Netanyahu Supports Pardon for Convicted Hebron Shooter Elor Azaria

[Valar Dohaeris]

'This is a difficult and painful day for all of us,' Netanyahu says after court convicts Elor Azaria for killing prone Palestinian assailant. Calls for pardon are 'ignorance and slogans,' Defense Minister Lieberman says.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that he supports pardoning Elor Azaria, the soldier convicted earlier in the day of shooting dead a prone Palestinian assailant in Hebron last year.

"I support a pardon for Elor Azaria," the prime minister said in a short statement. “This is a difficult and painful day for all of us - and first and foremost for Elor and his family, for IDF soldiers, for many soldiers and for the parents of our soldiers, and me among them."

Netanyahu called on the public to react with responsibility to the IDF, its officers and the chief of staff. "We have one army, which is the basis of our existence. The soldiers of the IDF are our sons and daughters, and they need to remain above dispute.”

In an interview with Channel 2 shortly after Netanyahu issued his statement, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman termed calls for Azaria's pardoning "ignorance and slogans."

Azaria, now 20, an Israeli Defense Forces medic, shot and killed Abd Fatah al-Sharif in Hebron in March last year. The shooting was captured on video by a Palestinian human rights activist and widely distributed. At the time of the shooting, Sharif was lying on the ground motionless after being shot while attempting to stab an Israeli soldier.

Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter by a three-judge panel in the Tel Aviv Military Court on Wednesday in one of the most polarizing trials in Israeli army history.

Israeli politicians, among them Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Culture Minister Miri Regev called for the soldier to be pardoned and Azaria's lawyer vowed to appeal the ruling.
The months-long trial has highlighted deep rifts in Israeli society. Hundreds protested outside of the courtroom in Tel Aviv ahead of the verdict, clashing with police, counter-protesters and media.

President Reuven Rivlin may face a request to pardon him. Procedure stipulates that the defense minister and chief military prosecutor must both submit a pardon request to the president, who has the authority to pardon Azaria if such a request is submitted to him.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett has already stated that Azaria should be granted an immediate pardon. In private talks, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has not ruled out that possibility either.

Military law also allows for the sentence of someone convicted in military court to be reduced at the request of the IDF chief of staff or the officer commanding one of the general commands.
While the maximum sentence for manslaughter by law is 20 years, it is not expressly reasonable that the sentence will come even close to so long an imprisonment. The last soldier convicted of manslaughter was Taysir Heib, a member of the Bedouin reconnaissance battalion, who shot and killed British citizen Tom Hurndall. He was sentenced in 2004 to eight years, and he ended up serving six-and-a-half years.

Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev (Likud) sent an official pardon request to the defense minister.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett called for Azaria to be pardoned "immediately." The entire proceeding, Bennett said, “was contaminated from the beginning,” with politicians making grave comments before the investigation of the case even began and “causing Elor irreversible harm.”

“Today a soldier who killed a terrorist who deserved to die, who tried to slaughter [another] soldier, was placed in shackles and convicted as a criminal,” said Bennett, who heads the right-wing Habayit Hayehudi party.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.763054

 

[NakedLunch]

Why not? If Israel can honour the psychopathic murdering Baruk Goldstein then why not do this? The Jews who supported the Nazis are the same ones who supported the formation of Israel. Yes, there were plenty of Jews who supported and fought for the Wermacht.

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

Why not? He is kind of National Hero...

 

[WaLeEdK2]

Why not? If Israel can honour the psychopathic murdering Baruk Goldstein then why not do this? The Jews who supported the Nazis are the same ones who supported the formation of Israel. Yes, there were plenty of Jews who supported and fought for the Wermacht.

George soros is one of them.

 

[NakedLunch]

George soros is one of them.

George Soros hunted other Jews for the Hungarians/Nazis in the Second World War. Do you know what he said when he was questioned about it? He said, 'If I didnt, others would have'. Scum. He is a zionist too, par exelance.. Israel is a State born out of the marriage between Nazism and Zionism. It is a bastard child/monster worse than Frankensteins'.

 

[Avicenna]

So every time one of us muslims beats up on one another based on ethnicity, etc, etc, I am reminded by articles like this to put aside petty BS and think of the common Muslim good. This article really pissed me off. And the truth of it is, this event is probably the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuse by the IDF in regards to treatment of Palestinians.

 

[DavidSling]

LOL, I read the comments here and I laugh.
I want to see any arab country that will prosecute a SOLDIER who shooted A TERRORIST.
Double standards everywhere in this forum.
this "Poor" palestinian tried to stab people before he was shoot down

 

[NakedLunch]

LOL, I read the comments here and I laugh.
I want to see any arab country that will prosecute a SOLDIER who shooted A TERRORIST.
Double standards everywhere in this forum.
this "Poor" palestinian tried to stab people before he was shoot down

If Arab country's and their conduct are your marker for morality then you are in serious trouble, boy. How about you adhere to the Jewish dictum of describing its morality 'standing on one foot'. Which Rabbi said that?

