Law doesn't cover Jewish terror

[Scurrilous]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1762197,00.html

<snip>

"The teenage Israeli soldier who killed four Israeli Arabs in a shooting rampage on a bus has been branded a Jewish terrorist, but the people who died cannot be recognised as terrorist victims, the defence ministry said on Tuesday.

Under current law, an assailant must be a member of the "enemy forces" against Israel for the action to be considered terrorism, said Mayan Malkin, a spokesperson with the defence ministry.

But in this case the shooter was Jewish and his attack cannot be designated as terror, said Malkin.

The four Arabs from the Israeli village of Shfaram were killed by a 19-year-old Israeli who had deserted the army and had professed anti-Arab views. Authorities later said he was trying to thwart Israel's evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip."

[Brightmore]

1. What a hypocritical law

Hopefully they change it. I think they will too:

MK Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash-Ta'al) submitted a petition demanding an amendment to the current law.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. If Israel is truly a democracy, the laws have to be applied equally.

If it isn't, then it's a theocracy and worthy of criticism of the two standards of justice.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. RACISM -- pure and simple

reminds me of other racists laws in other places and other times.

Equal opportunity racism --

[eyl]

4. While I think

the law, as currently written, is short-sighted and stupid, leveling charges of racism is far over the top.

You could call it racist if it discriminated on the basis of the ethnicity of the victims - which it doesn't*. The problem is, it applies not only on the basis of the attacker's acts, but on the basis of his affiliation**. As the law currently stands, there's no legal difference between the survivors of someone killed in a "lone-wolf" terrorist attack and those of a bystander killed during an underworld "hit".

*Israeli Arab victims of suicide bombings, for instance, receive compensation

**Note the loopholes run both ways - a few years ago, when an Israeli-Arab committed a suicide bombing, his family received survivors benefits.

[pelsar]

5. eyl...

dont you ever get tired of it?...it seems everytime anybody has any excuse to cry "racism" apartheid" ...evil israelis...they do...reguardless of the facts...

as if the facts really make a difference.....

[Coastie for Truth]

6. This is the "Wild West" of the DU I/P Forum. NT

[Coastie for Truth]

7. This law relates to COMPENSATION for the victims' families

Not to punishment. In a COMPENSATION/WELFARE law, which is "an act of sovereign grace and largesse" in an environment of "sovereign immunity" - the sovereign can discriminate.

Look at our own Federal Tort Claims Act -- and our own "Section 1983" -- and our own hodge-podge of eminent domain laws (Kelo v. New London).

This is not a law about criminalizing an action -- it is about compensation (i.e., "welfare").

[newyorican]

8. The law is more than that...

it defines what is and is not terrorism for the purpose of determining whom gets compensation. According to this reading of the law, when a Jihadist picks up a gun and kills Israelis, that's terror and the victims are compensated. When a Juhadist picks up a gun and kills Arab Israelis, it's just rotten luck on the victims part.

[pelsar]

9. oops...

another racist theory "down the hatch"

Israeli Arab victims of suicide bombings, for instance, receive compensation

but dont worry i'm sure they're will be more of the same....stay tuned

[eyl]

10. Note that

the families involved are getting compensation.

[Usrename]

11. Hi, I'm new here, but something seems odd. Under our own

constitution, this would be treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Isn't the act (killing innocents) adhering to their enemy (terrorists)?

If not, believing that all men are created equal, I just cant wrap my brain around it.

Unless treason is legal?

[eyl]

12. As I understand,

for something to be treason under the law, you need to deliberately give aid to the country's enemies (or fight on their behalf).

In this case, any benefit the Palestinian terrorists may have derived from his act would have been incidental, not a deliberate outcome on his part; therefore, it isn't treason (and AFAIK, it wouldn't be under US law either).

[Usrename]

13. So what I think your saying is, the act is not the crime, the individuals

ethnicity is. Or is it intent, because clearly his intent was against the sovereign, to derail the withdrawl?

