An Israeli soldier shot and killed an unarmed man in the West Bank. The man had his hands in the air and was begging for his life. The man clearly posed no threat to the soldier. We know all this because it was captured on a cell phone video (see first tweet below). We do not know what happened before the cell phone video ~ clearly the unarmed man must have done something wrong to justify his fate. He probably gave the soldier a mean look or something. Or maybe he was too slow in responding to a command.
The soldier was interviewed and described his elation at being able to put an X on his weapon.
The soldier was commended for his bravery on social media.
The only thing is… the unarmed man who looked like a Palestinian terrorist turned out to be another IDF soldier. The soldier who shot the unarmed Palestinian terrorist is a settler, and some are suggesting that settlers may be more trigger happy than the average Israeli soldier. I dont know if that is true, obviously.
But the more interesting question is… which set of Israeli courts will be responsible for this incident? The one with a 99% conviction rate (which is normally used when there is any allegation of violence against an Israeli citizen), or the one with a 0% conviction rate (which is normally used when there is any allegation of violence against a Palestinian non-citizen). Was the victim a Palestinian non-citizen or an Israeli citizen ?
That may sound like a glib question, but it is not. An incident like this was bound to happen at some point, and was bound to poke holes into the 2-tier justice system that the Israelis have setup.