Three Israelis wounded in shooting near Jerusalem holy site, gunmen dead -police

[webfact]

Three Israelis wounded in shooting near Jerusalem holy site, gunmen dead -police

 

Israeli policemen secure the scene of the shooting attack at the compound known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as Temple Mount, in Jerusalem's Old City July 14, 2017. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Three gunmen opened fire at police near Jerusalem's holiest site on Friday, wounding three Israelis, two of them critically, before the attackers were killed by security forces, Israeli police said.

 

The gunmen arrived at the sacred site, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, and walked towards one of the Old City gates nearby, police spokeswoman Luba Simri said.

 

"When they saw policemen they shot towards them and then escaped towards one of the mosques in the Temple Mount compound," Simri said. "A chase ensued and the three terrorists were killed by police."

 

She said three firearms were found on their bodies.

 

Mobile phone video footage aired by Israeli media showed several policemen chasing a man and shooting him down at the site, which is a popular place for foreign tourists to visit. Israeli authorities are still working to identify the attackers, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

 

There was no immediate comment from Palestinian officials.

 

The Israeli ambulance service Magen David Adom said three Israelis were wounded, two critically.

 

Tensions are often high around the marble-and-stone compound that houses the Aqsa Mosque and the golden Dome of the Rock. It is managed by Jordanian authorities and is adjacent to the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews are permitted to pray.

 

Police said Friday prayers for Muslims would not be held at the site following the attack.

 

A wave of Palestinian street attacks that began in 2015 has slowed but not stopped. At least 255 Palestinians and one Jordanian citizen have been killed since the violence began.

 

Israel says at least 173 of those killed were carrying out attacks while others died in clashes and protests. Thirty-eight Israelis, two U.S. tourists and a British student have been killed in stabbings, shootings and car-rammings.

 

Israel annexed East Jerusalem, where the Old City and the holy compound are located, after the 1967 Middle East war and regards all of Jerusalem as its capital, a move that is not recognised internationally.

 

Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of the state they want to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

Israel blames the wave of violence on incitement by the Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, says desperation over the occupation is the main driver.

 

The last, U.S.-led attempt to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians broke down in 2014.

 

(Writing by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Luke Baker and Andrew Heavens)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-14

[dave_boo]

Can the article at least be honest?

 

Originally Jerusalem was to be administered by the international community.  Israelis were ok with that; the Arabs weren't.  During their war of aggression in '47 they took control of the city in contravention of international norms.  After attacking Israel again in '67 they lost control of the city...but they didn't really as Israel allows the Jordanian government (where the vast majority of 'Palestinians' are from) to administer a large part of the the city.

 

Had the Israelis leveled the Islamic mosque on the mount, as Muslims are compelled to do when conquering an area, and rebuilt the ancient temple perhaps this show of determination would have quelled a lot of the issues currently seen today.  After all the Berbers aren't still being paid ransoms, the Ottomans aren't still taking slaves, etc...

[Morch]

The OP should read five Israelis dead.

 

The three "gunmen" were Arab Israeli citizens, all members of the same family. The two policemen shot died in hospital, both, by the way, members of Israel's Druze minority.

As for reactions from various parties:

 

Abbas denounced the attack, while some elements of the Fatah approved. Hamas and Islamic Jihad praised it. Most Arab politicians in Israel condemned the attack, some extreme religious leaders fanned the flames. Israeli right wing politicians hastened to call for changing the status quo at the site, Netanyahu said that's not going to happen. 

 

The Israeli police did ban access to site, effectively cancelling the Friday prayers - something which didn't happen in years. Reasons cited were that crime scene investigation was still in progress and that based on past experiences, there could be further violence furthered by rumor mongering and incitement by religious leaders and extremists. To be sure, the ban was bound to cause negative reactions by itself, but it was deemed the less volatile of the two. So far, seems to have been the right decision.

[Morch]

 

@dave_boo

 

That's a very one-sided account of historical events and positions. Not even directly relevant to the OP considering the actual circumstances of the attack.

[dave_boo]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dave_boo

 

That's a very one-sided account of historical events and positions. Not even directly relevant to the OP considering the actual circumstances of the attack.

Could you please provide your rationale for this claim?

