Since the Elor Azaria affair began in March 2016, I have seen quite a few comparisons online of this affair to the Dreyfus affair, which occurred about 120 years ago. Most people who agree or disagree with this comparison barely know the Dreyfus affair, but that doesn’t mean, of course, that there is no point in engaging with the subject. Historical comparisons between periods are a fun intellectual activity that can give us an interesting perspective on the era in which we live. So yes, I am just an amateur historian and my knowledge of the Dreyfus affair is based on a very limited number of books that I have read, but I will still try to find the similarities and differences between the affairs. You are of course welcome to join me and write your insights in the comments at the end of the article.
The Dreyfus Affair: A Brief Historical Background
Since the Elor Azaria affair is happening these days and is familiar to all of us, there is no point in exaggerating it in words. On the other hand, it is appropriate to give a brief historical background to the Dreyfus affair, which occurred a long time ago. It all began in 1894 when French army intelligence uncovered a letter sent to the German embassy in Paris containing details of confidential military documents. The person suspected of sending the letter was Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer who served on the General Staff. As a result, Dreyfus was put on trial and convicted based on evidence that was later discovered to be forged. Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil's Island off the coast of French Guiana and his military ranks were stripped from him in a humiliating public military ceremony.
However, the affair did not end there, but only began. Dreyfus's brother, who believed in his innocence, continued to fight and began to collect evidence that his brother's conviction was based on false testimony. Dreyfus's brother was joined by prominent intellectuals such as Anatole France, Bernard Lazard, and others, who did not let the affair fall off the French agenda. Eventually, they were also joined by Georges Picard, the head of military intelligence, who came to the conclusion that the letter had not been sent by Dreyfus but by another officer named Esterhazy. As a result, public pressure was created for a retrial, but the officers in charge of the investigation opposed this and even falsified evidence in order to prove Dreyfus' guilt. Ultimately, after a public struggle that culminated in the "I Accuse" letter published by Émile Zola in the newspaper l'Aurore, it was decided to hold a retrial in 1899 in the city of Rennes. In the trial, Dreyfus was found guilty, despite the evidence in his favor, but President Loubet decided to grant him a pardon. Dreyfus' supporters were not satisfied with this, and after another public struggle, an appeal was filed against the verdict, resulting in Dreyfus being completely acquitted in 1906. This ended the affair for Dreyfus, but from a public perspective, the affair continued to resonate for many years and had quite a few repercussions, the most important of which, for us, was Herzl's decision to adopt political Zionism in its wake.
Similarities and differences between the Dreyfus affair and the Elor Azaria affair
The nature of the offense for which the protagonists of the cases were tried
Here there is a fundamental difference between the two cases. The Dreyfus affair is an espionage affair and the big question from the beginning of the affair was whether Dreyfus did what he is accused of or not. In contrast, in the Elor Azaria affair, there is no dispute from the outset that it was Azaria who shot the terrorist. The question at trial was why he shot the terrorist and whether this shooting was justified. Hence, it can be stated that there is no similarity between the cases in terms of the nature of the offense.
Right versus left
Although both cases involve people fighting against the security establishment of that country, what is interesting is the political identity of those who support that establishment. Those who supported the French army and those who tried to convict Dreyfus at all costs were actually the French right (which consisted of royalists, anti-Semites, and supporters of the church). After failing to prove their anti-Semitic thesis that Dreyfus was a spy because he was Jewish, they changed their message and determined that questioning the military process and the moral purity of the French army would shatter the people's trust in the army and harm security. In contrast, the army was opposed mainly by members of the anti-clerical left. Their message was that it was precisely the cover-up that was damaging trust in the army and that if those responsible for the unjustified conviction were not removed, the competence of the French army would be damaged and with it the security of France. What is interesting here is that the leftists were joined by several right-wingers, who until then had even held anti-Semitic views, but decided to support Dreyfus because of the injustice done to him. The most prominent of these was Colonel Georges Picard, the director of the intelligence department, who, after Dreyfus's conviction, began to doubt the evidence against him. Picard set out to fight for justice and paid a heavy personal and professional price for it (he was sent to serve in Tunisia in order to keep him away from France and was later even dismissed from the army).
In contrast, in the Azaria affair, the picture is completely reversed. Those who support the army are actually the left, while those who support the soldier are the right-wingers and the political center. What is interesting is that the same argument opposing criticism of the army and its commanders that was voiced at the time by the right during the Dreyfus era is being voiced today by the Chief of Staff and his supporters from the left. Unlike Colonel Picard, as of today there is not a single officer in the regular service serving in the Israeli army who is willing to testify in favor of Elor Azaria (even if it means paying a price in terms of his career) and the only officers who support the soldier are retired officers such as Major Generals Uzi Dayan and Danny Biton.
From this it can be concluded that when it comes to the division between the right and the left, when comparing the cases, one sees an interesting mirror image. In the Dreyfus case, the right supports the military establishment, while in the Azaria case, the left supports the military establishment. Despite this, the nature of the arguments in favor of the military establishment remains remarkably similar.
