Israeli soldier gets 18 months' jail for killing wounded Palestinian attacker

[webfact]

Israeli soldier gets 18 months' jail for killing wounded Palestinian attacker

By Rami Amichay

REUTERS

 

Israeli soldier Elor Azaria is embraced by his mother at the start of is sentencing hearing at a military court in Tel Aviv, Israel February 21, 2017. REUTERS/Jim Hollander/Pool

 

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - A young Israeli soldier who killed a wounded and incapacitated Palestinian assailant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on Tuesday, in a show of leniency that drew Palestinian outrage after one of the most divisive trials in Israel's history.

 

Eleven months ago, Sergeant Elor Azaria was serving as an army medic in the town of Hebron in the occupied West Bank when two Palestinians stabbed and wounded another soldier.

 

One of the assailants was shot dead by troops. The other was shot and wounded. Eleven minutes later, as the wounded man, Abd Elfatah Ashareef, 21, lay on the ground unable to move, Azaria, then 19, took aim with his rifle and put a bullet in his head.

 

With the 50th anniversary of Israel's wartime capture of the West Bank approaching, the trial generated debate about whether the military, in accusing Azaria of violating open-fire rules and its ethical code, was out of touch with a public that has shifted to the right in its attitudes towards the Palestinians.

 

In one poll, nearly half of Israeli Jews said any Palestinian attacker should be killed on the spot.

 

A three-judge military court convicted Azaria of manslaughter last month, a crime that carries a maximum 20-year term. Prosecutors had asked for a three-to-five year sentence, noting the soldier had shot an assailant who had carried out an attack only minutes earlier.

 

Passing an 18-month sentence, the court said Azaria, whom it demoted to the rank of private, had "taken upon himself to be both judge and executioner" and had not expressed regret for his crime.

 

But it said it was passing a lighter sentence than requested partly because it had been Azaria's first combat experience and his record had been unblemished up until then. Nonetheless, Ilan Katz, one of Azaria's defence attorneys, said they would appeal the manslaughter conviction.

 

"They are laughing at us," Ashareef's father, Yusri, told Reuters after the sentence was announced. The Palestinian government said the decision gave Israeli soldiers a "green light" to carry out "executions" without fear of real punishment.

 

"HE DESERVES TO DIE"

 

It seemed unlikely that the sentence would lead to any significant outbreak of anti-Israeli violence, which has largely waned since a flurry of street attacks that began in October 2015. Palestinians have long accused Israel of using excessive force against lightly armed attackers, and harbour few expectations soldiers will be held accountable.

 

At his trial, Azaria said he believed the Palestinian, though motionless, still posed a danger because his knife was nearby, and that he might have been carrying explosives. "He deserves to die," Azaria was quoted in the verdict as telling another soldier after pulling the trigger.

 

After the sentencing, there was no immediate comment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on an official visit to Singapore and Australia. Shortly after Azaria's arrest, the right-wing leader took the unusual step of calling the soldier's family to express his sympathy.

 

Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, commenting on Facebook after the jail term was announced, said the "terrorist had come to kill Jews and everyone must take this into account".

 

Rallies for Azaria, some backed by rightist politicians and pop singers, gathered momentum as the trial progressed. "Israel's Hero", read one sign at a demonstration attended by dozens of supporters near the courtroom as the sentence was read out.

 

In the courtroom, in a military base in central Tel Aviv, Azaria's family and friends sang Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem, after the judges left. Azaria, confined to his camp during the trial, was ordered to begin serving his sentence on March 5.

 

(Writing by Jeffrey Heller; editing by Ralph Boulton; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-22

[Somtamnication]

What a joke! What happens when a Palestinian kills an injured Jew lying on the ground? Death! 

[thaibeachlovers]

They should consider what the penalty would be had the situation be reversed and punish accordingly.

It is apparent that Israel considers Palestinians to be of less worth than Israelis. Echoes of something from the past there, methinks.

[dexterm]

The lesson learnt by the so-called most moral army in the world is:  It's OK to extra judicially murder Palestinians, because your sentence will be less than the one received by Palestinian children for stone throwing. But don't worry, your Prime Minister will support a pardon for you making a mockery of Israeli justice. 

 

But the most important lesson of all...in future, don't get caught on camera doing it.

