A Matter of Principle

A very shortsighted law:

The Israeli terror law only recognizes victims of hostile acts perpetrated by "enemy forces" as terror victims. In the recent Shfaram attack the murderer was a Jewish soldier, and therefore is not considered a member of enemy forces. The victims, by the compensation law, are not regarded as victims of terror.

The act was an act of terror, but in the context of the compensation law the victims cannot be considered victims of terror. The application of the law concerns the perpetrator of the terrorist act not the victims.

Head Heeb explains in his comments

I wouldn't call it stupidity so much as lack of forethought. When the law was written, the possibility of Jewish political terrorism against Israeli Arabs wasn't really on the radar screen, so terrorism was defined as an act committed by an enemy of the state. Now that terrorism from within the state in opposition to state policy has entered the political landscape, it's necessary to change the definition. The law doesn't say that "Arab victims of terror aren't victims of terror." Arab citizens of Israel who are killed or injured by Palestinian terrorists are considered terror victims and entitled to payment under the law. The law does need to be changed, but it doesn't segregate victims based on race - it segregates them based on the motivation of the perpetrator.

The Shfaram terror victims will receive a one-time compensation payment based on the allowance they would have received had they been recognized as terror victims. The compensation is therefore not really a problem - the problem is the principle. The message conveyed to the public is inappropriate.

Update:
I have received a couple of mails from some angry readers who misinterpreted this post. I'll repeat what I said earlier. The law lacked forethought and must be changed. It is unacceptable.

Comments

[Anti-UN]

Good post. Natan Zada was a terrorist. Klaar.