Palestinian car driver shot dead by Israeli soldiers



Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank on Friday, injuring two people sitting inside, the army said.

“Forces on site responded and fired toward the attacker, resulting in her death,” a military spokeswoman said.

Palestinian officials had no immediate comment.

Palestinian knife, shooting and car ramming attacks have killed 32 Israelis and two visiting U.S. citizens over the past eight months. Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests.

Religious and political tensions over a Jerusalem site sacred to both Muslims and Jews have fueled the worst wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence since the 2014 Gaza war.

Confrontations have been exacerbated by Palestinians’ frustration over Israel’s 48-year occupation of land they seek for an independent state and the expansion of settlements in those territories which were captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-06-25

Ramacide?

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement ...

May be it only was a traffic accident ?

Nobody was hurt by her action , ( except the 2 people sitting inside HER car ) , did she deserve to die ?

Sorry , but to me it looks like the Israeli soldiers are trained to kill .

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by pumpuy

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement ...

May be it only was a traffic accident ?

Nobody was hurt by her action , ( except the 2 people sitting inside HER car ) , did she deserve to die ?

Sorry , but to me it looks like the Israeli soldiers are trained to kill .

Taking the report at face value.

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank on Friday, injuring two people sitting inside, the army said.

This suggests that the injuries were sustained by the occupants of the parked car and not the occupants of the ramming car.

Ramming an XX Tonne vehicle into others would most definately be classed as endangerment to life and limb.

Was the shooting justified. I do not know I was not there.

Ramacide?

Wouldn't be the first and it certainly wont be the last.

Nobody should be killed only because of their Nationality .

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by pumpuy

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement ...

May be it only was a traffic accident ?

Nobody was hurt by her action , ( except the 2 people sitting inside HER car ) , did she deserve to die ?

Sorry , but to me it looks like the Israeli soldiers are trained to kill .

Taking the report at face value.

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank on Friday, injuring two people sitting inside, the army said.

This suggests that the injuries were sustained by the occupants of the parked car and not the occupants of the ramming car.

Ramming an XX Tonne vehicle into others would most definately be classed as endangerment to life and limb.

Was the shooting justified. I do not know I was not there.

You are right , I am wrong !

It is not clear if the 2 people injured were inside her car or inside the parked car ...

That would change a lot .

Ramacide?

Ramasedan?

More details and a video clip available here:

2 injured in likely car-ramming attack in West Bank; suspect killed

http://www.timesofisrael.com/2-injured-in-possible-car-ramming-near-kiryat-arba-suspect-shot/

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by Morch

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement ...

May be it only was a traffic accident ?

Nobody was hurt by her action , ( except the 2 people sitting inside HER car ) , did she deserve to die ?

Sorry , but to me it looks like the Israeli soldiers are trained to kill .

Taking the report at face value.

Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman who rammed a vehicle into a parked car near an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank on Friday, injuring two people sitting inside, the army said.

This suggests that the injuries were sustained by the occupants of the parked car and not the occupants of the ramming car.

Ramming an XX Tonne vehicle into others would most definately be classed as endangerment to life and limb.

Was the shooting justified. I do not know I was not there.

You are right , I am wrong !

It is not clear if the 2 people injured were inside her car or inside the parked car ...

That would change a lot .

They were not inside her car.

More details and a video clip available here:

2 injured in likely car-ramming attack in West Bank; suspect killed

http://www.timesofisrael.com/2-injured-in-possible-car-ramming-near-kiryat-arba-suspect-shot/

Execution on the basis of 'likely' and 'possible' circumstances sounds a lot like summary execution based upon ethnic prejudice. Maybe the lady's foot slipped on the accelerator or some other innocent explanation? As the article states, the couple in the other car received only light injuries, hardly the work of a determined terrorist.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

The article clearly states that there are two sets of people killed by Israeli forces - assailants or those killed in protests and clashes, so it is trying to paint all those killed as being directly involved in some form of attack on Israel, whereas that is not true. There is a third set - those who were killed because trigger happy kids with uzis are given tacit approval to kill Palestinians.

