Basically it sounds like the same sort of thing that the Black Lives Matter movement was targeting in the US. The one big difference is that unlike what tends to happen in the US, he was convicted of manslaughter by a military court yesterday.
Given the pro military anti-Palestinian attitude of the Israeli populace, many people are up in arms about this conviction, and widely hailing him as a hero with 2/3 of the population recommending his pardon earlier polls found similar percentages supporting his actions.
Netanyahu is also has come out in favor of a pardon, but president Rivlin who actually grants pardons hasn’t committed one way or another yet.
Topics for debate include: whether the manslaughter conviction was the correct one; whether Azaria will/should be pardoned, what will be the effect on Israel and the Middle East should if he is or is not pardoned. What does the public reaction tell us about the state of the Israeli population.
What was the basis of his defense? For instance, did he argue that the attacker was not actually incapacitated, or did he offer some sort of heat-of-battle defense?
His defense team claimed that he saw Sharif trying to operate an explosive device under his coat. Note that at the time, he didn’t warn any of the surrounding troops, nor did he ask for permission to fire from any of the officers present. The judges rejected the line of argument, as well as another, somewhat contradictory argument that Sharif was already dying from his earlier wounds, and therefore Azaria couldn’t be liable for his death.
As for the “heat of battle” - Azaria had actually arrived at the scene with the battalion commander five minutes after the incident had already ended, and only opened fire five minutes after that. The situation at the time of the shooting was quite calm.
The whole case is a pretty big deal here. Most of Azaria’s supporters’ attitude is “fuck that terrorist - he deserved to die”, and while I don’t disagree, there’s such a thing as rules of engagement and codes of conduct. Soldiers don’t get to decide who lives or dies - that’s not their job.
If I were the Israelis, I would not pardon him. But next time there’s a release of terrorists to Hamas or whoever, then I would release that guy too, along with any other Israelis convicted of similar crimes.
I heard an APM radio story on this, and was rather depressed at the number of people who thought the soldier did no wrong. At least some, however, agreed with the military court’s decision – and that decision itself is heartening.
Even good countries with good militaries can screw up. (Abu Ghraib. My Lai.) This guy (appears to have) screwed up, and it is a good legal system that will reject a popular outcry for his innocence when he is (if he is) factually guilty. Judges shouldn’t take into account applause-meters.
It’s easy to see why the first argument didn’t hold up, based on the video that was taken of the incident posted in a WaPo article (scroll down to the middle of the page, where a condensed and censored version is available)
Agreed. The attacker was wounded and apparently unconscious, not an apparent threat. Especially since no one else seems to have their weapons pointed at the attacker, two unarmed police/ambulance personnel walking a few feet from him, and two other soldiers standing about three feet from him on the other side. This is no different than a soldier being tried for murder/manslaughter if they decided to execute a wounded, incapacitated, and out-of-the-fight enemy soldier on the battlefield, even given the attacker’s status here as an unlawful combatant.
Unfortunately, given the rightward drift in Israel today, it seems increasingly possible any sentence will be suspended or otherwise commuted. But then, the only U.S. soldier convicted in the My Lai massacre only actually served a day in prison before having his sentence reduced to house arrest and eventually pardoned completely a few years later. And the U.S. public were calling him a hero who was betrayed/abandoned by his government too.
Too late to edit further - should have said that 2nd Lt. Calley was given a partial pardon, but one that eliminated the rest of his original 26 year adjudged sentence and only retained the actual conviction and the part of his sentence where he was dismissed from the Army.
Lord knows the mind of a terrorist is, in many ways, a mystery to me, but it seems that if you want to kill some soldiers, and you have a bomb, lead with the bomb. Don’t start with a kitchen knife, and move up to the bomb if it turns out the soldiers have guns or something.
Sure, if it were on a timer or a remote detonator. In which case, shooting the bomber isn’t actually going to prevent the device from detonating. If it’s a device the bomber has to personally trigger? You’re going to need to trigger that before you get a bunch of Israeli bullets in you, because otherwise you have no idea if you’re going to be alive to press the button.
It would be odd indeed if the occasional Israeli soldier was not a murderer, just like other people. The court heard the evidence and found him guilty, there is nothing special about this case. There is nothing to get upset about.
Each jurisdiction has its own definition of premeditation, but in many jurisdictions, premeditation can be deemed to take place in seconds. The IDF code of military justice does not seem to be posted online, at least in English, so it’s unclear what degree system Israel uses in its military courts for homicide versus manslaughter. But the few seconds it takes for Azaria to pull back his carbine’s charging handle, chamber a round, walk closer to the prone attacker, aim, and pull the trigger seem like they would be sufficient to show that his actions weren’t mindless or purely reactionary and that instead he had time to think about (albeit briefly) and decide to kill the unconscious attacker on the ground and that all of those actions he took in those intervening seconds were done with that purpose in mind.
The decision to only charge Azaria with manslaughter instead of any type of murder seems more of a political/PR one and to pre-account for the mitigating fact that the victim had just carried out a knife attack that wounded another Israeli soldier.
What are the RoE for Israeli troops in a situation like this? I know the Pakistan Army has suffered several casualties in Waziristan from suicide bombers who were “not quite dead”.
First, make sure that he’s not carrying a bomb. That’s easy in T-shirt weather, but if he’s wearing a coat - like in the case at hand - you wait for the EOD guys to check him out.
Then provide first aid and evacuate.
Right-wing politicians latched onto the case as son as it came out, and the Prime Minister - who is more afraid of challengers from the right than from the left - gave his tacit support. That made the whole thing a charged partisan issue, and you all know how *those *turn out.
A lot, actually. Granting pardons is one of the few actual powers the President has, and he takes his responsibilities seriously. The fact that Rivlin and Netanyahu famously don’t get along won’t help matters as far as the Prime Minister is concerned.
Of course I don’t know what was in the soldier’s head, but I have always believed that those with power (soldiers, police officers) have an extraordinary responsibility.
I find it frightening (and you see it everywhere, not just in Israel) at how, when the mistreated person is a bad guy, the public is happy to rally around the “good guy” perpetrator.