Palestinian gunman kills two in Jerusalem

[webfact]

Palestinian gunman kills two in Jerusalem

 

 

JERUSALEM: -- A Palestinian gunman who fired from a car has killed a pedestrian and a police officer in Jerusalem. Israeli police said that he was then shot dead by one of their officers in a chase through the streets.

 

Four others were also wounded by the gunman. Later the gunman’s body was removed from scene.

 

The attack began near Israel’s national police headquarters, police said.

 

“A terrorist opened fire and shot one woman and he continued in a vehicle in the streets of Jerusalem. He was chased by police special patrol units on a fast motorbike. Shots were then fired at our police officers on their motorbikes who responded and shot and killed the terrorist,” Micky Rosenfeld, an Israeli Police spokesman said.

 

Police identified the gunman as a 39-year-old from East Jerusalem who was due to start a four month jail sentence next week for assaulting a police officer.

 

Authorities had warned of violence as the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, the day of atonement, approaches.

 

In the past year, Palestinians, many acting alone and often with rudimentary weapons, have killed at least 35 Israelis and two Americans in attacks.

 

Over the same period, at least 220 Palestinians have died in violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-10-10

[Ulysses G.]

The same old Palestinian terrorism. It never stops and they refuse to make peace. They have rejected statehood several times, even though they say that's what they want. No wonder Israel keeps building settlements.

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116

 

 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[pumpuy]

I think no Israeli likes to live in constant fear of just no matter what person in the streets could attack them to kill just because they're Israelis ...?

The only way to stop this is by making peace ... stop the illegal settlements , accept the 2 states solution , no more provocations on both sides , within a few peaceful years sentiment would change and everybody could live in Peace .

I think that's the only way out , but will it happen ?

I do not think so .

So what will the future bring ? More violence ? Certainly ! More Hate ? Yes ! More Unsecurity ?

Definitely !

If that future is worth living ... I do not know ...

One thing is for sure : there is no " Endloesung " a la Hitler ... !

[Kasset Tak]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The same old Palestinian terrorism. It never stops and they refuse to make peace. They have rejected statehood several times, even though they say that's what they want. No wonder Israel keeps building settlements.

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116

 

 

They have refused statehood because Israel refuse to give back the land they occupy!

 

I'm sorry to say that I can't write what I really think about you and the Israelis as I would probably be banned for it!

 

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, Kasset Tak said:

 

I'm sorry to say that I can't write what I really think about you and the Israelis as I would probably be banned for it!
 

 

 Something about a final solution no doubt.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The same old Palestinian terrorism. It never stops and they refuse to make peace. They have rejected statehood several times, even though they say that's what they want. No wonder Israel keeps building settlements.

 

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116

 

 

 

Most security analysts actually see the latest "knife intifada" as representing different trends compared to previous conflagrations.

 

Not that the topic is about the peace process (or lack of) but the link provided fails to mention (as usual) that the two latest peace deal offers were made by Israeli PM's who were, for all intents and purposes, political lame ducks. It could be argued that the Palestinians would have fared better accepting, and thus exposing the Israeli side inability to deliver. Then again, unlikely that the required popular support could be mustered on the Palestinian side as well.

 

Building illegal settlements got nothing to do with Palestinian violence. It does nothing to curb such violence, quite the opposite. Other than serving as potential flash point for even more violence, their only function is to make a resolution more difficult. And again, not much to do with the topic.

 

 

[jesimps]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Most security analysts actually see the latest "knife intifada" as representing different trends compared to previous conflagrations.

 

Not that the topic is about the peace process (or lack of) but the link provided fails to mention (as usual) that the two latest peace deal offers were made by Israeli PM's who were, for all intents and purposes, political lame ducks. It could be argued that the Palestinians would have fared better accepting, and thus exposing the Israeli side inability to deliver. Then again, unlikely that the required popular support could be mustered on the Palestinian side as well.

 

Building illegal settlements got nothing to do with Palestinian violence. It does nothing to curb such violence, quite the opposite. Other than serving as potential flash point for even more violence, their only function is to make a resolution more difficult. And again, not much to do with the topic.

 

 

Refusing to recognise Israel, murdering Israelis and firing rockets at them isn't exactly making a resolution easier either.

 

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

They have refused statehood because Israel refuse to give back the land they occupy!

 

I'm sorry to say that I can't write what I really think about you and the Israelis as I would probably be banned for it!

 

In that case, thank you for NOT sharing.

Dude, it's not as if we don't know what Israel demonizers think. DUH! 

[Catoni]

9 hours ago, pumpuy said:

I think no Israeli likes to live in constant fear of just no matter what person in the streets could attack them to kill just because they're Israelis ...?

The only way to stop this is by making peace ... stop the illegal settlements , accept the 2 states solution , no more provocations on both sides , within a few peaceful years sentiment would change and everybody could live in Peace .

I think that's the only way out , but will it happen ?

I do not think so .

So what will the future bring ? More violence ? Certainly ! More Hate ? Yes ! More Unsecurity ?

Definitely !

