The legal proceedings against Sgt. Elor Azaria and Brig. Gen. Ofek Buchris share similar ground, but on the other hand, they have nothing in common -- a statement that carries an intrinsic contradiction, as what is the connection between an alleged rape case and a trial of a soldier who shot an immobilized terrorist? In practice the two have merged, forming yet another episode in the dramatic cultural war brewing inside Israeli society. Many in the Israeli public have sided with both defendants. After the shooting incident, not only did many Israelis express their loath of the murderous terrorist, whose sole objective was to kill Israelis, they also felt that he "got what he deserved," despite Azaria's obvious violation of the military's rules of engagement. Azaria's supporters maintain that under the circumstances of that tumultuous day near the Tel Rumeida neighborhood in Hebron, Azaria had lost control -- but that does not make him a killer. This means that in reality, they doubt Azaria's version of events and that deep inside they believe his testimony seeks to cover his failure to restrain an uncontrollable urge, which cannot be justified regardless of the circumstances. This is the foundation to the public's sense of sympathy towards Azaria. The same goes for Buchris. Clearly, his version of events, which outright rejects the grievous acts attributed to him, has raised some doubts. The public feels that there is some truth to the allegations, but that the relations between the decorated officer and the plaintiffs had been consensual. As a husband, a father of six and an observant Jew, Buchris cannot afford to confess. However his adamant denial may end in a lengthy prison sentence, which could have been potentially reduced had he admitted to unlawful consensual relations, thus garnering additional public support. Clearly, these assumptions do not mean to validate or refute Azaria or Buchris' versions -- this is for the court to decide. To do that, it must to separate public sentiment and the facts as they are presented in court, and this is exactly the test the legal system faces. Many Israelis would like these cases to come to an end soon, with a result everyone can live with. But not the state: Almost 60 years ago, on the eve of the 1956 Sinai War, border policemen shot and killed Arab civilians returning from work during a curfew, imposed on their village of Kafr Qasim earlier that day. Despite an underlying support for the soldiers involved in the massacre, they were prosecuted. This case led presiding Judge Benjamin Halevy to set a legal precedent, ruling that the original order was a clearly unlawful command, one with "a black flag flying over it," which was accurate. Many seek to see these embarrassing affairs removed from the public agenda, but so far the prosecution has been able to remain vigilant and ignore he populist calls. It is for the court -- and no one else -- to decide one's innocence or guilt . In terms of social norms, the most important thing is not to surrender to populism and for the debate to be fully exhausted. On Friday, Channel 2 aired a segment from an interview with Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who said that his first goal after achieving national security was to pursue the purpose of becoming the "chosen people." The path that leads there crosses the halls where such trials take place.
