12 Palestinians charged for lynching 'Jewish terrorist'

[oberliner]

Bethlehem - Ma'an/Agencies - Israel charged 12 Palestinian citizens of Israel for the 2005 lynching death of an Israeli who murdered four Palestinians.

Dubbed a "Jewish terrorist" by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israeli soldier Eden Natan-Zada shot dead four Palestinians and injured 22 others when he opened fire on a bus in Shfaram, northern Israel, in protest of the country's withdrawal from Gaza.

As Natan-Zada paused to unload his army-issued M-16, surviving passengers on the bus beat him to death.

"The prosecution believes that, despite Natan-Zada's atrocious actions, the events that led to his death seriously harmed the rule of law," said a statement from Israeli prosecutors. "In a country governed by laws, whoever takes the law into his own hands and harms someone, even if he committed despicable crimes, will be tried by law enforcement."

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=38379

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. I think this is justifiable, to be honest.

My understanding is that at the point he was killed, Zada had already been arrested and restrained.

[Recursion]

5. "As Natan-Zada paused to unload his army-issued M-16..."

"...surviving passengers on the bus beat him to death."

I missed the part where it said "After Natan-Zada had been restrained and had dropped his weapon". Maybe you could point that out to me?

[eyl]

18. asdf

Haaretz

Seven of the suspects are being charged with attempted murder, whereas the remainder are accused of unruly behavior that led to Natan-Zada's death. All are accused of assaulting police officers.


Police said videos and photographs of the incident show that Natan-Zada had already been cuffed and bound when the lynching took place.

A Ynet article from the time of the attack:

Local security officer Jamal Aalian told Ynet: “I handcuffed the soldier and detained him with another police officer, he was bleeding…He was alive and we didn’t allow the mob to hurt him….I think he was killed about half an hour after shooting.”

About 30 police officers gathered in and around the bus and attempted to stop the mob from storming it, but several youngsters managed to break through. Three police officers, as well as several locals, reportedly sustained injuries in the incident.

[shaayecanaan]

13. It would be justifiable if it were consistent...

The two Palestinians who tried to ram vehicles/people with bulldozers in East Jerusalem were shot on the spot. I have no problem with that, inherently, but it strikes me as odd that a man with a bulldozer cannot be subdued but a man with a rifle can be.

Of course, this all pales besides the conduct of a nation that killed 13 of its own unarmed citizens in October 2000, and which continues to fire live ammunition an unarmed demonstrators in the West Bank.

Baruch Goldstein was killed in the same way during the el-Ibrihimi massacre. He walked into a mosque and started shooting people. When he emptied his magazine, the remaining Arabs beat him to death.

This largely mirrors the extent in America to which self-defence is interpreted very liberally or narrowly depending on the colour of one's skin:- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Goetz

It also strikes one as odd in the context of the recent decision by authorities to drop charges against the settlers who shot Palestinians while being filmed.

Unfortunately, there is no jury trial in Israel, and once you are tried the conviction rate is 97%. So regrettably, it looks like these Arabs will be stitched up for a long time.

[eyl]

19. False equivalence

Whether or not the bulldozer drivers could have been restrained is irrelevant to this question - the point is that they were killed while in the midst of a lethal attack on others. Zada was restrained and not a danger to others when he was killed.

[shaayecanaan]

20. The false equivalence arises because Arabs are never restrained...

they are simply shot.

[eyl]

21. bull n/t

[eyl]

22. to elaborate

were your statement true there would be no Arab prisoners in Israel, which is patently false.

[shaayecanaan]

23. To elaborate...

any Arab in the act of shooting people would simply be shot. Obviously, Israel likes to imprison Arabs for all sorts of reasons.

[eyl]

25. and the point is

that he was no longer in the act of shooting people - nor was he capable of resuming said action - when he was killed.

BTW, I just noticed something - the OP's headline states Israel is prosecuting "12 Palestinians". At least some of the indicted are Druze (about half of them, IIRC), who would probably object to that labeling.

[shaayecanaan]

27. My understanding of the bulldozer attack on the main street in Jerusalem

was that the driver was shot and badly wounded by a civilian. A policeman then fatally shot the driver in the head at close range, apparently while the bulldozer was stationary. Apparently I am not the only one making the comparison:-

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1244371030417

I agree that in a properly functioning social democracy, the Arabs who lynched the Jewish terrorist would and should be tried. However, a properly functioning state would also have tried the Jewish settlers who recently shot Palestinians, the Israeli soldiers who killed 13 Arab Israelis during October 2000, and quite possibly the policeman who shot the bulldozer driver in Jerusalem.

