I Wrote the IDF Code of Ethics. Here’s My Take on the Hebron Shooting.

[Little Tich]

Source: the Forward, by Asa Kacher

The Israeli public debate is focused these days on a seemingly simple incident: In Hebron, two Palestinian terrorists attacked a team of Israel Defense Forces soldiers, managing to stab one of them before they themselves were shot. One terrorist was killed and the other injured. The latter was lying on the road when a soldier arrived, observed the scene and, without being commanded to do so, shot the terrorist once in the head. An autopsy, performed by Israeli forensic doctors in the presence of a Palestinian forensic doctor, revealed that that last shot was what killed the terrorist.

For more than 20 years now, I have been active in studying the military ethics of the IDF and in writing related documents such as the 1994 IDF Code of Ethics. I would like to make a few observations about the incident from that perspective.

The first thing to note is that the incident was immediately reported to the relevant IDF commanders, who at once conducted their routine debriefings. The professional military investigation was repeated several times along the chain of command, from the platoon and battalion level, through the brigade and division level, to the chief of staff. They all reached the conclusion that what the soldier had done was utterly wrong, in stark violation of commands, Rules of Engagement and the values specified in the “Spirit of the IDF,” the code of ethics that requires respect for human dignity (and especially human life) and restraint of force (or “purity of arms,” as it’s called in Hebrew).

At the core of military ethics in a democracy — whether it’s the United States, United Kingdom, Canada or Israel — you find two principles manifest in all doctrines, procedures, ROEs and commands. First, the right and duty of self-defense. A person and a state have the right to defend themselves when they are in jeopardy caused by unlawful activities of criminals or enemies. Plus, a democratic state has a duty to effectively defend its citizens when they are in such jeopardy. Second, every act of the state, including acts taken on its behalf by police or military, ought to show respect for human dignity. This means that compelling justification is needed for any significant interference in a person’s situation.

Killing a person is a last resort in self-defense and it ought to be confined to circumstances of necessity. It is ethically, morally and legally wrong to kill a person if it is not a necessary step of self-defense.

Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/337841/i-wrote-the-idf-code-of-ethics-heres-my-take-on-the-hebron-shooting/

[Israeli]

1. The irony of it all is breathtaking Little Tich.....

see : http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.713520

Netanyahu also commented on the distribution of pictures of the defense minister in crosshairs, saying this was 'an unacceptable act and a crossing of a red line.'

According to Netanyahu "Public debate must take place in a respectful and to-the-point manner and attacks of this kind have no place in it."

Says the guy that had no problem when it was Rabin in the crosshairs .

[Little Tich]

2. Netanyahu is such hypocrite. n/t

[Israeli]

3. and the shit hits the fan .................

Shin Bet opens preliminary probe into incitement against Ya'alon

After inciting photos of the defense minister were posted by Likud activists, others in the party are collecting signatures on a letter of support: 'We are opposed to the attempt to terrorize a sitting minister just because his comments do not curry favor with some.'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4789460,00.html

[Israeli]

6. Update on incitement against Ya'alon .......

The individual who uploaded a photograph depicting Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon through the lens of a sniper scope has been exposed. Contrary to Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzachi Hanegbi's unequivocal conclusions that the offender could not be a member of Likud or sane, it turns out he is, in fact, both.

He's not a senior official in Likud—just a junior and incensed activist. It is not yet clear whether there is any basis on which he can be charged, it at all. Law enforcement officials are presently more interested in his motivation than anything else. However, it's reasonable to assume that it will be difficult for him to upload hateful posts of this sort in the near future.

The average internet user must understand that, today, there is almost no anonymity on the web. Even the inciter who published pictures of the prime minister and Supreme Court justices in Nazi uniforms and the defense minister as the Führer was exposed. It turned out that that this "patriot" chose to express his love from afar, all the way from the United States, and thus was lucky enough to receive a personal visit from FBI agents.