 

[DavidSling]

If Arab country's and their conduct are your marker for morality then you are in serious trouble, boy. How about you adhere to the Jewish dictum of describing its morality 'standing on one foot'. Which Rabbi said that?

What's more "Moral" than judging an IDF soldier for "wrong" shooting of a TERRORIST?
I dare to say most countries in the world wouldn't do it.
u're comments only show me the amount of no sense and blindness with everything to do with Israel.
have a nice day

 

[Avicenna]

While i have great respect for the Jewish people and personally many Jewish individuals i have met, Netanyahu and his government are no better than many Arab governments. If your government behaves like this, then forget any moral high ground to any argument.

 

[hussain0216]

What's more "Moral" than judging an IDF soldier for "wrong" shooting of a TERRORIST?
I dare to say most countries in the world wouldn't do it.
u're comments only show me the amount of no sense and blindness with everything to do with Israel.
have a nice day

You go into hebron, you go into this mans home, degrading his people and whilst he is on the floor callously murder him

You cant expect better from a apartheid state

 

[NakedLunch]

What's more "Moral" than judging an IDF soldier for "wrong" shooting of a TERRORIST?
I dare to say most countries in the world wouldn't do it.
u're comments only show me the amount of no sense and blindness with everything to do with Israel.
have a nice day

Yes they would, and they do. The issue here is not about a soldier or his acts in a time of war/perception of war (Nuremburg trials notwithstanding) but of what it means to be a Jew. Israel is a Jewish State, stated by many so no dispute, how does a Jew defend its actions? However, if you are secular and Judaism is not your guiding lighthouse, then why condemn nazis?

 

[Brutas]

Reality is Israel is ruled by European Jews. Dark Arabs to them are not much different than say aborigines of Australia or Indians in America's.
Even Abba Eban, the South African born Labor party Foreign Minister of Israel, once said (during 67 war) " A Bedu is a savage, irrelevant if he rides a camel or drives a Cadillac". Interestingly his native South Africa was under apartheid regime.

 

[Solomon2]

• 
  Thursday, January 05, 2017
• 
  Elder of Ziyon
• 
  Opinion, Vic Rosenthal

The Azaria verdict (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column​

At 10 AM on Wednesday, a military court handed down the verdict in the manslaughter trial of Sgt. Elor Azaria, called by the media “the soldier who shot in Hevron.”

10 months ago, Azaria shot and killed an Arab terrorist who was lying on the pavement, several minutes after the terrorist was shot and wounded while stabbing another soldier, who was lightly injured.

The IDFs rules of engagement stipulate that deadly force should not be used in such circumstances (considered “law enforcement” rather than war) unless there is an “immediate threat to life.” Azaria said that he thought there was such a threat, that the terrorist could have been wearing an explosive vest under his jacket.

He was initially charged with murder, but the prosecution decided that it would be difficult to prove premeditation. The manslaughter charge only requires a deliberate, wrongful killing. He could be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison; but probably he will get much less than that.

In Israeli military court there are three judges, one of whom is the head judge, a professional who is appointed by the President of the state, on recommendation of the Judicial Selection Committee, like civilian judges. The other two can be officers who may not have a legal background. In this case there were two professionals and a field commander. Cases are decided by a majority vote. There are no juries.

The verdict and the penalty turn on whether the judges believe Azaria’s testimony. They could have decided that he lied, or that he was telling the truth but should have acted differently, based on the information available to him. Or they could decide that he told the truth and that his action was justified.

The trial has been the biggest thing in the media for the past months, bigger than all the countless sexual harassment scandals put together. The country is strongly divided about the appropriate response to Azaria’s act, ranging from jail time to a medal. Before the verdict was announced, there were rowdy demonstrations in his favor outside the courtroom (which had been moved to a more secure location and closed to the public).

It’s important in this connection to note why the incident became a media circus. The shooting was videotaped by an activist for the left-wing NGO B’tselem and the tape shown over and over by the media. What would probably have been a simple matter – one way or the other – became a national affair.

I’m not going to discuss all the evidence that has been presented, such as whether he heard a paramedic at the scene call out “watch out, he has a suicide vest,” whether shooting might detonate the vest, whether the terrorist had already been checked, and more. The trial went on for 6 months, and a great deal of testimony was presented. The court’s opinion will cite the facts that the judges found important in reaching their decision.

My guess before the announcement was that he would be convicted – that the judges would decide that a reasonable soldier would not have fired, given the facts and the rules of engagement. I also thought that the sentence will be relatively light, in consideration of the pressures on the soldier.