Edited February 22, 2017 by dexterm

[evadgib]

His gloating fizzog on camera at the start of his trial did nothing whatsoever to endear Israels cause to a global audience & nor did his dereliction of discipline.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Anti semitic refers to Jews.   It does not refer to other groups.  

[Mansell]

The hypocrisy in all this is that the leaders expect soldiers to fight by the rules of the Geneva Convention which is a joke. If the Palenstinian had been killed in the initial attacking nobody would care, just another dead person. But because he survived and was summarily executed it is a big deal. This happened thousands and thousands of times in WWII by all sides, and probably in every insurrection since. The reality is you cannot fight wars and kill people by rules. Who is overseeing these absurd rules? If you go off to fight the chances are you might be killed....end of story. The answer is to stop all wars, but that is way in the future. As a soldier under God it is okay to kill....the commandment Thou shalt not kill, is not translated literally from the original. It is actually, Thou shalt not murder. There is a difference....think about it.

[Morch]

What a douche, that's a face asking to be slapped. Doubt he actually gets what he did was wrong.

 

And yes, that's a disappointing outcome which sends all sorts of wrong signals in several directions. All the more so as the prosecution wasn't even aiming at harsh sentence (lower end of 3-5 years in prison), which was by itself a compromise. The one hope things will be salvaged is if his current legal team stays on the case - numpties already "missed" a couple of earlier chances to make it go away on the sly, so there's a possibility they'll bungle the appeal. But wouldn't hold hope high on this one.

 

Rather than drawing a line in sand, this light weight sentence will further promote lawlessness, disregard for legal and military authority and increase friction between Arabs and Jews. Naturally it will have further negative effect on Israel's image, while supporting right wing trends within the country.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

What a joke! What happens when a Palestinian kills an injured Jew lying on the ground? Death! 

 

Nope. There's no death sentence for such offenses. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They should consider what the penalty would be had the situation be reversed and punish accordingly.

It is apparent that Israel considers Palestinians to be of less worth than Israelis. Echoes of something from the past there, methinks.

 

The first part, yes.

The second - Interesting that such objections were not raised when the Israel traded over 1000 Palestinian prisoners in return for one Israeli soldier.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Mansell said:

The hypocrisy in all this is that the leaders expect soldiers to fight by the rules of the Geneva Convention which is a joke. If the Palenstinian had been killed in the initial attacking nobody would care, just another dead person. But because he survived and was summarily executed it is a big deal. This happened thousands and thousands of times in WWII by all sides, and probably in every insurrection since. The reality is you cannot fight wars and kill people by rules. Who is overseeing these absurd rules? If you go off to fight the chances are you might be killed....end of story. The answer is to stop all wars, but that is way in the future. As a soldier under God it is okay to kill....the commandment Thou shalt not kill, is not translated literally from the original. It is actually, Thou shalt not murder. There is a difference....think about it.

 

If this would have taken place under combat circumstances, which would constitute a threat to the soldier's (or his comrades) life - it might have been less of a "thing". There were no such circumstances when he shot the Palestinians, and the court dismissed claims that attempted this line of defense.

 

A war situation does not usually mean constant threat to life, and hence, there are rules regulating how different modes and actions are treated. Granted, this often makes for some murky areas, questionable decisions and problematic constraints. The alternative to not having such regulations is discarding all semblance of morality. That usually carries over a price even after the fighting ends.

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, Mansell said:

The hypocrisy in all this is that the leaders expect soldiers to fight by the rules of the Geneva Convention which is a joke. If the Palenstinian had been killed in the initial attacking nobody would care, just another dead person. But because he survived and was summarily executed it is a big deal. This happened thousands and thousands of times in WWII by all sides, and probably in every insurrection since. The reality is you cannot fight wars and kill people by rules. Who is overseeing these absurd rules? If you go off to fight the chances are you might be killed....end of story. The answer is to stop all wars, but that is way in the future. As a soldier under God it is okay to kill....the commandment Thou shalt not kill, is not translated literally from the original. It is actually, Thou shalt not murder. There is a difference....think about it.

 

2011 Helmand Province incident - Wikipedia

[Jingthing]

This IDF soldier is guilty of a crime.

The punishment is too light. 

But at least it is some punishment. I hope he doesn't win an appeal on even this light punishment. 

[snowgard]

Israel is a SHAME!!! Can't say more!!!

