Israeli soldier convicted of Manslaughter

[Phoenall]

....I like the "Deal with it" part. "Get over it." "Move on." Or to put it in Tom Petty's words: "Why do you want to lay there, revel in your abandon? It don't really matter to me. Everybody's had to fight to be free. You don't have to live like a Refugee!"

Yet you object when Palestinians fight to be free...

How is targetting children with illegal weapons fighting to be free ?

 

[Phoenall]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Why would he waste the chance to take out 10 Jews when only 1 or 2 are near the IDE ?

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's get this straight. We exercise topic control in Zone2. Posts that are OFF-topic are illegal.
PAGES of posts that are off-topic are thread diversions and will be IMMEDIATELY punished.

If this continues, we will re-activate the 3 Strikes rule in I/P and start chucking people OUT of
the entire forum -- permanently.

Do not reply to this message. Contact moderation to discuss. You all have AMPLE opportunity
to discuss ANYTHING that strikes your fancy. It has to happen in the APPROPRIATE threads.

So that every thread is not the same ole free for all...

THIRTY post deleted. 2 people warned and chucked from thread. Continue..

 

[Lipush]

An Israeli soldier filmed shooting dead a wounded Palestinian attacker after he had been disarmed of a knife has been convicted of manslaughter.

Sgt Elor Azaria, 20, shot Abdul Fatah al-Sharif, 21, in the head while he was lying immobile on a road.
Israeli soldier Elor Azaria convicted over Hebron death - BBC News

Now we watch the sentence

And? Other than prove that Israel is a country of law and order as opposed to Palestinian barbarians.

Listening to this on the news, I was impressed with an interview. There was tremendous public sentiment against the verdict, many thought he should not have been convicted, but the evidence was clear and it was done in cold blood.

Yoaz Hendel is a former combat soldier and the head of an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Zionist Strategies. He says the verdict sends a message that Israelis expect moral conduct even in a tense situation.


YOAZ HENDEL: This is a soldier. This is an Israeli part of us. But in order to live here, you need to be strong enough physically and ethically.​

In this case, both logic and sentiment are on the right side.

 

[Lipush]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

 

[Lipush]

An Israeli soldier filmed shooting dead a wounded Palestinian attacker after he had been disarmed of a knife has been convicted of manslaughter.

Sgt Elor Azaria, 20, shot Abdul Fatah al-Sharif, 21, in the head while he was lying immobile on a road.
Israeli soldier Elor Azaria convicted over Hebron death - BBC News

Now we watch the sentence

And? Other than prove that Israel is a country of law and order as opposed to Palestinian barbarians.

Listening to this on the news, I was impressed with an interview. There was tremendous public sentiment against the verdict, many thought he should not have been convicted, but the evidence was clear and it was done in cold blood.

Yoaz Hendel is a former combat soldier and the head of an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Zionist Strategies. He says the verdict sends a message that Israelis expect moral conduct even in a tense situation.


YOAZ HENDEL: This is a soldier. This is an Israeli part of us. But in order to live here, you need to be strong enough physically and ethically.​

There was an article in Ma'ariv that summed up this "conflict" regarding El'or Azaria perfectly:

"The Israeli public does not support the wrong doing. This crowd support the soldier. This is about the people who serve in the IDF. The people who have children, combatants in Golani, and Giv'ati and Kffir, and these people cannot stand these photos. They cannot stand the fact that an IDF combatant will be suspected of cold blooded murder, after shooting dead a terrorist that just minutes earlier, stabbed both of his friends."

Kelman Libskind, Ma'ariv, 07/01/2017, 17:37

 

[Coyote]

An Israeli soldier filmed shooting dead a wounded Palestinian attacker after he had been disarmed of a knife has been convicted of manslaughter.

Sgt Elor Azaria, 20, shot Abdul Fatah al-Sharif, 21, in the head while he was lying immobile on a road.
Israeli soldier Elor Azaria convicted over Hebron death - BBC News

Now we watch the sentence

And? Other than prove that Israel is a country of law and order as opposed to Palestinian barbarians.

Listening to this on the news, I was impressed with an interview. There was tremendous public sentiment against the verdict, many thought he should not have been convicted, but the evidence was clear and it was done in cold blood.

Yoaz Hendel is a former combat soldier and the head of an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Zionist Strategies. He says the verdict sends a message that Israelis expect moral conduct even in a tense situation.


