Israeli Government Criticized for Decision to Revoke Attacker’s Citizenship

Israeli Government Criticized for Decision to Revoke Attacker’s Citizenship

Recently, attacker Alaa Raed Ahmad Zayoud was charged with four attempts of murder after ramming an Israeli soldier with his car and stabbing three others, inflicting non-life-threatening wounds. During trial at the Haifa Magistrate’s Court, Zayoud’s Israeli citizenship was taken away. According to Judge Elyakim, a persons’ natural right to life outweighs the rights of a man who chooses to violate the trust of Israel.

This recent decision to revoke Zayoud’s citizenship has come under fire from many Israeli civil rights groups. The actual request of the sentence came from Interior Minister Arieh Deri, who had filed to revoke Zayoud’s citizenship back in 2016. Zayoud is also serving a 25-year sentence for his attacks.

Zayoud admitted to interrogators that his attack was nationalistically motivated, or–in law enforcement terms–a terrorist attack. This confession was a retraction from his initial claim that the attack was an accident and that the stabbings were self-defense against attacking onlookers. In Zayoud’s testimony, he told interrogators that he was trying to kill himself by killing Jews.

The Israeli court claimed that an Israeli citizen cannot be allowed to disrupt the lives of other citizens, and one who does so in the name of terror removes himself from the society of the country. Many civil rights groups are now condemning the state’s actions on Zayoud. Many of them say that revoking Zayoud’s citizenship renders him stateless, violating Israel’s obligations under international human rights law.

Other groups say that citizenship is required for many other rights, such as political participation and social-economic rights. Most removals of citizenship in the past had been due to terrorist-related issues, and these in themselves were rare prior to 2008 law.

A primary concern from rights groups is that this incident may pave way for many similar, unjust condemnations in the future. Some civil rights groups also speculate that this action was an attempt from the Israeli government to assert power, since their government is currently weak and unstable.

1 thought on “Israeli Government Criticized for Decision to Revoke Attacker’s Citizenship”

  • In the case of Israel, they or the (Ashkenazi Jews) are allowed to do as they wish regarding human rights and the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians. Moreover, in today’s world view whatever or whichever decision-making coming from the Israeli courts it is not only accepted but celebrated by the government of Israel and that of United States because after all it is the European bankers financing that goverment thru the U.S. cortine shades. At the same time in comparison with the United States courts they are pretty compassionate if the only punishment for terrorism is just abolishing his citizenship because it is just a violent political protest from from the perspective of the perpetrator and they cleary understand his point of view. Nonetheless, if we examined the United States courts thirdly we cannot compare with any other nation except with Saudi-Arabian courts where people get decapitated as capital punishment which is probably less cruel than gassing, electrocution, or being poisoned with a needle. As the case in point, in Israel putting someone behind bars for life is nothing abnormal and the revocation of the citizenship that is just shenanigans because where is the prisioner is going to travel and does he need his passport to be in jail or is he going to be treated differently with that citizenship. However, and whenever a man commits a crime it will be shone from society, discriminated, stigmatized and if he ever be a free man again, if not is better for him to die anyways. So to criticize Israel for reversing the citizenship to someone who commits the act of murder is just a benevolent action knowing the time ahead in incarceration for that prisoner. As a matter of fact those who impose sentences like life in prision don’t know what is to be incarcerated for just one year and they think that is not sufficient because they don’t understand what time is really like and mean not a good time.

Leave a Reply

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