Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Ben Reilly on Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military on Thursday said prosecutors have announced their intention to file a manslaughter charge against a soldier who was caught on video shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker in the head.

The soldier appeared in a military court, where his detention was extended until Monday. The military said that prosecutors informed the court that they plan on charging the soldier with manslaughter, but are still working out some technical details before formally indicting him.

The shooting took place last month in Hebron, a West Bank city that has been a focal point of a seven-month wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

At the time, the military said two Palestinians stabbed and wounded an Israeli soldier before troops shot and killed the pair.

But in a video later released by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, one of the attackers was shown still alive after the initial shooting. The video, taken by a Palestinian volunteer for the group, shows the wounded attacker lying on the ground, slowly moving his head before a soldier raises his rifle and fires. Blood is then seen streaming from the Palestinian's head. An autopsy determined the bullet to the head was the cause of death.

The incident has triggered uproar in Israel, with the country's defense minister, military officials and many Israelis calling it contrary to the army's values. That has led to widespread support for the soldier, with many calling his actions appropriate for a country reeling from months of Palestinian attacks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-palestinian-ax-attacker-killed-soldiers-130831599.html?nhp=1
avatar
Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American People.

Posts : 23043
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 43
Location : Besa Mi Culo, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down


Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Guest on Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:16 pm

Yes i already posted that link sassy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:17 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not swayed to any view. I've always been unbiased about these incidents. If I see a video, I say what I see. I have no bias towards or against the soldier.

You are swayed by your on views on the matter, that is not knocking as we see what we want to see.
Again he will be convicted of that I have no doubt.
I just think in there situation facing unprecedented attacks incited off the next and by Palestinian leaders its bound to many of them on edge.

My views on the matter are based on what's in the video. What else can one go on?
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29436
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Guest on Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

You are swayed by your on views on the matter, that is not knocking as we see what we want to see.
Again he will be convicted of that I have no doubt.
I just think in there situation facing unprecedented attacks incited off the next and by Palestinian leaders its bound to many of them on edge.

My views on the matter are based on what's in the video. What else can one go on?

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Raggamuffin on Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:35 pm

didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

My views on the matter are based on what's in the video. What else can one go on?

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

You don't know what was said either though.
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 29436
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Guest on Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

You don't know what was said either though.

Never claimed i did, I did say I watched another video which had translations which I cannot find now, but even then that is unreliable as how am I to know its a correct translation

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by sassy on Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
didge wrote:

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

You don't know what was said either though.


As much as didge wan't to ignore it, THE IDF DO AND HAVE SAID SO, so all the wiggling by didge is just that - wiggling.

Among the army’s findings, the soldier allegedly said the surviving Palestinian stabber should be killed before he shot him, and told his commanders afterward that the assailant had deserved to die.

The case sparked controversy after a video surfaced online showing the soldier shooting the apparently disarmed, wounded and supine Palestinian stabber in the head.

According to a murder indictment filed Friday by military prosecutors in the Jaffa Military Court, the wounded assailant was not a threat to troops when he was killed.

Didge is the one always going on about the Geneva Convention etc, but seems to think it doesn't apply to the soldier.  Well, much as Israel try to pretend it doesn't, it does.



Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under international law, its violations and implications for EU policy

I. WHY ISRAEL IS BOUND BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS DEFINING THE OBLIGATIONS OF AN OCCUPYING POWER.
The main international instruments defining the obligations of an occupying power are :

  • the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Fourth Convention Respecting the Laws of War on Land signed in The Hague on 18 October 1907 (“the Hague Regulations) 
  • the Fourth Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War signed in Geneva on 12 August 1949 (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”).




It should be stressed at the outset that Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention expressly provides that persons in the occupied area shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention by any agreement between the authorities of the occupied territory and the occupying authority. Accordingly, as long as the occupation endures, it is not possible to argue successfully that the conclusion of the Oslo agreements in any way diminished or affected the obligations of Israel towards the Palestinian population.

[list="text-align: justify;"]
[*]The Hague Regulations.


[/list]
Israel is not a party to the Fourth Hague Convention, to which the Hague Regulations are annexed. However, as stated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 concerning the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“the Wall Opinion”), the rules laid down in the Hague Regulations are part of international customary law. 1 This was recognized by all the participants in the proceedings before the Court in the Wall case, including Israel 2. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Hague Regulations are binding on Israel.

Israel disputes the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT, although that convention was ratified both by it and by Jordan. According to the Israeli interpretation, it would follow from the wording of Article 2(2) that the Convention applies only where the territory occupied fell previously under the sovereignty of another High Contracting Party. 3 Since the OPT did not fall under Jordanian sovereignty before being occupied by Israel, the Israeli government argues that the Convention does not apply to it.