To what extent is the Shin Bet seriously addressing this intensifying atmosphere of hate and its various aspects among right-wing circles that currently focus on the defense minister? The answer: Extremely seriously. No wonder that right-wing leaders at the forefront of criticizing Ya'alon—spearheaded by Education Minister Naftali Bennett—have toned down their rhetoric against him. MK Avigdor Lieberman, while not having opposed the incitement, at least has ceased his criticism. It would appear that someone brought in the politicians for a talk and explained the consequences of their pronouncements.

It's uncertain just how many visits Ya'alon was supposed to make recently in settlements, yeshivas or pre-military preparation programs. However, it is clear that today he feels significantly less comfortable visiting such places for personal security reasons. The Shin Bet certainly would not be keen to suggest that he continue his regular visits to such places. It's difficult to believe that, just a year ago, Ya'alon was considered an invited family member in this sector.

Ya'alon was aware that he was being sought. He knew that a political battle was being waged against him. He was prepared for the possibility that land mines awaited him when it came to issues such as military operations in Gaza or the evacuation of illegal structures.

However, when it comes to the case of the soldier who recently shot a neutralized terrorist in Hebron, he stumbled into an ambush. The defense minister did not anticipate that voicing his opinion would give rise to such wide scale public outcry with him at the center.

Continued @
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4792116,00.html

[Israeli]

4. Update.......

Hebron soldier charged with manslaughter

Itay Blumental
Published: 04.14.16, 10:27 / Israel News

The IDF soldier who shot a neutralized terrorist in Hebron in March will be charged with manslaughter.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4791456,00.html

[Little Tich]

5. Shooting a prone person in the head with intent to kill is defined as manslaughter in Israel. n/t

[branford]

7. I read that given his friend and fellow soldier was just stabbed by the assailant and accomplice,

and the medic at the scene purportedly warned of a suicide device, the charging authorities didn't believe they could sustain a murder charge. The nature and extent of the potential crime are determined by the defendant's knowledge and state of mind at the time of the incident.

Just like in the USA, overcharging a defendant, no less in a highly-publicized and controversial case, often badly backfires on the prosecution (e.g., George Zimmerman's murder charge).

[Israeli]

8. You think that makes it okay ?....

re : I read that given his friend and fellow soldier was just stabbed by the assailant and accomplice,

IDF soldiers should not be acting emotionally branford ....not under any circumstances .

re : and the medic at the scene purportedly warned of a suicide device

.......and it was checked and given the all clear before he shot him in the head .

I have no idea what you have been reading as you did not supply us with a link but maybe you should read here :

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4786043,00.html

At first, his lawyers said the soldier was willing to conduct a reconstruction of the incident and be confronted with soldiers who testified against him - but not undergo a polygraph test.

Now, however, the prosecution says that the soldier "refuses to conduct a reconstruction of the incident or to be confronted with other witnesses (except for one soldier with whom the soldier has no real disagreement), and even stated he does not remember things reported by witnesses who were on the scene."

Chief military prosecutor Col. Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas said that "the evidence present a very clear picture of what happened, which bases the suspicions against him."

Col. Zagagi-Pinhas went on to say that "the soldier claimed several times during the investigation that the terrorist tried to reach for a knife that was 'within reach' of him, while the documentation in the video presents a different situation, in which the knife was a significant distance away from the terrorist, who was in serious condition as it is."

"The soldier," she said, "gives evasive answers whenever confronted with the questions that arise from his version of events. The soldier's changing version raises serious doubts about the credibility of the defense's claims, to put it mildly."

"The video has nuances and it speaks for itself. The soldier's comments during the incident indicate on his state of mind and his motive. His claims that he acted of self defense constitute as suppressed testimony," Col. Zagagi-Pinhas noted. "The videos and testimony from the incident indicate that the neutralized terrorist posed no threat. However many movements the terrorist made, none of the other people at the scene, including the commanders standing next to the terrorist, were not alarmed by it and this speaks volumes."

"The soldier," she went on to say, "displayed indifference in shooting the terrorist, and did so without warning his fellow soldiers and commanders who were there."

