RIGHT TO INNOCENCE

Former Israel Defence Forces (IDF) deputy chief of staff Uzi Dayan, testifying this morning in the trial of ‘Hebron shooter’ Elor Azaria:

Asked by the prosecutor, Gen. (res.) Nadav Weisman, if the rules of engagement don’t prohibit killing a terrorist just for being a terrorist, Dayan answered, ‘That’s certainly not true. . . . I’ve ordered to kill terrorists just because they’re terrorists, regardless of their condition, whether they are dangerous or not. . . . Terrorists – they should be killed. In any situation or condition? No, that’s correct. But as for the question whether terrorists are sentenced to die, the answer is yes’.

As well as affirming the routine practice by Israel’s military of extrajudicial executions, the former deputy chief also articulated an intriguing legal concept that, even as it may perplex students of the law, makes good sense of Israel’s general approach to accountability:

Azaria’s right to innocence was trampled on. My basic argument is that a fighter, even if he made a mistake and if he sinned, you don’t move it on to a criminal trial unless there’s good reason. A good reason – if the commission of inquiry finds that there was malice. (my emph.)

 

Background

In March 2016, Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem published footage of an extrajudicial execution by an IDF soldier (Elor Azaria) of a Palestinian man in Hebron.

The clip generated an international outcry and, as the outrage swelled, the soldier was arrested and charged with (bizarrely) manslaughter. He became a hero for wide swathes of Israeli society, the bulk of which supported the summary execution.

One line of defence the soldier has pursued has been, that his conduct was in line with IDF norms and routine practice.

One comment

  1. […] Yesterday, former Israel Defence Forces (IDF) deputy chief of staff Uzi Dayan testified in defence of an Israeli soldier (Sgt. Elor Azaria) who was captured on film summarily executing a Palestinian man in Hebron who posed no threat. Dayan protested that, by opening an investigation into the incident, the authorities had violated the accused’s ‘right to innocence’: […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: