The first is that they attacked and were armed, in which case shooting them in the legs to disable but not kill was probably the right thing to do. The second is that they attacked but did not use lethal weapons, in which case shooting them would be nothing short of an excessive use of force - especially if a thirteen year old was shot - but those cases are always found to be not guilty in the IDF anyway, so it doesn't matter. The third is that they didn't attack and the shooter is mentally ill, in which case he shouldn't have been given a gun in the first place. And then the fourth, which is that they didn't attack and the gunman is an extremist right winger - and that would just be another reminder of what Israel should have learned in 1994 and numerous times since - when you give an extremist right winger a gun, some poor Palestinian is going to pay the price.
Former ruling party in Yemen says it accepts UN-brokered peace plan (Reuters)
from the article: Jewish gunman wounds two Palestinians in Jerusalem