2006-06-15 The difference between an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian terrorist

ElectronicIntifada posted an interesting article, describing a terrorrist shooting people in a bus, one of the victims grabbing the gun, onlookers storming in and killing the terrorrist. The victims are buried – and then the police starts to investigate the lynching and rounds up seven suspects and puts them to trial.

The story starts to make sense when you realize that the terrorrist was an Israeli soldier killing Palestinians in a bus.

Well, I agree that people should be put on trial for the lynching. But obviously the court should decide that it was legitimate self-defense to attack the soldier, and extenuating circumstances. I don’t believe in the death penalty, and thus I cannot condone a lynch mob killing a criminal, no matter what his crime. Self-defense might not have required the killing of the soldier, for example.

The injustice is more apparent in the lack of compensation for Palestinian victims compared to the compensation of Israelian victims because a soldier cannot be a terrorrist, the lack of investigation into the negligence leading up to the killing-spree – apparently there were early warning signs that got ignored, the use of obvious fanatic racists in the army, and the double-standard when you compare it to other stories of Israeli massacres of Palestinians.

“Israel has shown time and again that it selectively enforces law and order, depending on the ethnicity of killer and victim.” [1]


Show Google +1


Please make sure you contribute only your own work, or work licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. See Info for text formatting rules. You can edit the comment page if you need to fix typos. You can subscribe to new comments by email without leaving a comment.

To save this page you must answer this question:

Please say HELLO.