An East Jerusalem Palestinian driver plowed his vehicle into two separate crowds of Israeli Jewish pedestrians, killing a Druze Border Police officer, wounding thirteen, three critically. A few hours later, three IDF soldiers were wounded in a similar car attack in the West Bank. It’s the fourth such attack in less than two weeks. Like one of the past incidents, today’s assault occurred at a Jerusalem light rail station.
When security forces confronted the terrorist they shot and wounded him. As he lay on the ground, they executed him on the spot. This has become the normative procedure (and in English) in such attacks. An eye for an eye, a death for a death. Israeli public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch heartily approved of the cold blooded killing:
“The action of the Border Police officer who chased after the assailant and quickly killed him was correct and professional and that is how we want these incidents to end.
Haaretz found the Palestinian’s murder to be problematic (translated from Hebrew):
As with the previous vehicular attack, a Border Police officer shot the terrorist to death after he’d been wounded and was lying on the ground. Once again there are those who claim that given such circumstances his killing was unjustified.
It’s apparent that in such situations there is a new undeclared, unwritten regulation, which has found its expression in these past two incidents: either neutralizing attackers at the site of assault (like today), or the killing of the terrorists at the time of capture (as happened in the aftermath of the Yehudah Glick shooting and in September, during the operation resulting in the ‘detention’ of those who killed the three Israeli kidnap victims in Hebron). Police shoot first and ask questions later…It even seems superfluous for Public Safety Minister Aharonovitch to declare that every such attack much end with the summary killing [execution] of the attacker.
…Such an unqualified public call [for summary killing] gives permission for [officially sanctioned] execution. This gives an opening for deeply problematic moral, legal, and political complications…Aside from the prospect of upcoming elections, there would be no other reason for a government minister to offer such public statements.
In many of the past cases of apprehending Palestinians, the security forces claim the suspects opened fire first and were killed by return fire. But I’ve pointed out that in almost all cases, they don’t fire in response. They initiate and they execute. With today’s terror attack, they’ve shed even that nicety. This is another past incident of Border Police summary execution which I wrote about about here.
Israel immediately and fraudulently blamed Mahmoud Abbas for the attack, though aside from making public statements excoriating the Israeli police for usurping the Muslim holy places, he did nothing to deserve such a claim. Clearly, Netanyahu was using the old trick known so well by magicians of displacing the mark’s attention from where the real sleight of hand was taking place.
In other words, the real cause for the new round of mayhem was the Gaza war of the past summer in which 2,100 Gazans were killed by the IDF, and subsequent rounds of theft and expulsion of long-time Palestinian residents from their East Jerusalem homes by settlers, and the military-style Border Police occupation of Al Aqsa, along with settlers and leading MKs storming the holy site, and calling for its destruction and replacement by the Third Temple. In the past two weeks, a settler killed a young Palestinian girl & severely wounded her sister in a hit and run attack which police refused to investigate as a crime. Palestinians don’t forget such things, though Israelis certainly do.
In response, Jordan recalled its ambassador. While many Israelis care little about foreign diplomats or diplomacy in general and will take little notice of this, it’s significant that one of the Arab countries with which Israel has enjoyed its longest span of peace has taken this dramatic step in protest. Jordan, as the protector of Jerusalem’s holy places has a special obligation on behalf of the world’s Muslims to object to Israel’s desecration of the Haram al Sharif. Palestinians and Muslims in general have come to believe that Israel is attempting to unilaterally change conditions on the Temple Mount.
Israeli media claimed the attacker was a “low-level” Hamas “operative” whose brother had served time in an Israeli prison and been released in the Shalit prisoner exchange. But curiously, Israel preferred blaming Abbas. Probably because it knows the PA plans to mount a major international campaign for statehood in the UN. Israel’s leaders also a fear mounting tidal wave of legitimacy for the Palestinian cause will cause pressure to recognize Palestine. This force will enable world powers to exert pressure for Israeli concessions or even the forced implementation of a peace agreement. Israel is not above exploiting a terror attack in order to defang Palestine’s forward political momentum. In fact, Netanyahu specializes in such manipulation.
