Vigilante Justice and its Risks

There has been debate recently between certain rabbis over whether an individual can harm or kill a terrorist who has been neutralized e.g. handcuffed.

Rav David Stav, although agreeing that terrorists are deserving of the death penalty, raised two arguments against killing a terrorist who does not pose a current danger:

1. From a practical standpoint- what will the world say if they see Jews killing prone and handcuffed terrorists? It would likely lead to further murders of Jews.
2. From a Jewish and moral perspective-: "it is important to preserve our moral superiority; [we must] not harm those involved in murderous acts who have already been neutralized and do not represent a threat.” 

On the other hand, Rav Shmuel Eliyahu said that the Jewish law is clear that we should not let murderers live. It is our lives on the line here. “We can’t be consumed all day with what others are thinking about us,” the rabbi concluded. [note- In the articles I read he brought a proof from Moses's killing the Egyptian that was striking a Jewish man. I don't understand that proof because a) we typically do not learn halacha from before the Torah was actually given at Mt. Sinai, b) the Egyptian was not neutralized, but was in the act of striking the Jewish man.]

In a later interview with Arutz 7, Rav Eliyahu said that "Rav Stav is telling [soldiers] not to shoot to kill the terrorists." Something which I think misrepresents Rav Stav's position.

Also, Rav Ben-Tzion Mutzafi, when asked by his students whether, if a terrorist has been injured and incapacitated, it is permitted according to Jewish law to kill him responded that “It is commanded to take hold of his head and hit it against the ground until there is no longer any life in it... Do not listen to Stav, for the one who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.”

I do not understand the position of Rabbis Mutzafi and Eliyahu who say that Jewish law is clear that you can kill a terrorist after he has been incapacitated and poses no threat. Even if the halacha is clear what should be done to a murderer, we have many cases in Jewish law where meta-halachic considerations apply and we do in fact take into consideration what the rest of the world will say (e.g. darchei shalom / aiva, darchei noam, dina d'malchusa dina).

Also, the mistaken vigilante killing of an Eritrean man after the terror attack in Beer Sheva, seems to support the position that individuals should not take the law into their own hands but let the justice and political systems operate. (Even if the outcomes of those systems are frustrating we have a ballot box to change that.)

Zaka Clarifies: We Treat Jewish Victims Before Terrorists via @ArutzSheva_En

Zaka Clarifies: We Treat Jewish Victims Before Terrorists

After outcry over MDA director's claim severely wounded terrorists to be treated before victims, ZAKA says Jewish victims come first.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services5

By Ido Ben Porat

First Publish: 10/15/2015, 11:28 AM

ZAKA director

Yaakov Naumi / Flash 90

The director of the ZAKA emergency response organization clarified unequivocally on Thursday that medical volunteers at terror scenes treat injured victims first before treating Arab terrorists. 

Yehuda Meshi Zahav made the clarification following the public outcry after Magen David Adom's general director Eli Bein asserted that MDA medics will treat terrorists first if they're in worse condition than the victims. 

"Volunteers are faced with a great many number of serious ethical questions," Meshi Zahav said in an interview with Kikar Shabbat. "I saw it personally in several recent attacks."

According to the ZAKA director, volunteers arrive at the scene of the attack and often see the terrorist in serious or critical condition, while the Jewish victims are lightly-to-moderately wounded. 

"You always have to deal first with those who are more severely wounded and this is a very difficult question," he noted. 

"The volunteers are asking us what to do," Meshi Zahav continued. "In reality, it's a bit easier because it's forbidden to touch the terrorist until a police sapper comes to check if he's armed with a bomb. This is what gives us time to check injured Jews in the meantime."

Meshi Zahav stressed that this a complex issue, but "we instruct our volunteers to first take care of all Jews, because they were harmed just because they are Jews, while the terrorist murderer deserving of death."

Israeli law technically does mandate the death penalty in certain cases, but in practice it has only ever been implemented once in the country's history - the execution of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962. Recent years have seen a campaign to implement the death penalty for terrorist murderers gain steam, but the Israeli government has thus far resisted the pressure.

