Israeli soldier shoots incapicitated Palestinian in head - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14665588
danholo wrote:I question the veracity of that article/blog. ...

"The soldier, who was later identified as a medic — and could be seen at the start of the B’Tselem clip helping the wounded soldier into an ambulance — reportedly admitted killing the prone suspect during his subsequent interrogation by investigators, but claimed that he only did so because he feared that the man might have been about to detonate a bomb."
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/israeli-rights-group-releases-video-soldier-executing-wounded-palestinian-suspect/

According to Silverstein’s analysis, Azarya, a medic, “asked permission from his commanding officer to ‘finish off’ the wounded Palestinian.”
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israelis-rally-around-soldier-filmed-executing-injured-palestinian

"Elor Azarya is a medic with the Israeli occupation forces and a key follower of the Kach movement which was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahana known for his hatred for Palestinians whom he believes should be expelled from Israel."
http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/palestine/the-medic-who-pulled-the-trigger-1.1699476

"The lawyer representing the soldier, who is a medic in the Shimshon Division, said that his client admits to killing the already wounded assailant, but insists that he did so because he felt that his life was in danger."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.710907
Something tells me you still question the killer is a medic. Am I right?
#14665597
Thanks for the sources. Admittedly I only treat Ha'aretz as credible.

What would that something be, exactly?

It is even more appalling that a medic would act this way - or that an avowed racist would be fit to serve.

Rarely medics are armed though or in such gear, unless he is support personnel, of which I'm unaware of - this is why I was initially questioning the claim.
#14665603
danholo wrote:Thanks for the sources. Admittedly I only treat Ha'aretz as credible. The Intercept also seems so.
What would that something be, exactly?

I had you down as someone who believes only IDF press releases. I can't think why.

danholo wrote:It is even more appalling that a medic would act this way - or that an avowed racist would be fit to serve.

Regrettably, when it comes to the IDF and Israel, nothing surprises me anymore.
#14665653
Latest from Haaretz;

As Israeli Soldier Who Shot Subdued Palestinian Faces Court, Hundreds Rally in Support
Discrepancies found in soldier's account of events, prosecution says, as it seeks to extend remand by nine days.


Gili Cohen Mar 29, 2016 2:00 PM

A military court in southern Israel is currently hearing a prosecution request on Tuesday for an order extending the detention of a Kfir brigade soldier who was caught on video last Thursday apparently shooting a Palestinian terrorist in the head after the terrorist appears to have already been subdued.

As the soldier entered the courtroom in Kastina, where he is facing a prosecution request for him to be held for another nine days, he winked at members of his family. Dozens of protesters showed up outside the courthouse in support of the soldier.

The identity of the soldier involved in the incident, which occurred in the West Bank town of Hebron, is the subject of a gag order. The prosecution has not specified what the soldier is being accused of, but the motion filed to extend the soldier's detention states that he is suspected of murder, and the suspect, who is an Israel Defense Forces medic, was informed of this by the military police.

At the hearing, the prosecution told the court there are discrepancies in the soldier's account of events, adding that the soldier fired at the terrorist, Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, without any operational need for such action. The prosecutor presenting the case, Lt. Col. Adoram Rigler, said the soldier's continued detention is required so that the investigation against him can continue.

When news of the incident broke, it engendered strong reaction, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon condemning the soldier's conduct while other politicians, including Education Minister Naftali Bennett, the head of the Habayit Hayehudi party, accused them of jumping to conclusions.


An investigation conducted by the IDF Central Command following the incident found that the shooting carried out by the soldier surprised his commanders who were present. The army said the soldier was not part of the force that was attacked by two terrorists, one of whom was Sharif, whom the soldier later shot and killed. Army investigators said the soldier arrived on the scene along with his platoon commander’s command group in his capacity as a medic. The investigation also found that the soldier told another soldier who was there that Sharif, “deserved to die” for stabbing their platoon comrades. A second soldier is said to have tried to calm him down, but the medic allegedly cocked his weapon and shot Sharif once in the head.

Under questioning by military police, the medic claimed that he shot Sharif because he feared for his life.  He also reportedly told his interrogators: “I fired the shot when the terrorist was alive. I did it because I felt my life was in danger.” His lawyer, Ilan Katz, argued at an earlier hearing on extending his detention that the shot was fired in accordance with the rules of engagement.

The autopsy of Sharif’s body should provide significant findings in the investigation. The autopsy has been delayed due to lack of agreement between the Palestinian’s family and the military authorities concerning the participation of a Palestinian pathologist in the procedure. The family wants the pathologist to take an active part in the autopsy, while defense officials will only consent to him acting as an observer. The autopsy could help establish whether it was the soldier’s gunfire that caused Sharif’s death, bolstering the possibility that the soldier would be charged with murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. The autopsy could also establish that the gunshot fired by the soldier was not the cause of Sharif's death, if that was the case. 

Haaretz will be reporting live from the hearing. Stay tuned for updates.
#14665917
danholo wrote:Thanks for the sources. Admittedly I only treat Ha'aretz as credible.

