Defense Minister Israel Katz’s request to pardon Hebron shooter Elor Azaria represents a new low in acting purely on populist political instincts, which will only harm Israel’s national interests both domestically and especially globally.
Katz acknowledged up front that the IDF opposed his request for a pardon.
Previously, then-president Reuven Rivlin also took a hard pass on giving Azaria a pardon.
Most of Azaria’s legal team who had defended him throughout the trial resigned when he tried to appeal his 18-month sentence, telling him he had been given a gift.
Azaria was not convicted of mere “negligent homicide” but of manslaughter, for his actions in 2016. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, with the prosecution arguing on appeal that the severity of his actions warranted a 36-60 month sentence.
He got off easy because of the extreme circumstances
All of the reasons for going easy on Azaria – he was young, had no criminal record, was in a stressful situation where his friends had been harmed, and had shot a terrorist – were already taken into account when he was given the relatively light 18-month sentence, which was later reduced twice by the IDF chief and parole boards, first to 14 months and then to nine months.
Put differently, if Azaria had faced only the law for killing a Palestinian attacker – who was incapacitated and had been barely moving on the ground for 10 minutes after already being shot by another soldier – he would have served twice as long, or up to six times as long, in prison.
He got off easy because of the extreme circumstances.
Why did Azaria deserve such a harsh sentence?
I was there for dozens of hearings and heard very clearly, as did the judges, that both witnesses who were “against” Azaria and those who remained his friends and wanted to help him through their testimony said that he had killed the
Palestinian attacker, who had posed no threat for over 10 minutes, out of revenge.
Azaria admitted this in real time to at least two commanders.
There was no place for revenge killings in the IDF in 2016, and there is no place for it in 2026.
But Katz’s reference to October 7, 2023, is telling and is the main difference now.
The only ethical lesson to be learned is how much more important it is today – after October 7 – even more so than in 2016, when Israel convicted Azaria, sent him to prison, and is not granting him an early removal of his criminal record.
In 2016, Israel was not facing arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court; genocide charges before the
International Court of Justice; a tidal wave of potential economic sanctions; a global wave of antisemitism not seen possibly since World War II; and a loss of allies worldwide, with even loss of American support at risk in the coming years.
All of these dangers were theoretical and were held at bay for several more years.
For sure, some of these problems are flat-out antisemitism, anti-Israel bias (to the extent that the two can ever be separated), and a naive lack of understanding of what Israel is up against versus Hamas-Hezbollah-Houthis-Iran.
Soldiers cannot decide for themselves what IDF values should be
But some are also related to the fact that Israel has hardly prosecuted any of its own during this war, even when new highs of Palestinian civilians were killed along with tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists; when it has prosecuted or probed its own, it has kept the results under wraps or at least under the radar.
Few people know that Israel did prosecute and convict an IDF soldier for beating a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman in 2025.
Many more know that the IDF prosecution withdrew an indictment against five other soldiers for beating a different Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman because of illegal conduct by the previous IDF prosecutor, not because the soldiers were found innocent, as IDF sources made clear to The Jerusalem Post.
Few people know that the IDF has more than 100 criminal probes and over 3,000 disciplinary probes open against its own soldiers because it has, in a shortsighted decision, kept the results of those probes quiet to date.
In fact, the Hebron shooter case is one of the few instances (there are a few others that are less famous) in the last decade when an IDF soldier went to prison for killing a Palestinian.
It can still be held up to show that Israel is capable of such a moral action against domestic populism, something that its enemies would never do, or even think of.
The Hebron shooter case still tells Westerners and Americans who want to believe that Israelis value democracy, human rights, and the rule of law that “we are like you” – not like many of Israel’s dictatorial, non-democratic terrorist enemies.
Internally, it is a case where Israelis can look in the mirror and say, “We are more moral than our enemies, and they have not brought us down to their level.”
Finally, it is a case that shows that IDF orders must be followed by soldiers and that soldiers cannot decide for themselves what IDF values should be.
This is hugely important after October 7, when many soldiers started to ignore their commander’s orders, sometimes swimming in the Mediterranean in defiance of safety protocols, failing to wear helmets in danger zones, or blowing up buildings without proper higher officer approvals.
Katz’s pardon request does not care about any of that; it is catering solely to score some narrow and temporary points internally within a specific part of the coalition’s constituency.
At a time when the number of US Senate Democrats voting against some Israeli weapons sales has risen from around 10-15 to around 35-40 out of 47, and when young isolationist Republicans are turning on Israel in droves guided by Tucker Carlson-types, such a pardon request is pouring buckets of gasoline on an out-of-control fire that desperately needs water.
In any case, perhaps Azaria could have gotten a pardon – if he had helped address the larger problem by taking responsibility. If he had stepped up, admitted he was wrong, and publicly told this generation of IDF soldiers that it is wrong to kill a neutralized person, even an attacker.
But he has done the opposite.
He is proud of what he did, has said so repeatedly, and is now only complaining that some of the social and economic consequences of Israelis who do not want to deal with a convicted killer are grating on him.
Azaria will get his reprieve around 2032, according to set Israeli law and timelines, like anyone else facing a similar manslaughter conviction.
If that law is going to count for something, Azaria needs to serve his time on the criminal registry and remain a symbol that there are consequences for revenge killing – killing that is not in self-defense.