 

• Did the international community, upon dividing up the Ottoman Empire, not have the plan for Jerusalem to be an internationally administered city?
• Did Israel not agree to that?
• Upon declaration of Israeli statehood did not the armies of their Arab neighbors attack the fledging state (and lost)?
• Did not Jordan actually have control of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 (as well as Egypt control of Gaza)?  Didn't the "Palestinians" do anything to create a state during that time?
• Did Jordan attack Israel in 1967 and as a result of this aggression lose land which is not in contravention of international law (note that aggression to obtain land is against international law; gaining land due to other's aggression is not).

 

It's telling that you made no such claim of being 'very one-sided' against the OP when it says "a move that is not recognised internationally" as a condemnation of Israel's actions and the very next sentence states in a passive voice that the West Bank/Gaza government's position of claiming East Jerusalem is not editorialized.  This would be a tacit approval of the "Palestinians" claim and vehement repudiation of the Israeli claim.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dave_boo said:

Could you please provide your rationale for this claim?

 

• Did the international community, upon dividing up the Ottoman Empire, not have the plan for Jerusalem to be an internationally administered city?
• Did Israel not agree to that?
• Upon declaration of Israeli statehood did not the armies of their Arab neighbors attack the fledging state (and lost)?
• Did not Jordan actually have control of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 (as well as Egypt control of Gaza)?  Didn't the "Palestinians" do anything to create a state during that time?
• Did Jordan attack Israel in 1967 and as a result of this aggression lose land which is not in contravention of international law (note that aggression to obtain land is against international law; gaining land due to other's aggression is not).

 

It's telling that you made no such claim of being 'very one-sided' against the OP when it says "a move that is not recognised internationally" as a condemnation of Israel's actions and the very next sentence states in a passive voice that the West Bank/Gaza government's position of claiming East Jerusalem is not editorialized.  This would be a tacit approval of the "Palestinians" claim and vehement repudiation of the Israeli claim.

 

I'll start with the irrelevance - the attack was carried out by Israeli citizens. Granted they were Arabs and Palestinian, but nevertheless, it has less to do with bashing the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian aspirations. Rehashing this or that historical account is less a matter of relevance, more to do with Reuters needing a filler as details were scarce when putting up the story. So yes, the the relevance of the Ottoman Empire, and Israel's wars is not all too germane to the topic.

 

With regard to the accuracy of some of the above account (excuse me if I'll refrain from getting into a point by point argument), suffice to say that decisive statement are all very well, but rarely tell the whole story. To touch on one of them, Israel (or rather, the representatives of what was to become Israel) accepted the suggested status of Jerusalem, at least in theory. Granted, that was a more receptive position than that of the Arab side. The thing is that there weren't much illusions as to the prospects of such status quo as suggested, and sides acted accordingly. So not the case that there weren't plans and actions afoot to secure as much of the city as possible.

 

But be that as it may, things today are what they are. In terms of promoting chances for peace there's little to be gained from wide brush denials and rejections of either side's narrative. That's more of a pragmatic position, so probably less attractive to ideologues and such.

[dave_boo]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'll start with the irrelevance - the attack was carried out by Israeli citizens. Granted they were Arabs and Palestinian, but nevertheless, it has less to do with bashing the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian aspirations. Rehashing this or that historical account is less a matter of relevance, more to do with Reuters needing a filler as details were scarce when putting up the story. So yes, the the relevance of the Ottoman Empire, and Israel's wars is not all too germane to the topic.

 

With regard to the accuracy of some of the above account (excuse me if I'll refrain from getting into a point by point argument), suffice to say that decisive statement are all very well, but rarely tell the whole story. To touch on one of them, Israel (or rather, the representatives of what was to become Israel) accepted the suggested status of Jerusalem, at least in theory. Granted, that was a more receptive position than that of the Arab side. The thing is that there weren't much illusions as to the prospects of such status quo as suggested, and sides acted accordingly. So not the case that there weren't plans and actions afoot to secure as much of the city as possible.

 

But be that as it may, things today are what they are. In terms of promoting chances for peace there's little to be gained from wide brush denials and rejections of either side's narrative. That's more of a pragmatic position, so probably less attractive to ideologues and such.

Interestingly the OP said they were still determining the identity of assailants.  Leaving aside snakiness about clairvoyance; I'll assume that you read the fact they were Israeli citizens in a reputable news source.  And assuming that, it's interesting that people who have so much hatred for the nation they live in can stay there and even enter Parliament.  If only those pesky Jews in the PA/Hamas controlled areas were so accommodating...oh that's right, they've been ethnically cleansed from those areas.