The media and the public struggle
During the Dreyfus Affair, the French public split in two, and with it the press. At that time, about 100 newspapers and magazines were published in Paris, most of which covered the affair and supported one of the sides. On the right were anti-Semitic newspapers such as La Libre Parole, which was the first to attack Dreyfus, while on the left were newspapers such as l'Aurore, which published Emile Zola's famous "Je Accusation".
In the Elor Azaria affair, however, the division is completely different. While in France the public is divided relatively evenly between Dreyfus supporters and opponents, according to Israeli public opinion, it can be seen that the vast majority of the Israeli public supports Elor Azaria. For example: a news company survey that determined that 57% of the public opposes Azaria's arrest or the fact that 74%-82% of the statements on social media were in favor of Azaria (I got this data from the Wikipedia page dealing with the affair ). In contrast, all the major media channels (Channel 2, Channel 10, the newspaper "Yediot Aharonot", etc.) came out overwhelmingly against the soldier. This reached its peak (as of July 2016) during Azaria's trial, when the one-sided and biased coverage of the media led the "Association for the Public's Right to Know" to script the trial protocols in order to bring them to the public in a more objective manner.
Since most of the media unilaterally supported the lawsuit against Elor Azaria, the arena of the struggle moved to the social network. Surprisingly, something similar happened in France during the Dreyfus affair. Since Facebook and the Internet had not yet been invented, the struggle took place in their “ancestors”: the salons. There, Dreyfus’ supporters and opponents met and presented their arguments for or against the Jewish officer. As a result, many of the salons became verbal battlefields, which escalated into violence. The most famous example of this is the duel between Clemenceau, who supported Dreyfus, and Drumont, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper La Libre Parole.
The situation is similar here, except that the arena of debate has moved to the Internet social network, where, as mentioned, the tone rises as each side shares its opinion on the affair. As in the case of the Dreyfus affair, this affair has caused quite a few Facebook members to become enemies and even unfriend each other and anyone who does not think like them. As of now, we have not yet reached the same level of violence that was in France during the affair, but the seeds of this violence are already visible on the ground, with the best example being the attack on demonstrators for Elor Azaria by the left-wing organization Antifa.
In conclusion, it can certainly be stated that there are many similarities between the cases when it comes to the social and media struggle. And if it's more for me to add a personal opinion, if Facebook and the Internet had existed in the 19th century, it would have been very difficult to cover up the forgeries and lies in the Dreyfus trial, and he would certainly have spent a much shorter time on Devil's Island (if he had even gotten there).
Are Elor Azaria and Dreyfus heroes?
On the one hand, the answer to this question is no. Until the incident, Dreyfus was an unknown officer whose military record was not particularly impressive (after all, his military service was equivalent to that of a Jobnik officer in the Kirya. Not exactly the place where heroes are made). The fact that he was accused of espionage and was ultimately acquitted does not make him a hero. Even Elor Azaria, before the incident, was only a private (ordinary soldier), and there are quite a few like him (although, unlike Dreyfus, he is considered an outstanding combat soldier and even received a certificate for it). I assume that most of you will agree with me that his act was not particularly heroic because the shooting was not done during a battle but after it (of course, this assessment would change if it were discovered that the terrorist was wearing an explosive belt and that Elor's shooting saved the soldiers' lives). Hence, it can be said that there is a similarity in the two incidents, since it cannot be said that the heroes of the two incidents demonstrated special heroism.
Is that so?
There is another type of hero in literature and cinema, and that is the tragic hero, that person who stands up to forces much stronger than him, and whose heroism stems not from what he did before but from his dealing with the situation he finds himself in. In my opinion, both Dreyfus and Azaria are certainly tragic heroes who inspire quite a bit of empathy, and for much the same reason. Both found themselves in a struggle for their lives and futures against a security establishment with almost infinite power, which decided to sacrifice them for a similar reason: to cover its own nakedness.
In the Dreyfus case, it was an attempt by the establishment to conceal the fact that it had made a mistake and convicted an innocent man, because then it would have been presented in a ridiculous light in the eyes of public opinion. As a result, senior officers from the French army were actively engaged in fabricating evidence, discrediting witnesses, and finally even smuggling Esterhazy, the officer responsible for the letter, abroad so that he would not be caught. They were joined by external experts brought in by the prosecution who put all their professional prestige on the line when they called for Dreyfus to be convicted. The inventor of the modern forensic identification method , Alphonse Bertillon , went the extra mile, determining from the beginning of the affair that it was Dreyfus's handwriting and refusing to back down from this determination until the day he died, because he did not want to give his critics the pleasure of saying that he was wrong.
In the Elor Azaria affair, we once again see the military establishment’s attempt to cover itself up. Today, it can be stated with great confidence that the initial reaction following the B’Tselem video of then-Defense Minister Ya’alon and the army chiefs was completely wrong. Instead of saying that the matter would be investigated and allowing the operational and MPI investigation to proceed quietly, the same people immediately convicted the soldier, thereby significantly tainting the legal process. Like gamblers who failed in their previous bet and instead of quietly retiring, they try to bet again for an even higher amount, so the IDF leadership continues its attempts to convict the soldier at all costs despite the damage caused to the army by this conduct. Examples of this are the determination of the hostile composition of judges, the recruitment of a lawyer from the legal elite in order to ensure a conviction, and worst of all, conversations between commanders and their soldiers about the affair before the trial even began, which leads to suspicion of obstruction of the investigation.
