- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
A. What does one have to do with the other?
B. So what?
Israel - Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter Beeblebrox237
- 3,582 comments
- 183,328 views
B. So what?
- 21,075
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
My guess is that the attack was done in retaliation for Azaria.... I'm not sure. Honestly finding him guilty would not really illicit any sort of response (innocent possibly). He is within his full rights to appeal, and if that's what motivated this attack then there is an even bigger problem.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Because there are some people who would claim that Israel is constantly besieged by Palestine, and while attacks from the Palestinian side are indeed a threat, the Israelis are hardly the powerless victims that people would have us believe they are. This case represents an extrajuducial killing; in any other jurisdiction, it would be a war crime. And yet here we have Netanyahu calling for Azaria to be given a full pardon, calling him a national hero. Didn't Azaria do to the militant what the militants have been doing to Israelis for years - killing them while powerless and posing no immediare threat? If the Palestinians had a judicial system and a militant was given a pardon for killing an unarmed and incapacitated Israeli soldier, the Israelis would fly off the wall. So the message that Netanyahu is sending is that it's okay for Israelis to kill Palestinians, but it's not okay for Palestinians to kill Israelis. How, exactly, does that help the situation?
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
The iron dome exists for no reason and no one knows of it?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The point that I am trying to make is that some people would have us believe that Israel is the innocent victim of constant attacks from Palestine, and that if they created a system like Iron Dome - which is designed to shoot down incoming artillery shells - then it's justified as protecting itself.
The problem is that Azaria's actions were not in self-defence. The militant that he shot was unarmed and incapacitated. He presented no immediate threat to anyone, which meant that Azaria's actions went from being a justified defence of his country to a criminal action. It's no different to the summary execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém, a South Vietnamese fighter who was captured and placed in the custody of the Viet Cong, who executed him on the spot and in violation of the Geneva Convention relating to the the treatment of prisoners of war.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
I will not claim that anyone is right in the experience. I support the jew because I support what I consider reason as I see it. I support all people and their right to life.
As such I am pained a great deal at the plight.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Except, apparently, for the injured and unarmed guy lying on the ground who was shot in cold blood. You can't claim to support all people and their right to life, and then pick and choose who you support.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Right, in that case I simply lose all reason 
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
He was convicted no? Isn't the message, "don't kill unarmed, incapacited innocents?" Would he have been convicted if the roles were reversed, and it was a Palestinian in a Palestinian court accused of killing an Israeli? I don't agree with Netanyahu's position but the fact remains he was tried and convicted. Still doesn't explain how the terrorist attack with the lorry and Netanyahu's position are connected, at least not to a rational person.
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Yes, but the question is whether or not that conviction remains intact and/or the punishment/sentence is commensurate with the crime. If Netanyahu and the right-wingers calling for a pardon get their way, they will serve only to demonstrate that there really is one law for the Israeli forces and another for everyone else.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Let's wait and see what happens before speculating it to death.
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It's not really a question of speculation - calling for a pardon in this case demonstrates a dangerous disregard for due process. The fact that the soldier has been tried and convicted does indeed send out a message, which is that even IDF soldiers are not above the law, even in the face of extreme provocation (as was arguably the case here). But calling for a pardon is the same as saying that this message is wrong. Whether a pardon is forthcoming or an unduly lenient sentence is passed is almost a moot point - if the ultimate aim is to protect Israelis then advocating for a pardon in this case is itself a dangerously self-defeating act.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Calling for a pardon is part of the process. It's legal is it not? Whether a pardon is forthcoming or an unduly lenient sentence is handout it is the entire point IMO. It'll signal that the process works and no one is above the law if the sentence is commensurate with the act and in accordance with precedent, if any.
