Four killed as terrorists open fire near Kiryat Arba

[azurnoir]

Victims, shot while driving, include 2 men, 2 women, one reportedly pregnant; attack comes before Netanyahu and Abbas set to meet in Washington for peace talks.

Magen David Adom paramedics arrived at the scene of the shooting and declared all four victims dead; two men aged 25 and 40 and two women aged 25 and 40. Paramedics added that one of the women may have been pregnant. All four are residents of Beit Hagai.

<snip>

The IDF has been on high alert in the West Bank out of fear that Palestinians would try to torpedo talks through increased attacks against Israelis.

Right-wing MKs quickly tied Tuesday evening’s terror attacks to the beginning of the negotiations in Washington, with members of the National Union calling for talks to be frozen following the attack.

“The terror attack near Kiryat Arba is a reminder to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who his partners are,” said MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union). “The Likud government’s negotiations with the terrorist Abu Mazen (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas) are an energy boost to murderousness and terror. The blood of those harmed is upon the head of the Likud government.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=186608

[azurnoir]

1. Barak: 'Israel will exact a price from the murderers'

In response to Tuesday night's shooting attack which killed four Israelis near Kiryat Arba, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “This is very grave incident. The IDF and Israeli security forces will do everything they can to capture the murderers. Israel will not allow terrorists to lift their heads and will exact a price from the murderers and those who sent them."


Barak added that the attack "is likely an attempt by the low-life terrorists to prevent the diplomatic process and to hurt the chances of the talks opening in Washington.”

Barak was briefed on the attack by IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin. Barak spoke with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who is en-route to Washington DC and updated him on the developing events. He also spoke with Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom.

Tuesday night's devastating shooting attack in the West Bank was believed to have been aimed at torpedoing the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks set to kick off on Wednesday in Washington DC.

The four victims, from the settlement of Beit Hagai, were driving near the entrance of Kiryat Arba when they came under heavy gunfire. The IDF was investigating two possibilities – that Palestinian terrorists had laid an ambush alongside the road or that the shots were fired from a passing car.

IDF troops immediately launched searches for the perpetrators and the Central Command decided to raise the level of alert out of fear that Palestinian terrorists will increase efforts to perpetrate attacks in the coming days with the goal of torpedoing the peace summit in Washington.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=186614

[Rage for Order]

5. And 3,000 Palestinians held a rally to celebrate the murders

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_talks

"About 3,000 people joined a rally in Gaza to celebrate the attack. Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida was among them and told The Associated Press: "The Qassam Brigades announces its full responsibility for the heroic operation in Hebron."

One well-placed fuel-air bomb could have dampened their enthusiasm for bloodshed, me thinks.

[azurnoir]

7. yes white people find things- black people loot yahoo

is always to be trusted in these things

[Rage for Order]

8. Associated Press, not Yahoo

Also, the "finding vs. looting" nontroversy has been thoroughly debunked. The photo editor for the agency that ran the pictures stated in an interview that the reason the captions were different is because in one instance the photographer saw the people going into the store and exiting with the items, but in the other instance the photographer did not see them go into a store and remove the items. Feel free to Bing it for yourself.

[azurnoir]

9. Lol thanks your denial is noted and says much

however Maan did name another group Al Haq Brigades

[Rage for Order]

11. Your refusal to look for additional information says more

Like I said, look it up.

http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp

(From the Salon article linked at Snopes):

The AP database includes two other images from the same scene by photographer Dave Martin that refer to looters in the captions, though neither actually shows an explicit act of looting. Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that Martin says he witnessed the people in his images looting a grocery store. "He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods," Stokes said, "and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption."

Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography, told Salon that all captions are vetted by editors and are the result of a dialogue between editor and photographer. Lyon said AP's policy is that each photographer can describe only what he or she actually sees. He added, "When we see people go into businesses and come out with goods, we call it 'looting.'" On the other hand, he said, "When we just see them carrying things down the road, we call it 'carrying items.'"

Regarding the AFP/Getty "finding" photo by Graythen, Getty spokeswoman Bridget Russel said, "This is obviously a big tragedy down there, so we're being careful with how we credit these photos." Russel said that Graythen had discussed the image in question with his editor and that if Graythen didn't witness the two people in the image in the act of looting, then he couldn't say they were looting.