"The soldier's comments to his commanders immediately following the shooting, according to which 'the terrorist needs to/must die,' further strengthen the suspicions and his motive," Col. Zagagi-Pinhas continued. "The soldier told his friends immediately after the incident 'my friend was stabbed and he deserves to die.'"

Prosecutor Adoram Rigler added that "The soldier's actions were measured, and did not indicate any urgency or alarm. Most of the witnesses say they did not feel they were in danger."

Rigler also addressed the claims the terrorist was wearing a coat while the weather was warm, which supports the soldier's version that he thought the attacker might be carrying an explosive belt. "Other people in Hebron were also wearing warm clothes that morning, it wasn't just the terrorist who was wearing a coat," he said.

[shira]

9. Stay on topic.... manslaughter vs. murder.

Do you think he should have been charged with murder?

[Israeli]

10. Moi stay on topic shira ???......

You first

re : http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134127098

My post # 14 .

Just for you .....

[shira]

11. Sure, your turn now. n/t

[branford]

12. Yet, the prosecution still charged the soldier with manslaughter, not murder.

The article was largely the perspective of the prosecution trying to portray the strength of its case, not the substantive defense to the allegations, nor does it capture the mood of the decision-makers and citizens in the country afflicted by a rash of deadly attacks against soldiers and civilians.

My prior post simply noted that what you or even possibly the prosecution wants to charge very often is not the same thing as what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (or the Israeli legal equivalent) or what a judge believes is a just and fair charge in light of specific circumstances.

The charge is entirely unsurprising given the facts, and your outrage is hardly evidence in a court of law.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712873

[Little Tich]

13. Still looks like murder to me, especially after watching the clip showing what happened.

If it had happened in the US, I truly believe the charge would have been murder, not manslaughter.

[grossproffit]

14. First degree murder = is both willful and premeditated.

Planning or lying in wait are needed to meet the standard.

It would more likely be a manslaughter or second degree murder charge here. imo

[Little Tich]

16. If I come upon a subdued criminal and calmly brings out a gun and shoots him in the head, would that

really be manslaughter?

[branford]

17. That's *your* recitation of the alleged facts.

The defense certainly doesn't see it that way, or not nearly as neat and simple, and the Israeli people are not particularly inclined to support the interests of the dead terrorist or the prosecution on a full murder charge, no less when such conduct is glorified by both the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.

I'm curious if the PA has named a road of the either of the men who committed the stabbing attack or handed out candy...?

You really have little understanding of the nature, extent and necessary tactical exercise of prosecutional discretion in either Israel or the USA.

[Little Tich]

18. There's a road in Jerusalem named after Yitzhak Shamir, the terrorist.

I think it's in really bad taste to eulogize terrorists with a road in their name.

I also think that murdering a terrorist shouldn't be downgraded to manslaughter just because he was a terrorist. I know that there's a general perception that some people are so bad that they deserve to die, and that killing them shouldn't be considered a serious crime. But I totally disagree with that, which has resulted in heated arguments more than once.

[branford]

15. I'm not so certain.

As I indicated in my earlier Haaretz link, the video might not be as conclusive as you suggest, and you might be experiencing some confirmation bias.

With respect to the USA, prosecutors are usually careful not to overcharge defendants, and prosecutorial discretion permits them to consider legal, political and other factors. I believe the Zimmerman trial was a recent example of prosecutorial overreach resulting in an outright acquittal.

The soldier in Israel has a great deal of popular support because people are reacting to a a large spate of stabbing and other attacks against both soldiers and civilians, knowledge that Palestinian terrorists have used suicide tactics even when injured, and revlusion for they perceive as a blatant glorification of the perpetrators by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Many of those quick to loudly condemn the soldier certainly had remained silent about the dozens of other attacks.

If this environment existed in the USA, particularly if the defendant had anything approaching a viable defense and with the requirement of a jury trial in our country, some prosecutors, even in the military, might decline to prosecute at all and prefer a administrative punishment or would be desperate for a quick and minor plea agreement.