Monday, August 08, 2005

Lynch of the Law

Sunday night's Channel 10 footage of the lynching of Eden Natan-Zada has re-confirmed what I had hoped would not be the case - the brutal murder of the Jewish terrorist who carried out the terror attack on Israeli Arabs last Thursday.

I have no reason to try to explain this Jew's horrific act of violence. He planned the attack and though I have sympathy for his family and him in regards the hate and brainwash that he was taught and fed, I reject and condemn such terror wholeheartedly.

At the same time, I will stand by him and his family in one sole respect - that is, that his human rights were taken away from him and that he was left to be pummeled and slaughtered to death by a crowd of angry people. He might well have deserved a death penalty or life imprisonment but where I come from and where I live now, this is not how honest, just people carry out justice.

Though I studied the subject at University as part of my law degree, I do not claim to be a human rights guru. But I do know that criminals have rights too. Yes, even rapists, even paedophiles, even murderers and yes, even terrorists - let's face it, the world and Israel civil rights groups remind the IDF and the Israeli government of that fact each and every day.

When the the car blew up in a West Bank settlement last month and the bomber survived, Israel rescued him and he is undergoing treatment in Israel. When the bomber sat at Kaffit (on Emek Refiam) and tried to set off a briefcase bomb, the waiter tackled him and he was arrested.
When the 16-year old arrived at a checkpoint wearing an explosive pack across his chest, IDF sappers sent a robot and scissors to assist the boy to cut his way out of explosives pack. Last week, an Australian friend working at Ein Karem Hospital told me about the Palestinian terrorist who has been in the burns unit there for months, as Israeli doctors treat him for horrific injuries. He blew himself up while building a bomb destined for Israel.
Whenever it can, Israel arrests and treats, even to the extent of endangering Israeli lives and adding great expenses to Israel's medical system.

My friends, he murdered innocents in cold blood, but Eden Natan-Zada had rights that demanded protection too. Israel failed to provide those, and our fellow Arab citizens of Shfaram brutally stripped him of those rights and of his life.

None of this excuses Eden's criminal and terror act. Nothing can justify it. But frankly, the Rule of Law, justice and morality requires that nothing be said or done to justify the actions of those Arab citizens of Israel who attacked and slaughtered him.

These Arabs are citizens of Israel. Israel (though its democracy struggles at times) does not and should not accept anarchy nor private, personal justice being laid out upon others. This is the kind of justice we witness and deplore in the Palestinian Authority, Iran and in other states, where suspects are placed in monkey court rooms, convicted and then shot, hung, dragged behind a car, decapitated or the like. We Israelis must reject any semblance of similarity to the Palestinian or Iranian 'justice' systems.

This AWOL IDF soldier come Jewish terrorist was handcuffed and under the supervision of two Israeli policemen on the bus. He was no further danger to anyone. The crowds attacked him and committed a grave crime.

These are Israeli citizens of Israel. I sympathize fully with their distress and anguish and I can imagine their frustration at seeing two policemen protecting the guilty person - all this in light of an Arab sector that still sees itself as the victim of Israeli discrimination.

But that is where my understanding ceases. As Israeli citizens who receive much (and much more than Palestinians receive from the PA), these Arabs must obey Israeli police orders and reject such violence and cruelty. I expect the same restraint from anti-Disengagement supporters and expect strong justice to be handed out to those who turn to violence during their orange battle.

It's not easy to defend a terrorist - and therefore I am not. I simply deplore the fact that his human rights were overlooked and destroyed - along with him.

13 comments:

Marc said...

Why would anybody waste their time on this guy? Was he a terrorist? Maybe. Maybe not. Did he deserve to be killed? Maybe. Maybe not. But, is he worth one ounce of sypathy? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

With all due respect to Elizabeth, there have been other Jews who have done horrible things that have been praised by their peers. Both Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir were praised for their murderous acts by those who gave way to their evil impulses. The fact that you would so immediately and callously spin this incident into an opportunity to score political points by talking about Palestinian terrorism demonstrates a lack of adequate compassion.