Also, Chris Graythen, the photographer who took the photo for AFP and sent in the description had this to say:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items. I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. it had no doors. the water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow. I wouldn't have taken in (sic), because I wouldn't eat anything that's been in that water.


Feel free to wallow in your ignorance, though, if that's what makes you happy.

[azurnoir]

12. Lol hardly a denial or retraction says more about the photographer

when the people were hite he believes they simply found things
can not thank you enough for that got any more?

[Ken Burch]

16. If the store was already trashed, the difference was meaningless.

Obviously the photographer would have said "found" if it was white people going into a trashed store.

[Rage for Order]

20. What do you call it if you go into a building and take something without paying for it?

The store may have been trashed but the items that were taken must not have been trashed or else the people would not have bothered taking them. Grabbing an item as it floats by you is quite a bit different from going into a building and carrying it out. I don't consider it to be looting when people are taking items necessary for survival - food, water, diapers, etc. However, it is looting if people are taking jewelry, TVs, I pods, etc.

Why is it "obvious" that the reporter would have said "found"? Because it fits your paradigm of how the world is? America - so racist that we're the only Western nation to ever elect a minority president. Not France, not England, not Canada, not Australia; America. Why do you think that is? Rampant racism?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tripmann]

25. LOL!

[TomClash]

43. The mod didn't get it

One of the principal reasons I don't post here much anymore. :thumbsdown:

[Mosby]

2. Hamas claims responsibility for attack on Israelis

JERUSALEM – The Islamic militant Hamas is claiming responsibility for a shooting attack that killed four Israelis in the West Bank.

Hamas military wing spokesman Abu Obeida told The Associated Press late Tuesday that Hamas carried out the attack near the West Bank city of Hebron.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_talks

[azurnoir]

4. Could you post the complete paragraph where your claimed quote appears?

I could find nothing in the article with the exact wording in your quote however I did find this from Maan

A Palestinian group calling itself the Al-Haq ("Rights") Brigades has claimed responsibility for the attack.

In a statement to Ma'an, Al-Haq said its operatives successfully fled capture. The attack comes in response to the PLO's decision to return to direct negotiations with Israel, the statement said.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=312242

[Mosby]

10. Yahoo/AP has been updating their reporting

That's why you can't find the exact quote. This is what they are reporting now:

JERUSALEM – Palestinian gunmen opened fire Tuesday on an Israeli car in the West Bank and killed four passengers on the eve of a new round of Mideast peace talks in Washington. The Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility.

I don't think Ma'an is very reliable, but it's early in the investigation so we will see what shakes out.

[azurnoir]

13. I'm very sure you do not think Maan reliable-hardly a suprise n/t

[azurnoir]

14. delete wrong place n/t

[whosinpower]

3. If they freeze talks

That is EXACTLY what Hamas wants. I hope the Israeli knesset and the PA are strong enough to deprive them of what they want.

Prayers to the families of the victims.

[Tripmann]

6. A tragic blow on the eve of the talks. I actually thought it was hamas when I heard of the incident.

Hopefully it will not escalate.

[azurnoir]

15. It is enough as is that it coulld be Hamas or that it could be some other group

is not even important that it works for those who support the cause of Eretz Israel is the key point

[bemildred]

17. "believed to have been aimed at torpedoing the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks"

Well, anyway, that much is probably accurate. If you think this happened today by coincidence, I admire your sunny optimism.

[azurnoir]

19. this tragedy serves the extremists of both sides well n/t

[bemildred]

21. MSM seems to think it's the "Hamas armed wing" that did it.

Kind of sets off my bullshit meter, because it's so flagrantly convenient, but you never know. I guess we'll have to wait a day or so to see what sort of official statements we get.

[sellitman]

18. This will be the DU take on this:

The Israelis were illegally blocking Palestinian bullets with their own bodies.

[proteus_lives]

22. Sad but true.

[shira]

28. Israeli papers reporting on this tragedy is a disproportionate response to the attack.

Almost as bad as this disproportionate overreaction in 1943...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_1943_nytimes.htm

[Tripmann]

27. We'll see. Although its a shame that you use DU as a vehicle to defame DU.

[sellitman]

30. What is a shame is the one sided nature of most of it's inhabitants

Notice I said most

[Tripmann]

31. Unlike you of course, who jumped at the chance to frame DU in a negative light.

[sellitman]

32. Nonsense

It's only negative if you like the status quo.