This argument was rejected by the ICJ in the Wall Opinion. The Court found that, according to Article 2(1), the Convention is applicable whenever there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties4. If that condition is satisfied, the Convention applies to any territory occupied in the course of that conflict. The object of Article 2(2) is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention but simply to make clear that, even if the occupation met no armed resistance, the Convention is applicable 5. According to the Court, this interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power. It is also confirmed by the Convention’s travaux préparatoires and was approved by the States parties to the Convention at a conference on 15 June 1999, in which they reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Convention to the OPT, including East Jerusalem. 6

For its part, the UN Security Council stated on numerous occasions that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israel’s occupation of the OPT. 7

The Supreme Court of Israel also found that, to the extent they affect civilians, the military operations of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are governed by the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. 8

Those on the Israeli side who maintain that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the OPT therefore commit a serious error.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations states that a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”.

This definition applies independently of the legality of the occupation. The only thing that matters is that there exists a situation in which a territory is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army. If that is the case, the law of occupation applies, whether or not the territory was subject to the sovereignty of the State occupying it previously, whether or not the occupation has received Security Council approval, whatever its aim is, whether or not it is the result of an aggression or of the exercise of the right to self-defence, whether or not it is motivated by humanitarian considerations, etc.

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted 9 “occupation” is not an accusation. It is simply the reflection of an objective state of fact. Those on the Israeli side who shun the term and prefer to speak of “disputed territories” in reality seek having to acknowledge the consequences deriving from that situation.
The occupied areas consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

Part of the West Bank was annexed by Israel in 1980 and is now considered by it to be within the city of Jerusalem. For this reason we shall consider it separately, even though it is regarded internationally as being part of the West Bank.

The West Bank was occupied by Israel in June 1967 in the course of the Six Days War. It remains occupied today. It had previously been occupied by Jordan. According to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 it had been designed to form part of the future Palestinian State. Although it is sometimes described on the Israeli side as being “disputed” rather than “occupied”, 10 its status as occupied territory within the meaning of international law is internationally recognized. 11 The Israeli Supreme Court also accepted that Israel holds the West Bank in belligerent occupation. 12
 
The Oslo II agreement of 28 September 1995 divided the West Bank into three areas ; A, B and C, and gave to the Palestinian Authority “full civil and security control” over Area A. However the legal status of that area as “occupied territory” did not change. Israel continued to have the right to conduct military incursions into Area A without needing the consent of the Palestinian Authority and therefore maintained the potential to exercise full control over the area. 13 Israel also continued to have full security control over Area C and to have “overriding responsibility” for security for the purpose of protecting Israelis and confronting terrorism in Area B. Thus the entire territory of the West Bank remains under the authority of Israel.

The annexation of East Jerusalem was never recognized internationally. The UN Security Council censured it “in the strongest terms”, declared it “null and void”, adding that “it must be rescinded forthwith”. 14 Under international law it therefore continues to be part of the West Bank and must be considered as “occupied” by Israel.

- See more at: http://www.eccpalestine.org/israels-obligations-as-an-occupying-power-under-international-law-its-violations-and-implications-for-eu-policy/#sthash.R4NvMbTe.dpuf


Very much more on the link.   Didge, as normal, couldn't be more wrong if he tried.  I sure he will say he is not, I'm sure he will come up with all kinds of harbara to justify the excution of the Palestian man, but however many words he comes up with, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids the execution of prisoners.  
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17523
Join date : 2015-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Guest on Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:37 pm

Well here is a good example of a similar situation where again I thought the conviction was wrong and they are eluding to this very same incident  as to the views of the general Public.





This is the story of a soldier who killed in cold blood a terrorist who was lying on the ground wounded and helpless. This did not happen in Israel of 2016, but rather in Afghanistan in 2011, in the notorious Helmand Province. The soldier was Alexander Wayne Blackman, a sergeant in the British Royal Marines. His unit got into a firefight which also involved an Apache helicopter, hitting a Taliban militant whose name remains unknown. 
  
Some soldiers kicked the wounded terrorist. Blackman ordered two soldiers from his unit to not give him first aid. Suddenly, Blackman drew his weapon and shot the terrorist in the chest, sending the wounded terrorist to the next world with a quote from Shakespeare: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c***." It wasn't just another murder, this murder was poetic. He also added, "I just broke the Geneva Convention." 
 
None of the members in his unit report this. There were no British "B'Tselem" cameras in the area. The whole event was supposed to remain unknown, but fate decreed otherwise. The helmet camera of one of the team members documented every detail of the incident. The video fell into the hands of the civilian police by accident. An indictment for murder was filed against Blackman and some of his comrades in arms. In December 2013, he was convicted, as the judge criticized the public pressure and determined that it was "murder in cold blood."
 


[ltr]
Alexander Wayne Blackman (Photo: GettyImages)[/ltr]




 
Blackman was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of ten years. An appeal was filed, and while the conviction remained, in May 2014 his sentence was reduced to a minimum of eight years.
 
There was no argument over the facts. The video revealed the full picture, including that Blackman was aware that he was violating the provisions of the Geneva Convention. In fact, he was the first British soldier convicted for murder on the battlefield since World War II. There were other war crimes indictments, but the British legal system somehow always knew how to find extenuating circumstances. Blackman's story ended differently.
 
The conviction intensified the protests. British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, ordered soldiers not to attend demonstrations in solidarity with Blackman, because these were "political" demonstrations. Fallon's order was ignored as thousands rallied, including 700 members of the Marines, both on active duty and in the reserves. Many of the demonstrators were in uniform. 804,000 GBP were collected in a short time by readers of the Daily Mail, to help pay the convicted soldier's legal fees.
 