[Jingthing]

Just now, snowgard said:

Israel is a SHAME!!! Can't say more!!!

What's a shame? Every citizen of Israel is a shame? The quality of the hummus? 

[snowgard]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What's a shame? Every citizen of Israel is a shame? The quality of the hummus? 

Took it how you want!!! I am sure you know it self!!!

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, snowgard said:

Took it how you want!!! I am sure you know it self!!!

OK. I'll take it how I want. Israeli humus not as good as Syrian humus. The truth is out there now!

[chilli42]

18 months for murder?  How is justice being served?  What signal does this send to others in the same position?

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

18 months for murder?  How is justice being served?  What signal does this send to others in the same position?

The message is kind of obvious. Good chance to get off easy and even easier if there is no video. 

[manarak]

I think who the victim was and what the victim did just before does matter - can't treat this as straight murder.

[Johpa]

18 months for murder?  How is justice being served?  What signal does this send to others in the same position?

It is akin to judging a policeman for murder for making a bad decision. We arm police and we arm soldiers and then send them into situations that we ourselves avoid. We attempt to train them but often the outcomes are not what was desired. The system failed as much as the individual. Justice is not served by placing the entire onus on the individual. As for the signal, the signal remains clear that there will be consequences unless you think 18 months in prison is inconsequential. I imagine the threat of 30 days in jail is enough to modify most actions of posters here.

[cncltd1973]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

I think who the victim was and what the victim did just before does matter - can't treat this as straight murder.

technically an extrajudicial execution.

soldiers and judges have different responsibilities.

the soldier's task was finished when the attacker was incapacitated.

[joecoolfrog]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They should consider what the penalty would be had the situation be reversed and punish accordingly.

It is apparent that Israel considers Palestinians to be of less worth than Israelis. Echoes of something from the past there, methinks.

I have seen the footage , it was murder , Israel has nothing if it forfeits all the moral high ground.

[joecoolfrog]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

This IDF soldier is guilty of a crime.

The punishment is too light. 

But at least it is some punishment. I hope he doesn't win an appeal on even this light punishment. 

Well said

 

[joecoolfrog]

13 hours ago, oby said:

Arab  Muslim wanted to kill jews 

 Got what he deserved.

The Koran does not say thou shalt not kill,

says kill infidel where you find them  blah blah

Yet its you that is condoning murder here and now !

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed along with reply.  

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

It is akin to judging a policeman for murder for making a bad decision. We arm police and we arm soldiers and then send them into situations that we ourselves avoid. We attempt to train them but often the outcomes are not what was desired. The system failed as much as the individual. Justice is not served by placing the entire onus on the individual. As for the signal, the signal remains clear that there will be consequences unless you think 18 months in prison is inconsequential. I imagine the threat of 30 days in jail is enough to modify most actions of posters here.

 

 

There's some differences, I think, between the police and the military. Using the latter for the former's tasks doesn't always work out (a general comment, not limited to this incident) - that's probably got to do with different training, mode of operation, and age. 

 

As far as consequences go, these usually need to fit the offense. Many feel the OP details a discrepancy which is hard to ignore or justify. It doesn't help things much when records show previous cases where IDF soldiers were sentenced for similar terms for such offenses as destruction of military hardware. And that's without considering the calls for granting a pardon.

[Shawn0000]

Quote

the trial generated debate about whether the military, in accusing Azaria of violating open-fire rules and its ethical code, was out of touch with a public that has shifted to the right in its attitudes towards the Palestinians.

 

Am I missing something or was the debate over whether or not to abandon international law to mob rule?

[Shawn0000]

12 hours ago, manarak said:

I think who the victim was and what the victim did just before does matter - can't treat this as straight murder.

 

But the law doesn't, so who really cares that you would have written some bizarre murder acceptability clause into the law?

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Am I missing something or was the debate over whether or not to abandon international law to mob rule?

 

Whether you're missing something or playing obtuse is an open question. Generally speaking, countries are not ruled by "international law" (which is a convenient label for a whole lot of things), but by their own rules. Additionally, armed forces usually have specific sets of regulations relevant to their duties. Accordingly, the public debate mentioned had more to do with statement made by IDF officers and high command (generally calling for upholding the law) vs. views aired by right wing politicians, and yes, the mob - which called for leniency. This further evolved as threats were made against the judges, as well as against politicians and reporters who were not supportive of the soldier.