New issue in Azaria trial: Who’s in charge of bombs in West Bank – IDF or police?
The IDF prosecution and an Israel police bomb expert fought at the Hebron shooter trial on Sunday over which institution is in charge of addressing bomb threats in the West Bank: the IDF or the police.
The issue is important to the fate of Sgt. Elor Azaria in the Jaffa Military Court trial against him for manslaughter after he shot and killed Abdul Fatah al-Sharif on March 24, after the Palestinian had already been “neutralized” by two soldiers whom he had attacked.
Azaria says he shot Sharif suspecting he was wearing an explosive vest, and is accusing the IDF commanders in the field of failure to quickly call a bomb squad to check Sharif’s person before moving him from the scene – a standard police procedure.
In the incident, the IDF says that it overrode police procedure, having generally established that Sharif posed no threat and after experience that keeping an attack scene open for too long could lead to further attacks.
Throughout the case, IDF and police officials have disagreed over whether it was wise or negligent to move Sharif before he was checked by a bomb expert.
The exchange on Sunday started with IDF lead prosecutor Lt.-Col. Nadav Weissman asking former top Israel Police bomb expert Haim Kapah, “Do you agree that the army is the sovereign in Judea and Samaria?”
Kapah responded, “Sovereign of what?” leading to some laughter from the reporters gallery in light of this weekend’s fireworks between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US over the status of the West Bank.
Weissman narrowed his question to whether Kapah agreed that the army “ruled” the West Bank. Kapah admitted that “the army rules,” but qualified his admission by adding that the police bomb squad was still responsible for bomb-related issues.
Eventually, Weissman got Kapah to agree that the army’s OC Central Command was the supreme commander for the West Bank, but even then he said that the way things work in the field is that each terrorist incident scene runs differently and often the IDF defers to the police both on the ground and for setting the intelligence picture.
Following the exchange, IDF Judge Col. Maya Heller asked Kapah to compare the dangers presented by a potential bomb scene within the Green Line to a potential bomb scene in the West Bank.
Kapah said that many of the dynamics and procedures were the same, but explained that the West Bank was more dangerous since Palestinian terrorists have easier and more frequent access to such areas than they do to areas within the Green Line.
Another bomb squad expert, Ofer Ashkuri also testified for Azaria.
With Ashkuri, Weissman attacked the written expert report he submitted as being identical and copied from other documents used by the defense.
Ashkuri angrily denied the allegation and slammed Weissman and the court for not giving him sufficient respect.
Because Weissman did not ask Ashkuri about the content of his written report, the court did not even allow him to make a general statement about his findings, noting that his report would stand on its own.
Also on Sunday, one of Azaria’s former noncommissioned junior commanders testified on his behalf that he was a very good soldier who never lost control of his emotions or made comments against Palestinians.
In contrast, the former junior commander criticized the three top field commanders in the case, who are all against Azaria, as coming down on him unfairly for making a mistake in a chaotic terrorism scene where most felt their lives were still in danger.
He confirmed the defense’s allegation that he and other soldiers felt swayed to take stands against Azaria due to “the spirit of the commanders” even if in truth they were upset by how he was being treated.
The trial continues on Thursday, likely with the cross-examination of the senior pathologist for the defense, Yehuda His, who filed a report saying that Sharif was dead or dying before Azaria shot him.