Israel / Gaza / Hamas Mega-Thread

[Israel XVI]

1. The mere act of targeting civilians proves this point correct. They intentionally kill them.

Again, they get caught in the crossfire. Acknowledge that the Gaza Strip is one of the smallest yet most densely packed places there is.

2. You are the one that does not know what genocide means.

Look who's talking

Lets see, thousands of Palestinians killed by the IDF, less than 100 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

Lets see, was it meant to wipe Palestinians out? No.
Diagnosis: Argument is very invalid.

3. Many, many Jewish Rabis and Zionists praise the murder of Palestinians.

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

4. It is clearly indicated by your statements that you are a die-hard zionist that refuses to acknowledge or accept clear evidence that lays any sort of claim against Israel. There is no point arguing with people like you that ignore and refuse clear evidence against your views.

There's no point in making ad hominems. Please stop debating without acknowledgement of other points without targeting me, unless you have something sourced to say.

[Israel XVI]

1. Source (2014 conflict figures
Israeli Deaths: 72 (6 of which were civilians)
Palestinian Deaths: 2,143 (est. 643 to be militants)
This indicates that they either can't target worth a damn or are deliberately targeting civilians.

I would suggest you use the UN instead of the Gaza Health Ministry, but I'll remind you that the Gaza Strip is one of the most crowded places there is, as listed #15.

2. Genocide- the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. As per this definition available on online dictionaries, the IDF, since they are deliberately targeting civilian Palestinians and mass murdering them, they are committing genocide.

More accurate definition

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and more recently the Rwandan genocide.

Know that all of these were attempted for all of those groups.

3. This topic is harder to find; however, there has been a lot of talk on this issue lately.

Be quiet unless you have something to source, because right now I can't think that you're speaking anything that isn't being made up.

[Herskerstad]

I don't know why Israel restrains itself so much. If it were up to me I'd be using a whole lot of napalm.

Fair warning since you are new. Advocating the use of a substance like Napalm in a crowded area like Gaza is likely to get you warnings, bans and all that which follows. Try to look through what you are saying and ensure it won't be seen as flamebait.

[Dragomerian Islands]

1. The mere act of targeting civilians proves this point correct. They intentionally kill them.

Again, they get caught in the crossfire. Acknowledge that the Gaza Strip is one of the smallest yet most densely packed places there is.

2. You are the one that does not know what genocide means.

Look who's talking

Lets see, thousands of Palestinians killed by the IDF, less than 100 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

Lets see, was it meant to wipe Palestinians out? No.
Diagnosis: Argument is very invalid.

3. Many, many Jewish Rabis and Zionists praise the murder of Palestinians.

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

4. It is clearly indicated by your statements that you are a die-hard zionist that refuses to acknowledge or accept clear evidence that lays any sort of claim against Israel. There is no point arguing with people like you that ignore and refuse clear evidence against your views.

There's no point in making ad hominems. Please stop debating without acknowledgement of other points without targeting me, unless you have something sourced to say.

Point Proven: You are a Die Hard Zionist.

1. So the bombing of crowded schools and hospitals that had no actual evidence of housing weapons is just "cross-fire"?

2. By indication of the Israeli government, yes, wiping them out was their goal unless of course you are claiming that the Israelis just suck at aiming.

3. That point has been proven just by the fact that many of them actually have come out and said that.

4. See, right here you just proved this point. You have not given any points to the contrary, instead you spent your time arguing by presenting points that are easily disproved/discredited as if you are not even trying to prove your point.

[Al Nahar]

I don't know why Israel restrains itself so much. If it were up to me I'd be using a whole lot of napalm.

Fair warning since you are new. Advocating the use of a substance like Napalm in a crowded area like Gaza is likely to get you warnings, bans and all that which follows. Try to look through what you are saying and ensure it won't be seen as flamebait.

What do you expect from people like this...its sad..

[Herskerstad]

Fair warning since you are new. Advocating the use of a substance like Napalm in a crowded area like Gaza is likely to get you warnings, bans and all that which follows. Try to look through what you are saying and ensure it won't be seen as flamebait.

What do you expect from people like this...its sad..

I don't have great expectations, but I think it is fair to give a chance, give a fair pre-warning, and let them work their way into the forums or out of them on their own merits.

[Papait]

People always sh*t their pants whenever Israel Attempts to wipe out Hamas terrorists and accidentally majorly wounds an 11 year old boy. Do you really think Israel are purposely bombing civilians?

