israeli kills 4 arabs on bus

[Imran Siddiqui]

Az, as the article says:

Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said.

Wouldn't someone trying to derail the peace process be an "enemy of Israel"? Your lawyers have to be better than this! , unless they didn't want the Arabs to gain compensation

[Az]

Wouldn't someone trying to derail the peace process be an "enemy of Israel"?

Only if you're on Law&Order. Besides, he wanted to derail the disengagement, not the peace process, and isn't an "enemy of Israel" - which doesn't mean that he's not a "bad guy".

Your lawyers have to be better than this!

Maybe the families lawyers will be, if they'll decide to go to court over this.

unless they didn't want the Arabs to gain compensation

As was said here, it's peanuts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only if you're on Law&Order. Besides, he wanted to derail the disengagement, not the peace process, and isn't an "enemy of Israel"

You aren't creative enough... and Law&Order has nothing to do with it, it's a perfectly valid argument. If the family's lawyers sue, I'm sure they'll use a similar argument.

[Az]

You aren't creative enough...

QED.

Btw, I love Law&Order.

[KrazyHorse]

Somebody who uses violence against Israeli citizens to promote his political ends isn't an enemy of the state of Israel?

[KrazyHorse]

There's tons of wiggle room in that statute.

Whatever bureaucrat made that call is both an idiot and a chauvinist.

[Az]

No. That's a definiton of a terrorist, not an "enemy of the state of Israel".

Somebody who uses violence against people in general, to promote the goal of destroying the state of Israel or harm it's interests is an "enemy of the state of Israel".

Since he tried to stop the disengagement, and the nature of the disengagment is a debated topic, and is definetly controversial in Israeli society, I don't think that he can be considered an "enemy of the state", but a lone terrorist. It's not a recompensation of terror victims law, it's the recompensation of "victims of acts of hostility". The act was certainly not against Israel. If one would claim that it wanted to destroy Israel as a "lawful society, in which people can walk safely", then, it would make the definition of "enemy of the state" vague enough to be applied to most murders.

Note the difference between "enemy of Israel" and people who Israel finds hostile to itself.

This is due to the history of the law, that was an extension of damages paid to people that were harmed by conventional armies, AFAIK.

[Az]

Btw, nice molecule, smiley.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
No. That's a definiton of a terrorist, not an "enemy of the state of Israel".

And not all terrorists who commit violence against Israelis are enemies of the State of Israel?

Somebody who uses violence against people in general, to promote the goal of destroying the state of Israel or harm it's interests is an "enemy of the state of Israel".

a) He did harm Israeli interests, namely its citizens

b) He did broader harm to Israel in negative publicity

c) Who told you that this was what being "an enemy of the State of Israel" was? Is there another statute which defines it in this way? If not, then as I say: tons of wiggle room...

Since he tried to stop the disengagement, and the nature of the disengagment is a debated topic, and is definetly controversial in Israeli society, I don't think that he can be considered an "enemy of the state", but a lone terrorist. It's not a recompensation of terror victims law, it's the recompensation of "victims of acts of hostility". The act was certainly not against Israel. If one would claim that it wanted to destroy Israel as a "lawful society, in which people can walk safely", then, it would make the definition of "enemy of the state" vague enough to be applied to most murders.

He was attempting, through violent means, to disrupt a legally derived course of political action by the government of Israel. He was strking at the heart of what a democracy is. I would indeed term such a person an enemy of the State. And it would have been rather easy for any bureacrat with a whit of sense to see that this is the definition he should apply. Somebody was trying to make a point here, and I think it's going to rightfully backfire on them.

[KrazyHorse]

This man's crime was not an "ordinary" crime; it 's rather easy to see how we can term terrorists enemies of the State while not according the same status to every murderer.

Just because he wasn't aiming for the destruction of the State of Israel does not prevent him from being an enemy of that State.

Hopefully you see your country as having more worth than simply existing. Being a functioning democracy is a fundamental aspect of Israel. Terror is incompatible with this attribute.

[KrazyHorse]

What if soomebody committed a terrorist act with the intention of driving all the Jews out of Israel (while retaining the existence of Israel as a functioning State).

Would the victims of this man's act be denied compensation?

[Proteus_MST]

An Israeli Arab member of parliament, Muhammad Barak, said there was a strong scent of racism about the decision, because it distinguished between Jewish terrorism and Arab terrorism.

He has submitted an amendment to allow Israel to compensate anyone hurt in "hostile activities by a terror organisation" - not just those hurt by "organisations hostile to Israel", Haaretz reports.

Lets hope he has success and isn´t stopped by those right wing parties which probably have a strong interest in the law staying unaltered and those israeli arabs getting no payment at all

[Az]

And not all terrorists who commit violence against Israelis are enemies of the State of Israel?

No, of course not. There are plenty of terrorists who commit violence against Israelis who aren't enemies of the state of Israel. There are plenty of Israelis hurt in various terrorist attacks all over the world. There aren't "enemies of the state of Israel", and their relatives don't recieve compensation.

Maybe it's a linguistic problem. AFAIK, the law calls for compensation of people who are "victims of acts of hostility" against the state of Israel.

He was attempting, through violent means, to disrupt a legally derived course of political action by the government of Israel. He was strking at the heart of what a democracy is. I would indeed term such a person an enemy of the State. And it would have been rather easy for any bureacrat with a whit of sense to see that this is the definition he should apply. Somebody was trying to make a point here, and I think it's going to rightfully backfire on them.

It's waaay too much of a stretch. heck, does the family of the assassinated prime minister deserve compensation for his murder under this clause? certainly not .( though they fall under different category and I am sure they were compensated )

[KrazyHorse]

No, of course not. There are plenty of terrorists who commit violence against Israelis who aren't enemies of the state of Israel. There are plenty of Israelis hurt in various terrorist attacks all over the world. There aren't "enemies of the state of Israel", and their relatives don't recieve compensation.

And were they being deliberately targeted as Israelis in order to alter the Israeli govenment's decisions, or were they simply being caught in the crossfire (for instance as any Israeli citizens present in the WTC on Sept. 11 would have been)

Maybe it's a linguistic problem. AFAIK, the law calls for compensation of people who are "victims of acts of hostility" against the state of Israel.

Yes...and killing a State's citizens in order to affect the State's behaviour is not an act of hostility? I see no difference between this and sending a suicide bomber in to pressure the Israelis to withdraw from Palestinian territory, other than the fact that the bomber was an Israeli citizen. If this is the problem, then did the families of the victims of the Israeli Arab bomber at the train station (?) a few years back get compensation?

It's waaay too much of a stretch. heck, does the family of the assassinated prime minister deserve compensation for his murder under this clause? certainly not .( though they fall under different category and I am sure they were compensated )

Uhhh....yes. I have no problem with that.

[Az]

And were they being deliberately targeted as Israelis in order to alter the Israeli govenment's decisions, or were they simply being caught in the crossfire (for instance as any Israeli citizens present in the WTC on Sept. 11 would have been)

That's not what you asked.

But they weren't attacked as Israeli citizens, but as arabs. It wasn't an attack based on their citizenship, but on their nationality. I don't think there is differentiation between them and the Palestinians murdered a week ago, in the sense of the reasoning to their attack. The difference is the allegibility for compensation as Israeli citizens.

Look, as I've sad, I am all for giving them some cash - but as far as the law goes, they don't currently fit the case.