More details and a video clip available here:

2 injured in likely car-ramming attack in West Bank; suspect killed

http://www.timesofisrael.com/2-injured-in-possible-car-ramming-near-kiryat-arba-suspect-shot/

Execution on the basis of 'likely' and 'possible' circumstances sounds a lot like summary execution based upon ethnic prejudice. Maybe the lady's foot slipped on the accelerator or some other innocent explanation? As the article states, the couple in the other car received only light injuries, hardly the work of a determined terrorist.

No one but yourself claimed she was, or described her, as a "determined terrorist". Guess some would be more content if she was more successful.

As for the "maybe....", and maybe she was exactly trying to ram her car into people. But that does not bear mentioning as a possibility as it undermines the usual narrative.

More details and a video clip available here:

2 injured in likely car-ramming attack in West Bank; suspect killed

http://www.timesofisrael.com/2-injured-in-possible-car-ramming-near-kiryat-arba-suspect-shot/

Execution on the basis of 'likely' and 'possible' circumstances sounds a lot like summary execution based upon ethnic prejudice. Maybe the lady's foot slipped on the accelerator or some other innocent explanation? As the article states, the couple in the other car received only light injuries, hardly the work of a determined terrorist.

No one but yourself claimed she was, or described her, as a "determined terrorist". Guess some would be more content if she was more successful.

As for the "maybe....", and maybe she was exactly trying to ram her car into people. But that does not bear mentioning as a possibility as it undermines the usual narrative.

Is English not your first language because you are torturing it badly in an attept to make an indefensible point.

I suggested that were she a determined terrorist, sure the injuries received by the couple in the other car would be more than the described 'light'.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

The article clearly states that there are two sets of people killed by Israeli forces - assailants or those killed in protests and clashes, so it is trying to paint all those killed as being directly involved in some form of attack on Israel, whereas that is not true. There is a third set - those who were killed because trigger happy kids with uzis are given tacit approval to kill Palestinians.

The "article" is a a piece by Euronews, not an Israeli media outlet, neither very sympathetic to Israel. So it is not "Israel makes no mention".

It also does not detail or differentiate much with regard to casualties on the Israeli side.

Do you have figures relating to this "third set", or is this more of a general statement?

More details and a video clip available here:

2 injured in likely car-ramming attack in West Bank; suspect killed

http://www.timesofisrael.com/2-injured-in-possible-car-ramming-near-kiryat-arba-suspect-shot/

Execution on the basis of 'likely' and 'possible' circumstances sounds a lot like summary execution based upon ethnic prejudice. Maybe the lady's foot slipped on the accelerator or some other innocent explanation? As the article states, the couple in the other car received only light injuries, hardly the work of a determined terrorist.

No one but yourself claimed she was, or described her, as a "determined terrorist". Guess some would be more content if she was more successful.

As for the "maybe....", and maybe she was exactly trying to ram her car into people. But that does not bear mentioning as a possibility as it undermines the usual narrative.

Is English not your first language because you are torturing it badly in an attept to make an indefensible point.

I suggested that were she a determined terrorist, sure the injuries received by the couple in the other car would be more than the described 'light'.

And I suggest that you lay off the personal remarks.

Being a "determined" terrorist is irrelevant. It does not assure "success", nor does it figure in the response to the attack under these circumstances.

Execution on the basis of 'likely' and 'possible' circumstances sounds a lot like summary execution based upon ethnic prejudice. Maybe the lady's foot slipped on the accelerator or some other innocent explanation? As the article states, the couple in the other car received only light injuries, hardly the work of a determined terrorist.

No one but yourself claimed she was, or described her, as a "determined terrorist". Guess some would be more content if she was more successful.

As for the "maybe....", and maybe she was exactly trying to ram her car into people. But that does not bear mentioning as a possibility as it undermines the usual narrative.

Is English not your first language because you are torturing it badly in an attept to make an indefensible point.

I suggested that were she a determined terrorist, sure the injuries received by the couple in the other car would be more than the described 'light'.

And I suggest that you lay off the personal remarks.

Being a "determined" terrorist is irrelevant. It does not assure "success", nor does it figure in the response to the attack under these circumstances.

