Israel's Elor Azaria syndrome has come full circle - and 'NAZA' is the consequence - opinion

In recent weeks, Israel has faced two high-profile stories that shed light on the moral character of its armed forces. The first involved the documentary "NAZA," which compiled anonymous testimonies from soldiers and intelligence personnel alleging severe misconduct during the Gaza conflict. The government and IDF vehemently denied these claims, attacking the witnesses' credibility and labeling the film as defamatory.

Meanwhile, President Isaac Herzog decided to clear the military record of Elor Azaria, a soldier convicted of killing a wounded Palestinian terrorist in Hebron in 2016. While Azaria had completed his sentence, the public response to his pardon was not about rehabilitation, but rather as a vindication of his supposed persecution for protecting Israelis.

The conviction remained intact, with a subsequent military court confirming that Azaria fired at Abdel Fattah al-Sharif after he had been wounded, disarmed, and no longer posed an immediate threat. This incident sparked the "Azaria syndrome," a political phenomenon where soldiers who violate orders are portrayed as victims while commanders who enforce those orders are treated as traitors.

The political campaign surrounding Azaria sent a clear message to IDF commanders: investigate suspected wrongdoing at your own peril. This led to a culture of caution, with ambiguity, slow action, and silence becoming safer options than voicing moral clarity or admitting any failures. The documentary "NAZA" exemplifies the power of this syndrome, as it presents allegations of war crimes and misconduct without providing verifiable identities of its witnesses.

The IDF argues that their credibility is at stake due to the inability to verify the identities and service histories of these anonymous sources. However, the military must maintain the ability to distinguish between false accusations, operational mistakes, unlawful orders, and individual crimes, while maintaining the transparency necessary to protect its moral and legal defenses.

Accountability should not be equated with abandoning soldiers, but rather with providing clear, lawful orders, protecting soldiers when they follow those orders, and conducting fair investigations when evidence suggests misconduct.