In day two of his testimony, on Monday 19 Tammuz, IDF Sgt. Elor Azariya told the court his commander did not tell the truth when he testified against him. Azariya is facing manslaughter charges for shooting dead a wounded Arab terrorist shortly after the latter perpetrated a stabbing attack in Hebron on Purim day.
When asked if he thought that he company commander lied in his testimony Azariya stated “absolutely”. He was quick to add that a considerable portion of the testimony against him by the brigade commander was also not truthful.
He also told the court that his understanding of opening fire regulations permitted a soldier to fire at an armed person even if he did not see the weapon. On day one of his testimony, Elor explained he believed the wounded terrorist had a bomb under his jacket and was going to reach the knife that was near him on the ground.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
' } });
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
So let me get this straight, a terrorist who hurts people gets all the medical care and treatment thats he needs , while the 18 year old child in an army outfit, who wanted to protect others from harm might have to spend years behind bars.
And people wonder why some people don’t say hallel on ה’ איר?
Sadly, #1, make a point, you’re right on the money! חז”ל say (sorry, I don’y remember the words exactly, כל הרוחם על האכזר סופו לאכזר על הרחמים
Sadly, this kid looks like toast! I hope he wins because he DID the right thing but like you stated…..
To “make a point” — suppose that you did not know what happened during the incident in question. Thus, suppose there was a reasonable chance that this young soldier knowingly shot and killed a now-harmless terrorist. Would you try, through a court of law or some other manner, to find out what happened? Are you completely opposed to asking a court to try to determine what happened? Do you believe there is insufficient evidence to even consider the case? Would you still not try the soldier even if you knew with certainty that he knowingly killed a now-harmless terrorist? Of course this is a terrible situation. Maybe in the heat of the moment, and with the righteous anger of Pinchas, this soldier chose to kill this horrible terrorist. Or maybe he genuinely believed that this terrorist was still dangerous. Why isn’t it reasonable to try to answer these questions?
I agree that the miserable terrorist deserved serious punishment, and maybe it’s even reasonable to execute attempted murderers like him. But since right now that is not the law, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to try to assess what happened.
I agree, “make a point.” What is the point of being a soldier when your hands are tied by not being allowed to defend your fellow Jews? This is not what I would call a moral army.
עת מלחמה ועת שלום
#1 This is to teach you that Chazal’s statements are all true and very fitting to Israel’s court system: “He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate.”
Better solution is not to serve in this treif army.
#3 – You write that the court should assess what happened because according to the law as it stands now, one may kill a terrorist who still poses an immediate danger, but may not once he is rendered harmless in the present, even if he may mass-murder in the future. Besides for the point that the terrorist is out to murder, doesn’t value his own life and will do it again in the future, if given the opportunity, this is war. The rules of war are different. At such a time, when one must make decisions in an instant, is it reasonable to hold a soldier responsible and prosecute him, thereby intimidating and endangering the lives of other soldiers in the future? Another point is that this soldier was publicly declared guilty by many before the trial began. So is this merely a court trying to honestly assess if the soldier broke the law or not? Or is it an attempted lynching via public opinion in order to affect a predetermined verdict?
#7, Zionist values are “humanitarian” in nature and oppose Yiddishkeit. may no Yiddish soldiers serve in this treif army anymore.
To ladler — thank you for your very thoughtful response. I think that even dinei Torah do not generally allow us to kill someone “even if he may mass-murder in the future”. I don’t remember seeing the poskim or tshuvose discuss this question, even though I guess this point sounds reasonable (say if we knew with certainty that he would definitely kill people, or even if we knew he would try, may/should/must we kill him now? should we just “put him away for life”?).
Your main point, though, is that the rules of war are different, and what might not be permitted in a vacuum might be permitted in wartime. This sounds reasonable and many halachose of milchamah support this distinction (and I think we can agree that in some sense we are in sha’as hamilchama). But even then I think it’s important to try to ascertain whether this was a stress-of-the-moment ones-rachmana-patrei, or some serious mistake in judgement that should be punished. I hope that the court finds that this person made a mistake and should not be punished for what he did. BUT, if he really over-reacted and chose to shoot a neutralized terrorist because he thought he could get away with it, then maybe he should be punished?
I don’t think that the opinion of the court will be merely dictated by public outcry. As with any group of people that take their jobs seriously, I think they will try to get to the bottom of this as well as they can.
Remember also that totally acquitting this person without even considering the facts will certainly enrage many people, including other potential terrorists who will “act to avenge” his killing (just think about police acquittals). Israel certainly does not want to endanger the lives of its soldiers, and have certainly thought about these issues — whether you like their religious outlook or not, they are certainly a world-class army that thinks long and hard about these kinds of issues.
Finally, do those who believe that we are really in a time of war now consequently believe that all men should be serving in the army? אבל במלחמת מצוה הכל יוצא אפילו חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה — that in real war, everyone goes, even a bride and groom? Of course I don’t know what you think about this.