But for paramedics, the issue is a question of medical ethics - and what, if any, limits apply in such controversial cases.

"Although our Code of Ethics says we should first take care of the those most severely injured, we need to know that there is also a limit to morality," he noted. "If we don't make the distinction, we will lose direction."

Palestinian Lawyers Honor 'Hero' Terrorist Stabber - Arutz Sheva

Palestinian Bar Association Honors 'Hero' Terrorist Stabber

Palestinian Bar Association gives honorary degree to terrorist who murdered Rabbi Nehemia Lavi and Aharon Banita Bennett.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services27

By Dalit Halevi

First Publish: 10/11/2015, 4:11 AM

Police at the site of Jerusalem stabbing attack

Flash 90

The Palestinian Bar Association decided on Saturday that it would give an honorary lawyer’s degree to Mohannad Halabi, the terrorist who last week murdered Rabbi Nehemia Lavi, 41, and Aharon Banita Bennett, 21, in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Bar Association described Halabi as a “heroic martyr” in announcing its decision to give him an honorary degree. The organization also announced it would name its swearing in ceremony for lawyers after the terrorist.

A delegation from the Association visited Halabi’s family this week and expressed its condolences for the death of their son, who was a student at the Faculty of Law at Al-Quds University.

The move is the latest example of incitement against Israel by Palestinian officials and institutions. For example, a video released earlier this week in Gaza shows an Arab wearing a black-and-white kefiyeh watching Arab riots on his cell phone. Two Arab actors dressed as crude caricatures of religious Jews are seen pushing Arab children and passing him by. The teen then draws a knife and stabs the two to death.

A recent video released by the Israeli Foreign Ministry has revealed how such incitement goes right to the top of the PA.

Attorney General Allows Soccer Games to Continue on Shabbat- Preserving the Status Quo

The Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, weighed in this week on the controversy created after some professional soccer players and fans moved to end the decades long practice of playing league games on Shabbat. Under the Israel Working Hours and Rest Law, the Minister of Labor/Commerce needs to specifically permit employees to work on the Shabbat if there is a public need. Weinstein, in a letter to Culture Minister, Miri Regev, stated that it is not a simple thing to change the policy of non-enforcement of the Shabbat rest laws for professional games that has been in place for many years.

Rafi Goldmeier, in his Life In Israel Blog, pointed out the irony of the Attorney General stating that since a law has not been enforced for so long it should continue to remain unenforced. What are the odds that type of argument would work for you the next time you are in traffic court?

On the other hand, I can imagine that there are indeed some scenarios where a law has become so anachronistic that it would be absurd to resurrect and begin enforcing it now. List your examples in the comments below.

Israel Hayom | High Court: State may punish anti-Israel boycotters

High Court: State may punish anti-Israel boycotters

Some four years after state passes anti-boycott law, justices rule that protecting the well-being of the state trumps the right to boycott and does not infringe on free speech • Law makes the call for the boycott of Israel a civil offense.

Edna Adato

The High Court of Justice largely upheld the anti-boycott law on Wednesday |  Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

The Knesset did not trample constitutional rights when it legislated a bill aimed at punishing those who call for a boycott of Israel, the High Court of Justice said on Wednesday.

An extended panel of nine justices said the law, known as the Law for the Prevention of Boycotts Targeting Israel, passed constitutional muster, noting that the state has the right to defend itself against those who want to forcefully undermine its very foundation. The court said that it was possible to reconcile freedom of speech with certain restrictions on boycotts, so long as these were designed to protect the state from a real threat to its wellbeing, noting that the punitive measures mentioned in law were within reason.

The 2011 law, sponsored by then-Coalition Chairman Zeev Elkin (Likud), says that the government may seek damages from anyone who actively promotes an economic, cultural or academic boycott of Israel or any other entity because of its affiliation with Israel. This applies to boycott campaigns that target produce from Judea and Samaria. The law allows the finance minister to prevent those who promote such boycott or take part in it from submitting bids for various projects and to deny them state funding and other benefits.