In fact, Sweden just recognized Palestine last week, the first EU country to do so. The British parliament voted to ask its own cabinet to do so and French lawmakers are preparing debate on such a resolution.
For the past 100 years, whenever one side or the other (but mostly the Jews) have encroached on the prerogatives of the other, they’ve caused a violent response. The 1929 Kotel riots in which scores of Jews and Palestinians were killed started this way. The first Intifada began when Sharon brought 1,000 police to the Temple Mount in a brazen show of force meant to be seared into Palestinian minds, that while Jordan might nominally control the sacred ground, Israel could impose its will arbitrarily.
Extremist Israelis like those ruling the country now believe they can steamroller over the Palestinians; that “this land is ours and that’s just the way it’s going to be.” It may work for the playground bully, but not so much in the world of real politic when your opponent is willing to die to prevent you from succeeding. The Palestinian goal will be, like all classic insurgencies, to make East Jerusalem ungovernable. This would reinforce the illegitimacy of Israeli rule there and dispel the notion of Israeli sovereignty over a “united” Jerusalem.
Israeli extremist hardliners like Naftali Bennet have called for the proverbial ‘iron fist,” as if the country’s current policy is chocolates and cream. The next step is perhaps to forbid Palestinians from driving in Jerusalem. After that, a full curfew for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. Finally, perhaps concentration camps or expulsion? After all, wouldn’t that be the hardest fist?
The ‘moderate’ among Israeli extremists say they’d allow “moderate” Palestinians to remain after expelling the worst of the lot. In 1492, the triumphant Spanish Catholics ‘graciously’ offered Jews the opportunity to convert if they wanted to avoid expulsion. But Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate would never accept mass Muslim converts to Judaism, since they’d be viewed as a secret Fifth Column. And how would authorities determine which Palestinians were good and which bad? Perhaps lie detector tests? Or forcing them to wear 24 hour video cameras to ensure loyalty?
Do you call F16 bombings terror attacks? Or just Palestinians driving cars?
@ LindaJ: I always tell commenters that before they take me to task they should check what I’ve actually written on the subject. Numerous times here I’ve said precisely what you imply I haven’t. In fact, I wrote it last week. Would it be that hard to do a Google search before publishing your comment? Brush up your Shakespeare!
Richard, how likely do you think it is that the Israeli govt will attempt to provoke so much violent anarchy that they have the cover they need to destroy the mosque and eject all the Arabs from Jerusalem?
I know that you mention it as a rhetorical flourish, but do you ever consider the possibility that maybe that really is the long game being played by this government?
How can these “executions” be approved if Israel has no capital punishment on the books? What does “approved” mean in this context? What authority is drawn down to approve executions? I just don’t get it? These are not gun battles in which death is meted out in self-defense, the government recognizes these as “executions.” Can anyone explain this to me?
It’s called ‘Rules of Engagement’.
@ Shay: No militaries I know except perhaps Sri Lanka’s regarding Tamils, have rules of engagement that call for summary execution of disabled enemy combatants. That’s the law of the jungle. Is Israel a jungle or a western nation? I know the answer to that though you don’t seem to.
@David
It’s not inconceivable that a terrorist who uses a car as a lethal weapon may also be driving a car bomb. To wit, summary execution.
Vita,
There is still no evidence, nor will there ever be, that these incidents were terror attacks.
In a December 29, 2013 article in the Jerusalem Post discussing the increase in traffic accidents in 2013, you can find his statement:
“The organization [the NGO Or Yarok, which compiled data provided by the National Road Safety Authority].
stressed that the government must better adapt the road infrastructure to motorcycles and scooters, and take steps, such as installing safety barriers that will protect these drivers as well as changing the paint used on the roads to a product that is not slippery when wet.”
