Reply
Thu 4 Aug, 2005 01:02 pm
Quote:Crowd lynches Israeli bus gunman
A teenage Israeli soldier has been lynched after killing four people and wounding at least four others on a bus in an Israeli Arab town.
According to Israeli media, he opened fire after an argument with passengers as the bus arrived in the Galilee town of Shfaram from Haifa on the coast.
Police who evacuated the bus tried to keep the man aboard but a furious mob reportedly stormed it and killed him.
Israeli security sources described the incident as a "Jewish terror attack".
Some of the injured passengers are reported to be in a critical condition.
Mohammed Barakeh, an Arab member of parliament, said at the scene that the dead were Arabs and all residents of Shfaram.
'Police did nothing'
Eyewitnesses quoted on Israeli television described the gunman as bearded and wearing a Jewish skull cap and military uniform.
He has been named as Eden Tsuberi, 19, from the Jewish settlement of Tapuah in the West Bank.
Media reports said he was absent without leave from his army unit, and was a member of the extremist Kach party.
"It seems like Jewish terror against Arabs," police spokesman Avi Zelba told Reuters news agency.
Local people in Shfaram accused the police of double standards.
"If this attack had occurred in a Jewish neighbourhood and the attacker was Arab, he would have been killed immediately," one unnamed witness was quoted as saying by the Jerusalem Post.
"The police came and they didn't do anything... They were holding him alive in the bus."
Ambulances sent to the scene had difficulty passing through the crowds.
Source
Terms of abuse
I dont think it is good idea to make sweeping statements such as 'Jewish' attack this kind of terminology whiffs of labelling. Surely no one is suggesting the adjective to describe the attack is jewish in the same way it would be iincorrect to describe the IRA's terrorism as a Catholic attack or the attack of Tim McVeigh as a Christian attack or the Bush invasion of Iraq as a Evangelical Christian Crusade?
We need to keep a check on reality when descriing acts of violence and terrorism.
Re: Terms of abuse
stevewonder wrote:I dont think it is good idea to make sweeping statements such as 'Jewish' attack this kind of terminology whiffs of labelling.
Even if the labelling is appropriate in the context? Read the post more carefully. It was the Jerusalem Post that called the guy a "Jewish terrorist". If the JP can't call someone "jewish", then who can?
You probably missed that I only quoted Israelian sources:
Jerusalem Post wrote:In what police are calling an incident of Jewish terrorism, ...
When you look at yesterday's/today's Israelian papers, you'll see that all use this term.
And even Sharon called it such (copy from today's JP frontpage):
I hate to condone mob justice, but, um...the f*cker got what he deserved. They beat him to death? Good. I hope it was a slow, painful beating.
kickycan wrote:I hate to condone mob justice, but, um...the f*cker got what he deserved. They beat him to death? Good. I hope it was a slow, painful beating.
Why do you hate to condone mod justice given your sentiment about it?
thanks walter for the extracts.
Even if the newsppaers reffer to it in this way i still say its wrong.
I think the media usually starts off most labels these days.
An attack cannot e described as jewish or christian, i dont think, its too much of a generalization, sure we can see the person may have caimed to be jewish or christian but the attack was criminal or terrorism but it was not jewish or christian.
i mean is the invasion of Iraq a secular or even a Christian invasion given that the administration is Christian or secular?
i hear on radio the two killed by this guy were 2 christian men and 2 moslem women, he only stopped when his magazine ran out and ent to put another in.
I wonder.... do you think they will create a shrine for this terrorist like they did with Baruch Goldstein??
They probably will.
I had been thinking that the protests against Sharon's disengagement would be largely non-violent and peaceful, what with the demonstrations and civil-disobedience that have occurred so far. One terrorist attack is an aberrance, but then again the Jewish Israelis demand of the PA that Arab/Palestinian terrorism be reduced to zero before they negotiate a peace settlement. What about zero Jewish terrorism? The fact is that any variance from the status quo, of which Israel has the upper hand, incites Jewish extremism and results in Jewish terrorism as in the examples of Goldstein and Tzuberi. I'm afraid that this is a portent of things to come with more Israeli concessions to the Arabs/Palestinians.
stevewonder, "Jewish" not only refers to a religion, it also refers to an ethnicity. That the media, and Sharon himself used the terms "Jewish attack," and "Jewish terrorist" reflects the fact that they weren't talking about religion, they were talking about ethnicity, and illustrating the distinction thereof. Tzuberi, a Jewish Israeli, specifically attacked other Israelis because of their ethnicity, Arab. The Israel/Palestine conflict is largely centered around two opposed ethnicities, Arab and Jewish.
Right, InfraBlue, it is a ethnic distinction.
About the terminology: It was a local Jewish terror attack.
A local newspaper omitted "local" as usual.
Craven de Kere wrote:kickycan wrote:I hate to condone mob justice, but, um...the f*cker got what he deserved. They beat him to death? Good. I hope it was a slow, painful beating.
Why do you hate to condone mod justice given your sentiment about it?
Well, because on one hand, I understand that mob justice is not really about justice at all, but vengeance and uncontrolled rage; on the other hand, if I were on a bus and some guy came on and started shooting random people, I believe that I would very much want to jump on him and beat him to a bloody pulp.
It's pretty barbaric, but I understand it.