Amnesty International Sticks The Knife Into Israel Over Elor Azaria Verdict

In the wake of the manslaughter conviction of IDF soldier Elor Azaria, “human rights” organization Amnesty International has sprung into action to applaud the verdict, which clearly shows the rule of law in Israel (despite some inflamed passions and sentiments that the terrorist got what he deserved).

Well, not really.

Let’s see what we have here.

  • Characterization of the verdict as offering “a small glimmer of hope” but only “amid the rampant impunity for unlawful killings in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”
  • A quote by one of their people to repeat the same point, namely that the conviction is “a rare occurrence in a country with a long record of using excessive and unwarranted force”
  • If you missed both of those, not to worry. They then repeat the quote in VERY BIG BOLD LETTERS

They also refer to the terrorist who stabbed the soldiers as a “Palestinian man involved in a knife attack.”

No, no, no. To use a decidely unkosher analogy, in a bacon and eggs meal, the chicken is involved but the pig committed. The terrorist here was no chicken – he was a pig.

But there’s more.

Yet another quote bashing Israel, repeated in BIG BOLD LETTERS. Plus they refer to the spate of terror attacks – and the soldiers’ neutralization of the terrorists in commission of these attacks – as a “bitter cycle.” Although they clearly see Israel as more culpable, especially since there have been more palestinians  (i.e. terrorists committing the attacks) killed than victims.

Brian was right in his post – while the world should acknowledge we have the most moral army in the world, this won’t happen. And Amnesty’s disgusting response is proof positive of that.

13 thoughts on “Amnesty International Sticks The Knife Into Israel Over Elor Azaria Verdict”

  1. There is no verdict they wouldn’t use as a weapon against Israel. We know how they would have reacted had he been acquitted. Hatred isn’t rational.

      1. i dont know all the rules of war. if an enemy combatant is wounded, does that mean one has to stop shooting?

        1. If the enemy combatant is no longer a threat; if they’re wounded, they might still be a threat, but if they’re “neutralized” then they’re not a threat anymore and must not be shot.
          Azaria claimed he thought the terrorist was making a move that might have allowed him to detonate a bomb belt, but that claim was dismissed. And it wasn’t a case of him NOT STOPPING shooting, because he hadn’t been shooting before; he STARTED shooting after the terrorist was neutralized.

  2. Norman_In_New_York

    Amnesty International should be banned in Israel and its foreign denizens expelled until its management is purged of Jew haters.

  3. israel cant win for losing
    so the soldier should be let free and the idf should run like wild men all over gaza and the socalled west bank and kill them all
    they pretty much said that is what the idf does anyway…so make it so

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top