Umm...they have a long and storied history of killing innocents on purpose. The Shabaat massacre comes to mind. The Zionist militias that lived in Mandatory Palestine come to mind. "Price tag" settlers in the West Bank come to mind. From the entire history of Israel they have engaged, willfully, in brutal massacres. "Well so has Palestine!" Yes, but do two wrongs make a right? Palestine has since turned to diplomacy, with the exception of Hamas but the last two "wars" with Israel were not actually started by Hamas, and so they currently have the "moral" high ground. Once Israel acknowledges Palestine's right to exist and actually engages in legitimate peace talks then they will be respected, until then most the world will see Israel as a collection of thugs just like Russia.

Also remember Deir Yassin, where they threw grenades into every house and shot at fleeing people

[HaMakom]

Also remember Deir Yassin, where they threw grenades into every house and shot at fleeing people

In any conflict, we can expect the interested parties to say that their opponents are bad, so finding the balance of justice requires that we go beyond the mutual accusations of the participants. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, supporters of the PLO charge that the "Palestinian refugee problem" stems from supposed civilian massacres carried out by Jewish forces, which created a panic resulting in the flight of the Arab population. The argument rests almost exclusively on the repetition of the allegation that Jewish forces perpetrated a massacre of Arab civilians at Deir Yassin. Since the entire argument rests heavily on Deir Yassin, what will be left of the accusation against the Jews if Arab civilians were not massacred at Deir Yassin?

What happened at Deir Yassin? Annoyingly, most people take it for granted that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin, even though this allegation has always been hotly disputed.

You need to remember the facts, the war was launched not only by the surrounding Arab nations, but also by huge portions of the Arab-Israeli population, in an attempt to erradicate the Jewish state just three years after Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews in gas chambers (Something which Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini approved of and promised to do so in Palestine). Im fact, during World War II, Haj Amin became organized SS divisions in Yugoslavia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who were responsible for many of the hundreds of thousands of Serbian, Jewish, and Roma civilian deaths at the Croatian death-camp system of Jasenovac (others they killed in their homes). Haj Amin also played a leading role in getting some 400,000 Hungarian Jews sent to die in Auschwitz.

The allegations about Deir Yassin on the Arab side all seem to go back to a certain Hussein Khalidi. As Palestine Facts explains,

“Khalidi was one of the originators of the ‘massacre’ allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi’s claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as ‘proof’ of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.” This is what Dana Schmidt from the New York Times wrote in 1948: "Dr. Hussein Khalidi, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, denounced the 'massacre' of 250 Arab men, women, and children by Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, Zionist terrorist groups, at Deir Yassin on Friday."

Let's jusr review:

1) the genocidal anti-Semite Haj Amin had a policy to make the Arabs flee;

2) the man responsible for making up "rumors of Jewish atrocities" to make the Arabs flee was Hussein Khalidi, Hajj Amin's deputy;

3) these "rumors of Jewish atrocities" were rumors, specifically, about Deir Yassin.

4) the guy Khalidi got to spread these rumors about Deir Yassin, Nusseibeh, confesses that they made it all up.

So what ACTUALLY happened at Deir Yassin? Certainly, quite a few Arab civilians died (the best estimate puts the toll at 110, not 254), but they died during the course of the battle, and they were not targeted for destruction. On the contrary, efforts were made to warn them before the battle started.

How could the accusation of a massacre at Deir Yassin -- even had it been true -- make the argument that it is recruited for, namely, that the moral position of the Israeli Jews is inferior and therefore that they owe the Arabs?

Even if the Jews had massacred Arabs at Deir Yassin (which they did not), given the historical context of the 1948 war, it would not alter the global moral position of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

First, the Jews did not start the 1948 war. After the UN voted to create the state of Israel alongside an Arab state in the Levant in 1947, the Arab states chose not to recognize Israel and immediately declared war, with the support of Arab civilians living in British Mandate Palestine, who participated.

It was a lopsided contest. Israel, at the time a sliver of land much smaller even than its current diminutive size, and without a real army, was attacked simultaneously by all the surrounding Arab states.

Moreover, Israel’s enemies stated very clearly that their objective was genocide, something which Hitler had only recently failed to complete.

The war was brutal, and the Arabs took no prisoners. Any Jews who fell alive into Arab hands were routinely tortured to death (I shall spare you the details of the methods). This happened to such an extent that most Jewish soldiers left wounded on the battlefield, beyond the reach of their comrades, would commit suicide by exploding a grenade.

The Arabs also directed many attacks against civilians. For example, on April 13, 78 Jews, medical personnel riding to Hadassah Hospital, were slain. That was the Arab answer to Deir-Yassin. The two events are not even remotely equivalent. Deir Yassin was being used as a base to attack Jewish convoys going to Jerusalem. It was a legitimate military target. Many civilians did die there, but they died as a result of combat operations, and efforts were made to warn them before the attack began. Nobody targeted the Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.

So we have the following:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression with the aim of destroying a legal nation state naturally are.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies was to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely targeted Jewish civilians and murdered/tortured captured Jewish soldiers.

