Talk:June 2017 Jerusalem attack

"terrorism"

How is this remotely "terrorism"? The perpetrators specifically targeted military/occupation forces and as such this is a legitimate attack in the realms of irregular/asymmetric warfare. All references to "terrorism" (as well as attempts to tie it to crime or jihadism) should be removed from the article for the sake of objectivity. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Jihadism is not connected to terrorism - it is a justification - of Islamic Jihad. Regular Muslim armies (be it Islamic State, Islamic Republic of Iran, and other forces that are primary muslim) - regularly invoke Jihad as a motivational call.

(1). "Jihadism" in the contemporary sense is specifically related to the salafi jihadist and wahhabi-takfiri movements. Unless substantial, objective proof tying the perpetrators to the ISIS terror group is found, it is irresponsible and misleading to describe them as "ISIS inspired" or "jihadist". They could've very easily been motivated by nationalist sentiment/the crimes of the occupation forces and the settlers, as has been the case with the overwhelming majority of Palestinians carrying out attacks. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Terrorism or terror - per mw "violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" is entirely divorced from the justification of the attack. Terror may be a fully justified approach (and may be employed by regular forces - e.g. terror bombing) - yet still be terror - if there is no military objective beyond intimidation. In this case - the attackers couldn't have reasonably planned/assumed any effect beyond terror - they attacked with insufficient forces to take ground, cut a supply route, or achieve any military aim beyond killing and frightening.

So you admit that you could easily classify "protective edge" as a war of terror targeting the Gazans in general. Protective edge took no ground, did negligible damage to the Hamas logistics system, and categorically failed to "eliminate" Hamas as a militant organization. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

3. The attackers, who were not in uniform, were unlawful combatants in this case - committing a serious war crime (which at least in the past could've legally led to summary execution, and regardless strips the combatants of law of war protections and places them in criminal proceedings) - as they jeopardized other civilians (and the protection offered in general to civilians in the conflict) by masquerading as civilians.

"Unlawful combatant" is an entirely subjective term. Your claim of their "committing a serious war crime" in targeting soldiers and police officers of the occupation (seen by the whole world besides Israel as illegal under international law) is even more subjective, to the point of being ludicrously so. Autocratic and fascistic states certainly did execute "unlawful combatants" out of hand-- are you admitting that Israel is an autocratic, fascistic state?

Per your standards, all resistance movements in the second world war, for example, could be considered "unlawful combatants" and therefore the National Socialists had legitimate cause to execute them out of hand when captured. That's what you're saying?

The rest of your post here is twaddle. Civilians weren't deliberately targeted. Soldiers and occupation police were. I see you have nothing to say about the Palestinian civilians who were wounded by Israeli fire in the process of "neutralizing" the perpetrators! 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The war crime I was referring to was being dressed as civilians, and not carrying arms openly - in violation of the 4th article of the 3rd Geneva convention [1] which requires militias to be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. This abuse of civilian clothing - imperils actual civilians - as the opposing force may stop respecting the civilian status of enemy civilians if they are indistinguishable from enemy combatants.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

4. The entirety of your argument could be applied to Murder of Lee Rigby - who was a valid military target in uniform - who was attacked by Islamists who justified themselves as follows: The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one.... By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us?...when you drop a bomb do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? ...Through many passages in the Koran we must fight them as they fight us...I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think politicians are going to die? No, it's going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back...leave our lands and you will live in peace.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no, no, no. This is simply an attempt by a pro-israel wiki editor trying to tie (presumably) an attack motivated by the crimes of the occupation and rooted in Palestinian nationalism as opposed to conservative Islamism with the very worst of the "international jihadists"-- who are of course Salafists at the "least". 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Technically, this was a suicidal attack "Jihadist-style" aiming to intimidate the Israeli authorities and population. The target was not a military facility, but middle of the city of Jerusalem and victims included both police and civilians (one policewoman killed and 2 civilians wounded, one civilian treated for shock [2]). Certainly terror attack and not guerilla tactic.GreyShark (dibra) 06:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Technically it was a partially successful attack targeting the Israeli military and occupation police in a city that's not universally considered to be under Israeli sovereignty. All the individuals targeted by the perpetrators cannot and should not be classified as "civilian"-- all that does is make a mockery of the definition of "civilian" in the first place.

You're saying that it's not a "real" guerilla attack because they targeted soldiers and occupation police out in the open, as opposed to trying to assault a watchtower or police station? Sorry, but that's ridiculous-- your POV is very obvious here. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

final toll - 1 Israeli policewoman killed, 2 Israeli policemen wounded, 2 Palestinian civilians wounded, 1 Israeli civilian treated for shock, 3 Palestinian attackers killed.GreyShark (dibra) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is terrorism. There is no doubt about that. Sokuya (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, to you anything the Palestinians do is "terror" outside of them all killing themselves or evaporating for the sake of land-stealing "settler" types. You are why this conflict will never end. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

70.27.161.44 excuse me?! There is a full discussion here explaining to details why the event consider terrorism. You don't have to agree with that but Wikipedia is obligated to facts. Attacking civilian in this method is terrorism plain and simple. Sokuya (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

70.27.161.44 is just another whiny anti-Semite justifying Islamic terrorism and more fake claims about some non-existent "occupation." The only illegal occupiers are the Arab settlers squatting on Jewish land. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. Always has been, always will be. Arabs can go to hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.16.145.241 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Evil and stupid, like most pro-israel propagandists on the internet. You go to hell. 70.27.161.44 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIL responsibility claim

This event was the first official claim of responsibility by ISIL against Israel via Amaq news agency [3]. Though in two previous events, ISIL was identified as inspirational for perpetrators, the attackers at June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting and at January 2016 Tel Aviv shooting. Despite ISIL claims (indicating no relation to Israeli-Palestinian conflict), Hamas claimed that the attack was made by PFLP and Hamas operatives (both Palestinian nationalist groups). Israeli officials have so far also denied ISIL claims, until further investigation as two of the three attackers were known to be PFLP members and one being Hamas member in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Name

Her name is Hadas Malka, not Hadar Malca. her Facebook page[4].

Fixed (was bad in photo caption - rest was OK).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Temporary map

Can you please add this map? I'm not professional editor, but at least there is a something..(the map is based on this article: [5])

ThePagesWriter (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please open the article

You block me and others from improving the page. I want to add reactions:

'I would like to express my deep sorrow over the murder of Israeli Border Police officer Hadas Malka in a terrorist attack yesterday in Jerusalem. Hadas began her military service in the navy and then continued in the Border Police. About one year ago, she began serving as a commander in the unit. During the attack, Hadas struggled valiantly against the terrorist, but unfortunately was critically wounded. Hadas loved the people of Israel and the land of Israel, and her officers and subordinates loved her very much. In the name of all the people of Israel, I offer my condolences to her family.' - Netanyahu's facebook page.[6]

There are also reactions of the president and the defense minister. ThePagesWriter (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Rv

Unsourced claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Photos of Victims

I don't think it is proper of Wikipedia to use profile photos of victims. They don't add information (ok, she was cute) and they can be problematic from an NPOV pov. And in this case, the photo was added by aa non-authorized user. ImTheIP (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not censored. There are comparable photos at Sabra and Shatila massacre and My Lai Massacre.--181.90.196.118 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)