that the events had been documented by none other than the leftist human rights group B'Tselem, sparked a social combustion that could burn for quite some time. Gut responses were unleashed in full force at the gates of the Qastina Base, which houses the IDF military court, with hundreds of screaming protesters, thick clouds of smoke, and calls of "Kahane was right" and "Death to Arabs!" The protesters, some of whom were fans of the Betar Jerusalem soccer club (associated with right-wing politics and racist clashes) and members of a Betar fan club or the anti-assimilation group Lehava, didn't avoid the media. They shoved a Channel 2 reporter who was at the scene and yelled insults at his colleague from Channel 10. They also had warm wishes for Eizenkot and Ya'alon. On the other side of the fence that surrounds the base, the mob enjoyed the backing of some politicians. Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman arrived so he could "balance the flagrant intervention by Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] and the defense minister." After the court held its discussion, Lieberman told the media that "the soldier was sent by the people of Israel to protect the people of Israel, and even if he made a mistake, it can't be that everyone abandons him and accuses him of murder." MK Oren Hazan (Likud) unfettered his tongue and called on IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz to "hand over his keys." It's unlikely any scene like this has every played out on both sides of an army base's fence. Despite the unusual sight, the military court in Qastina wasn't the center ring this week. The bulk of the criticism could be seen on social media networks, where politicians, civilians, and even retired senior IDF officers threw fuel on the fire. One of them was Maj. Gen. Dan Bitton, who served as a member of the General Staff forum until a few years ago. On his Facebook page, Bitton wrote that the army inquiry was "an amateur inquiry that aimed to protect the commanders and put the blame on the soldier." Bitton also spoke to the Israel Hayom weekend supplement. He said that "the army and the defense minister, who went to the media [last] Thursday, are delusional. The incident itself was on Thursday. To investigate, you need to sit down with everyone who was there, check things out. I've conducted inquiries. It takes at least a day or two. So the same evening they go to the media? Almoz, who spoke that evening, abandoned the soldier -- left him on the field. What kind of support is that? There's an investigation into the soldier by the Military Police's Investigative Unit, so you announce from every stage that the soldier transgressed? The soldier has to be given the chance at a fair trial." Sources close to the chief of staff and the defense minister were quick to reject the complaints that came from all sides. To Almoz's credit, he has been trying to update the media about initial military inquiries as soon as possible for some months now. That's how he handled it this January when the chief of staff decided to take disciplinary measures against the soldiers and commanders from the 75th Battalion who shot a mortar shell that killed Capt. Yishai Rosales; that's how it was three weeks ago, when the head of the GOC Southern Command decided to dismiss the commander of the Bedouin Trackers Unit after the latter submitted "unreliable reports to his commanders" about his relations with a subordinate female officer. The media's sometimes justified about the IDF spokesman notwithstanding, it looks like this time he cannot be accused of updating the public with the initial results of the operational inquiry. Truth be told, if the army had refrained from providing information, we can assume that the public and the media would have been calling for his head for hiding things. "Anyone who speaks out against the media briefings isn't familiar with the event," a security official said this week. "The prime minister, the defense minister, and the chief of staff spoke up only after they had [the results of] the initial inquiry before them. The findings of the inquiry were very clear. All the attempts to say that they spoke without seeing the inquiry are a fraud by the public. Anyone who attacks them attacks the company commander, the battalion commander, the brigade commander, and the brigadier general who conducted that inquiry," the official said. According to the same official, there were four reasons behind the decision to denounce the Hebron shooting the same day it took place. First, the upper defense echelon wanted to let soldiers know that such incidents were unacceptable. Second, the initial inquiry had provided a clear picture of events. Third, there was a concern that Judea and Samaria, which haven't been quiet these past few months, anyway, would "light up" over the B'Tselem footage. And finally, there was a need to send a message to international officials. It appears that the Israeli concern over a possible escalation in the security situation following the incident was well-grounded. Since last Thursday, the Arab world hasn't moved on from its coverage of the affair, at least to judge by wheat we see on news websites and comments on social media. It is a particularly hot topic on Palestinian networks, where users are condemning the shooting and characterizing it as a public execution. The discourse centers on the widespread support for, warm treatment of, and opposition to arresting the soldier on the part of Israeli civilians and political leaders. Inspiration, a company that deals in a field it calls "system of consciousness," is closely following the responses to the incident. The company believes that it could have widespread ramifications. They argue that the fact