After Solomonic slap on the wrist, Azaria pardon looms large

To say the trial of Elor Azaria, convicted of killing a wounded Palestinian stabber in Hebron, highlighted divisions in Israeli society is like saying Syria has been undergoing some bouts of violence. The trial didn’t just draw attention to the divisions, but rather exposed just how deep those divisions run, scarring the Israeli sociopolitical landscape and allowing questions surrounding military morality, the rule of law and the obligation that the state has to its soldiers and vice versa to well up.

As the trial drew to a close Tuesday, or at least gave way to the appeals and possible pardoning process, the Hebrew press weighs in yet again. And while the pundits and front pages toe already well-known ideological lines, in the sum, the papers themselves mimic the court decision (harsh words and jail time, but a relatively light term) in opting for soupy Solomonic compromise, even as they look ahead to the next battle over the state of Israel’s soul: the drive to have the soldier pardoned, as his legal team weighs the risks of mounting an appeal.

Israel Hayom’s front page headline, “Give him clemency” is the starkest example of a paper taking a position. While the words are in quotes and do represent the calls from several right-wing politicians in the immediate aftermath of the sentencing decision, the prominence of the phrase speaks volumes. And in case there was any doubt, the paper mostly skips the sentencing to immediately cover the deliberations over whether Azaria’s defense will appeal or seek a pardon.

“The light sentence given did not seal the trial of the ‘Hebron shooter,’” editor Boaz Bismuth writes in a column. “Only clemency for Azaria, if and when it is granted, will bring to a close this Middle Eastern tragedy.”

The thread running through the press coverage is that Azaria did get off easy, even if some, like retired Gen. Uzi Dayan in Israel Hayom, say he should have never stood trial in the first place.

On Yedioth’s front page, Sima Kadmon tells Azaria to take the 18 months he was given and run.

“Think hard, Elor Azaria and think again. Believe me, you got off easy. The sentence you got yesterday is a favor for you. In determining your sentence, the court very much eased your punishment. In the worst case, you’ll spend a couple of months in jail. That’s small change compared to what you did, compared to the bullet that you shot at the head of the terrorist with no justification,” she writes.

Haaretz’s front page also mostly dispenses with the news in favor of analysis/opinion, this time with a triumvirate of columns, two of them harshly critical of the 18-month sentence. Palestinians’ advocate Amira Hass notes bitterly that of course this is what happened, while Amir Oren laments the fact that Azaria could be walking free in six months, marking the army the loser in the whole affair.

“Instead of sending a message of deterrence to soldiers about the rules of engagement and making distinctions between legitimate targets and harming civilians or even helpless enemies, the judges telegraphed a deterrent message to IDF brass: Don’t be silly like the brigade commander and the battalion commander. Shut up, stay in line, and align yourself with the wisdom of the masses and public opinion.”

Other columnists are more forgiving in determining why the military court let him off easy after issuing such a scathing indictment of his actions in rendering its guilty verdict: to forge some sort of compromise, minimizing damage to the army, and the state.

“If this were a math exercise, you could say that it doesn’t add up. But this isn’t math nor is it an exercise. There’s a sense that the judges were influenced by the noises in the background; from the public atmosphere; from the threats, from the damage to public trust in the army,” Israel Hayom’s Yaov Limor writes. “At least some of these things will be calmed now, with the relatively light punishment, and the public protest seemed soothed yesterday. One can also note that politicians, as is their wont, were again not mollified and were quick to send out press releases before the sentence had even been finished being read out, calling for a pardon or against one, in a pathetic attempt to win some headlines for a moment that didn’t help the soldier or bolster the army and its commanders and the trust in them.”

In Haaretz, Amos Harel notes that the pressure from the politicians, along with the lawyers’ talk of appeal, are foiling the tribunal’s attempt to put the affair behind them with the light sentence.

“Ostensibly, the sentence gives the army quite a bit of leeway. The head of Central Command, Maj. Gen. Roni Numa, can decide to reduce it. It can also be decided that Azaria’s prison term will include the 11 months he has already spent in on-base detention,” he writes. “Under those circumstances, he could be out in a few months, if not weeks. That is the direction sought by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is pressuring the army brass to make a decision in this spirit since the day Azaria was convicted. But to reach the resolution the army intends, there has to be peace and quiet on three fronts – the politicians, Azaria’s family, and his lawyers. At the moment it seems that none of the above are cooperating with the army’s intent.”

The anti-Semitism monster

While Azaria dominated the news agenda, it’s not the only story out there, and coverage also focuses on anti-Semitism in the US after a Missouri Jewish cemetery was found vandalized hours after JCCs once again received bomb threats, with US President Donald Trump’s long delayed denunciation of anti-Semitism barely puncturing through the noise.

In a column accompanying the main news story (given the tasteless title “Dying from fear”) Danielle Berrin notes that she used to be with Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in seeing the issue as marginal, but now realizes how wrong she was.

“Something ugly has popped up in American politics recently, and those of us with the privilege of being almost totally immune from ethnic hatred, religious and racism — are finding ourselves treading dangerous and turbulent waters. It’s as if the Loch Ness monster, after sleeping for eons, has awakened and brought hatred and fear to our shores,” she writes.

With Trump speaking out against anti-Semitism, Haaretz’s Chemi Shalev wonders on the paper’s op-ed page if Netanyahu will hop aboard (and the fact that Netanyahu-backing Israel Hayom buries the story on page 28 gives an idea that he probably won’t.)

“Netanyahu is willing to try and placate the American Jewish community and to pretend he cares about them when he feels he has no choice. This is what he planned to do when he still believed that Clinton would win the elections. But now he’s got his new BFF Trump, with his Republican allies and his Evangelical admirers in tow. There’s no reason for him to exert himself,” Shalev writes. “Even if he does finally deign to say something now, his overall attitude over the past few months can be succinctly summed up along the lines of the immortal New York Daily News headline: ‘Bibi to U.S. Jews: Drop Dead.’”