If that future is worth living ... I do not know ...

One thing is for sure : there is no " Endloesung " a la Hitler ... !

 

     The "Palestinians" were offered almost all of what they were asking for... years ago.  And they refused and turned down the offer.  They want 100% of their demands to be met.   They just won't compromise.  No give and take.... they want it all...... 100%   

         This could have been solved decades ago if Yasser Arafat had been reasonable and willing to compromise just a bit.

The Palestinians were offered a state by Ehud Barak in the negotiations at Camp David and the White House in 2000. Today, they could be living in a Palestine comprised of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of Arab east Jerusalem. They would have greater control of the Temple Mount and an unimpeded highway between Gaza and the West Bank.

             Instead, most of their cities are under curfew and surrounded by Israeli forces because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and waged a war of terror in hopes of achieving his dream of liberating all of “Palestine.”

[DaddyWarbucks]

2 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

     The "Palestinians" were offered almost all of what they were asking for... years ago.  And they refused and turned down the offer.  They want 100% of their demands to be met.   They just won't compromise.  No give and take.... they want it all...... 100%   

         This could have been solved decades ago if Yasser Arafat had been reasonable and willing to compromise just a bit.

The Palestinians were offered a state by Ehud Barak in the negotiations at Camp David and the White House in 2000. Today, they could be living in a Palestine comprised of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of Arab east Jerusalem. They would have greater control of the Temple Mount and an unimpeded highway between Gaza and the West Bank.

             Instead, most of their cities are under curfew and surrounded by Israeli forces because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and waged a war of terror in hopes of achieving his dream of liberating all of “Palestine.”

An unfair and biased summary that sounds like it was scripted by a Zionist spinmeister.

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

     The "Palestinians" were offered almost all of what they were asking for... years ago.  And they refused and turned down the offer.  They want 100% of their demands to be met.   They just won't compromise.  No give and take.... they want it all...... 100%   

         This could have been solved decades ago if Yasser Arafat had been reasonable and willing to compromise just a bit.

The Palestinians were offered a state by Ehud Barak in the negotiations at Camp David and the White House in 2000. Today, they could be living in a Palestine comprised of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of Arab east Jerusalem. They would have greater control of the Temple Mount and an unimpeded highway between Gaza and the West Bank.

             Instead, most of their cities are under curfew and surrounded by Israeli forces because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and waged a war of terror in hopes of achieving his dream of liberating all of “Palestine.”

 

Exactly and entirely factual. The Palestinians are responsible for their own plight.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Xircal]

13 hours ago, pumpuy said:

I think no Israeli likes to live in constant fear of just no matter what person in the streets could attack them to kill just because they're Israelis ...?

The only way to stop this is by making peace ... stop the illegal settlements , accept the 2 states solution , no more provocations on both sides , within a few peaceful years sentiment would change and everybody could live in Peace .

I think that's the only way out , but will it happen ?

I do not think so .

So what will the future bring ? More violence ? Certainly ! More Hate ? Yes ! More Unsecurity ?

Definitely !

If that future is worth living ... I do not know ...

One thing is for sure : there is no " Endloesung " a la Hitler ... !

 

Even if the Israelis were to stop building the settlements d'you think the Palestinians would cease their attacks?

 

I doubt it somehow. They want the Israelis gone from what they see as Arab lands. They don't recognize the Israeli State and will likely intensify their murderous attacks if they feel that the Israelis are on the retreat.

 

I don't know what the answer is to this conflict. The Palestinians continue to attack Israel with the full knowledge that Israel will retaliate. It doesn't seem to matter how many times Israel invades Palestine with the intention of arresting militants because they'll always be more to take their place.

 

But they can't simply sit back and give the terrorists carte blanche to attack whenever they feel like it. So the tit-for-tat exchanges will likely continue until somebody comes up with a formula which both sides find acceptable. How long that will be is anybody's guess.

[Jingthing]

Maybe never. 

[Morch]

23 hours ago, jesimps said:

Refusing to recognise Israel, murdering Israelis and firing rockets at them isn't exactly making a resolution easier either.

 

 

Indeed. Both sides contribute to make the possibility of peace a slim one.

The way I see things, insisting on placing all blame, responsibility and accountability with one side or the other, is just another form of prolonging the conflict. In a situation that is already loaded with distrust, animosity and extreme views, it is often best to adhere to the facts, rather than engage in generalizations or one sided opinions.

 

 

 

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

     The "Palestinians" were offered almost all of what they were asking for... years ago.  And they refused and turned down the offer.  They want 100% of their demands to be met.   They just won't compromise.  No give and take.... they want it all...... 100%   

         This could have been solved decades ago if Yasser Arafat had been reasonable and willing to compromise just a bit.

The Palestinians were offered a state by Ehud Barak in the negotiations at Camp David and the White House in 2000. Today, they could be living in a Palestine comprised of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of Arab east Jerusalem. They would have greater control of the Temple Mount and an unimpeded highway between Gaza and the West Bank.

             Instead, most of their cities are under curfew and surrounded by Israeli forces because Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and waged a war of terror in hopes of achieving his dream of liberating all of “Palestine.”