In conclusion: In this section, I believe it can be stated with certainty that there are many similarities between the Dreyfus affair and that of Elor Azaria, and that both definitely deserve the title of tragic hero.
The impact of the two cases on politics and the nature of the state
The Dreyfus trial began with a simple question of whether the Jewish officer had passed information to the Germans. However, the affair quickly developed into a much larger debate that included political questions that seemingly had nothing to do with the initial question discussed in court. Thus, from a spy trial, the affair became a kind of prosecution of the entire military establishment and later also a discussion of the role of religion in the French Republic. This led to political upheaval and the resignation of Defense Minister Cabignac and a number of defense ministers who followed him. Thus, in the end, Dreyfus the man became a very small part of the affair itself, which is remembered for the upheavals in the French army and the separation of religion from the state that followed it.
Although the Azaria affair is still in progress, it is already possible to see similarities between this affair and the Dreyfus affair in terms of the impact on the political system. The best example is, of course, the dismissal of Minister Ya'alon. However, beyond that, following the affair, issues such as the politicization of IDF officers, the military system's support for soldiers in operational activities, the question of whether it is permissible to sacrifice soldiers in order not to harm enemy civilians, and more began to arise. The focus on these issues has been gaining momentum since the affair broke out, and in my opinion, there is a very high chance that this will cause a change in the IDF and the country in the long term, from a personal and ethical perspective.
In conclusion: Both the Dreyfus Affair and the Elor Azaria Affair caused political upheaval and a change in the political map in their countries, with the Dreyfus Affair even succeeding in bringing about profound change in France and its army.
February 2017 Update: Done and not finished
In January 2017, Elor Azaria was unequivocally convicted by the military court, completely ignoring the many weighty testimonies presented by the defense. The decisiveness and unambiguousness of the verdict, which are very similar to the verdict in Dreyfus' first trial. The difference is in the public reaction to the two verdicts. While the vast majority of the French public condemned Dreyfus and supported his verdict at first (including several people who would later become staunch Dreyfus supporters), in the case of Azaria the public reaction is the opposite, with about 70% of the public supporting granting Azaria a pardon . The difference in public reactions stems from the fact that in the 19th century there was no social network, so information leaked to the public slowly, causing large parts of it to change their minds. In the case of Elor Azaria, the existence of the social network and various news sites such as Mida allowed the public to receive real-time reports on the development of the trial. As a result, facts that were inconvenient for the prosecution were revealed, such as the scandalous conduct of the command at the scene, and caused a strong public reaction that was reflected in the various polls during and after the trial.
As mentioned, the first round of the Azaria trial is over, but the affair is still far from over. As in the Dreyfus trial, an appeal will be filed by the defense here, but unlike the original case, the appeal will be filed in a short time, and an interesting legal and public battle is expected. Is Sheptel going to be a combination of Fernand Laborie (Dreyfus's lawyer) and Emile Zola? Is the Kfir Brigade Commander who allegedly tried to disrupt the trial when he met with Elor Azaria's father the new Colonel Henry (Colonel Henry tried to bring about the re-examination of Dreyfus by forging documents and disrupting the trial)? Is the comparison so far unfounded or will reality continue to present the similarities between the cases? Do you agree with the comparison or do you object? I would very much like to hear your opinions in the comments below.
August 2017 update
Like Dreyfus, Elor Azaria was also convicted on his appeal, even though the appeal completely shattered the testimony of the company commander, one of the key pieces of evidence on which the court relied for the original conviction. Dreyfus was sentenced on appeal to 10 years in prison, but 10 days later he received a pardon from President Luba and was released. Elor Azaria, on the other hand, was sent to prison for a year and a half and is awaiting a reduction in his sentence by the Chief of Staff or a pardon by the President of the State. Like Dreyfus, Elor Azaria also has strong public support, as evidenced by the crowdfunding campaign for a “release grant” for him, which raised approximately 220,000 in a very short time. I believe that no matter how long Elor sits in prison, the fight for his acquittal is not over and, like Dreyfus, he will continue to fight for his good name even after he is released.
More on the subject
Vanity of vanities.
Look at the mob that supports Alor, La Familia, Hatzel, Lehava, Miri Regev and Bitan... and it's implied that you too.
In the meantime, there was an appeal, and in both of them, Elor and his Minister of Defense, the moral and noble man - Sheptel, lost.
Is this also a court of law, as you imply, that ignores details and facts?
I suggest you deal with tourism and leisure issues - preferably.
deer,
Excellent comparison between the two cases, I compared the cases on the subject of the public echo, you bring here an excellent comparison of the similarities and differences. I really enjoyed reading, you drew my attention to points that I hadn't thought about. Thank you, thank you
Thank you.