I assure you that nothing personal was intended.

As of yet, we know little of the circumstances that led to the collision - we do not even know that it was an attack. It was described both as possible and likely - yet summary justice was meted out and nothing can change that, even the facts.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

The article clearly states that there are two sets of people killed by Israeli forces - assailants or those killed in protests and clashes, so it is trying to paint all those killed as being directly involved in some form of attack on Israel, whereas that is not true. There is a third set - those who were killed because trigger happy kids with uzis are given tacit approval to kill Palestinians.

The "article" is a a piece by Euronews, not an Israeli media outlet, neither very sympathetic to Israel. So it is not "Israel makes no mention".

It also does not detail or differentiate much with regard to casualties on the Israeli side.

Do you have figures relating to this "third set", or is this more of a general statement?

The third set - well, I would say even one is one too many. So - the 15 year old boy who was shot dead a couple of days ago. He is an innocent victim of an out of control IDF.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

Seems a strange way to attempt to kill someone by ramming your car into a parked car from behind. Much more certainty if you target people standing unprotected. It could have been a simple accident or perhaps a heart attack. We will never know because of the now routine practise for judge, jury, executioner of IDF, using the the standard "I thought I or others were in danger." get out of jail free card.

Perhaps the IDF discharged his weapon by "mistake" again.

Would the woman have been instantly executed if the car had had Israeli number plates?

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by dexterm

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

The article clearly states that there are two sets of people killed by Israeli forces - assailants or those killed in protests and clashes, so it is trying to paint all those killed as being directly involved in some form of attack on Israel, whereas that is not true. There is a third set - those who were killed because trigger happy kids with uzis are given tacit approval to kill Palestinians.

The "article" is a a piece by Euronews, not an Israeli media outlet, neither very sympathetic to Israel. So it is not "Israel makes no mention".

It also does not detail or differentiate much with regard to casualties on the Israeli side.

Do you have figures relating to this "third set", or is this more of a general statement?

The third set - well, I would say even one is one too many. So - the 15 year old boy who was shot dead a couple of days ago. He is an innocent victim of an out of control IDF.

So no actual figures.

Being able to provide one example, and coupling it with "out of control" seems a bit over the top.

Additionally, limiting this observation to Palestinians, while whinging about innocents being killed based on ethnic or national affiliations is somewhat disingenuous.

No one but yourself claimed she was, or described her, as a "determined terrorist". Guess some would be more content if she was more successful.

As for the "maybe....", and maybe she was exactly trying to ram her car into people. But that does not bear mentioning as a possibility as it undermines the usual narrative.

Is English not your first language because you are torturing it badly in an attept to make an indefensible point.

I suggested that were she a determined terrorist, sure the injuries received by the couple in the other car would be more than the described 'light'.

And I suggest that you lay off the personal remarks.

Being a "determined" terrorist is irrelevant. It does not assure "success", nor does it figure in the response to the attack under these circumstances.

I assure you that nothing personal was intended.

As of yet, we know little of the circumstances that led to the collision - we do not even know that it was an attack. It was described both as possible and likely - yet summary justice was meted out and nothing can change that, even the facts.

Yeah, the we-do-not-know-the-facts is pulled up whenever Palestinians are possibly in the wrong. When this is pointed out with regards to possible Israeli transgressions, it is dismissed with scorn.

The article clearly states that there are two sets of people killed by Israeli forces - assailants or those killed in protests and clashes, so it is trying to paint all those killed as being directly involved in some form of attack on Israel, whereas that is not true. There is a third set - those who were killed because trigger happy kids with uzis are given tacit approval to kill Palestinians.

The "article" is a a piece by Euronews, not an Israeli media outlet, neither very sympathetic to Israel. So it is not "Israel makes no mention".

It also does not detail or differentiate much with regard to casualties on the Israeli side.

Do you have figures relating to this "third set", or is this more of a general statement?

The third set - well, I would say even one is one too many. So - the 15 year old boy who was shot dead a couple of days ago. He is an innocent victim of an out of control IDF.

So no actual figures.