It seems to me that the only time that prosecutors care for the rule of law is when Arabs are disadvantaged by it.

[Hannalee]

2. These charges are proper

We cannot condone the actions of this soldier. But the Palestinian citizens exceded their boundaries by taking his life. He should have been subdued and turned over to authorities.

[henank]

3. He was already subdued and restrained

That's exactly why this was a lynch and not just self-defence. Donald Rankin is right.

[Recursion]

4. Oh for God's sake

He was killed in self-defense by the crowd he was trying to massacre. Cry me a river.

[henank]

6. It was definitely not self defence

So wipe away your crocodile tears and educate yourself.

Wiki on Eden Natan-Zada

Eden Natan-Zada ... was an AWOL Israel Defense Forces soldier who opened fire in a bus in the northern Israeli town of Shfar'am on August 4, 2005, murdering four Israeli Arab civilians and wounding twenty-two others. He was restrained, disarmed and cuffed when he tried to reload to prepare for another round of shooting.<1> A video released later shows him being beaten to death by the crowd after he had been handcuffed while he was still on the bus

[Recursion]

7. Ah, yes, the ever-reliable Wikipedia

If you look at the article posted, he was beaten to death while reloading his rifle.

It wouldn't surprise me if somebody in the crowd had restrained him, and possibly even handcuffed him, but how is the rest of the crowd, in fear for their lives, supposed to know that?

[azurnoir]

8. same wiki page which I read yesterday and hmmmmm

This page was last modified on 7 June 2009 at 23:04

[henank]

9. Oh dear, I'd better find another source, Wiki is not good enough for you

when it doesn't suit you. And no, I did not edit it. I wouldn't even know how to begin and I certainly did not notice the last date of update. Does that make it incorrect? Do you think the Israeli Police and judicial system would indict 12 Arabs just because they felt like it? Just because they have nothing else to do with their time? Just to heat up the nice calm political atmosphere in Israel? Oops. Silly question. I'm sure you do.

So... here we are. Yet another article, complete with gruesome photo, of a bound and bloody Israeli terrorist. complete with graphic photo.

A moment in time: Arab photographer Zaid Khanaifas captured Jewish terrorist Eden Natan Zada's last moments on camera, moments before the lynch, Ynet has learned.

Khanaifas, who works for the a-Sinara Arabic newspaper, photographed Zada with his hands bound on the bus in Shfaram, after he had killed four of its passengers.

The photographs were authenticated by policemen present at the scene of the attack.

Do you think the Arab photographer might have edited his photo? Photoshopped it himself somehow? Put it on Wiki to be edited by an evil Zionist?

:sarcasm: (in case you thought otherwise).

[azurnoir]

10. I did not dispute thatZada was restrained did I?

however the page was modified
BTW how many of the 12 were charged with murder?

Ze'ev Braude is a shining example of what happens when an Israeli is turned obver to Israeli authorities for attacking Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091253.html

[henank]

11. Sorry, I should have addressed my comment

to the other poster. None of them are actually being charged with murder. They are being charged with attempted murder and other stuff:

"Seven suspects have been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault on a police officer, obstruction of justice and rioting. Five other suspects have been charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, obstruction of justice and rioting."

here

[Celtic Merlin]

12. The contradictions in that sorry excuse for a story invalidate it.

How does a man who is restrained, disarmed and cuffed make any attempt at reloading a gun he no longer has in his possession? How does a restrained and handcuffed man HANDLE an M-16? By both the OP's account and the swiss-cheese one you posted, he was trying to reload an automatic weapon for use against the people on the bus.

Had I been on the bus, I'd have beaten him to death with the rest of them. This guy was obviously Hell-bent on killing everybody on that bus. Evidence of this is that despite (by your account) his being restrained and handcuffed, he was somehow able to regain the weapon and make an attempt at reloading for the sole purpose of killing more people.

I'm going with the OP's story that they rushed him when they had the chance and put down a rabid dog. The idea that he had been restrained, disarmed, and handcuffed when they got to him while he was attempting to reload is ridiculous. If he was reloading, he certainly was NOT disarmed, restrained, or handcuffed. Handling an M-16 while handcuffed would be extremely difficult - virtually impossible.

I see this a an act of self-preservation on the part of the people on the bus. They should be released with the gratitude of the State of Israel for helping to prevent further tragedy.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[Shaktimaan]

14. I don't understand your thinking at all.

The story doesn't contradict itself at all. It seems clear from every account I read that he was restrained, disarmed and cuffed WHEN he attempted to reload, AFTER which time he was then beaten to death. Between the time he was tied up and restrained the police showed up and tried to prevent the mob from boarding and killing him but were unable to. No one suggested that he was trying to reload AFTER being cuffed. There was an extended period of time between when he was subdued and when he was lynched. Do you understand... First he shot the bus riders. Then he stopped to reload. Then he was disarmed and restrained. And then, after he ceased to be a threat, while he was already restrained and disarmed, he was killed.

