Tell me about these attractions

[Morch]

Have you ever been in a situation where your life just might possibly be taken by a suicide bomber? Would you shoot if you thought, or even remotely thought that might be the case.

You have a split second to decide. If you choose wrong, boom!

Any one engaging in a terrorist activity forfeits their rights. They are intending to kill, maim and seriously injure indiscriminently without any regard for innocence.

Had the deceased not been trying to carry out a terrorist attack he would be alive - Period.

Time the world stopped bleating about the "human rights" of murderous terrorist scum and started thinking more about the rights of the intended victims.

Terrorists the wold over love attacking defenseless people. As soon as someone attacks back they whine and squeal like the cowards they are.

All credit to Israel in holding a trial to establish the facts. If the killed person was not a terrorist, trying to carry out a terrorist attack then the soldier should be punished. If the deceased was a terrorist engaged in an attack then the soldier was defending himself and his colleagues.

Do you think the Palestinian terrorists would treat a wounded Israeli with sympathy and abide by the Geneve Convention or whatever?

The Palestinian was already down, and did not pose any danger at the time he was shot. Stopping an attacking terrorist is one thing, what happened here seems to be different. The defense made several claims regarding the motivations and reasoning leading to the accused soldier's shooting. Most appear to be either far-fetched or not in line with evidence available to the public. The prosecution's point, to put it in your words, is that the Palestinian wasn't "engaging in a terrorist activity" at the time he was shot, and therefore his rights were not forfeited.

The position you are holding is a shortcut to a slippery slope. It is closer to the views expressed by some on Israel's right wing, but differs from how the IDF command sees things. To a certain extent, this represents yet another fault line dividing society in Israel.

As for your last point (and yes, I get what you're saying, and no, this ain't a defense of Palestinian terrorism) - The question is if Israel ought to make the conduct and morality of Palestinian terrorists its benchmark.

[Morch]

Justice in this case not only seen to be done, it's being done in real, and what ever the courts will decide

the soldier faith it will be carried out, I'm yet to see a similar justice for all those Palestinians who committed

crimes on the Jews and Israelis......

Well as Palestine has no real functioning judiciary or police service as it is simply not permitted to then I guess it could be a long time coming before we see Palestinians on trial.

There are multiple Palestinian security and law enforcement agencies, among them a Police force. There is a Palestinian judicial system in place.

The former were created as part of the Oslo Agreements, hence the "simply not permitted" is off mark. The latter were formed by the Palestinian Authority (may want to look up the Judicial Authority Act of 2002, as a prime example).

While both law enforcement and the judicial system may not live up to the high standards of Western democracies, "no real functioning" is incorrect.

[Morch]

In the quote that you conveniently omitted from your reply I pointed out how the most moral army in the world went from being so well trained as to be able to apprehend every knife wielding person in the previous 11 years, but in the last 9 months have suddenly extra judicially executed over 200 Palestinians including the psychopath Azaria's handiwork in the OP.

Clearly it is a result of a shoot to kill policy encouraged by Netanyahu's own cabinet, which is a war crime.

'According to Yediot Aharonot, Economy and Trade Minister Bennett said, “If you catch terrorists, you simply have to kill them.”

National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror reportedly responded by saying that “this is not legal.”

Bennett then allegedly retorted, “I have killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that.” '

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Bennett-under-fire-for-comments-about-killing-Arabs-321467

This is precisely part of the "nauseating trends" that IDF Maj Gen Golan is concerned about in another thread.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/915937-israel-pm-netanyahu-rebukes-deputy-military-chief-over-holocaust-speech/

"In the quote that you conveniently omitted..."

Those who live in glass houses...

Regarding the last linked reference, Golan indeed alluded to the case discussed in the OP (and others), but had a few more things to say. Basically he acknowledged such incidents, while maintaining that they were not representative of the whole, asserting the IDF's moral stance and insisting that the IDF takes responsibility and investigate such case etc. etc....

One may, or may not, agree with Golan's views, but seems that you do not "precisely" refer to his position in full - only to a soundbite serving your agenda.

Quoting the relevant part of the speech in full exceeds TVF's Fair Use rules, and quoting a bit of it would undoubtedly lead to the usual twisting of words. It can be found here (or by a simple Google search) - http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/IDF-general-in-bombshell-speech-Israel-today-shows-signs-of-1930s-Germany-453142

Edited May 11, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

On 5/11/2016 at 5:28 AM, Somtamnication said:

He will be acquitted because of what he did and the nazi-style of how that government is run. The judicial system there is under zero pressure.

First of all to equate the government of Israel with Nazis is pure hate speech but typical of the odious Israel demonization agenda.

 

Secondly, about your prediction ... well ... oops!

 

CONVICTED!

Quote

IDF soldier convicted of manslaughter in divisive Hebron shooting case

 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebron-shooter-verdict-477426

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Jingthing

[Thorgal]

 
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebron-shooter-verdict-477426
 
 

Manslaugther would be the case if his gun went off without aiming, by accident.

In this case he clearly charged, aimed and killed the wounded, harmless Palestinian in the head. This should be premeditated murder.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

 

Manslaugther would be the case if his gun went off without aiming, by accident.

In this case he clearly charged, aimed and killed the wounded, harmless Palestinian in the head. This should be premeditated murder.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Some will never be satisfied. Particularly those pretending to be legal experts.

I think that the prosecution went for a sure conviction, rather than risk him getting off the hook. That you, without being anywhere near the scene or the court think otherwise means little.

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

First of all to equate the government of Israel with Nazis is pure hate speech but typical of the odious Israel demonization agenda.

 

Secondly, about your prediction ... well ... oops!

 

CONVICTED!

 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebron-shooter-verdict-477426

 

 

 

Yes, he was. There are a lot of politicians (mostly right wing) calling his pardon though. And, of course, there's bound to be an appeal. Still a result, though.

[ilostmypassword]

For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia, here's the definition of manslaughter under Israeli law.

The deliberate killing of a person without premeditation (or the other circumstances of murder) is manslaughter for which the maximum sentence is 20 years. The sentence depends on the particular circumstances of the crime and its perpetrator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_in_Israeli_law

If this were a trial by jury of randomly selected civilians, I could understand the rationale for going for a lesser charge.  Not so much in  this case, though, since he was being tried by military judges.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia, here's the definition of manslaughter under Israeli law.

The deliberate killing of a person without premeditation (or the other circumstances of murder) is manslaughter for which the maximum sentence is 20 years. The sentence depends on the particular circumstances of the crime and its perpetrator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_in_Israeli_law

If this were a trial by jury of randomly selected civilians, I could understand the rationale for going for a lesser charge.  Not so much in  this case, though, since he was being tried by military judges.

 

There are no trials by jury in Israel. Different legal system. The difference between the charges would be lesser burden of proof for the prosecution, and less room for legal maneuvering by the defense. If the charge would have been murder, greater emphasis would have been placed on premeditation - which, like it or not, is harder to legally pin. Going for the manslaughter charge meant that the obvious premeditation, even if not sufficient to make a murder charge, would strengthen the prosecution's case.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Morch