The recommendation to install safety barriers was made in December 2013. It seems reasonable to assume that that recommendation would not have been made without a basis. Clearly there had been accidents previously that could have been prevented by installation of safety barriers. Yet there were no safety barriers at the light rail stations. In fact, in an article I read yesterday morning, the intent to install safety barriers was discussed.
How can the intent of the drivers in these accidents be determined? It cannot be determined because the drivers were the victims of extrajudicial executions by the Israeli police and that intent has been expressed.
Do you think it would have been equally acceptable fot the police to have extrajudicially executed the Israeli settler who “plowed down two kindergarten girls” in the West Bank then fled the scene?
Civilized democratic nations offer the protections of the law and court proceedings. The alleged murderers of Mohammed Abu Khdeir have been given that protection despite a full confession from Yosef Chaim Ben-David to the brutal murder and its motivation and his intent. While Mr. Ben-David’s confessed actions sicken me, I fully support his right to a trial. Why are these drivers denied the same rights and protections?
Vita. Yup. It is also not inconceivable that the “terrorist” was assembling a nucular bamb. To wit, summary destruction of the entire Arvit neighborhood with all the poeple in it.
One is almost nostalgic for the clarity of Saddam Hussein, who famously said, “Law consists of two lines above my signature.”
“The 1929 Kotel riots in which scores of Jews and Palestinians were killed started this way.”
The 1929 Kotel riots began after thousands of Arabs unexpectedly coming from the countryside for Friday prayers. Agitators, like the Mufti, helped turn the crowd into a riot.
In Hebron, doctored photos purportedly showing that the Jews had burned down al Aqsa Mosque, were distributed to Arabs as they left the Hebron mosque after prayers. The photos incited the Arabs to massacre Hebron’s Jews.
http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/society/jewish_world/the_hevron_massacre__4.aspx?id=9570&language=english
Clearly, the 1929 Kotel riots were a pre-planned attack on the Jews and not a spontaneous reaction.
@Vita: Bratslav websites are not credible sources for anything. If you read the Wikipedia article about the Kotel riots you will see that Jews attempted to change the status quo and that this caused the riots. I do not allow the publication of falsehoods and demand use of credible sources. You have been warned.
Eyewitness journalist, Pierre Van Paassen, isn’t a credible source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_van_Paassen
From Wikipedia:
In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag.[18] Rumours spread that Jewish youths had also attacked Arabs and had cursed Muhammad.[24][25] Following an inflammatory sermon the next day, hundreds of Muslims converged on the Western Wall, burning prayer books and injuring the beadle. The rioting soon spread to the Jewish commercial area of town[26][27] and the next day, August 17, a young Jew was stabbed to death.[28] The authorities failed to quell the violence. On Friday, August 23, inflamed by rumors that Jews were planning to attack al-Aqsa Mosque, Arabs started to attack Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem. The first murders of the day took place when two or three Arabs passing by the Jewish Quarter of Mea Shearim were assassinated.[29] Rumours that Jews had massacred Arabs in Jerusalem arrived in Hebron by that evening.[16]Hillel Cohen frames his recent narrative of the incident in terms of the murder of the Jaffa Awan family by a Jewish police constable called Simcha Hinkis.[15]
@Arie
Just to keep the record clear, Constable Hinkis and his friends murdered the Awan family in a retaliatory attack in the midst of the disturbances. Their murder was a result of the disturbances, and not a cause. Hinkis was tried, convicted and sentenced to life. He was released after 15 years.
What was the ‘status quo’?
Prof. Menachem Friedman, from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Bar-Ilan University, surveys the struggle over the Western Wall in his book “Society and Religion: The Non-Zionist Orthodoxy in Eretz Israel, 1918-1936” (Yad Ben-Zvi, 1983). The Jewish worshipers, he writes, customarily violated the status quo that had been set in Ottoman times and then adopted by the British, and used to bring benches and chairs to the site ahead of Yom Kippur. “This did not always generate protests by the Muslims,” Friedman notes. “As Arab hostility toward the Zionist enterprise grew, the Muslim Higher Council sought to take advantage of these violations by the Jews.”