It's opinion & observation . You don't have to agree with it.

[Tripmann]

33. When you refer to 'the 'DU take' you refer to DU. You did it in the context of DU excusing murder.

If you're going to use this forum, try not to defame it by making generalizations about the 'DU take', especially when you infer that take will be to excuse the murder of 4 innocent people including a pregnant woman.

[Ken Burch]

37. the status quo is the Occupation. The Occupation is the cause of the continuing violence

If Israel had gone back to the pre-1967 borders a month after the Six Day War(having done more than enough simply by winning the military exchange)there would have been a peaceful and just resolution to this decades ago.

Neither the PLO nor Hamas would exist-nor the more extremist forces that are likely the real perpetrators of this vile act.

No Occupation, no "terrorism".

It wouldn't be paradise, but it would be a manageable situation that at least OPPRESSED no one.

[sellitman]

40. You can believe that if you want

Personally I think it's not what would of happened. Not by a long shot.

[eyl]

45. The PLO was established

in 1964

[Ken Burch]

46. Which simply means that no Palestinian was ever going to accept

being forced to be Jordanian.

The establishment was about the growth of the existing national consciousness.

Will you PLEASE let go of the "they hate the Jews" meme? That's not what this is about.

[shira]

47. Wrong again. The PLO in 1964 fought for land within the green line, not the W.Bank/Gaza. n/t

[eyl]

49. So logically they would have

attacked Jordan in that case, no?

AFAIK there was no armed strife between the PLO and Jordan prior to 1970; OTOH, Fatah's (the PLO's largest constituent) first operation was an attempt to attack Israel's National Water Carrier (the water transport system which provides most of Israel with water) in January 1965.

[Shaktimaan]

48. or...

the negotiations now would be for pieces if Israel within the green line.

[Ken Burch]

50. That assumes the Palestinians would've been just as arrogant and ruthless

As the Israeli government.

[Shaktimaan]

51. correct.

if not far more so. nothing the palestinians have done would inspire me to believe that they'd act any differently than the most extreme settler organizations, were they in a situation that'd benefit them so.

[Ken Burch]

36. Nobody here would say or think anything remotely like that.

It's disgusting that you'd even imply such a thing. Shame on you.

[sellitman]

41. It was said from experience

Most (not all) inhabitants here only take one side to task when atrocities occur.

That's how I see it.

[Ken Burch]

24. Obviously, I join those who call for the perpetrators to be apprehended and punished for this act

n/t.

[Tripmann]

26. Absolutely. A vile inexcusable act of violence.

[Kurska]

29. NVM n/t

[Ken Burch]

35. I care about it as much as anybody else. Those four people did not deserve to die.

It's just that I don't accept what you would like me to accept...that events like this somehow justify the Occupation.

[sellitman]

42. I applaud you for this nt

[CJvR]

34. Time for another round of futility?

I would have thought the international diplomat corps had given up by now.

No Israeli goverment can sign away Jerusalem and agree to a one sided reversal of the ethnic cleansing following the founding of Israel. No Palestinian leadership can accept anything less. AND - if by some miracle they were still able to hammer out a deal acceptable to both parties extremists on both sides would go on a killing spree until one side is compelled to hit back.

[henank]

38. There's been another shooting

2 injured, one critically. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3947832,00.html

[Old Troop]

39. Wow. Not a word here about the tragedy that several families suffered.

From either side.

[hayu_lol]

44. Aw, just some more of those 'peaceful Palestinians' hiding...

on a hillside watching the cars go by. It is ok provided that those Israelis don't do the shooting according to so many on these threads.

Rhetoric leading up to the '67 war leaves no doubts that the Arab nations involved were determined to drive the Israelis into the sea and destroy the country(Israel). Why, despite all the whiners and complainers, should the Israelis give back any of the land they won by properly applied force of arms in the face of a supposedly superior enemy? Seems that Mexico would have the right to ask that Texas be given back to them...and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

When the Brits pulled out of the Palestine region, they left their arms there for the arabs...no question who they favored at that time.

It is almost always ok when the Palestinians perform one of these terrorist stunts. It is never ok when the Israelis return the favor.