 

The Palestinians (without parenthesis, these already indicate where the post is heading) did reject the offer made by Barak in 2000. Then again, the offer was not as far reaching as alleged above. To apply a mirror image, the Israeli side rejected many of the counter offers and amendments proposed by the Palestinians during these negotiations. Additionally, the usual reminder, Barak was in no position to deliver the goods for lack of popular and political support.

 

The PA under Abbas reaffirmed its essential support of a two state solution. It is true that there are gaps between the sides on what this actually means, and that Abbas might not be speaking with the full mandate of the Palestinian people.

 

The Palestinians may have been better served by accepting previous offers, even if for the benefit of exposing Israel's inability to live up to them. Other than being great example of hindsight, assuming things would have gone according to plan disregard some of the difficulties in applying those plans.

 

Laying it all on the failed 2000 negotiations is a bit of a stretch.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

An unfair and biased summary that sounds like it was scripted by a Zionist spinmeister.

 

An expected one liner troll remark, exemplifying the extent of the poster's contribution to these topics.

 

 

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Exactly and entirely factual. The Palestinians are responsible for their own plight.

 

"Exactly and entirely factual."

 

Hardly, as even a Wikipedia summary demonstrates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

 

"The Palestinians are responsible for their own plight."

 

It takes two to tango.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Even if the Israelis were to stop building the settlements d'you think the Palestinians would cease their attacks?

 

I doubt it somehow. They want the Israelis gone from what they see as Arab lands. They don't recognize the Israeli State and will likely intensify their murderous attacks if they feel that the Israelis are on the retreat.

 

I don't know what the answer is to this conflict. The Palestinians continue to attack Israel with the full knowledge that Israel will retaliate. It doesn't seem to matter how many times Israel invades Palestine with the intention of arresting militants because they'll always be more to take their place.

 

But they can't simply sit back and give the terrorists carte blanche to attack whenever they feel like it. So the tit-for-tat exchanges will likely continue until somebody comes up with a formula which both sides find acceptable. How long that will be is anybody's guess.

 

If Israel was to stop current building ans expansion of illegal settlements, it would not stop Palestinian violence. Correct.

 

The reason being that the numerous illegal settlements already in place serve as flash points, and so does the everyday experience of living under a military occupation. The references for halting further construction are not aired in the context of this by itself achieving peace. It is merely a required step (apart from legal issues) in making peace a possibility. 

 

Referencing the Palestinians as a whole can sometimes be a crude construct. It can be said that for many (or even most) Palestinians, their homeland indeed stretches "from the river to the sea". How many of them would reject any territorial compromise for keeping this dream alive is anyone's guess. There are poles, of course, but when push comes to shove, maybe a different matter. I doubt that even if a peace agreement is signed, and officially all future claims are off, that all Palestinians would feel content. This matters naught,  as long as there are enough Palestinians who are willing to move on, and a leadership capable of upholding commitments. The same, by the way, could be said about Israelis.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Morch

[farcanell]

On 10/10/2016 at 11:11 AM, Kasset Tak said:

They have refused statehood because Israel refuse to give back the land they occupy!

 

I'm sorry to say that I can't write what I really think about you and the Israelis as I would probably be banned for it!

 

 

Try harder.... after all, there are a lot of words in the dictionary

 

but prey tell, with the Jews maintaining a spiritual and physical connection to the land of Israel, since sometime around the tenth century BCE, why should they cede land to what appears to be a (baby) religious movement that only began 1500 years ago?

 

this situation in the Middle East, IS NOT due to post World War Two decisions , by allied commanders, to "make" a new state, called Israel... the state, by whatever name, has always been extant.

 

if the Palestinians reject the olive branch of peace, which would enable both peoples to once again peacefully use the land... then... well... y'all know what must come next

[up-country_sinclair]

On 10/10/2016 at 3:22 AM, Ulysses G. said:

It never stops

 

No, it doesn't.  

[up-country_sinclair]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

It takes two to tango.

 

 

Hmmm....

 

4 hours ago, Morch said:

An expected one liner troll remark, exemplifying the extent of the poster's contribution to these topics.

 

 

 

[gemini81]

22 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

An unfair and biased summary that sounds like it was scripted by a Zionist spinmeister.

At least they aren't the ones bulldozing homes and firing white phosphorous. David vs. Goliath when Goliath can hardly pose as 'victim'

Edited October 11, 2016 by gemini81
wording

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

 

Try harder.... after all, there are a lot of words in the dictionary

 

but prey tell, with the Jews maintaining a spiritual and physical connection to the land of Israel, since sometime around the tenth century BCE, why should they cede land to what appears to be a (baby) religious movement that only began 1500 years ago?

 

this situation in the Middle East, IS NOT due to post World War Two decisions , by allied commanders, to "make" a new state, called Israel... the state, by whatever name, has always been extant.

 

if the Palestinians reject the olive branch of peace, which would enable both peoples to once again peacefully use the land... then... well... y'all know what must come next

On that theme ...