[pelsar]

14. crime....

whatever his motivation (stop the withdrawl) ....it was a criminal act in that an israeli killed other israelis with the motiviation being against an israeli govt decision.

the palestenians are not involved in this case.

[Usrename]

15. ahhh ... the light is beginning to flicker

it's more analogous to 'friendly fire' I think is what I'm hearing. need to recalibrate here, the implications are enormous...

[eyl]

16. Treason is a crime of intent

Assume entities A and B are enemies. If a citizen of A commits an act that benefits B, it's still not treason unless he committed that act with the intent that B would benefit (it may, of course, be another crime - murder, in this case - but not treason).

I should note that - while the victims in this specific case do, IMO, have a legitimate case - the article on which this thread is based suffers from a mistranslation. The law in question (which can be seen here in Hebrew) is called hoq hatagmulim lenifgaei peulot eiva - which means "benefits for the victims of acts of hostility law". Nowhere in that law will you see the word "terror", and in fact the law also covers civilians harmed by regular enemy forces. Because of that, an "act of hostility" is defined as an act carried out by or on behalf of a hostile organization*. IOW, the applicability of this law is dependent not on the attacker's ethnicity, but on his affiliation.

You could make a case that, since his intent was to derail government policy, this could be considered terrorism - but it still wouldn't meet the definition in the law, because Israeli law considers a "hostile organization" as one opposed to the state itself, not just to certain acts of it.

*The exact definition is (section 1 of the law):

Harm by an act of hostility:
1) Harm by hostile acts by military or paramilitary or irregular forces of a hostile state, by hostile acts of an organization hostile to Israel, or by hostile acts carried out in support of one of these, on their behalf or to advance their objectives (henceforth: "enemy forces").
2) Inadvertent harm as a result of acts of hostility of enemy forces, or inadvertent harm in circumstances where there was room for reasonable concern that such a hostile act would occur**.
3) Harm caused by a weapon intended for the commission of a hostile act, or by a weapon intended for use against such acts even if it wasn't used***, except for harm caused to an adult above the age of 18 while committing a felony or another offense which has an element of malice or criminal negligence

**I assume this section refers to cases where someone is hit by friendly fire during a rescue, or some such.
***I assume this means someone hurt from a discharge of a weapon in a community's armorym or a guard tower, and so forth.

[Usrename]

17. So if an Arab Israeli went postal and killed Jews, their

survivors would not be entitled to survivor benefits?

(the Hebrew is useless, must not be displaying correctly):)

[eyl]

18. In the one case I know of

of an Israeli-Arab suicide bomber, the survivors did get victim's benefits, AFAIK; but that case isn't directly comparable because he was acting on behalf of Hamas. Also, as I mentioned above, in that case the bomber's family got survivors' benefits due to the death of the head of household.

[AlamoDemoc]

19. Jewish gunman was no terrorist, Israel rules

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian

Four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier opposed to the closure of the Gaza Strip settlements are not victims of "terror" because their killer was Jewish, Israel's defence ministry has ruled, and so their families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life.

The ministry concluded that the law only recognises terrorism as committed by "organisations hostile to Israel" even though the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the killings by Private Eden Nathan Zaada, 19, as "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1560147,00.html

[newyorican]

20. Damn...

that's pretty effen' low...

[eyl]

21. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x99996

[eyl]

22. Gov't to back benefits for victims of Jewish terror

The government is expected to propose a legal amendment Sunday that would allow Israeli Arabs wounded in Jewish terror attacks, and the families of those killed in such attacks, to receive government compensation.

If the state makes the proposal and the Knesset passes it, Israeli Arabs will be considered "victims of hostile acts" and will receive compensation equal to that received by Jewish victims of Arab terror attacks.

The move comes after the terror attack in the Israeli Arab town of Shfaram in early August, in which an Israel Defense Forces soldier who had defected from the army opened fire on Arab citizens, killing four

Source