The shockwaves from the Azaria affair have shaken the IDF to its core in recent months and are expected to impact it well into the future as well. Most pundits and experts believed, correctly, that Azaria would be convicted of manslaughter. The court determined that comments he made to his comrades before shooting the neutralized terrorist in the head indicated that the shooting was intentional and that he was aware of his actions. Azaria's decision to alter his original testimony (following counsel from his lawyer) -- to pin blame on his direct and indirect commanders -- did not improve his legal situation. The fact that despite hundreds of cases in which Palestinians have been killed, including some innocents, only one soldier has ever stood trial for manslaughter, testified to the extraordinary nature of this shooting and its severity. Considering these factors, an acquittal would have been a sensational surprise from a legal perspective and a bombshell from the perspective of the Israeli public. The Azaria trial deviated from the confines of criminality and spilled into the ethical sphere: IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, with support from former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and most of the senior command, staked the entirety of his professional and ethical reputation on the stance that Azaria deviated from the professional norms expected of IDF soldiers when he shot the incapacitated terrorist. A victory for Azaria over the chief of staff would not only have been a legal slap to the face for the army and its system of prosecution, but a heavy blow to the chief of staff and his authority to command. To a great extent, Eizenkot, and not Azaria, was the key figure in this trial. Contrary to what many expected to happen, Eizenkot was never able to stop the legal train in its tracks and "close matters" with a disciplinary hearing and slap on the wrist for Azaria. His adamant, uncompromising position made him an active player instead of a mere observer, and positioned the trial and its result as the most important moment of Eizenkot's first two years as army commander. More than any military operation, weapons system or work plan, the Azaria trial will impact Eizenkot's tenure and the army he is trying to mold. It will provide the supposedly obvious answer to the question of where the army's core authority lies. The matter of authoritative command -- which stood at the heart of the Azaria trial because of the disarray at the scene of the terrorist attack in Hebron and the (outrageous) intervention of civilian elements and interest holders in issuing commands during the event -- has challenged the army in recent years, with regard to rabbis intervening in combat units, the integration of female soldiers, and other matters. The Azaria shooting affair, however, crystallized the question of who commands the soldiers. Against this backdrop, the court's guilty ruling Wednesday not only sealed the soldier's fate, but bolstered the chief of staff and his authority to command. In this context, statements from public figures following the ruling will be crucial. The premature calls from MKs to pardon Azaria blatantly impeded the court's independence and were a boon for political populism, but the response of the prime minister and defense minister will directly impact the way things unfold in the immediate aftermath of the ruling. In the IDF, the expectation is for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and especially Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman -- who at the onset of the trial voiced his support for the soldier -- to clearly and unflinchingly back not just the legal ruling but the commanders in uniform, from Eizenkot on down. Not only would this help the IDF and its senior commanders in the public perception, it would go far to help them internally with the complex task of explaining the court's ruling to serving soldiers and solidify norms for what is permitted and what is forbidden, even in complicated conditions such as the scene of the terrorist attack in Hebron.
