A thin line between terror and crime
The murder of an Israeli soldier in the West Bank can be seen as existing on the seam line between a nationalistic and a criminal act.
After all, he continues and writes:
The main motive for the murder was, apparently, nationalistic. The Palestinian suspect, Nidal Amar, stated under interrogation that he had kidnapped and killed an Israel Defense Forces soldier, Tomer Hazan, in order to negotiate the release of his jailed brother (in return for the soldier's body). Amar’s brother, Nur al-Adin Amar, is a security prisoner in Israel, affiliated to Fatah.
But Harel recalls other similar "lurings" and claims
For the most part, however, the attacks were committed when the opportunity presented itself under circumstances involving more ordinary criminal activity: Israelis who went to the West Bank to make contact with criminals (in connection with car thefts, divvying up a haul from house burglaries or dubious deals, among other reasons) and found themselves the target of a terrorist attack.
So, the line is blurred?
Or is Harel's mind a blur?
Okay, he confessed, but give the guy a chance, Harel intimates, writing:
it is also obvious that, from the moment he was apprehended, it was in the interest of the murder suspect to say he was acting out of terrorist motives. Such a statement would enhance his standing on the Palestinian side, in comparison to the case of a common criminal.
And the clincher:
Also, in the long run it would improve his prospects for early release through a possible prisoner exchange for future Israeli captives.