It's important to have access to credible information before forming an opinion on anything. Mass media can be a light upon the world if it does its job of neutral information distribution. You seem to think that Haaretz is this neutral source, while others would strongly disagree.

But sometimes, in real-world situations, a "light upon the world" needs to shut out a few million lights in order to gather the resources it needs to dominate its region. Some might call what Israel practices "terrorism," but the term "terrorism" is usually applied to small-time actors and not billion-dollar, armed-to-the-fangs states like Israel.

Yes, millions of Palestinians have been forced into lives of terror because of the invasion of their country by Europeans. But to call a state "terrorist" simply doesn't gel with the vocabulary that moneyed mass media has bestowed upon us.

America expanded by the same process, and with the same level of human terror on the natives. And America has never stopped being a light upon the world, partially thanks to the historical-corrections of Hollywood. Perhaps Israel can learn from the American experience with ethnic-cleansing and PR.
#14665922
And America has never stopped being a light upon the world, partially thanks to the historical-corrections of Hollywood.

I've always thought of Hollywood as being America's history cleanup crew....

[youtube]NP4lrVIpbvo[/youtube]

#14665933
QatzelOk wrote:It's important to have access to credible information before forming an opinion on anything. Mass media can be a light upon the world if it does its job of neutral information distribution. You seem to think that Haaretz is this neutral source, while others would strongly disagree.


I didn't say that Ha'aretz was neutral. I said it's credible.

neutral
ˈnjuːtr(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
"neutral and non-aligned European nations"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, without favouritism, open-minded, non-partisan, non-discriminatory, disinterested, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical, indifferent, removed; More
2.
having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.
"her tone was neutral, devoid of sentiment"
synonyms: inoffensive, bland, unobjectionable, unexceptionable, anodyne, unremarkable, ordinary, commonplace, run-of-the-mill, everyday;

credible
ˈkrɛdɪb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
able to be believed; convincing.
"few people found his story credible"
synonyms: acceptable, trustworthy, reliable, dependable, sure, good, valid; More
capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful.
"a credible threat"
synonyms: believable, plausible, able to hold water, within the bounds of possibility, reasonable, sound, compelling, persuasive;
#14666088
Information that isn't neutral shouldn't be credible either.

If you find biased information credible, then you aren't credible yourself.

A source of information can be biased yet still be credible at the same time. For example, when the Allies during WWII accused Nazi Germany of the mass murder of Jewish and other civilians, they were hardly a neutral source, yet it turned out that they were correct.
#14666170
Israelis are unsure whether murdering prisoners is approved IDF protocol
Israelis who praise the Israeli soldier, Cpl. Elor Azaria, for killing the disarmed and wounded Palestinian prisoner Abd al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif justify his action on the ground that the soldier said he thought the prisoner might have a bomb. They say this although it happened quarter of an hour after the alleged attack by al-Sharif and after it had been ascertained that he had no bomb.
"To some, the soldier in Hebron had grossly violated those rules of engagement, shooting a disarmed and disabled Palestinian assailant nearly 15 minutes after the initial attack and after the attacker had been checked for additional weapons."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/revisiting-the-idfs-rules-of-engagement-in-light-of-hebron-shooting/
We'll see if this mendacious claim of the soldier is believed by the IDF. I am taking odds-on wagers of 1/300 that the killer will be fully exonerated by the IDF military court.
#14666177
Seems EU’s long-standing policy of eroding Israel’s internal cohesion, while strengthening the Palestinian cause, is working well. EU's paid NGOs (B'tselm, Breaking the Silence etc. and Haaretz newspaper) are all biased sources to advance for positions repeatedly rejected by Israeli citizens.

The EU is not just meddling on Israeli affairs under the facade of ill defined "human rights" but also actively encouraging the killing of the Israelis. As long as no Israeli is raised up against Europe covert war, nothing will change

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... exist.html
#14666256
QatzelOk wrote:Yes, millions of Palestinians have been forced into lives of terror because of the invasion of their country by Europeans. But to call a state "terrorist" simply doesn't gel with the vocabulary that moneyed mass media has bestowed upon us.

America expanded by the same process, and with the same level of human terror on the natives. And America has never stopped being a light upon the world, partially thanks to the historical-corrections of Hollywood. Perhaps Israel can learn from the American experience with ethnic-cleansing and PR.



You cannot apply the same moral and international laws and norms for the past.
I can always hear this argument: USA also committed crimes, etc.

But there are big differences:

Something is a crime if the moral norms condemn it as a crime and the international law prohibits it.


And you cannot apply any law before this law existed.

Can you get my drift?
#14666276
Charge reduced to manslaughter

Haaretz

The Israel Defense Forces soldier who shot a disarmed Palestinian attacker in the head last week in Hebron may face charges of manslaughter and not murder, military prosecutors announced Thursday.

IDF attorney Lt. Col. Adoram Reigler told a hearing that “significant developments” in recent days necessitated the downgraded charges.

The still-unnamed soldier is suspected of shooting the assailant “deliberately and unnecessarily,” Reigler said, indicating he likely had enough evidence to go ahead with an indictment.

He did not detail what the new developments were.

