He was executed on site without a trial just like the historical Bus 300 Affair*?
In a democratic law-abiding country, even the most criminal murderer has rights. First and foremost, the right to defend themselves in court. ■ It is clear that when he lay wounded on the ground, he posed no threat to anyone, and there was no justification for shooting him to death in this situation, after he had been neutralised.
By Rogel Alpher • Translated by Sol Salbe
How did the terrorist who carried out the attack at the Karkur Junction die? At the time of writing, the author of these lines is in a disturbing state of unclarity regarding the circumstances of that person’s death. Television footage shows the terrorist lying on the ground, writhing in pain, and perhaps even talking to the police officers who shot him, who are standing above him with guns drawn. Contrary to the usual practice, no photographs of the terrorist’s body were broadcast. Most significantly, no one explained how he went from the state of being alive in which he was seen in the vision we saw, to his very much dead state shortly afterwards.
It was not reported that he died of his wounds. It is clear that when he lay wounded on the ground, he posed no threat to anyone, and there was no justification for shooting him to death in this situation, after he had been neutralised. The police commissioner explained at the media conference at the scene of the attack that the terrorist had been “neutralised and eliminated,” in accordance with his instructions to the police, and praised the police officers who acted in this way.
Excuse me? “Neutralised and eliminated”? As in two separate actions carried out one after the other? Just to remove any doubt: the neutralisation was, of course, necessary and justified. If the terrorist had been killed during the attempt to neutralise him, that too would of course be legal and moral. But if the terrorist was “eliminated” after being “neutralised,” he was executed, in violation of the law.
This fundamental issue is critical not because this terrorist deserves to live, but because the essential difference between the police and the terrorist is that the police do not murder people. Not even criminals. Not even major criminals. Not even murderers. And not even Arabs who murder Jews on nationalist grounds.
In a democratic law-abiding country, even the most criminal murderer has rights. First and foremost, the right to defend themselves in court. The onus is on the state to prove that he is the terrorist who carried out the attack in Karkur, and only a court can find him guilty and sentence him. Police officers in the field, even if they are Jewish and he is an Arab, have no right to do so. Therefore, the question arises once again as to how did the terrorist die. The intention is not to protect him, but to protect the rule of law. The man who was shot in the clips, seriously wounded, did not appear to be on his deathbed. If he bled to death before an ambulance arrived, this should be made clear. It’s strange that no one said it.
Fifty years ago, the execution of a neutralised terrorist on the ground, even a mass murderer, violated a norm that was considered essential to a state of law in Israel. Just recall the Bus 300 affair* that shook the country. But the journalists in the studios decided, in a kind of tacit agreement, not to ask questions this time.
*Bus 300 Affair: The Bus 300 affair (Hebrew: פרשת קו 300, Romanised: Parashat Kav 300, lit ‘Line 300 affair’), also known as Kav 300 affair, was a 1984 incident in which Shin Bet members executed two Palestinian bus hijackers, immediately after the hostage crisis incident ended and they had been captured. (Wikipedia)