At any rate, we are talking about someone being beaten to death by a mob. In no way could it be considered self-defense at that point. I'm not unreasonable. Had someone shot him when he attempted to reload, killing him, then their actions would have been entirely justified. But even if the mob had rushed him, beating him to death while he was actively trying to reload, it doesn't add up. Beating someone to death takes some time. The man could not possibly have remained a threat up until the moment he died. Even assuming the worst case scenario he must have ceased to be a threat at some point before he was torn apart by the mob.

Consider the case of Richard Reid. He clearly posed as significant a danger as this man did. However once he was disarmed and restrained no one continued attacking him until he died.

I see this a an act of self-preservation on the part of the people on the bus. They should be released with the gratitude of the State of Israel for helping to prevent further tragedy.

The people on the bus were not the ones who killed him. It was the mob of people outside who entered the bus, overpowered the policemen at the scene and killed the already restrained, disarmed gunman. Self-preservation ends once the threat to you ends. I understand that everyone was really angry, but that in no way justifies taking the law into their own hands.

The events of the day aren't really in question, to my knowledge at least. There are plenty of accounts from various newspapers, just look them up. No one is suggesting that he was killed as a matter of self-defense.

Had I been on the bus, I'd have beaten him to death with the rest of them.

Ummm... Oooookay, if you say so. You seem proud of the idea that you'd have contributed to the murder of someone, even though he was a murderer himself. Maybe you can go to a state that still engages in the death penalty and they'll let you pull the switch yourself. Hey, can't hurt to ask, right?

[Celtic Merlin]

15. Either way, the guy was a mass murderer and a terrorist.

Defend him all you want, the world is a better place without him. I can't bring myself to defend scum like him.

And yes, I'd have proudly helped to execute a murdering terrorist. That's what is to be done with them. You'd have offered him refreshment, it seems.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[Shaktimaan]

16. No argument here.

Either way the man was a terrorist and a monster who did not deserve to live.

However, I draw the line at condoning his own death at the hands of a rabid mob, robbed of the right to a trial and judgment. Had his death potentially prevented any additional deaths at all then I wouldn't have questioned it for a moment. But once the threat was neutralized I can't support the actions of a mob taking instant, cruel vengeance upon him.

And yes, I'd have proudly helped to execute a murdering terrorist. That's what is to be done with them. You'd have offered him refreshment, it seems.

So because I would refrain from tearing him apart with my bare hands the moment he was defenseless himself you think I'm the equivalent of his nanny? Personally I see a little more wiggle room there myself. I don't know of any scenario where mob rule can be defended. After all, where does one draw the line? When exactly does someone's crime become so great that he crosses the line and is no longer deserving of the rule of law? And who gets to decide such a thing? The mob itself, presumably. Which I find to be an extremely dangerous system to condone, regardless of the circumstances.

[Celtic Merlin]

17. I equate the actions of these people with

the citizen action taken against the terrorists who took control of flight 93, which crashed here in Pennsylvania. Had those people made it into the cockpit of that aircraft, I have no doubt that they would have killed every terrorist aboard that flight. And would we have condemned them for killing murderous terrorists? I seriously doubt it.

This was swift and appropriate citizen action taken against a murdering terrorist - exactly the same as on flight 93. You don't deal with murdering terrorists in any other way - you simply kill them as quickly as you can. Rule of law? Not for them. I'll shed no tears for those who are killed for committing acts of terrorism - nomatter who they are.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[bemildred]

24. Well, I must say, this enthusiasm for legal process in dealing with Arabs is encouraging.

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

26. +1!

I've been so dying to do that since I spotted my fellow Canberrans doing it at the RiotAct!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. It's a question of the rule of law.

Almost always, I would say "vigilanteism is wrong; the law must be allowed to take its course, even if this means a guilty man being aquitted and going unpunished".

In the case of Israel, the recent refusal to charge Ze'ev Braude - and, more generally, lack of response to settler violence against Palestinians, and the refusal to enforce court orders against illegal outposts - places a slight question-mark over that - it is not clear to me that Israel is enforcing the rule of law when it comes to protecting Palestinians from Jews.

I think that it's probably a slight enough questionmark that this vigilanteism was wrong even so, but I'm not 100% confident of that.