Being able to provide one example, and coupling it with "out of control" seems a bit over the top.

Additionally, limiting this observation to Palestinians, while whinging about innocents being killed based on ethnic or national affiliations is somewhat disingenuous.

I gave you one example. How many innocent lives lost would you consider was too many?

I do not understand your last point. Can you please clarify?

Is English not your first language because you are torturing it badly in an attept to make an indefensible point.

I suggested that were she a determined terrorist, sure the injuries received by the couple in the other car would be more than the described 'light'.

And I suggest that you lay off the personal remarks.

Being a "determined" terrorist is irrelevant. It does not assure "success", nor does it figure in the response to the attack under these circumstances.

I assure you that nothing personal was intended.

As of yet, we know little of the circumstances that led to the collision - we do not even know that it was an attack. It was described both as possible and likely - yet summary justice was meted out and nothing can change that, even the facts.

Yeah, the we-do-not-know-the-facts is pulled up whenever Palestinians are possibly in the wrong. When this is pointed out with regards to possible Israeli transgressions, it is dismissed with scorn.

The woman is dead and all signs suggest the death was wholly unnecessary. While neither you nor I know the facts, I remain with an open mind and you show disregard, the same disregard you showed earlier in the week when an innocent boy was repeatedly shot by the IDF.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

Seems a strange way to attempt to kill someone by ramming your car into a parked car from behind. Much more certainty if you target people standing unprotected. It could have been a simple accident or perhaps a heart attack. We will never know because of the now routine practise for judge, jury, executioner of IDF, using the the standard "I thought I or others were in danger."

Would the woman have been instantly executed if the car had had Israeli number plates?

Not all attacks carried out are the product of careful planning or display great capabilities. Logic is not a prerequisite for carrying out attacks.

It could have been many things, the point being that some here are willing to accept any mitigating half-cooked explanations when it comes to Palestinian attacks, and yet display absolute certainty with regard to circumstances and motivations relating to Israelis.

You do not even know that the soldier who shot the car noticed the number plates. Simply making bogus talking points.

Looks like a little fender bender to me.

I would suggest that some posters need to watch the video provided by Morch.

This happened at a Military checkpoint. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has lived in this situation knows what the drills are at Military checkpoints.

It should be no surprise that lethal force was used.

Vehicle borne IED's have been used for decades and are a favoured method of terrorist attack.

"Israeli forces have shot dead at least 198 Palestinians, 135 of whom Israel has said were assailants. Others were killed in clashes and protests."

Israel makes no mention of those who were killed for absolutely no reason other than they were Palestinian.

There is also no mention of how many were killed for absolutely not reason other than they were Israeli.

Seems a strange way to attempt to kill someone by ramming your car into a parked car from behind. Much more certainty if you target people standing unprotected. It could have been a simple accident or perhaps a heart attack. We will never know because of the now routine practise for judge, jury, executioner of IDF, using the the standard "I thought I or others were in danger."

Would the woman have been instantly executed if the car had had Israeli number plates?

Not all attacks carried out are the product of careful planning or display great capabilities. Logic is not a prerequisite for carrying out attacks.

It could have been many things, the point being that some here are willing to accept any mitigating half-cooked explanations when it comes to Palestinian attacks, and yet display absolute certainty with regard to circumstances and motivations relating to Israelis.

You do not even know that the soldier who shot the car noticed the number plates. Simply making bogus talking points.

So you are saying it is standard practise for the IDF to shoot to kill the driver of any traffic accident.. Israeli or Palestinian number plates?

Wouldn't it be better for the IDF find out the facts rather than shoot first. Rules of Engagement dictate the need to neutralize the situation not simply kill as a first option.

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by dexterm

I would suggest that some posters need to watch the video provided by Morch.

This happened at a Military checkpoint. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has lived in this situation knows what the drills are at Military checkpoints.

It should be no surprise that lethal force was used.

Vehicle borne IED's have been used for decades and are a favoured method of terrorist attack.

So the next time an Israeli woman in an Israeli car steps on the gas rather than the brakes at a military checkpoint it's OK to kill her?

Edited June 25, 201610 yr by dexterm