Appeals court upholds conviction

Former IDF soldier to begin 18-month sentence August 9

The IDF Military Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction and 18-month jail sentence of the so-called “Hebron shooter,” Elor Azaria, who is scheduled to begin serving his prison sentence on August 9.

During the five-hour reading on Sunday of the decision by Military Appeals Court President Maj.-Gen. Doron Peles, the judges rejected the presentation of all new evidence, as well as arguments by Azaria’s attorney for overturning the original decision.

Azaria was found guilty of

manslaughter by a military court in January for killing incapacitated Palestinian attacker Abdel Fatah al-Sharif in Hebron last March. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, demoted to rank of private in February and released from the IDF on July 20.

On Sunday, Azaria walked into court smiling and wearing civilian clothes, surrounded by family and supporters.

Before the decision was announced at military headquarters in Tel Aviv, Azaria’s father, Charlie, said the family would act with restraint in accepting whatever decision was made. The family was greeted by politicians, including Sharon Gal, Nava Boker and Oren Hazan, who hugged Azaria and his parents.

During the reading of the decision, Peles noted that the appeal judges rejected a defense request to consider police actions during the July 14 terrorist attack at the Temple Mount. In that incident, one of the three gunmen who seemed incapacitated got up and lunged at a police officer, trying to stab him before being shot dead by the officer.

The judges noted that witnesses who testified that they heard Azaria say the terrorist stabbed his friend and deserved to die was supported by the testimony of two sergeants.

The defense team had raised questions regarding the credibility of testimonies from Azaria’s company commander, Maj. Tom Na’aman, and another witness known only as “Cpl. T.” Both testified that they heard Azaria say he shot the terrorist because “he deserved to die after stabbing my friend.”

The judges also noted that Na’aman’s testimony, which supported the prosecution, was problematic and unreliable due to inconsistencies. However, they found the testimony of Azaria’s fellow soldiers to be trustworthy.

The judges also described in detail inconsistencies in Azaria’s testimony during his trial, holding it to be unbelievable and unreliable.

Azaria claimed self-defense, saying he was concerned Sharif would attack again with a knife or that he was wearing a concealed explosive vest. However, the IDF trial court rejected all his defenses as being invented after the fact. It convicted him based on his original explanations to IDF officers on the scene that he shot Sharif out of revenge.

The appeal judges also said inconsistencies in Azaria’s testimony could not be attributed to “post-trauma” as claimed by the defense.

Azaria’s spontaneous admission that he killed out of revenge was uniquely and objectively credible, the court said. It added that he did not mention fear of an explosive device on the spot, but only after the fact, reaffirming the lower court’s ruling that there was no justification for Azaria’s shooting Sharif.

Referring to a video of the shooting filmed by a Palestinian activist for the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, the judges said Azaria “acted coolly and slowly,” even taking off his helmet to hand it to another soldier before shooting Sharif.

“We didn’t find the appellant’s claim he was afraid [the terrorist had] an explosive to be convincing. After hearing the warnings of a possible explosive, Azaria waited two minutes before shooting,” Peles said, adding that Azaria has not accepted responsibility for his actions.

“This behavior is not in line with one who feels like he is in danger. The use of weapons without justification is forbidden, immoral and even harmful,” Peles said, explaining that Azaria’s actions “blatantly violated the rules of engagement.”

“The IDF is not a wild militia. The ethos and moral values of the IDF, the values of the fighting spirit and the purity of arms constitute the backbone of the army that differentiates it from its enemies,” Peles added.

Azaria’s mother, through tears, screamed, “Why, why, why don’t you understand this?” She hollered that the court did not appear to comprehend her son shot a terrorist and was framed.

The trial sparked unprecedented national debate in which several current and former army generals either supported or condemned Azaria’s actions. Many of the IDF top brass – including Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, the IDF Spokesman, and then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon – called his actions “unethical.”

The court on Sunday also ruled against the defense team’s claims that immediate condemnations of the event influenced the judicial process.

“It is no secret the affair has caused controversy in Israeli society. The IDF is the people’s army and soldiers are sent to endanger their lives to ensure the security of the country. The heart of Israeli society goes out to these soldiers. Azaria’s situation evokes empathy, but the ruling is not given in the city square.”

The judges called the sentence “moderate” and rejected an appeal to stiffen the sentence made by the prosecution, which claimed it was insufficient in relation to the severity of the crime. •