Israeli military charges soldier who shot and killed wounded Palestinian attacker with manslaughter

JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military on Thursday said prosecutors have announced their intention to file a manslaughter charge against a soldier who was caught on video shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker in the head.

The soldier appeared in a military court, where his detention was extended until Monday. The military said that prosecutors informed the court that they plan on charging the soldier with manslaughter, but are still working out some technical details before formally indicting him.

The shooting took place last month in Hebron, a West Bank city that has been a focal point of a seven-month wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

At the time, the military said two Palestinians stabbed and wounded an Israeli soldier before troops shot and killed the pair.

But in a video later released by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, one of the attackers was shown still alive after the initial shooting. The video, taken by a Palestinian volunteer for the group, shows the wounded attacker lying on the ground, slowly moving his head before a soldier raises his rifle and fires. Blood is then seen streaming from the Palestinian's head. An autopsy determined the bullet to the head was the cause of death.

The incident has triggered uproar in Israel, with the country's defense minister, military officials and many Israelis calling it contrary to the army's values. That has led to widespread support for the soldier, with many calling his actions appropriate for a country reeling from months of Palestinian attacks.

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not swayed to any view. I've always been unbiased about these incidents. If I see a video, I say what I see. I have no bias towards or against the soldier.

You are swayed by your on views on the matter, that is not knocking as we see what we want to see.
Again he will be convicted of that I have no doubt.
I just think in there situation facing unprecedented attacks incited off the next and by Palestinian leaders its bound to many of them on edge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

You are swayed by your on views on the matter, that is not knocking as we see what we want to see.
Again he will be convicted of that I have no doubt.
I just think in there situation facing unprecedented attacks incited off the next and by Palestinian leaders its bound to many of them on edge.

My views on the matter are based on what's in the video. What else can one go on?

didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My views on the matter are based on what's in the video. What else can one go on?

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

You don't know what was said either though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:

But you are not knowing the language going to place things into your own perspective Rags

You don't know what was said either though.

Among the army’s findings, the soldier allegedly said the surviving Palestinian stabber should be killed before he shot him, and told his commanders afterward that the assailant had deserved to die.

The case sparked controversy after a video surfaced online showing the soldier shooting the apparently disarmed, wounded and supine Palestinian stabber in the head.

According to a murder indictment filed Friday by military prosecutors in the Jaffa Military Court, the wounded assailant was not a threat to troops when he was killed.

Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under international law, its violations and implications for EU policy

I. WHY ISRAEL IS BOUND BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS DEFINING THE OBLIGATIONS OF AN OCCUPYING POWER.

The main international instruments defining the obligations of an occupying power are :

• the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Fourth Convention Respecting the Laws of War on Land signed in The Hague on 18 October 1907 (“the Hague Regulations) 
  
• the Fourth Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War signed in Geneva on 12 August 1949 (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”).
  
  
  
  

It should be stressed at the outset that Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention expressly provides that persons in the occupied area shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention by any agreement between the authorities of the occupied territory and the occupying authority. Accordingly, as long as the occupation endures, it is not possible to argue successfully that the conclusion of the Oslo agreements in any way diminished or affected the obligations of Israel towards the Palestinian population.

[list="text-align: justify;"]
[*]The Hague Regulations.


[/list]

Israel is not a party to the Fourth Hague Convention, to which the Hague Regulations are annexed. However, as stated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 concerning the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (“the Wall Opinion”), the rules laid down in the Hague Regulations are part of international customary law. ¹ This was recognized by all the participants in the proceedings before the Court in the Wall case, including Israel ². There is no doubt, therefore, that the Hague Regulations are binding on Israel.

Israel disputes the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT, although that convention was ratified both by it and by Jordan. According to the Israeli interpretation, it would follow from the wording of Article 2(2) that the Convention applies only where the territory occupied fell previously under the sovereignty of another High Contracting Party. ³ Since the OPT did not fall under Jordanian sovereignty before being occupied by Israel, the Israeli government argues that the Convention does not apply to it.

This argument was rejected by the ICJ in the Wall Opinion. The Court found that, according to Article 2(1), the Convention is applicable whenever there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties⁴. If that condition is satisfied, the Convention applies to any territory occupied in the course of that conflict. The object of Article 2(2) is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention but simply to make clear that, even if the occupation met no armed resistance, the Convention is applicable ⁵. According to the Court, this interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power. It is also confirmed by the Convention’s travaux préparatoires and was approved by the States parties to the Convention at a conference on 15 June 1999, in which they reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Convention to the OPT, including East Jerusalem. ⁶

For its part, the UN Security Council stated on numerous occasions that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israel’s occupation of the OPT. ⁷

The Supreme Court of Israel also found that, to the extent they affect civilians, the military operations of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are governed by the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. ⁸

Those on the Israeli side who maintain that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the OPT therefore commit a serious error.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations states that a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”.

This definition applies independently of the legality of the occupation. The only thing that matters is that there exists a situation in which a territory is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army. If that is the case, the law of occupation applies, whether or not the territory was subject to the sovereignty of the State occupying it previously, whether or not the occupation has received Security Council approval, whatever its aim is, whether or not it is the result of an aggression or of the exercise of the right to self-defence, whether or not it is motivated by humanitarian considerations, etc.

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted ⁹ “occupation” is not an accusation. It is simply the reflection of an objective state of fact. Those on the Israeli side who shun the term and prefer to speak of “disputed territories” in reality seek having to acknowledge the consequences deriving from that situation.

The occupied areas consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

Part of the West Bank was annexed by Israel in 1980 and is now considered by it to be within the city of Jerusalem. For this reason we shall consider it separately, even though it is regarded internationally as being part of the West Bank.

The West Bank was occupied by Israel in June 1967 in the course of the Six Days War. It remains occupied today. It had previously been occupied by Jordan. According to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 it had been designed to form part of the future Palestinian State. Although it is sometimes described on the Israeli side as being “disputed” rather than “occupied”, ¹⁰ its status as occupied territory within the meaning of international law is internationally recognized. ¹¹ The Israeli Supreme Court also accepted that Israel holds the West Bank in belligerent occupation. ¹²
 

The Oslo II agreement of 28 September 1995 divided the West Bank into three areas ; A, B and C, and gave to the Palestinian Authority “full civil and security control” over Area A. However the legal status of that area as “occupied territory” did not change. Israel continued to have the right to conduct military incursions into Area A without needing the consent of the Palestinian Authority and therefore maintained the potential to exercise full control over the area. ¹³ Israel also continued to have full security control over Area C and to have “overriding responsibility” for security for the purpose of protecting Israelis and confronting terrorism in Area B. Thus the entire territory of the West Bank remains under the authority of Israel.

The annexation of East Jerusalem was never recognized internationally. The UN Security Council censured it “in the strongest terms”, declared it “null and void”, adding that “it must be rescinded forthwith”. ¹⁴ Under international law it therefore continues to be part of the West Bank and must be considered as “occupied” by Israel.

- See more at: http://www.eccpalestine.org/israels-obligations-as-an-occupying-power-under-international-law-its-violations-and-implications-for-eu-policy/#sthash.R4NvMbTe.dpuf