Netanyahu calls for pardon of convicted soldier

[Ulysses G.]

He was not a policeman. He was a soldier and one of his comrades had been stabbed by an Islamic terrorist - for no good reason - a few minutes before. No wonder there is not a lot of sympathy for the Muslim fanatic.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

He was not a policeman. He was a soldier and one of his comrades had been stabbed by an Islamic terrorist for no reason a few minutes before. No wonder there is not a lot of sympathy for the 

BS and thankfully the Military court of the IDF wholeheartedly disagree with you.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

BS and thankfully the Military court of the IDF wholeheartedly disagree with you.

 

Not nessesarily. As I have pointed out, he was convicted of manslaughter - not murder.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[daveAustin]

I'm not a lover of murderous Muslims and the bastardisation of their twisted faith, but anyone who sees the actions of the Israeli solider as being fair play need to have a long look at themselves. Good on the judiciary (and now I see they have received death threats), but it is clear that a swathe of the country agree with his actions, including that pillock Nutanyahoo. Alright, we don't live there so can't comprehend how it must be to know your next door neighbour wants you eliminated, but still it is wrong wrong wrong and they are as much the aggressor as the Palestinians.

[Ulysses G.]

 

3 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

I'm not a lover of murderous Muslims and the bastardisation of their twisted faith, but anyone who sees the actions of the Israeli solider as being fair play need to have a long look at themselves. 

 

No one said it was "fair play" but understandable to shoot a hateful terrorist who just tried to kill your friend in cold blood.

[Andaman Al]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

No one said it was "fair play" but understandable to shoot a hateful terrorist who just tried to kill your friend in cold blood.

No. That is not what professional military do. It is NOT how we behave.

[kamahele]

16 hours ago, cooked said:

If it had been a Palestinian that did this he would have received a reward and praise from Hamas.

Which is exactly what the Israeli government is doing. Apparently Hamas and the right wing Israeli government are more alike than they would like to admit.

[Scott]

A baiting post has been removed.   Please stay on topic.  

 

[cooked]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

His peers, military judges who presumably understand what it's like to be a soldier, examined and dismissed every single one of the killer's excuses. Yours is a new one not mentioned in the trial;  that the convicted killer, while surrounded by dozens of heavily armed IDF and fanatical settler supporters, was afraid Israeli hostages might be taken by an injured, unarmed Palestinian. Your theory doesn't hold much water.

 

But I agree: I am sure in the past extra judicial killings have been committed more discreetly, and possibly as a result of this conviction will be perpetrated more circumspectly in future. Or, hopefully, it may send a message to IDF soldiers that this behavior is plain wrong.

 

Of course, if he is pardoned the message to the "most moral army in the world" will be very clear:  we don't even need excuses to kill Palestinians.

Why are you putting words into my mouth?? I said nothing of the sort. I  am surmising why there is a shoot to kill policy. Tone down the hate a little bit, the Palestinians have enough of that for everybody. Israel  is at war, people die.

[LannaGuy]

44 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

No one said it was "fair play" but understandable to shoot a hateful terrorist who just tried to kill your friend in cold blood.

 

to shoot an unarmed man lying on the floor only leads to perdition and it is a lack of discipline just because you have a gun does not give the right to execute (Palestinian OR Israelis)  

[Cook my sock]

If he was wounded lying on the ground, how was it manslaughter

[evadgib]

Smug footage of the shooter in uniform at court do nothing for the image of the IDF or Israels cause on the world stage.

[evadgib]

Of interest to anyone seeking a comparison:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/jailed-marine-alexander-blackmans-defence-team-fell-standard/                  

 

[dexterm]

We've all seen the original footage. Most sensible people's reaction at the time was:  cold blooded extra judicial execution.

 

Then we had a TV thread in which we listened to the usual Israeli apologists trotting out a whole panoply of excuses.

 

The military judges, much closer to events and testimony than we, heard and debunked all those same excuses, leading them to the conclusion that the killing was exactly what we saw: an extra judicial execution motivated by vengeance. Fair trial; proven verdict.

 

Now Netanyahu, Bennett and over half the Israeli population they saw the same footage too, but are now saying: yes, although it was a proven extra judicial killing, it's OK..it's worthy of pardon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-elor-azaria-case-man-arrested-inciting-violence-judges-a7511141.html

 

And what about the next time it happens, and the next, will those murders be pardonable too?

 

What would that message be saying to the IDF, to Palestinians, to the whole world about Israeli justice:   ....yes, it's murder, but that's just fine.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The Palestinian terrorist had stabbed another Israeli soldier 11 minutes before he was shot - hardly "a long time". No wonder so many people want leniency for the Sergeant.

 

One of the dilemmas. Terrorists want to retain all their rights, civil liberties, HR rights, access to medical treatment, fair trials and treatment when arrested. But they are happy to deny others, including service personnel, innocent civilians, men, women, children, old and infirm with their the same.

 

Does a state lower itself to the level of the terrorists' morals or does it maintain the higher moral ground?

