Allegedly, the phrase was coined by Shimon Peres. The phrase implied that such deaths were a price worth paying for the peace process.
Benjamin Netanyahu, elected to the post of Prime minister in 1996 after Peres on the promise to restore safety for Israelis by conditioning every step in the peace process on Israel's assessment of the Palestinian Authority's fulfillment of its obligations in curbing violence, officially rejected this terminology: [1] (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/Benjamin+Netanyahu.htm)
See also
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
External links
Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Policy: 1983-1999 (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=447) by Dr. Boaz Ganor, International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) Executive Director
The expression victim of peace was a euphemism used by some of the Israeli left-wing politicians to refer to victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in the period between the signing of September 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel and the Al-Aqsa Intifada sparked in September 2000.
The phrase implied that such deaths were a price worth paying for the Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Benjamin Netanyahu, elected to the post of Prime minister in 1996 after Peres on the promise to restore safety for Israelis by conditioning every step in the peace process on Israel's assessment of the Palestinian Authority's fulfillment of its obligations in curbing violence, officially rejected this terminology.
Victim impact statements did not impermissibly affect sentence, even though statements were made via 35 letters from victim’s immediate family, extended family, and friends, all of which requested imposition of death penalty, and death sentence was upheld.
Victims' Bill of Rights does not alter the state's continuing duty to disclose under Rule 15.6, Ariz.R.Crim.P.; thus, to the extent that communications with the victims are recorded by the state or otherwise reveal information that is discoverable, they must be disclosed.
Victim’s Bill of Rights did not abrogate defendant’s entitlement to pretrial interview of witnesses to defendant’s alleged criminal conduct, even though witnesses were victims of other behavior by the same defendant on separate occasions, as long as defendant did not attempt to interview witnesses with regard to their own victimization.
Feeds |
Contact