In the wake of the terrorist bombings on 7/7 in London, Ariel Sharon's office issued instructions to his cabinet not to publically equate the situations in the UK and Israel. He was aware that any attempt to do so too soon after the tragedy would smack of opportunism.

The correct response to this incident of violent Jewish extremism is to condemn it without any caveats, ifs, ands, or buts. It is to be abhored. Period. No amount of "yeah, that was bad, but the Palestinians are worse" is appropriate.

Michael Lawrence said...

Judd thanks for your comments. I certainly do not feel that all good lies on the Israeli side and bad on the Palestinian side. But let's keep in mind that the lynch was carried out by citizens of Israel and that was the main point of my post. These are not Palestinians, but Israeli Arabs and they must obey Israeli law. (Similarly, the Israelis who attacked a Palestinian in Gaza recently were arrested).

House demolitions are controversial and I recognize this. Yet, it is in fact a non-deadly means of deterrence in a war on terror. (The policy's success is debatable that's for sure). The security fence is also non-deadly. Another main difference is that house demolitions and the security fence are given the OK by a majority of a democratic Knesset. They might be controversial and cause pain but neither constitute murder.

Anonymous said...

Judd:
Your comment is thougtfull and well-read, however, I fail to grasp your reference to house demolitions. What has that go to do with the latest blog?
Are you implying that acts taken by the Israeli Government to detter terrorists from commiting terrorism(which the demolition of houses has proven to be effective), is intself terrorism?
Perhaps you can tell us what your definition of terrorism is.
Respectfully,

Michael Lawrence said...

Thanks for your comments Jon.
In essence, Eden's actions fit your dictionary description in that it was
"in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in
nature". His hope and potentially that of others, is to spark riots and
another Intifada so as to require IDF forces to be transferred from Gush
Katif etc and therefore to delay Disengagement.

You're right that everyone loves the word 'terrorist' today but in fact Kach
is such a movement and Eden had been a follower of them. It might be that
Jewish terrorism is less well-known and they make their aims less public,
but just because Hamas makes their aim to destroy Israel so public does not
for one moment change the fact that Kach is teaching hatred and terror and
now carrying it out.

Anonymous said...

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your feedback, but you can't just chop up my definition and say
that Eden's actions fit it.

True, what he did may have been "in order to attain goals that are political
or religious or ideological in nature" however you're missing the critical
part of the definition. The whole point of "terrorism" is to achieve your
means by inspiring "terror" in a population to coerce a governmental
response. Since he is dead and not part of a group threatening to send more
attackers, how could this possibly make Arabs fear more attacks if his
so-called demands (what did he demand exactly?) aren't met?

Kach can certainly not be compared to Hamas. While Kach may preach transfer
of Arabs (while the Israeli left preaches transfer of Jews) and distain
towards Arabs (while the Israeli left preaches distain towards
Torah-observant Jews), it is not sending people on missions to kill Arabs to
coerce either the Israeli government to transfer them or the Arabs to leave.
That is simply rediculous. Unless you can show me that Kach plans to execute
attacks to instill "terror" in the Arab population to achieve their goals
then you certainly have to back-pedal on your accusation.


- Jon :o)

Anonymous said...

The lynching in this case is unfortunately secondary to the original terrorist act. Had it been an Arab lynched by other Arabs there would have been few complaints.The unprovoked Ramallah lynching was pure evil and hatred of Israelis.maintaining the Rule of Law in times of war and/or civil unrest is a real challenge for a democratic country.

Anonymous said...

I agree, without reservation, that what Natan-Zada did was wrong, whether you define it as terrorism or murder. However, no one seems to have made the observation that the Arab/Muslim reaction to it shows very clearly what kind of people the Israeli's (and the world, for that matter) have to deal with.

First, I want to state that I don't call Arabs living in Israel "Israeli" even if they have political and civil rights. To me they are just Arabs living in Israel.

The Arab/Muslim reaction to the killing shows yet again just how base, low, mean, uncivilized, amoral and just plain nasty these people are. Sure there may be individuals who are exceptions, but try to find them. And try to identify instances where they speak out against the barbarity and violence of their brothers. It hardly exists.

I like to say that if we "Bomb them back into the Middle Ages, we will be advancing their culture by about 500 years".