“Jews attempted to change the status quo”
That depends on when you start your history, doesn’t it? Remind me how the Al-Aqsa Mosque get there, will you please?
Actually, no, it doesn’t depend on where you start in history. The status quo regarding Al-Aqsa Mosque is established by the 1994 treaty between Jordan and Israel.
@Ann Marie, I was responding to comments above about Jerusalem in the 20s and 30s.
A small notice from Islamophobe; during the time you were writing this article about the killing of a terrorist, probably hundreds of Muslims were killed by Muslims and unfortunately nobody is writing about it.
Nobody is writing about it?!!
What newspapers do you read (if any)? Certainly not Dutch ones…
You are right Gilead, nobody is writing about it as long as you keep your eyes and mind tightly shut. If you were to use your eyes just a little, you would see that there is plenty being written about “it”.
The subject at hand though, is the Nazi-type of activities by Israel and its Jews. Please don’t try to make that look good by finding something worse to compare with it, while simultaneously, trying to show off Israel as the beacon of “freedom” and “Democracy” (…for Jews only).
Well, clearly someone’s been wandering about with their eyes and ears closed for an awful long time.
Do you uncover your ears and open your eyes occasionally so you can shout “stop demonizing Israel!” whenever anything about Israel or Palestine gets into the news?
No need to answer that one, really.
Their contempt for legal procedure is such that they don’t even bother to come up with an Israeli variant of “Auf der Flucht erschossen”.
However this summary execution of their targets also shows something else. Apparently they have no hope of extracting information from them, if need be through torture. It seems an implicit recognition that they are dealing here with individual acts of despair rather than some plot concocted by Hamas (or Abbas).
Richard.
The PLO is banning the term, ‘Temple Mount’.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4588544,00.html
How should we now refer to the ‘T.M.’ on your blog?
Suggesting that this ban of a Jewish term is somehow an unreasonable thing to do within their (nominally) own area of control. I wonder if Israel allows the use of the terms “oocupied territories” when discussing post-’67 lands, especially jerusalem and the Golan?
@Jaffar
The Jewish term is actually Har haBáyit (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת), or Har ha Moria (Hebrew: הַר הַמוריה). If you like , you may refer to it using the arabic, Haram al-Shar. No one’s ordering you to use a particular terminology.
Israel acknowledges that the West Bank is occupied territory, save for Jerusalem, which it has annexed (along with the Golan).
“the arabic, Haram al-Shar”
You better stick to the Hebrew, though, there is no such thing as ‘Haram al-Shar’.
“Israel acknowledges that the West Bank is occupied territory (….)”
Oh really. You better tell that to former Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy so he can bury his report.
PS. You must be the new (or a recycled ….) Hasbarista around here.
*Sharif*
How to turn “occupied” into “legitimate” Israeli territory
Forum shopping – Edmond Levy
Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Regional Development Silvan Shalom said that Supreme Court Justice (ret.) Edmond Levy was chosen to head the committee that legitimized construction in the West Bank because of his past as a Likud member.
“As for the Edmond Levy report, did the prime minister not know who Edmond Levy is before he appointed him?” asked Shalom. “I will clue you in: Edmond Levy was deputy mayor of Ramle on behalf of the Likud,” he added. Shalom then said Levy was appointed as a Supreme Court judge as part of a political deal made with former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak. “So when the prime minister appointed him, didn’t he understand who he was appointing?”
More:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/pm-defends-judge-levy-s-appointment-as-head-of-committee-that-legitimized-west-bank-construction.premium-1.484186
American Reaction
The American Administration vehemently disagrees with the findings of the Levy Report, which states that the Israeli government must promote the legitimization of all West Bank settlements and outposts.
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday evening, State Department Spokesman Patrick Ventrell said that, “The US position on settlements is clear.