The downgraded charges were announced at a hearing at the Qastina Military Court near Kiryat Malachi.

Military prosecutors requested the soldier’s detention be extended for seven more days, saying, “In our opinion, the evidence indicates serious suspicions against the suspect.”

The downgraded charge likely indicates the prosecution believes it would have difficulty proving the act was premeditated.

Last week, the Kfir Brigade soldier was caught on film shooting Palestinian assailant Abd al-Fattah Yusri al-Sharif in the head, some 10 minutes after the stabber had already been shot, wounded and disarmed.

Al-Sharif and another man, Ramzi Aziz al-Qasrawi, had attacked a soldier and an officer near the Tel Rumeida neighbor of Hebron. The pair stabbed the soldier in the shoulder and arm before the officer was able to shoot the two attackers. Al-Qasrawi was killed, but al-Sharif remained alive.

Six minutes later, the IDF soldier who is now in custody arrived on the scene and approximately five minutes later he was filmed shooting an apparently incapacitated al-Sharif in the head.
#14666308
ArtAllm wrote:You cannot apply the same moral and international laws and norms for the past.
I can always hear this argument: USA also committed crimes, etc.
But there are big differences:
Something is a crime if the moral norms condemn it as a crime and the international law prohibits it.
And you cannot apply any law before this law existed.

The most important laws of the past were determined by religion. So the mass murder of innocent civilians in the search of easy money... was ALSO immoral and recognized as such in the past. This behavior was an atrocity then, and it is now. Because America has never been punished for its genocidal origins, it has continued on the same trajectory, and has inspired many start-up genocidal projects, like Israel.

danholo wrote:So how am I supposed to treat this information considering you are not neutral?

In the Israel-attacks-Palestine situation, I AM neutral. I have no interest on either side. So my opinions have nothing to do with my own financial gain. What about all the pro-Israelis out there? Do they have financial gain to render themselves biased?
#14666324
QatzelOk wrote:The most important laws of the past were determined by religion. So the mass murder of innocent civilians in the search of easy money... was ALSO immoral and recognized as such in the past.


Well, if the guys were not the adherents of the "right" religion, if they did not belong to your "race", then it was moral to kill them. You can read about this in the Old Testament. The God himself commanded to kill everything that breathes, including small children.

QatzelOk wrote: This behavior was an atrocity then, and it is now.


It is an atrocity from the today point of view, but it was legitimate, you cannot judge or punish anybody who lived in the Stone Age with today laws.

QatzelOk wrote:Because America has never been punished for its genocidal origins, it has continued on the same trajectory, and has inspired many start-up genocidal projects, like Israel.


Well, the project Israel was started by the proto-Zionists, like Disraeli.
After USA was established, they adhered to the The Monroe Doctrine.
They did not want to be involved in any European conflicts, the Americans elected Woodrow Wilson because he promised that USA will be neutral and do not get mixed up in the conflict of European countries.

But Zionists and the British financial elite managed to use their influence, they forced Wilson to get mixed up in WW1, they moved their centre of power from the Square Mile of London to Wall Street, they created the FED.

WW1 would have a different (more natural) outcome, probably a fair peace agreement, if the USA did not get involved in WW1, and WW2 was just a continuation of WW1, and WW3 will still be a continuation of WW1.


In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.

The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... y/ww1.html


As we see, the ruling financial elite of Europe and other power brokers just moved to the USA, that is why USA became the "world's policemen".

Israel is only the tip of the iceberg, the problem is the international Zionist Lobby.

This lobby may move their power centre to any other country, like to China or Russia, if the USA will not support their agenda any more.
#14666339
^ classic german antisemitmus.

ArtAllm wrote:
Well, if the guys were not the adherents of the "right" religion, if they did not belong to your "race", then it was moral to kill them. You can read about this in the Old Testament. The God himself commanded to kill everything that breathes, including small children.

Well, the project Israel was started by the proto-Zionists, like Disraeli.
After USA was established, they adhered to the The Monroe Doctrine.
They did not want to be involved in any European conflicts, the Americans elected Woodrow Wilson because he promised that USA will be neutral and do not get mixed up in the conflict of European countries.

But Zionists and the British financial elite managed to use their influence, they forced Wilson to get mixed up in WW1, they moved their centre of power from the Square Mile of London to Wall Street, they created the FED.

WW1 would have a different (more natural) outcome, probably a fair peace agreement, if the USA did not get involved in WW1, and WW2 was just a continuation of WW1, and WW3 will still be a continuation of WW1.

As we see, the ruling financial elite of Europe and other power brokers just moved to the USA, that is why USA became the "world's policemen".

Israel is only the tip of the iceberg, the problem is the international Zionist Lobby.

This lobby may move their power centre to any other country, like to China or Russia, if the USA will not support their agenda any more.



Some of the themes created by Gobbles office and it's still working on German public opinion.
#14666344
Pongo wrote:^ classic german antisemitmus.
....

Some of the themes created by Gobbles office and it's still working on German public opinion.


Please attack the message, not the messenger.

You do not know anything about my background.

BTW, I do not hate anybody just because if his or her supposed "Semitism".
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]