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I wouldn't call the Prime Minister calling for a pardon 'part of the process' - it is quite extraordinary. As far as I understand it, the soldier (Azaria) was found guilty by a military court, but the President has the authority to issue pardons - and so supporters of Azaria, which includes the Israeli Prime Minister and other top ranking politicians, are calling on the President to over-rule the authority of the military court and quash the conviction. But, ironically, by seeking to overturn the conviction via a Presidential pardon (as opposed to an appeal and possible retrial), supporters of Azaria are only likely to undermine the authority of the military - which seems incredibly self-defeating.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you are saying here... if the sentence is commensurate with the act (and is not unduly lenient), then that would indeed signal that the 'process' works and that no one is above the law. But, if that sentence is subsequently commuted/overturned by a Presidential pardon, that would clearly send out the opposite signal i.e. that IDF soldiers who are found guilty of manslaughter will not be punished.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
My point is, nothing has happened beyond his conviction, as of yet. Calling for a pardon could be nothing more than political posturing. We'll have to wait and see what ultimately happens.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
An obscure Palestinian group has claimed responsibility for the truck attack, but has not given any motive beyond "political reasosns":
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-claimed-by-obscure-palestinian-group/8171598
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-claimed-by-obscure-palestinian-group/8171598
- 13,917
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Regardless of what happens, it's pretty mixed messages from the Israeli government.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Yeah, it's been pretty cozy there for 70 years. Too bad Bibi just screwed it all up.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Was it an obscure Palestinian group who hijacked a plane from Belgium in which he stormed and defused? I think ever since 1967 all sorts of Monday morning quarterbacks have been systematically picking apart what Bibi stands for, like him or not he knows what he's talking about.
Fuel tension? hmmm
I don't know about this solder, if he was way off I'm sure the right action will be taken, I'm funny that way in trusting those in other countries to take care of their own business.
Fuel tension? hmmm
I don't know about this solder, if he was way off I'm sure the right action will be taken, I'm funny that way in trusting those in other countries to take care of their own business.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Which means that he should know how irresponsible his comments are. The Israeli armed forces have been fighting an enemy that feels perfectly justified in killing unarmed people. But here we have an Israeli soldier who killed an unarmed and incapacitated man - an Israeli soldier who did exactly what the militants had been doing all along. Now, that man may have been a militant, but when Azaria killed him, he wasn't a threat to anyone; indeed, the fighting had ceased and the man had been incapacitated for several minutes. Indeed, there was testimony that Azaria was quoted as saying "he deserves to die" before going out and killing the man.
The point is that Netanyahu and Israel have made a point of saying that Israel will not tolerate Palestinians killing Israelis - but in light of Azaria's actions, describing him as a hero and calling for a pardon sends a completely different message: that it's okay for Israelis to kill Palestinians. It's rank hypocrisy and bound to further tensions between Israel and Palestine.
He might not have made it worse, but he certainly didn't make it any better. If a Palestinian leader had made the same comments, you'd be branding them bloodthirsty and accusing them of warmongering. But since it's Netanyahu, you brush it off with a flippant, sarcastic comment.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Actually, I said i disagreed with his position. The sarcasm was directed at you, not at Bibi's decision. Please cite where I've ever used the words bloodthirsty or warmongering.
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I find this statement very harsh... it should say something more like:
... so to say "an Israeli soldier who did exactly what the militants had been doing all along" is very unfair... it is very important to draw a clear distinction between innocent civilians and armed enemy combatants, esp. those who have just tried to murder people.
- 21,075
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
I almost find the militant to be a bully and the correct response is not to sink to their level and treat someone's life with such ill regard.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It's also very important to bear in mind what the Geneva Convention says on the subject. The man may have been a militant, but he was neutralised - disarmed, injured and incapacitated. Moreover, the fighting had stopped; to kill him, Azaria had to go back out into the field. The Geneva Convention dictates that he should have been treated as a prisoner of war.
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Absolutely - I wasn't taking issue with the verdict against the soldier... what he did was criminal. What I was objecting to, however, was your portrayal of the incident as if it were 'exactly' what militants do (i.e. kill innocent people). While the victim was 'unarmed and incapacitated' when he was killed, I think that your description of the victim is incomplete/misleading, since immediately prior to finding himself in that state, he was armed and had attempted to murder someone himself, hence the comparison between the victim in this case and the innocent victims of militant attacks is a tad unfair IMO.
- 21,075
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
If one side blatantly ignores the Geneva convention why can they go back to claim violations made by the other side in the ICC out of convenience?
- 29,427
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
As per some earlier posts, one of the 'take home messages' from this incident ought to be that no-one is above the law (and by extension the Geneva convention/human rights etc.) - thus, what the Israeli soldier did ought to be (and has been) officially recognised as a crime for which he stands to be punished accordingly. IMO, that's why calling for a pardon is wrong...
- 21,075
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
Understood but I want to see both sides fairly. If Fatah can go to the ICC and charge Israel with warcrimes and bad faith, then they need to be subjected to same responsibility.
