It is hard to underestimate the importance of the struggle that has been taking place since Thursday. While this appears to be a dispute over the circumstances of the shooting of a subdued terrorist in Hebron, it is in fact a struggle over the very image of the Israel Defense Forces, its ethics and its orders. There is one clear truth here and that is the law or, since this is the military we are dealing with -- standing orders. Was the shooting justified? The initial investigation reached an unequivocal conclusion -- no. The terrorist had been neutralized; the troops were in no danger; the soldier who pulled the trigger played no part in tackling the terrorists who attempted to attack the patrol moments earlier; and the incident took place several minutes after both terrorists were subdued. Had the terrorist been shot during the attack, while he was brandishing a knife, no one would have questioned the circumstances of this incident. Neutralizing the terrorist without killing him was legitimate operational conduct and well within reason. But the soldier's claim that he felt threatened was not backed by the officers and soldiers present at the scene. None of them felt they were in clear and present danger, as the terrorist was inspected by the company commander on site and was not found to be carrying other weapons or explosives. The B'Tselem video even shows the officer standing barely a yard away from the terrorists, on the phone, in the moments prior to the shooting. Still, let's assume for a moment that the solider had noticed something his commander had missed, and that he really believed the terrorist was carrying explosives. IDF protocols call for the opposite conduct: The area must be isolated, everyone must be cleared from it, and the orders bar shooting the terrorist, as that may set off the explosives and compromise everyone in the area. So before this was an ethical failure, it was a professional one. The fact that the soldier's friends and relatives came out in his defense is understandable and expected, but the fact that some politicians have decided to jump on the bandwagon -- for the sake of a few more "likes" on Facebook -- is not. The fact that the majority of those lashing out at the IDF and the chief of staff are the same people who lambasted the Shin Bet security agency over its investigation of far-right extremists comes as little surprise. The current atmosphere is such that one must reiterate that the IDF is not persecuting the soldier over his politics. He has the right to vote anyway he likes, and hate whoever he wants to hate. But that does not give him the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. This soldier is not a scapegoat, he is a suspect, but despite the media attention, it is highly doubtful he will face murder charges. Still, unless a dramatic shift take place, he will most likely face considerable jail time. Those who feel sorry for the soldier, who claim the IDF has abandoned him, would be wise to remember that one of the staples of the IDF's Code of Ethics is the purity of arms. There is one set of orders, one law, and one Code of Ethics. This is what saves us from anarchy. This is why trying to make IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot the bad guy in all of this is both ridiculous and dangerous. It is ridiculous because when it comes to defense and security, Eizenkot has more credits to his name than all his critics put together, and it is dangerous because slamming the chief of staff is slamming the state, and it hands Israel's enemies, foreign and domestic, a precious gift.
