During an interview with Kikar Shabbos News, Zaka CEO Yehuda Meshi-Zahav explains that first and foremost, his volunteers will treat the Jewish victims “and after we have completed the chessed shel emmes, then we will first address a terrorist”.
His statements come on the heels of an interview with MDA Chief of Operation Eli Bin, who told Kol Berama Radio that the EMS organization follows standard medical protocol and treats the most seriously wounded first, even if this means the terrorist is treated before the victims. Bin’s statements have angered many, with some questioning why he felt a need to highlight this at present, during the security crisis.
Meshi-Zahav added that regarding the decision to no longer place the bodies of terrorists in body bags with the Zaka logo, he explained to Kikar Shabbos that while in the past they used the standard Zaka body bags for terrorists, after the recent attacks including the brutality seen at the Malchei Yisrael Street attack and receiving feedback from volunteers, it was decided to make a distinction between the victims and the terrorist. He stressed that there was always a separation between the terrorists and victims, but today they decided this distinction must be visible to all.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
Why cause hatred like in the Holocaust years. INNOCENT VICROMS BEFORE MURDERERS
Why should zaka do anything with terrorist body but burn it.
Respeckt, Respect, Kol Hakavod, etc.
Still, isnt there a concept that a jews life (and especially since he wasnt a rodeif) is way more valuable than that of a terrorist?
Why do they have to treat terrorists altogether? Let their people treat their own. Isnt ZAKA a private vaulanteer like Hatzala?
A Great man – Yehuda Meshi Zahav.
The share stupidity of the frei Jew knows no bounds.
Why should they treat the terrorist at all, let him die from his injuries and his body thrown to the dogs
I understand that Mada’s position is based on The Declaration of Geneva, (which is a declaration of a physician’s dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine):
“I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient”.
(http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html)
Similarly the Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient states:
“In circumstances where a choice must be made between potential patients for a particular treatment that is in limited supply, all such patients are entitled to a fair selection procedure for that treatment. That choice must be based on medical criteria and made without discrimination”.
(http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/l4/index.html)
Obviously the application of these guidelines to a terrorist seems at first to be ridiculous and was almost certainly not what they meant.
There is an article “Treating terrorists and victims: a moral dilemma”, written by doctors at Shaarei Tzedek, which concludes:
“In our opinion, all patients entering the hospital are unequivocally equal without exception. As difficult as it might be, the medical staff must not be judgmental. Punishment is not the role of the medical staff; rather, their duty and obligation is to preserve life and restore health. Judgment should be the exclusive provenance of the legal system and physicians should practice their art without discrimination and with a clear conscience.”
(http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60674-2.pdf)
The obvious flaw in his argument is that withholding treatment is not “Punishment” as he declares it is. This is someone who has proven that he is willing and capable of murderous actions, and withholding care is a kindness to future victims. But even if he’s right to consider withholding equal to an act of punishment, he’s talking about not treating them at all. Prioritising them over their victims is ridiculous, if only because their injuries were self-inflicted.
We are not talking about injuries caused merely by the patients’ negligence, such as smoking, or brought about by depression such as wrist cutting or attempted suicide. We are not talking about a grey area, in which proper judgement is required and medical personnel are not judges. This is clear cut self-harm with no regard to the consequence for themselves.
Even if you believe that they should be treated, it would seem obvious that a non-self-inflicted patient should have priority over a self-inflicted one, even without considering the fact that the two patients are connected by the self-inflicted one’s attempt to murder the other (which could be considered punishment if looking at the fact he did wrong).
What is the Israeli policy on the life of a Terrorist? Are the police suppose to shoot to Kill or to impede him by injuring him? The only opportunity to kill a terrorist is really at the scene. In Israel, there is no death penalty (except for Nazis). On the other hand, the IDF (and the US Military) are always sending Special Units into Dangerous Areas to eliminate specific terrorists. Seems like even the Israeli Police Department is confused about this?
ZAKA has lost my financial support! Let them strip the Arabs naked before giving any medical attention. All Arabs, male and female, alive, wounded and dead should have all clothing removed to make certain that they have no concealed weapons
Nothing is worse to an Arab than to be naked in public. This will stop all Arab terror attacks.