“Obviously, we’ve seen the reports that an Israeli Government appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts…”
More:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html
Expert external opinion – International Red Cross
“The report argues that Israel is not an occupier because the West Bank was seized from a state that was not its rightful sovereign, while Israel itself has “a claim to sovereign rights in the territory.” However, under the law of occupation, which is part of international humanitarian law, it is of no relevance whether Jordan did or did not have sovereign claim to the territory before it was occupied. The binding definition in the Hague Regulations of 1907 establishes that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
For the purpose of the law of occupation, it is sufficient that the state whose army established effective control over the territory was not itself the rightful sovereign of the place when the conflict broke out. Nowhere in the law of occupation can one find the suggestion that only territory whose title is clear and uncontested can be considered occupied for the purposes of international humanitarian law. Indeed, it would be in complete contravention of the humanitarian purpose of such law to deprive people living under occupation of the protection afforded by the law because of disputes between belligerents regarding sovereignty over the territory concerned.
The West Bank is under the effective control of Israel. Israel acquired this control through a military campaign and maintains it through military force. Even those who hold that Israel has “a claim to sovereign rights” in the West Bank cannot claim that Israel was the rightful sovereign of the territory when it seized control over it. Accordingly, contrary to what is claimed in the Levy report, it is manifestly clear that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently ruled that the territory of the West Bank is subject to belligerent occupation.”
More:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-levy-report-vs-international-law-1.474129
Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Regional Development Silvan Shalom said that Supreme Court Justice (ret.) Edmond Levy was chosen to head the committee that legitimized construction in the West Bank because of his past as a Likud member.
“As for the Edmond Levy report, did the prime minister not know who Edmond Levy is before he appointed him?” asked Shalom. “I will clue you in: Edmond Levy was deputy mayor of Ramle on behalf of the Likud,” he added. Shalom then said Levy was appointed as a Supreme Court judge as part of a political deal made with former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak. “So when the prime minister appointed him, didn’t he understand who he was appointing?”
More:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/pm-defends-judge-levy-s-appointment-as-head-of-committee-that-legitimized-west-bank-construction.premium-1.484186
American Reaction
The American Administration vehemently disagrees with the findings of the Levy Report, which states that the Israeli government must promote the legitimization of all West Bank settlements and outposts.
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday evening, State Department Spokesman Patrick Ventrell said that, “The US position on settlements is clear.
“Obviously, we’ve seen the reports that an Israeli Government appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts…”
More:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html
Expert external opinion – International Red Cross
“The report argues that Israel is not an occupier because the West Bank was seized from a state that was not its rightful sovereign, while Israel itself has “a claim to sovereign rights in the territory.” However, under the law of occupation, which is part of international humanitarian law, it is of no relevance whether Jordan did or did not have sovereign claim to the territory before it was occupied. The binding definition in the Hague Regulations of 1907 establishes that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
For the purpose of the law of occupation, it is sufficient that the state whose army established effective control over the territory was not itself the rightful sovereign of the place when the conflict broke out. Nowhere in the law of occupation can one find the suggestion that only territory whose title is clear and uncontested can be considered occupied for the purposes of international humanitarian law. Indeed, it would be in complete contravention of the humanitarian purpose of such law to deprive people living under occupation of the protection afforded by the law because of disputes between belligerents regarding sovereignty over the territory concerned.
The West Bank is under the effective control of Israel. Israel acquired this control through a military campaign and maintains it through military force. Even those who hold that Israel has “a claim to sovereign rights” in the West Bank cannot claim that Israel was the rightful sovereign of the territory when it seized control over it. Accordingly, contrary to what is claimed in the Levy report, it is manifestly clear that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently ruled that the territory of the West Bank is subject to belligerent occupation.”
More:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-levy-report-vs-international-law-1.474129
@ Vita: The idea that you would instruct a Muslim in the proper term for Haram al Sharif is unfriggin’ believable. And that you’d be wrong–even more so.
Considering the “there are no Palestinians” antics from a considerable subsection of Israeli society, I don’t see this action by the PLO as being anything particularly egregious or condemnable.