Elor Azarya's Sentence: Too Long or Too Short?

Elor Azarya

On September 3,2017, the Palestinian online newspaper Ma’an reported on the court trial of Elor Azarya, an Israeli military soldier convicted of the manslaughter of soldier Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif. The article, entitled, “Israeli military court postpones Elor Azarya’s prison sentence”, covers recent events related to Elor Azarya’s court case as well as statements from the judge and Azarya’s lawyer. Before discussing the article, I will share some undisputed facts about the original event.

According to B’Tselem, the Israeli information center for human rights in the occupied territories, Azarya filmed and shot a wounded Palestinian soldier, Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif after he stabbed another soldier. B’Tselem provided video footage of the event which shows Azarya filming and shooting al-Sharif in the head. B’Tselem also provides statements from testimonies of two eyewitnesses in the area. It should be noted from B’Tselem’s article that this was not the first shooting and killing of a Palestinian that has occurred recently. However, it is one that has filmed evidence to support any allegations or charges.

Last month, 20-year-old Israeli military soldier Elor Azarya was sentenced to 18 months in prison for the manslaughter of Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif. This was Azarya’s response attack to Al-Sharif’s assault of another soldier. Controversy arises when looking more closely at Israel’s shoot-to-kill policy as well as the leniency of the Israeli military court. The policy states that any Palestinian, regardless of their threat level, shall be killed immediately if they engage in a terror attack against a Jew. The debate poses the question of whether or not this was just Azarya obeying military policy. Palestinian leadership has accused the Israeli military court of being way too lenient with their convictions and sentences of Israeli soldiers claiming that they receive sentences “less than a Palestinian child gets for throwing stones.”

Due to the fact that there was no identified author or authors, I did some further research of the Ma’an news agency as a whole. Upon reading their “About ” page, I discovered that Ma’an is partnered with several other news sources to ensure their readers are getting up-to-date information from a wide range of sources.

In the Azarya prison sentence article, Ma’an includes a quote from a similar article published through Ha’aretz  which quotes the family of al-Sharif who said that they were not shocked by the results of this “show trial” and that nothing sufficient would be accomplished. It is important to point out that by the author choosing to include this specific quote, the reader can get a better sense of their point of view. Although there is a general feeling of neutrality in the article, the author includes a quote with a heavy meaning behind it, making it hard not to see their perspective. This was a rather important statement to include because it contributes to the well-rounded nature of the article. It does, however, provide another side of this eventful court case.

The author uses various sources in the article such as Haaretz and Ynet. Haaretz provides direct quotes from al-Sharif’s family while Ynet provides quotes regarding information surrounding the case itself (i.e.: what the judge said and some of Azarya’s lawyer’s actions). The author’s opinion of the situation is not clear but their choice of direct statements and quotes can lead a reader to believe that they have offered more information from one side versus another. The article is full of statements that are not centered on opinion, rather the author uses a variety of quotes and figures that possess a neutral and strictly informative tone. However, both as a reader and “critic” of the article, I did not get a sense that Ma’an was trying to necessarily push any one opinion on its readers. It is just not as balanced as other news reports have been.

Ma’an’s article is filled with statements – both direct and quoted from other news sources. All components of the event are accounted for in some way or another. The author begins the article with information that was presented from another Israeli news website, Ynet. Ynet is known for their reports on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. You can find almost every sentence in the article attached to the words “according to.” It seems as though the author is offering a collection of quotes and information from a variety of sources in order to provide a well-rounded article. Ma’an has been following this case since its start and has continued with this similar written and reporting style. While the article is full of pertinent information, there is more to be seen when looking more closely. Some information is not necessarily fact. It is more of the author’s educated guess. For example, you can find several sentences in which the author claims to know what the views and ideas of the Palestinian consensus are. Due to the fact that there is no statistical or research-based evidence (or even direct quotes) of a large majority of Palestinians, it is not possible to call this fact.

The author includes relevant and direct sources to provide accurate information. There is no evidence of direct public opinion – only al-Sharif’s family’s comment regarding the sentence. It is important that readers get a sense of each party involved in the event. Ma’an provides statements from the judge, Azaraya’s lawyer, and al-Sharif’s family. This makes me confident in knowing that the author tried to include every relevant piece of information possible and did not just settle on reporting generalizations.

When looking at related articles from other news sources, Ma’an does a good job of simply providing facts. Haaretz, for example, does not go in this direction. In Haaretz’s article published three days later, author Gili Cohen seems to throw in some very small hints that can lead a reader to believe she has taken her own position and put it into her article. Instances such as “which seemed to be the lightest sentence to fit the verdict” clearly carry a personal opinion with it. Lahav Harkov from the Jerusalem Post wrote an article entitled “New scale of penalties for homicide gets ministerial approval”. In her article she mentions that the laws in Israel regarding punishment for homicide and manslaughter are originally from the British Mandate. In October of 2015, however, the Justice Ministry approved a change that would make the punishment for reckless manslaughter a maximum 12 year prison sentence.

Azarya being embraced by his mother

It is also important to point out that Ma’an’s article includes a photo that shows Azarya in a car (above) and that is it. Other articles provide photos of Azarya being embraced by his mother (left) or with a big smile on his face (bottom). Ma'an's photo provides nothing except for an image of his face, contributing to the article’s general factual and neutral tone. The author ends the article by providing information from Human Rights Watch regarding Israel’s shoot-to-kill policy. This can leave the reader with their own opinion of whether Azarya was just doing what he was told or if he took a step too far.  However, there are comments in the article that support the claim regarding how infrequent charges are brought against soldiers which can leave a reader wondering why this case differs specifically from the rest.

Azarya with a big smile