YOAZ HENDEL: This is a soldier. This is an Israeli part of us. But in order to live here, you need to be strong enough physically and ethically.​

In this case, both logic and sentiment are on the right side.

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before. He was not the judge, jury and executioner. You are either a land and people of law or you aren't. Then you aren't a whole lot better than the one's you are fighting. Once soldiers start breaking discipline and acting unethically....what then? We have had that happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were brought to justice by the military.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

They say the maximum sentence is 20 years. Since the person he killed was only a Palestinian, I say 6 months.

Anyone want to start a pool?

 

[rylah]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

They say the maximum sentence is 20 years. Since the person he killed was only a Palestinian, I say 6 months.

Anyone want to start a pool?

For sure he won't get a monthly salary from wealthy sheikhs and a free academic degree from the Israeli taxpayers' money like the Palestinian prisoners do.
Apartheid I tell ya.

 

[Lipush]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

They say the maximum sentence is 20 years. Since the person he killed was only a Palestinian, I say 6 months.

Anyone want to start a pool?

Ohh boo ******* hoo.

If it was in A palestinian court the shooter would have gotten a monthly payment till the end of his life.

 

[Phoenall]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

They say the maximum sentence is 20 years. Since the person he killed was only a Palestinian, I say 6 months.

Anyone want to start a pool?

Too cold here, so I will let you start one instead, and where did you get your 20 years from ?

 

[Phoenall]

If an IDF soldier who had killed or had attempted to kill Palestinians and was wounded in the effort and was laying helpless on the ground, and was then shot in the head and killed by a Palestinian, the Jews would be crying genocide and holocaust.

A pity then that this is just what team palestine are doing all the time when the IDF respond to violence and terrorism

He was cold bloodedly shot in the head after lying on the ground for 11 minutes. If he had a detonator, he'd likely have used it and not a knife. You can't excuse it beyond the fact that the soldier was young, only 20.

Hopefully his punishment will be to the minumum. In Rivlin we trust?

They say the maximum sentence is 20 years. Since the person he killed was only a Palestinian, I say 6 months.

Anyone want to start a pool?

Ohh boo ******* hoo.

If it was in A palestinian court the shooter would have gotten a monthly payment till the end of his life.

And then his family after he died, which is why the world should look at stopping all aid to palestine

 

[Shusha]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

 

[Shusha]

RoccoR

Begging the indulgence of your expertise with respect to military law...

It would be illegal to execute a wounded combatant, yes?

It is not illegal to attack combatants (soldiers) even if they are not currently engaging in hostilities, yes?

And welcoming any other general thoughts along those lines....

 

[Indeependent]

RoccoR

Begging the indulgence of your expertise with respect to military law...

It would be illegal to execute a wounded combatant, yes?

It is not illegal to attack combatants (soldiers) even if they are not currently engaging in hostilities, yes?

And welcoming any other general thoughts along those lines....

Was the wounded combatant acting as though he was going to detonate a bomb under his uniform?

 

[Coyote]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

In either case, once one is captured it is illegal to kill them.

 

[Shusha]

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

I don't disagree. Keep that in mind.

But the standard you are making here is that combatants are only legitimate targets when they are actively engaged in hostilities -- actively engaged in immediate and hostile action. That is the standard. Once the active and immediate hostile action ceases there is no cause for action.

That means all Arab Palestinian actions which do not meet that standard are objectionable and morally and legally wrong. So, all rocket and mortar attacks on Israelis wrong. All knife attacks are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. All running people over with cars are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. There is no justification in any of those attacks.

(There is a larger implication here, but frankly, it is too subtle for most everyone on this board to understand. You excepted)

Now do you see the double standard in the other thread where attacks on soldiers are justified because they are combatants and therefore subject to legitimate attack?

Your last question is complex and thought provoking.

Whoo hoo! I take that as a compliment. Grin.

It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...

This is true. Why is that, do you think? I mean, its easy enough to put on a uniform and identify yourself as a combatant. Why don't they?

most are civilians

That is debatable in spades

and civilians are never fair targets

We agree. But we also agree the key to this is differentiating what it means to be a "civilian". In ancient warfare there was a very clear line. In modern -- not so much.

In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

Only because the Palestinians deliberately obscure it. You should also define what you mean by "engaged in activities in the 'occupied territories'".

 

[Shusha]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

The part that is most confusing is that Palestine has never had a military.