 

Hard to answer. But, I've much more sympathy for the soldier than the terrorist.

[Baerboxer]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

We've all seen the original footage. Most sensible people's reaction at the time was:  cold blooded extra judicial execution.

 

Then we had a TV thread in which we listened to the usual Israeli apologists trotting out a whole panoply of excuses.

 

The military judges, much closer to events and testimony than we, heard and debunked all those same excuses, leading them to the conclusion that the killing was exactly what we saw: an extra judicial execution motivated by vengeance. Fair trial; proven verdict.

 

Now Netanyahu, Bennett and over half the Israeli population they saw the same footage too, but are now saying: yes, although it was a proven extra judicial killing, it's OK..it's worthy of pardon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-elor-azaria-case-man-arrested-inciting-violence-judges-a7511141.html

 

And what about the next time it happens, and the next, will those murders be pardonable too?

 

What would that message be saying to the IDF, to Palestinians, to the whole world about Israeli justice:   ....yes, it's murder, but that's just fine.

 

Had the knife attacking terrorist stabbed and killed someone, been arrested tried and convicted and sentenced to death and executed would you be o k with that?

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Hard to answer. But, I've much more sympathy for the soldier than the terrorist.

 

Most moral people do. A man reaps what he sows.

[evadgib]

37 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

One of the dilemmas. Terrorists want to retain all their rights, civil liberties, HR rights, access to medical treatment, fair trials and treatment when arrested. But they are happy to deny others, including service personnel, innocent civilians, men, women, children, old and infirm with their the same.

 

Does a state lower itself to the level of the terrorists' morals or does it maintain the higher moral ground?

 

Hard to answer. But, I've much more sympathy for the soldier than the terrorist.

 

Double standards are extremely one sided, especially when yesterdays terrorist is today's politician:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2464154/ira-fiend-joe-mccann-used-kids-to-lure-soldier-to-his-death-while-ex-paratrooper-stands-in-dock-accused-of-killing-terrorist/    

[Jonmarleesco]

23 hours ago, webfact said:

'... others including top military figures say his actions do not reflect the values of the Israeli Defence Forces.'

They do, however, reflect those of the PM.

[Jonmarleesco]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

One of the dilemmas. Terrorists want to retain all their rights, civil liberties, HR rights, access to medical treatment, fair trials and treatment when arrested. But they are happy to deny others, including service personnel, innocent civilians, men, women, children, old and infirm with their the same.

 

Does a state lower itself to the level of the terrorists' morals or does it maintain the higher moral ground?

 

Hard to answer. But, I've much more sympathy for the soldier than the terrorist.

Israel, under Netanyahu, has lost sight of whatever moral high ground it might have enjoyed.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Had the knife attacking terrorist stabbed and killed someone, been arrested tried and convicted and sentenced to death and executed would you be o k with that?

Apart from not wishing to play the game of hypothetical deflections and disputing your terminology.

 

No I would not be OK with that. I don't believe in capital punishment and nor does the state of Israel apart from for genocide I believe.

 

That's why the killer has been found guilty under Israeli law of extra judicial execution. And that's why his crime is unpardonable, because then Israel would be endorsing capital punishment.

Edited January 6, 2017 by dexterm

[Cook my sock]

Was this Islamic terrorist Palestinian in his own country when he got shot? Just a question

[oldsailor35]

On 1/5/2017 at 2:48 PM, keith101 said:

This was premeditated murder not manslaughter and should have been convicted as such and to say he should be pardoned by the PM is ridiculous and beyond belief .

How in the hell do you know what was going on in that young mans head at the time. Easy to stand back in safety and pass judgement, but military action can effect people in different ways. He only saw danger and we all know that these terrorists will not hesitate to blow themselves  and all around to smithereens. This is what he imagined and when he saw the  desceased move took quick immediate action. He never had time to premeditate the action, so settle back in your armchair and play with your keyboard.

 

[oldsailor35]

These Arabs were terrorists whose sole intention was to knife an innocent person to death. They failed, but at the same time surrendered their own right to life. The best result with these two terrorists has been achieved. They are dead and good riddance .

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

So being sly and insinuating and not forthright is my modus operandi?  I defy you to find any posting of mine that does that.  But all of a sudden, on this topic, I go all coy?  I've noticed that every time you don't have a good factual answer for something or a comment makes you uncomfortable, you resort variously to questioning motives and outright character assassination.  Quite a character flaw there.

 

 

You "defy" me? lol. What  a drama queen.

Seems like whenever your sincerity is questioned you throw a fit. Allow me to continue being unimpressed.

I have actually addressed your question, if briefly.

Now, if you're quite finished with your personal issues....can we get back to the topic?

 

[Morch]

Here's a general comment, for the benefit of all would be law experts. Countries have different  legal definitions of what constitutes murder, manslaughter or whatever. Similarly, there are differences in the burden of proof required. Now, doubting that anyone here (myself included) has specialized knowledge of Israeli laws pertaining to this case, had full access to the proceedings - opining on what should have been the charge is irrelevant.