***

At exactly 10 AM, I turned on the radio. Israel Radio’s reporters repeated the words of the head judge, Maya Heller, as she read the verdict (the court did not permit the proceedings to be broadcast, so a reporter inside transmitted her words by WhatsApp to the broadcasters outside). Because there is a requirement that an innocent defendant must be informed immediately, the fact that there was no such announcement at the beginning – the whole judgment took 2-1/2 hours to read – told the story.

Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter and conduct unbecoming of an IDF soldier.

The judges did not believe him, and the judgment was unrelievedly harsh. They rejected every one of his points of defense. They did not accept his explanation that he was afraid the terrorist had an explosive vest or that he was reaching for a knife. They found contradictions between various versions of Azaria’s story, and said that he appeared to be changing his story as he went along in order to improve his case. They gave significant weight to testimony that Azaria said “he stabbed my friend, he deserves to die” to another soldier immediately before the shooting. They did not accept arguments from a psychiatric panel that he suffered from PTSD or that he was significantly impaired by lack of sleep or other factors. They accepted the autopsy data that it was Azaria’s bullet that caused the terrorist’s death (and rejected the opposing view of former chief pathologist Yehuda Hiss, who did not examine the body). They did not credit the statements of several reserve generals who testified on Azaria’s behalf. Finally, they decided that the shooting was not merely an error, but demonstrated “criminal intent.” Criminal intent!

I didn’t hear a word of excuse or understanding. The judges agreed with Chief of Staff Eisenkot and former Minister of Defense Ya’alon that the shooting was entirely unjustified. Had he been accused of murder, I believe that Azaria would have been convicted of that as well.

The punishment will be determined by the court and announced in about ten days. From what I heard from the judge, I suspect that I was mistaken in thinking that he will get a light sentence.

***

Something here is wrong.

Of course, the IDF’s judges had no alternative. An army has rules, and Azaria broke an important one. His explanation that he felt endangered didn’t hold water, no matter how much one wants to support him. He knew what he was doing: killing a terrorist. The court was right about that and the best explanation for his motive was provided by his comment that the terrorist deserved to die. But it didn’t have to come to this.

Explaining his tough stance last April, Moshe Ya’alon said “Part of the power [of the IDF], as many have described it — Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and others — is our ethical strength. We aren’t Daesh.”

We aren’t. But we also aren’t a people who would send a soldier to prison for killing a terrorist. There is a feeling in Israel that has become sort of a slogan in this case, that our soldiers are everyone’s children. How can we abandon our children? Chief of Staff Eisenkot disagrees. Yesterday he said this:

An 18-year-old man serving in the army is not “everyone’s child.” 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.​

He’s both right and wrong. A young man who is a soldier does have to dedicate his life to – and sometimes lose it for – his country and his people, at least for the 32 months of his service. But he is still “everyone’s child.” Ya’alon said that part of our power comes from our “ethical strength,” but it also comes from the way we love our soldiers – and our army. There are many who would like Israel to have a professional army, but this hasn’t happened yet (and I think it would be a disaster).

Among the most troubling aspects of this case were the statements condemning Azaria’s act made by Eisenkot, Ya’alon, other officers, and even PM Netanyahu (who later changed his tune) immediately after the B’tselem video was made public. Eisenkot and Ya’alon later said that it wasn’t the video that convinced them, that they already had received evidence from the chain of command – but surely it had something to do with their making public statements of this sort (in the US, this would be grounds for appeal).

Indeed, this is where everything went off the rails. Elor Azaria should have had a hearing with his commanding officer, and maybe gotten a weekend of guard duty and an explanation of the rules. Instead, thanks to a video camera probably bought with European money, another kind of soldier, one fighting the cognitive war against Israel, threw the nation into chaos. As usual, we walked right into this.

The distinction between law enforcement and war becomes blurred when terrorists are stalking us – and especially our soldiers and police – in the streets, with every day bringing reports of stabbings and vehicular attacks, as was the case when Azaria killed his terrorist. No, Azaria’s wasn’t a split-second decision where hesitation could be fatal, as the court noted, but our soldiers and police do face such decisions on a daily basis. Could not this verdict deter them from taking action in a situation that isn’t so clear-cut?

Soldiers don’t make good policemen anyway. They are trained to kill the enemy, not to detain suspects who have rights. Enemy soldiers in a firefight don’t have rights.

And we mustn't forget that in the eyes of our enemies in today's asymmetric war, no Jew in the Land of Israel, from a baby to an 80-year old grandmother, has a right to live. Possibly if the nation had an official death penalty for terrorism, soldiers wouldn't feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

In this kind of war, is the principle that a terrorist deserves to die a bad one?