Not Right

Facebooktwittermail

People are still divided about the killing of a disarmed terrorist. The soldier has been officially charged. Now is the time for moral clarity. Also is Bernie Sanders a viable candidate for President?
notright

Comments

comments

Comments

  1. Cathy Zitnick says:

    I believe that Mottle is correct. We cannot maim or kill another human being just because we are so angry at their destructive behavior. That person needs to be arrested and tried, just like the rest of us. The moment that we give into our basic animalistic desires, and eradicate the person to make ourselves feel better, we have fallen into the trap of the person with the original destructive behavior. Now he/she is dead and that person no longer has to suffer the consequences of their action, but since you have lowered yourself in a moment of weakness (anger), now you are going to suffer the consequences of their action, by serving a sentence of a lifetime in prison for murder. I can absolutely understand where this young man must have been emotionally to want to kill that Palestinian, but we have to show we are better than that and learn to exercise some self-discipline.

    • Did he say he was angry and that’s why he shot the terrorist? Seems everyone is assuming a lot for not having been there or having questioned the soldier themselves to find out what he was thinking at the time. Seems like . . .

    • This guy, despite his best efforts, didn’t actually succeed in killing anyone. Just how many years do you think he would have been in jail? How would he have “suffered” the consequences of his actions in that jail? How would he have been viewed by his family and fellow Arabs? What would he learn in jail? To be good? To see the error of his ways? What do you think would have happened when he got out of jail? Go back home, raise a family, grow a garden? Not a chance. He would have been even more radicalized in jail and come out looking to kill as many Jews as he could and probably would have succeeded in killing someone’s mother, child, or father. He was a voluntary enemy combatant in a war– sworn to wipe the Jews out– had he survived, He WOULD have tried to kill more Jews, and probably would succeeded this time. The consequences of that soldier’s actions will be at least one, probably more, Jewish lives saved. He was a soldier in a war protecting the people he has sworn to protect. Did he do it in anger? Who cares if he did? He saved Jewish lives by eliminating an existential threat– an enemy combatant who would try to to kill again if he had lived– to the Jewish people in a wartime situation.

  2. I admit that this is a “sticky” situation for those of us who have inherited Jewish/ Biblical morality– those who haven’t, of course, would be naming a street after the soldier; however, I think I have to agree with Yishai Fleisher on this one: this Arab proved himself to be a terrorist. Had he lived, it is pretty much guaranteed that eventually he would have tried again, and perhaps succeeded in killing as many Israelis as he possibly could– perhaps another mother, a father, as we have seen time and again. Fact: he won’t now. Someone’s loved one will not be attacked, and possibly slaughtered, by this terrorist in the future. The fact that a Jew’s loved one– mother, daughter, child, father– will not have to go through the horror of facing this monster in the future is, in my book, a wonderful and moral thing. Morality aside, these are the common sense facts: Israel is at war, this Arab proved himself to be a terrorist, if he survived, he would try to kill again and, most likely, learning from his mistakes, choose a “softer” target, and succeed, now, he won’t. End of story. The Arab was a combatant in war; HE put himself into that position, HE lost, He was neutralized in an environment he created, and will never threaten the life of a Jewish loved one again. Common sense is being trumped by…what? Rule of law? Just what are the laws of warfare on this situation? This is not a police officer taking down a bank robber: this is a soldier taking down a proven enemy combatant who would kill again if given the chance. What more needs to be said?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Mottle Wolfe Show: Not Right People are still divided about the killing of a disarmed terrorist. The soldier has been officially […]

Leave a Reply