there is no death penalty in israel, so what difference does it make? the penalty is the same either way: incarceration under comfortable conditions, and a generous plo stipend, until the next kidnapped israeli is traded for his release.

running towards a crowd brandishing a knife should be enough to prove intent, but maybe it wasn’t specific enough. the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter may not be important in this case, but it is necessary for others, and shouldn’t be discarded just to satisfy our emotions.

if a terrorist running with a knife at civilians in a bus station has no intention to kill, then a cat playing with a mouse is a vegetarian. Shame on the judges for auch a poor decision. death to terrorists.

Revise Israeli criminal law. This case was unjustly decided because Israeli criminal law has conceptual weaknesses which could be fixed by copying legal concepts from other jurisdictions.

Copy the common law "felony-murder" rule in its strictest form. In many U.S. state jurisdictions, a defendant who participates in a felony (an attempted stabbing or terrorist attack qualifies) is guilty of murder, regardless of who actually pulls the trigger during the commission of the crime, even if the death was accidental. The killer doesn't have to be an accomplice, and can be a policeman or soldier trying to stop the crime or prevent the getaway.

In this case, the terrorist would be guilty of Gelman's murder when that soldier mistakenly shot him while trying to stop the terrorist.

It doesn't matter whether the soldier was negligent, blameless or justified in firing; the terrorist is still guilty under the felony-murder rule.

I know what I am talking about, as I've been a lawyer for 40+ years.