that the shooting took place close after a series of "flame fanning" events (such as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh's declaration that the intifada was "the biggest strategic turning point in the history of the Palestinian issue") contributes to the momentum of the recent wave of terrorism and encourages many people to execute more attacks. Kill a terrorist, get a pizza Despite the concern over flashpoints in the field, the security establishment is more worried about the mood of the Israeli public and how it might affect the soldiers serving in the IDF. In an age when soldiers are wired in to the media and social media, the army fears that extremist elements will challenge the authority of commanders and offer soldiers an alternative code of battle ethics. Some of the extremist elements are even piping up with ridiculous promises, like giving a free pizza to any soldier who kills a terrorist. The IDF is also bothered by the fact that the Internet allows soldiers to express anonymous protests against their commanders. This week, soldiers took advantage of the anonymity to express support for the soldier who shot the terrorist in Hebron and call him a hero. For now, the army believes that the only way to address the matter is though conversations between commanders and their subordinates. This reality prompted Eizenkot to send out a special message to soldiers saying that "Preserving the spirit of the IDF and its values is not a privilege, but an obligation, to preserve the IDF as an army of the people in a Jewish, democratic state." According to Eizenkot, "In every action, we must operate professionally while exerting focused, measured, and considered force to fulfill our mission and remain faithful to our values." The chief of staff added that the commanders, himself first and foremost, would continue to "give full support to any soldier who errs in the heat of battle, while facing an enemy that puts the lives of civilians and soldiers in danger. However, we will not hesitate to bring soldiers and commanders who deviate from the operational and moral standards we operate under to justice." In addition to the message, Eizenkot instructed commanders to address the subject at the unit level. A vital investigation With all the public criticism, the political feelers, and concerns of the top army staff, it's easy to forget that the affair began with a single IDF soldier, whose case is still open and in the hands of the Military Police Investigative Unit. Last weekend, investigators warned the soldier that he could face murder charges. This week, things are sounding different after, in a long discussion at his remand hearing, the Chief Military Prosecution refrained from specifying that the soldier was suspected of murder. The military prosecutor found it sufficient to say that the prosecution was attempting to find that the soldier had committed violations, "some of which were crimes of manslaughter." The military court judge presiding over the matter, Lt. Col. Ronen Shor, examined all the findings from the investigation and decided to remand the soldier for only two days. Shor ruled that even if "there were a reasonable suspicion that a shooting had been committed unlawfully based on the circumstances, the body of evidence thus far gives credence to either side of the main controversial questions." The soldier's defense attorney and other experts in the field believe that the matter won't end with a murder charge; some even think that the soldier might wind up being convicted only for illegal use of a weapon or failure to obey orders. "From a legal point of view, the soldier is in serious trouble," military law expert attorney Idan Pesach said this week. "We all saw the [B'Tselem] clip, everyone knows that a long time passed from the moment the terrorist was immobilized to the time the soldier arrived. That's the only reason the military prosecutor is going forward with the case, not only to see what happens. Even if we disregard all the surrounding events, and even if there was a gag order on the issue, from what I understand, the case would have been pursued in any instance. You can't forgo this investigation." Nevertheless, Pesach says, the Chief Military Prosecution made a mistake by stating from the get-go that the soldier was suspected of murder. "It could have ended with nothing more than manslaughter or causing death by negligence. The situation is not a situation of murder. It's a soldier on duty," he notes. And that's not the only difficulty for the denouncers. Pesach argues that the prosecution is in trouble in everything relating to proving that the soldier caused the terrorist's death. "The crime of criminal manslaughter can't be laid at the soldier's door if it turns out that the Palestinian was already dead from the shots that hit him when he was [originally] immobilized by the soldiers at the time of the [stabbing] attack," Pesach explains. "The pathologist need to none of the wounds the terrorist sustained prior to being shot while he was on the ground would have caused him to die. I don't see anyone giving an opinion like that. Without it, we have no cause to link the death of the Palestinian to the soldier's shooting, so [the soldier] can't be accused of any of the crime of manslaughter at all," Pesach elaborates. Another development revealed by the prosecution only bolsters that assessment. The family of the dead terrorist intends to petition the High Court of Justice to prevent an autopsy on his body. If the High Court accepts their petition, it's highly doubtful it will be possible to convict the soldier on any killing charge. In that scenario, the case that had the entire country up in arms could finish with a conviction on a much less serious charge.