During the court hearings, the state said the bill would help safeguard Israel's stature on the world stage and protect its foreign relations.

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel had petitioned the High Court of Justice shortly after the law's enactment, saying it imposed a "price tag" on legitimate political views and undermines the public discourse on the most controversial issues in Israeli society.

"The High Court refused to do the obvious thing -- protect free speech," the organizations said following Wednesday's decision. Despite siding overwhelmingly with the state, the court did strike down one provision which allowed the court to award damages on boycott-related offenses even without proof of wrongful conduct. The judges said this was an excessive measure.

Do you let your kids "free-range" or are they caged and corn-fed?

I saw the below article regarding parents who let their children (8 & 10) walk one mile home without adult supervision. Apparently they are "free range" children. This is quite common in Israel and the parents in the article have an Israeli sounding last name.

I will try to do some research on the law here in Israel regarding this. In the meantime, see below for the full article.

FAMILY LAW

Parents investigated for allowing their ‘free-range’ kids to walk home alone

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Jan 15, 2015, 06:52 am CST

A Maryland couple who believe in “free-range” parenting say they are under investigation for allowing their children to walk home alone from a Silver Spring park.
The children are 10 and 6, and the walk home was a mile in length, the Washington Post reports. Police picked up the children on Dec. 20 about halfway through their journey. The children that day weren’t carrying their laminated card that reads, “I am not lost. I am a free-range kid.”
The parents, Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, say Montgomery County Child Protective Services has launched a neglect investigation. CPS spokesperson Mary Anderson refused comment on the case, but said neglect investigations typically look for guidance to a state law that says children younger than 8 must be left with a reliable person who is at least 13 years old. The law applies to dwellings, enclosures and vehicles.
Danielle, a climate-science consultant, told the Washington Post that her children have proven themselves responsible. “The world is actually even safer than when I was a child, and I just want to give them the same freedom and independence that I had—basically an old-fashioned childhood,” she said. “I think it’s absolutely critical for their development—to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency.”
Alexander Meitiv, a physicist at the National Institutes of Health, also objected to the investigation. “We feel we’re being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with,” he said.

Israel Hayom | AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier

Israel Hayom | AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier:

AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier

Military can act to prevent abductions, even at risk to victim, but cannot use deadly force on victim, says Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, following inquiry by civil rights group • The Hannibal Protocol must meet international legal criteria, he says.

Edna Adato and Israel Hayom Staff

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein  |  Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

The Israel Defense Forces' abduction prevention measures must follow international legal criteria and cannot entail the use of deadly force against the victim, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein said Monday.

Weinstein was responding to an inquiry by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel requesting clarification on the military's Hannibal Protocol, which is designed to thwart the capture of Israeli security forces by enemy agents and allows commanders in the field to take whatever actions are necessary to foil such abductions.

The association petitioned Weinstein in August following the failed rescue attempt of Lt. Hadar Goldin, who was killed near Rafah during Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip, and asked Weinstein to make the directives associated with Hannibal Protocol public. The Justice Ministry denied the petition, saying the protocol was classified. The ministry did, however, say the protocol had been recently revised following lengthy preparatory work by the military.

The directives, Weinstein said, do not suggest, directly or indirectly, that preventing a soldier's abduction entails using deadly force on the victim.

"We believe the directives exercised as part of this protocol reflect the proper balance of the various considerations intrinsic to such situations," his response said.

"A military operation meant to thwart an ongoing abduction attempt almost always entails placing the abductee in a certain amount of danger. Israeli and international law do not bar the actions necessary to prevent abductions, even if they may endanger the abductee's life, but nevertheless, the operational directives bar the use of deadly force meant to cause the abductee's death."

The military is still investigating the circumstances of Goldin's death, and Weinstein stressed Monday that the final decision on any future proceedings in the case falls to Military Judge Advocate General Maj. Gen. Danny Efroni.

"Exercising the authority vested him by the Military Jurisdiction Act, the judge advocate general has sole jurisdiction on the matter. His actions are independent and he is guided only by legal considerations," Weinstein said.