About a year and a half ago, Julian Soufir, a young Jewish immigrant from France, stopped a few taxis in Jerusalem. After a few wrong calls, he hit on a an Arab driver, whom he hired to take him to his apartment in Tel Aviv. According to police..
"When they arrived, the suspect persuaded the victim to come up to the apartment," apparently with an offer to use the bathroom before going home, Neuman said. The suspect then allegedly attacked the victim with a knife he had prepared ahead of time."I was on a visit in Israel when this happened, and I remember the photo of Soufir in the courtroom, the day after the murder, splashed on all the front pages. I remember the cozy interchange of smiles between Soufir and the policeman holding him and me saying to mysef, "he's going to get away with it."
...we began to suspect that this might be a case of murder stemming from nationalistic motives," said Chief Superintendent Avi Neuman, a Yarkon region detective.
The suspect said he went to Jerusalem because he thought he would be able to find an Arab victim more easily there. "We don't know whether he planned it two hours before or two weeks before, but there are certainly signs he planned it," Brigadier General Hagai Dotan, the commander of the Yarkon region police, told Haaretz. ( Haaretz, 15/05/2007)
Well, it seems he just did.
The court accepted the testimonies of two defense witnesses that claimed that Soufir was not fully "conscious" at [the] time of the murder. ( Palestine-info.co.uk )Explain this to me. Soufir said that "he did not feel guilty because he believed Arabs were like cattle and that he was slaughtering one." While this clearly shows a warped moral universe, it also clearly show a moral universe. It shows clear understanding that murder is wrong. Soufir understands what murder is, and he understands that murder (except of Arabs) is wrong. He also planned the murder carefully and exceuted it in cold blood.
So what the hell does it mean that he "wasn't fully conscious"? And how could anyone testify to his mental condition during the murder without being present in the room?
And was the judge who handed down this decision fully conscious? Of what? Of the principles of apartheid jurisprudence?
But perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. It is Israel, a Jewish state. And a Jewish judge declared a cold blooded Jewish murderer of a non-Jew "on nationalistic grounds" not-guilty.
What did I expect?