The verdict in Sgt. Elor Azaria's trial was unanimous on Wednesday. But the public's response is far from over, and that presents a real danger to the consensus surrounding the IDF. It is seemingly unnecessary to expand on the legal issue. The presiding judge read out an organized, logical document that dismantled the defense's claims one by one. This outcome begs questioning of the line of defense taken by Azaria's attorneys, and whether it may have been better to have fought a less pompous and more logical legal battle. And yet there were those who had trouble accepting or understanding the judges' comments. It is hard to fault Azaria's family and friends -- they are personally and emotionally involved, and their stance is clear and understandable. And it is hard too to blame the lawyers -- after the verdict they had to save what they could of their professional prestige. But we can and must address the public's attitude. Comments that it was "a drumhead court-martial," "a show trial," or a "pre-determined verdict" are not only factually incorrect, but they cause real damage to the justice system, the Israel Defense Forces, and the State of Israel. Azaria is not a victim. He is a soldier who was sent on a mission and failed, morally and criminally. The verdict does not leave room for doubt. Despite all the anger and the rage, even a soldier whose friend was stabbed is prohibited from shooting a subdued terrorist. The purity of arms is a supreme value in the military; it sets the IDF apart from the horrors of the Middle East, and it is the best response that Israel has for its critics abroad. And yet, Azaria found himself in an impossible situation. One soldier and his family, in the midst of a cynical campaign, orchestrated and funded above his head. It would be reasonable for this to be taken into account in his sentencing, and, obviously also when the possibility of pardoning him is raised, within the parameters of the accepted rules. But even more so than the matter of the soldier, the matter of the military is worrying. This case led the IDF to lose the trust of many among the public. The IDF believes this is temporary and is claiming that it will not affect motivation to enlist in the military. Values, the chief of staff says, are not determined by the polls, and with no moral compass, there cannot be a moral IDF. The chief of staff is certainly right in principle -- and that is why, for example, commanders and not politicians determine the procedures for opening fire in the military. But in practical terms, the IDF has a problem, and it must deal with it both internally, with the soldiers completing their service, and externally, with the parents who certainly see the soldiers as "children." This complex mission will fall on the shoulders of incoming IDF Personnel Directorate Brig Gen. Moti Almoz, who, in a strange twist of fate, is set take up the role and be promoted to major general on Thursday, a day after the verdict was given a case that, in his previous role as IDF spokesperson, led many to attack him.