 

As far as I understand, the main consideration was securing a conviction, and manslaughter being easier to establish and harder to dismiss. It will also make a successful appeal less likely. Some may not be satisfied by that, personally I don't think it matters much as long as he ends behind bars.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

Congratulations, the Israeli justice system, in securing a conviction for manslaughter. I personally think the man is a cold blooded psychopath, who thought he could get away with murder in the culture of impunity in the IDF at the time.

 

He has had a fair trial. The prosecution completely demolished his excuses and ever changing story. The man has been found guilty by his military peers.

 

"The judges went through every shred of evidence the defence put through for Azaria, the 20-year-old who maintained throughout the trial that he was innocent as charged.

However, what was said time and time again throughout the 2.5-hour judgment was that Azaria's accounts didn't add up."

read on for his litany of failed excuses..
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/netanyahu-calls-pardon-convicted-soldier-azaria-170104190028634.html

 

Israel at the moment has earned itself some brownie points.

 

So my question is: what good in the cause of peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians would be served by pardoning this convicted killer? It would blatantly send the wrong message that even if you have been found crystal clear guilty of extra judicial killing, it's OK anyway. Because the killer is an Israeli Jew and the victim merely a Palestinian.

The two communities would see this obvious message of incitement which would lead to more violence.

And so would the rest of the world, undermining any kudos Israel has gained in even bringing this trial and conviction.

 

Why pander to a convicted murderer who deserves not an ounce of sympathy, when it may lead to more violence and deaths and exposure of Israel's hypocrisy?
He did the crime; let him do the time.

 

From purely pragmatic security considerations, what's the point of pardoning him? It would be a travesty of justice, but where Netanyahu is concerned maybe he has a different agenda.

 

The calls for pardon are largely immaterial as far as relations between Israelis and Palestinians go. These are already royally messed up. Palestinians (and yourself, obviously) are rather set in their views on this front.

 

Netanyahu does not pander to the convicted soldier, but to what he sees as a popular stance among his voter base. Generally speaking he is once again competing with other, more extreme right wing politicians, and following their lead. His words, in turn, lend a measure of "legitimacy" to the support, and enhancing it as mainstream.

 

The same thing was evident with his support for legislation pertaining to the illegal settlements in the West Bank, and other issues.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

Apart from not wishing to play the game of hypothetical deflections and disputing your terminology.

 

No I would not be OK with that. I don't believe in capital punishment and nor does the state of Israel apart from for genocide I believe.

 

That's why the killer has been found guilty under Israeli law of extra judicial execution. And that's why his crime is unpardonable, because then Israel would be endorsing capital punishment.

 

Funny. Hypothetical events are a rather constant feature in your posts. So is using disputed terminology.

 

The soldier was not found guilty of "extra judicial execution". These would be your own words, not the court's. The same goes for your assertion regarding the crime being "unpardonable", or a pardon being endorsement for capital punishment. Generally speaking, pardons do not reflect on the norm but on extra-ordinary cases. Not that it would make a potential pardon of the soldier any more just or wise.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, oldsailor35 said:

How in the hell do you know what was going on in that young mans head at the time. Easy to stand back in safety and pass judgement, but military action can effect people in different ways. He only saw danger and we all know that these terrorists will not hesitate to blow themselves  and all around to smithereens. This is what he imagined and when he saw the  desceased move took quick immediate action. He never had time to premeditate the action, so settle back in your armchair and play with your keyboard.

 

 

The judges pretty much did away with these lines of argumentation.

[geriatrickid]

20 hours ago, Thorgal said:

It's premeditated murder with intention to kill. Read execute. It was a headshot.

An execution can never be manslaugther. It's murder.

The soldier has formed the intent to kill and has had time, however brief, to reflect on the matter.

Video footage proves that he came closer to the unconscious victim, gave his helmet to another soldier, unlocked and charged his weapon, aimed at the victims head and shot him dead.

The evidences are on the video footage.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Those are your conclusions based upon your personal bias. Israeli law did not define this incident as premeditated murder. Common law  of the UK, Australia, Canada  etc. does not define the incident as  premeditated  murder either. It isn't premeditated under  French or Italian or Spanish law either. Know something else? It isn't under Jordanian or Turkish law either.  Come back and foment when you understand the difference  between premeditated  murder and manslaughter.  

 

Evidence is more than a video recording. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you spew such silliness? It  was impossible to prove that the accused had engaged in deliberate planning sand that this  event wasn't induced by emotion. It was more likely that this was an emotionally driven event for the simple reason that these assailants had been rampaging for weeks stabbing women in the back, running down old people and kids and  then the stabbing of the soldiers. Emotional  dysfunction was a direct result of the ongoing assaults. The accused was of the arab culture. This is how arabs react to events like this. For someone so extremist in his views, I would expect you would empathize with an arab doing what is normal  in his culture.