There was a heated argument in military circles. Senior commanders have made it clear that the soldier's actions were a "serious violation." Others protested the very decision to put him to trial. Colonel Oliver Lee, commander of a commando unit, harshly criticized the judicial process, and the fact no chance was given to present the difficult circumstances that led to the incident. He resigned from the military in protest. Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, claimed Blackman was "thrown to the wolves by cowards."
 
A 2013 poll showed that 39 percent opposed the harsh punishment given to Blackman, while 37 percent supported it. Another survey pointed to the fact that 90 percent favored limiting the amount of time that former soldiers can be put to trial. A survey among readers of the Guardian (an avowed leftist newspaper), found that 50 percent opposed the punishment given to Blackman.
  
Even Prince Harry expressed dissatisfaction with the conviction. The Daily Telegraph, not exactly a right-wing newspaper, published an editorial supporting the request for clemency. The BBC aired a lengthy program that introduced the dilemmas, the difficulties, and a wide range of opinions on the incident. Most of the media sided with Blackman, accompanied by the familiar arguments: Pressure, the heat of battle, handling months of impossible conditions while facing suicide bombers and snipers.
 


[ltr]
Protests in solidarity with Blackman (Photo: EPA)[/ltr]




 
A formal petition has garnered over 100,000 signatures in support of Blackman. Even elected officials stepped into action. On September 16, 2015, the British Parliament held a discussion on the case. MPs expressed resentment over the legal proceedings and the sentencing. Members of different political parties repeatedly claimed that there wasn't enough consideration given to the circumstances, presenting Blackman as a victim of these circumstances. The MPs protested that the report describing the background behind the incident has not been made public. There were no recriminations; rather there was mostly empathy for the convicted.
 
Last December, an additional appeal was filed. Again hundreds of reserve commando soldiers marched in support of the appeal, many of them in uniform. The Daily Mail published another editorial that claimed that this "battle for justice continues to stand out as one of the most striking legal campaigns of recent times." Even the Guardian, another British newspaper, empathized with Blackman's supporters and called him a hero, although it justified the conviction. 
 
The story is not over. Even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made it clear that further discussion was necessary. As time passes, public pressure to cancel the conviction only grows.
 
All of this happened in Britain. What a world of difference between us and them. The leading newspapers didn't cry out "fascism." Prince Harry, as well as the politicians and soldiers who expressed their solidarity with Blackman, weren't deemed "fascists," and the word "murderer" wasn't spoke in Parliament.

 
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan gave rise to some serious phenomena, and clearly there were some unusual incidents. But the British elite dubbed these soldiers as "heroes." The show of solidarity with the soldier, from all walks of British society and from all political parties, hasn't signaled the "end of democracy."
 
In Israel, videos from B'Tselem are shown over and over again, to enhance the effect of propaganda. In Britain, it is a different story. The video got to the police by accident, and was the decisive evidence that led to the conviction. The video didn't get public exposure, although every word spoken in it is known. How did this come to be? Because the Judge Advocate General, Jeff Blackett, determined that the video may a powerful propaganda tool to the Taliban and other extremists. We know what the enlightened Falangists would say if someone were to make a similar argument in Israel.  
 
The British case is not presented here to justify the unusual incident. Israel should be proud of the ethical norms that its commanders enforce. The response of Chief of Staff Gabi Eisenkot should be saluted. It is similar to the reaction of Nick Houghton, Chief of the Defense Staff of the British Armed Forces. He received scathing criticism by some of his predecessors and from the lords who served as judges. This incident is described here because we sometimes have to observe others to understand that we are a lot more normal than the way our media often depicts us. The incident is shown here in the context of these people, and there are too many of them, that stigmatize Israel. That's enough, guys. We're fed up with the exploitation of every unusual incident to make incredibly vile generalizations. We're tired of the endless celebration of self-made demonization. 
 
Self-loathing in Israel has reached an alarming level. Hooligans from the right have Ya'alon in their sights, while the hooligans on the left, who hold a lot of sway in the media and in academia, have the head of the State of Israel in their sights. This is not criticism. This is not freedom of expression. This is not democracy. Make no mistake. The British story proves that Israel is sane, but its discourse is dominated by hooligans on the left and right. And that is indeed troubling.






http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4792015,00.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Guest on Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:08 pm

Here is also something which further renders the Israel haters left Moot on this shooting.
Which even before the video came to light, there already was an investigation under way, showing how seriously each incident is taken by the IDF



A spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London denied his allegations.                                                                                                    

"The military investigation and subsequent decision to prosecute, reflects the gravity with which the incident was viewed,” he said.
“The claim that similar incidents happen regularly is baseless, as is the assertion that the video instigated the investigation.
“In fact, the IDF began to investigate based on reports by commanders at the scene, prior to the surfacing of the video, as has been reported widely.”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-filmed-israeli-soldier-shooting-disarmed-man-abdel-fattah-al-sharif-dead-hebron-death-a6987341.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum