Azaria conviction

With regard to “Court convicts Azaria of manslaughter” (January 5), the judiciary can continue to state that rule of law is paramount in a democracy. However, our enemies play by and preach not only a totally different set of rules, but a plan of non-recognition and a wish to annihilate.

I hope, therefore, that any and every terrorist acting against us (and everyone assisting this terrorist in any way) is dealt with by the full force of the law, and that the continual bleating from the Left will fall on deaf ears.

Our enemies will be defeated only from strength, not weakness, not matter how loud we scream “Democracy!” STEPHEN VISHNICK Tel Aviv

Two days before the verdict, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot spoke in a public forum, and his words left no doubt in my mind that he felt that Sgt. Elor Azaria was guilty of manslaughter (“Eisenkot: Azaria is a soldier, not ‘the whole nation’s son,’” January 4).

It appears to me that these statements, made before the verdict, could be construed as a thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the trial. The timing of his remarks was, at the very least, inappropriate. One would assume that a person who is in the most senior position in the IDF would be much more judicious in choosing the timing of his remarks; this would be true whether or not one agreed with what he said.

Eisenkot stressed the idea of discipline among those serving in the IDF, which is very important. But being the head of the military, he should be the first to practice self-discipline and weigh carefully the effect of his words and their timing.

The people at the top of the chain of command must be held to the highest standards, and I think it proper that some kind of statement reflecting disapproval of the timing of Eisenkot’s remarks should be forthcoming from the Defense Ministry and even the government. DOV BERGER Ramat Gan

Having served two tours in Iraq as a US Army officer, I and my comrades were required to apply the Rules of Engagement (ROE) in strict accordance with the Geneva Conventions and the International Laws of War. Prior to invading Iraq in 2003, Judge Advocate General lawyers briefed us on the following legal principles: r 8F XFSF PSEFSFE UP VTF deadly force if we perceived a threat to our lives or the lives of comrades from an enemy combatant or terrorist. We were warned that failure to do so would lead to adverse Uniform Code of Military Justice action and possible court-martial. r 5IF POMZ UXP XBZT BO enemy combatant or terrorist no longer poses a threat is if 1) the terrorist is confirmed dead or 2) the terrorist is handcuffed and detained as a prisoner of war. r " UFSSPSJTU XIP JT XPVOEed (even mortally) is still a threat. A soldier who perceives a threat to himself or his comrades from a wounded terrorist is required to use deadly force to eliminate the threat. A wounded terrorist presents a reduced threat but can still be deadly. r *G B UFSSPSJTU TVSSFOEFST and appears unarmed, he is still a threat until he is properly handcuffed and thoroughly searched.

Given these principles drawn from the International Laws of War, it is clear that IDF Sgt. Elor Azaria acted legally and properly to eliminate a perceived threat from a wounded but possibly still dangerous terrorist. In the US military, he would have received a commendation, but here in Israel, he was abandoned by the chain of command and the military justice system, and could now be thrown in jail.

It is tragic to see such an outrageous and immoral injustice committed in the Land of Israel. Is anyone surprised that armed soldiers failed to engage the terrorist in the truck ramming attack in Jerusalem on Sunday? JONATHAN ZAGDANSKI Hashmonaim