 

I am glad that you can at least acknowledge that there was a chance for peace which was torn up by the Arabs.  One can argue that perhaps the nascent state of Israel was only paying lip service; but we can't know for sure as the other side did not even give it a chance.  So speculation is just that; speculation.  If it fits the narrative that one wants to believe in than one's inclination is to take it as fact.  However it's just wishful thinking.  The facts are abundantly clear.  The opinions about reasons, rationales, and driving forces are irrelevant as they are not what history records.  The actions are demonstrably clear.  Which side of truth one comes down on is their own decision.

 

As far as nuances are concerned, I believe that you being an obvious student of history agree with me that the OP was blatantly incorrect with their reporting,  Whether the actual reporter mis-wrote the adjacent sentences or the editor(s) decided to have it read that way it is not proper.  Either the status is up in the air and should be internationally administered or Jordan lost the land during the unprovoked attack on its neighbor.  It's either/or.  Either way you want to look at it; the "Palestinians" have absolutely no claim on the city.  The original partition plan states they don't; however if we are to forget about that and consider the fact there was no actions taken against Jordan when they annexed Jerusalem and the West Bank than international laws regarding conquest of lands doesn't side with them.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

Interestingly the OP said they were still determining the identity of assailants.  Leaving aside snakiness about clairvoyance; I'll assume that you read the fact they were Israeli citizens in a reputable news source.  And assuming that, it's interesting that people who have so much hatred for the nation they live in can stay there and even enter Parliament.  If only those pesky Jews in the PA/Hamas controlled areas were so accommodating...oh that's right, they've been ethnically cleansed from those areas.

 

I am glad that you can at least acknowledge that there was a chance for peace which was torn up by the Arabs.  One can argue that perhaps the nascent state of Israel was only paying lip service; but we can't know for sure as the other side did not even give it a chance.  So speculation is just that; speculation.  If it fits the narrative that one wants to believe in than one's inclination is to take it as fact.  However it's just wishful thinking.  The facts are abundantly clear.  The opinions about reasons, rationales, and driving forces are irrelevant as they are not what history records.  The actions are demonstrably clear.  Which side of truth one comes down on is their own decision.

 

As far as nuances are concerned, I believe that you being an obvious student of history agree with me that the OP was blatantly incorrect with their reporting,  Whether the actual reporter mis-wrote the adjacent sentences or the editor(s) decided to have it read that way it is not proper.  Either the status is up in the air and should be internationally administered or Jordan lost the land during the unprovoked attack on its neighbor.  It's either/or.  Either way you want to look at it; the "Palestinians" have absolutely no claim on the city.  The original partition plan states they don't; however if we are to forget about that and consider the fact there was no actions taken against Jordan when they annexed Jerusalem and the West Bank than international laws regarding conquest of lands doesn't side with them.

 

Nothing to do with clairvoyance. Details regarding the identity of attackers were public rather quickly. You can assume what you like, but can also check for yourself, it appeared on English, Arabic and Hebrew media - names, ages and pictures.

 

You may also make generalizations based on this attack, but it is worth pointing out that they are extremely rare, and that generally they do not received favorably by Israel's Arab minority. Same goes for their political representatives. No idea what you're on about with regard to "ethnically cleansed", or how that would be relevant to the attack.

 

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. TVF being what it is, that's probably won't matter much. I did not comment on or acknowledge anything to do with a "chance for peace which was torn up by the Arabs". And I did not allude to "lip service" in the sense that you imply. The reference was with regard to Jerusalem's status as suggested by the partition plan, not a general comment on the history of the conflict in its entirety. It is not a speculation - there were such plans, there were predictions made as to how the situation will evolve, and there were actions taken.

 

Reuters is a mass media news outlet. It is not necessarily the best source for in-depth historical detail and nuance. Similarly, it is not a definite source of authority with regard to international law. Now, you may hold your own interpretation of Jerusalem's status is, and your own opinion on the worthiness of Palestinian claims. That still wouldn't change the fact that most of the world sees things differently, and the fact that Palestinian exist. Arguing about legal interpretations which may or may not have been relevant decades ago would not contribute to the conflict's resolution. This is not a denial of historical facts, but a point as to their present relevance.