A week and a half have passed since the incident in Hebron, but the case of the Israeli soldier who shot an immobilized Palestinian terrorist in the head is still a main topic of discussion. Too many people are trying to make as much of this affair as possible, conflating the blurred-out face of the soldier with the face of the Israel Defense Forces as a whole. The public is divided over where the problem lies: Some feel it is that an IDF soldier shot to death a wounded Palestinian while he was lying helpless on the ground. Others feel it is that an IDF soldier who was sent to the battlefield to defend his country is now in handcuffs and is being told he could face a murder charge (although this has since been downgraded). Both active camps -- for and against the soldier -- are trying to paint the complex reality of the Middle East in black and white. Only after the trial will we have a judgment of guilty or not. Until then, it may be worthwhile to wait patiently, something we are not very good at. It's best not to jump to conclusions, even if the facts align with the narrative of whichever camp you support. One thing is not up for dispute: We could have done without this unnecessary incident -- just as we could do without Palestinian terrorism to begin with -- but it seems the reality in which we live will breed more incidents like this in the future, especially when left-wing B'Tselem activists are monitoring the security forces' actions from up close. Meanwhile, when you look around, it's hard not to be impressed by the way Israeli soldiers adhere to the IDF ethics code while carrying out missions. This recent case is an exception that does not represent the IDF in any way. An important day for the investigation We must keep in mind that as long as the autopsy results are not in, it's hard to know whether the soldier actually killed the terrorist or not. The High Court of Justice was right to reject the terrorist's family's petition against performing the autopsy, which is scheduled for Sunday. There's no doubt that Sunday will be a fateful day. But the autopsy, of course, still won't absolve the soldier of the gunfire itself. The operational investigation found that the soldier violated orders by deciding on his own to open fire. The reasons that led him to do so will obviously be the main focus of the trial. Was he motivated to shoot the terrorist out of revenge or out of fear for his life- We must be careful not to turn this trial into a trial of the IDF as a whole -- though, for obvious reasons, some people are seeking to do just that. Only the soldier and his actions are standing trial. But the fact that the shooter serves in the IDF is what has prompted the public outcry. It is difficult to disconnect the IDF from the Israeli public, or the public from the IDF for that matter. That may explain why 57% of the public supports the soldier. Some people view this massive outpouring of support for the soldier as a result of Israeli society's slide toward brutality (again, everyone chooses the narrative that suits them). You could also attribute it to the deep connection between the military and Israeli society. The two are inextricably linked and share an emotional and familial connection that has no parallel anywhere in the world. Since the incident, two judicial proceedings have expressed reservations about the seriousness with which the military prosecution presented the soldier's case. Is it possible that the prosecution was too quick with the murder charge- There are those who are seeking to really blow the story out of proportion, and even label it a breaking point in the relationship between society and the military in Israel. Factually speaking, that is simply incorrect. The relationship between the IDF and the country has been through more trying tests: after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, after the disengagement in 2005, and, as former Military Advocate General Amnon Straschnov pointed out, in situations very similar to the current incident. The difference between then and now lies in the fact that this incident has fallen into the hands of those who wish to portray the IDF as a cruel, immoral army -- an instrument of the "occupation." The court will rule on the soldier's actions, but at the moment, one thing is clear: This incident does not point to a sick society or military. The opposite is true. We should be proud of our army for fighting for our lives and fighting for its principles.
