Israel's military justice system declares rape a trivial matter

There are judgments that deliver justice. And there are judgments that send messages. The Israeli military court recently sent a message. Three IDF soldiers, accused of the gang rape of a young Palestinian man – acquitted. Despite documented anal injuries. Despite internal lacerations. Despite broken ribs. Despite a medical officer named Yoel Donchin who documented the injuries. In the same week, the same military prosecutor acquitted five other fighters of sexual assault charges.

The Jewish officer who bravely published the video of the attack—at the cost of her own safety—was arrested. She is now dead. To summarize: The perpetrators are free. The witness is dead. The injuries are documented. The court has ruled.

What an acquittal institutionalizes
An acquittal despite medical documentation is not a legal statement about guilt or innocence. It is an institutional statement about the will to prosecute—or the lack thereof. When soldiers against whom medical evidence of serious bodily harm and sexual violence exists are acquitted, the system sends a message. Not to the accused—they have already received it. But to everyone else. To every soldier who wonders whether certain actions have consequences. To every victim who wonders whether filing a complaint makes sense. To every institution that monitors where the boundaries of what can be prosecuted lie.
The message is this: In this context, sexual violence against Palestinians knows no bounds. This is not the end of case-by-case consideration. This is the beginning of a new normal. Sexual violence as a weapon of war is not prevented by moral appeals – it is prevented by consistent prosecution. Where this is lacking, the practice flourishes. This is not theory. This is the history of the laws of war, documented in every tribunal since Nuremberg.

Settlers, sheep, and threatened murders
Simultaneously, in the same week, in the same region: settlers are shouting threats against Palestinian families. The exact wording is documented – today the sheep, tomorrow the houses, then the children, then the women. This is not rhetoric. This is a declaration.
These threats are being made. Publicly. Without any visible legal consequences. In a context where the military court has just signaled that sexual violence against Palestinians will not be prosecuted. You don't need to be an international lawyer to understand the implications. You just need to be able to read.

The pair of pliers you don't want to leave
And Berlin? It continues to supply. Massive financial and military aid. Unchanged. While these incidents are taking place, they are being documented, reported, and recorded. While military courts hand down acquittals despite medical findings. While settlers issue death threats.
The German state has a raison d'état – that's what it's called here. A moral obligation towards Israel, derived from the history of the Holocaust. This is a serious, legitimate, historically grounded stance. But this raison d'état has its limits. Or at least it should.
The protection of Jewish people—as a principle, as a moral obligation, as a historical lesson—cannot serve as a blank check for silence regarding documented war crimes. The one does not follow from the other. On the contrary: anyone who has truly learned from German history knows where it leads when institutionalized violence against a population group is not named because naming it is politically inconvenient.
The distinction is necessary, it is possible, and it is long overdue: between the legitimate protection of Jewish life and the uncritical support of a military policy that normalizes sexual violence through acquittals. Anyone who refuses to make this distinction turns the protection of Jewish people into a moral weapon against all criticism – and ultimately harms what they claim to be protecting.

War crimes have no origin
Sexual violence as a weapon of war is a war crime. This applies in Ukraine. This applies in the Congo. This applies in Sudan. This applies in Gaza. Not because it's the same everywhere. But because the principle knows no exceptions – and as soon as it knows exceptions, it's no longer a principle, but politics.
Germany and Europe have the means, the voice, and the historical responsibility to uphold this standard. To continue arms deliveries while military courts acquit rapists and medical officers write vain reports – that is not a matter of national interest. That is turning a blind eye with a delivery slip.

History has already turned this page. The only question is, on which side will Europe stand when we turn back the pages…