They are all just mad as hell that they are not a world superpower. They were, but that was 1000 years ago, and since then, they haven't made a positive contribution to mankind and they are sore about it.

They look at our Western culture, its ascendancy and success, and it just galls them to no end. So, rather than trying to learn how it is done, they are instead trying to force the world back into the Middle Ages when they were on top.

A sad and sorry people they are, and until the world admits to the reality, which is obvious to anyone with eyes, there will not be an end to the violence caused by Arabs and Muslims in the world.

Take a look around at all of the places in the world where there is some sort of armed conflict going on. Almost every one of them has Muslims on one side or the other. Isn't it time we started to shout the truth? These are sick people and compassion, understanding, and reason are not among their traits.

We have tried to negoiate with them, to cajole them, to bribe them, but nothing has worked. The only thing left for us to do, if we are to survive, it to utterly destroy them before they destroy us.

Anonymous said...

Jon,
I think the first thing that you need to realize is that there is no one definition of terrorism. The US government for examples uses over 3 different definitions depending on what department you are looking at. If there was one definition, We would be able to say if this was terrorism. However I offer you a more professional definition than that provided by a general dictionary; That of the FBI in the US.
the FBI defines a terrorist incident as “a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals.”

1) the act was violent. It caused the death of several Arab Israelis
2) Murder is illegal in Israel
3) He was trying to coerce the government to cancel or delay disengagement
4) He was trying to intimidate the Arab population to rebel against the state
5) His political goals were again to cancel or delay disengagement.

All murder is not terror and that goes both ways. However when you murder someone because of a political belief that is terrorism and Eden is a terrorist. We should not try to act like he did nothing wrong but recognize that Israelis are not all perfect. Im sorry to burst you ideological bubble.

Michael Lawrence said...

Marc (and others) - I do not feel comfortable deleting people's comments here. Any swearing or racist comments are a poor reflection on the author rather than on me and the KICblog (I would hope!).

At the same time, while I back everyone's right to have an opinion, I do not think we need to abuse each other nor promote the destruction of an entire nation. Neither represents Jewish or Israeli values.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the feedback, but you keep reiterating the same fragment of the
definition and you keep missing the context.

Eden was by no means trying to scare (ie. "terrorize") a population into
capitulating to his will which is the essense of "terorism". You really
can't leave the "terror" out of the definition of "terrorism" !

Yes, obviously he had a political goal in what he did, but that doesn't mean
that he was trying to terrorize the Palestinians to achieve it. What he was
trying to do was distract the Israeli police force. If his STATED GOAL was
to incite Arab RIOTS, that is extraordinarily different than inciting FEAR
(ie. "terror") in the Arabs. If the goal of an attack is NOT to inspire
terror, it is simply political capitulation and intellectual dishonesty to
call the attack "terrorism".

- Jon

Michael Lawrence said...

Jon - I can accept your argument that 'fear' wasn't the main goal of his attack on Israeli Arabs - though let's consider the expressions of the Arab pop"n who now say they are feeling very uncertain and fearful and have felt
at risk for a while.

Arguments about definitions are all well and good but frankly we have to face up to the fact that a Jewish man willingly murdered innocent people.
Whether it was to stop disengagement or not, there was a nationalistic motive and hatred of Arabs behind the motives. For me, it sounds a lot like terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Hey Michael,

Please feel free to post all of my responses on your blog.

You seem to agree with me that Eden's actions weren't aiming to terrorize(ie. instill fear in) the Arab people. Hate and nationalism does not automatically make an attack "terrorism". Now it is time to relinquish the use of the word "terrorism" in this case. Not only is it misleading and
factually inaccurate, it also whitewashes true acts of terror.

No doubt that this was a terrible case of a Jew killling Arabs. However, just because we want the Arabs to call their acts of terrorism by that name,
doesn't mean we have to call every Jew on Arab crime terrorism !

Of course some Arabs now feel a sense of fear or that there may be another attack. But isn't that the case with every crime? Doesn't a liquor store clerk feel frightened after an armed robbery? Nobody would call that terror.

This is a case where intentions DO matter in the crime.

- Jon :o)

Anonymous said...

Impressesed.