The case of Elor Azaria – the “Hebron shooter” – has cast a long shadow over Israel over the past 10 months. The baby-faced, diminutive soldier who fatally shot a wounded Palestinian attacker in the head exposed multiple faultlines in a country that itself seemed at times to be on trial.

For the military, whose senior officers pushed for a prosecution, the case and the international attention that it drew appeared clear cut from the beginning, not least with the threat of action against Israel in the international criminal court.

Commenting after Azaria’s conviction for manslaughter, the military prosecutor Nadav Weisman reiterated this point, saying the verdict was “important, clear, decisive and speaks for itself”.

For the right, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who wavered between condemning Azaria’s acts in the immediate aftermath and phoning his family, Azaria represented something else: an object of sympathy.

His supporters relentlessly played up the image of Azaria, who was often pictured in court with his mother’s arms around him, not just as a son but as a young and immature soldier who could have been any Israeli’s child.

Elor Azaria in court, surrounded by his family. Photograph: Reuters

It was a representation rejected by the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Gadi Eisenkot, speaking at a conference the day before the verdict.

“An 18-year-old man serving in the army is not ‘everyone’s child’,” Eisenkot commented sharply. “He is a fighter, a soldier, who must dedicate his life to carry out the tasks we give him. We cannot be confused about this.”

The three-judge military panel also rejected the idea. “One cannot use this type of force, even if we’re talking about an enemy’s life,” said the presiding judge Maya Heller, reiterating a key principle of human rights law in conflict.

Instead, the judgment made clear Azaria was a serial liar who changed his stories about the circumstances of the killing on multiple occasions. His defence team – as the judges pointed out – were little better in arranging their case.

So confident were they that he would be viewed as the victim, they did not even bother squaring the many glaring and impossible contradictions in their defence, which were pulled apart in the judgment.

Israeli soldier shoots dead wounded Palestinian attacker (WARNING: contains graphic images)

Accusing his commanders, politicians and even the judges of bias, their narrative was one that has become familiar among Israel’s vocal right and far right: that they are the perpetual victims, of the left, the media, human rights groups and international opinion.

Despite appeals from some politicians to keep the verdict “out of the political arena”, far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition immediately demanded a pardon for Azaria, with the culture minister, Miri Regev, telling Israeli television the soldier should not have faced a criminal trial. Where they led, Netanyahu followed and on Wednesday evening joined calls for a pardon. “The soldiers of the IDF are our sons and daughters, and they need to remain above dispute,” he said in a statement.

The question now is what the verdict will mean. A pardon remains a possibility.

Human rights groups were quick to point out that the focus on Azaria masked a wider problem of impunity.

Welcoming the verdict, Sari Bashi, the Israel advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Today’s conviction is a positive step toward reining in excessive use of force by Israeli soldiers against Palestinians.”

Amnesty said the conviction offered “a glimmer of hope that soldiers who commit unlawful killings may no longer go unpunished”.

But despite the conviction, other questions have not been addressed: why, for instance, was no medical aid given to the badly wounded Abdel Fattah al-Sharif?

Indeed, why did no medical personnel approach the wounded and incapacitated Sharif apart from Azaria, a military medic, whose duty should have been to deliver aid but who instead had in mind to kill him?