[Papait]

Also remember Deir Yassin, where they threw grenades into every house and shot at fleeing people

In any conflict, we can expect the interested parties to say that their opponents are bad, so finding the balance of justice requires that we go beyond the mutual accusations of the participants. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, supporters of the PLO charge that the "Palestinian refugee problem" stems from supposed civilian massacres carried out by Jewish forces, which created a panic resulting in the flight of the Arab population. The argument rests almost exclusively on the repetition of the allegation that Jewish forces perpetrated a massacre of Arab civilians at Deir Yassin. Since the entire argument rests heavily on Deir Yassin, what will be left of the accusation against the Jews if Arab civilians were not massacred at Deir Yassin?

What happened at Deir Yassin? Annoyingly, most people take it for granted that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin, even though this allegation has always been hotly disputed.

You need to remember the facts, the war was launched not only by the surrounding Arab nations, but also by huge portions of the Arab-Israeli population, in an attempt to erradicate the Jewish state just three years after Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews in gas chambers (Something which Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini approved of and promised to do so in Palestine). Im fact, during World War II, Haj Amin became organized SS divisions in Yugoslavia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who were responsible for many of the hundreds of thousands of Serbian, Jewish, and Roma civilian deaths at the Croatian death-camp system of Jasenovac (others they killed in their homes). Haj Amin also played a leading role in getting some 400,000 Hungarian Jews sent to die in Auschwitz.

The allegations about Deir Yassin on the Arab side all seem to go back to a certain Hussein Khalidi. As Palestine Facts explains,

“Khalidi was one of the originators of the ‘massacre’ allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi’s claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as ‘proof’ of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.” This is what Dana Schmidt from the New York Times wrote in 1948: "Dr. Hussein Khalidi, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, denounced the 'massacre' of 250 Arab men, women, and children by Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, Zionist terrorist groups, at Deir Yassin on Friday."

Let's jusr review:

1) the genocidal anti-Semite Haj Amin had a policy to make the Arabs flee;

2) the man responsible for making up "rumors of Jewish atrocities" to make the Arabs flee was Hussein Khalidi, Hajj Amin's deputy;

3) these "rumors of Jewish atrocities" were rumors, specifically, about Deir Yassin.

4) the guy Khalidi got to spread these rumors about Deir Yassin, Nusseibeh, confesses that they made it all up.

So what ACTUALLY happened at Deir Yassin? Certainly, quite a few Arab civilians died (the best estimate puts the toll at 110, not 254), but they died during the course of the battle, and they were not targeted for destruction. On the contrary, efforts were made to warn them before the battle started.

How could the accusation of a massacre at Deir Yassin -- even had it been true -- make the argument that it is recruited for, namely, that the moral position of the Israeli Jews is inferior and therefore that they owe the Arabs?

Even if the Jews had massacred Arabs at Deir Yassin (which they did not), given the historical context of the 1948 war, it would not alter the global moral position of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

First, the Jews did not start the 1948 war. After the UN voted to create the state of Israel alongside an Arab state in the Levant in 1947, the Arab states chose not to recognize Israel and immediately declared war, with the support of Arab civilians living in British Mandate Palestine, who participated.

It was a lopsided contest. Israel, at the time a sliver of land much smaller even than its current diminutive size, and without a real army, was attacked simultaneously by all the surrounding Arab states.

Moreover, Israel’s enemies stated very clearly that their objective was genocide, something which Hitler had only recently failed to complete.

The war was brutal, and the Arabs took no prisoners. Any Jews who fell alive into Arab hands were routinely tortured to death (I shall spare you the details of the methods). This happened to such an extent that most Jewish soldiers left wounded on the battlefield, beyond the reach of their comrades, would commit suicide by exploding a grenade.

The Arabs also directed many attacks against civilians. For example, on April 13, 78 Jews, medical personnel riding to Hadassah Hospital, were slain. That was the Arab answer to Deir-Yassin. The two events are not even remotely equivalent. Deir Yassin was being used as a base to attack Jewish convoys going to Jerusalem. It was a legitimate military target. Many civilians did die there, but they died as a result of combat operations, and efforts were made to warn them before the attack began. Nobody targeted the Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.

So we have the following:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression with the aim of destroying a legal nation state naturally are.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies was to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely targeted Jewish civilians and murdered/tortured captured Jewish soldiers.

This is like an entire article. But Deir Yassin did happen, just because some people deny it does, does not make it heavily disputed

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Also remember Deir Yassin, where they threw grenades into every house and shot at fleeing people

In any conflict, we can expect the interested parties to say that their opponents are bad, so finding the balance of justice requires that we go beyond the mutual accusations of the participants. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, supporters of the PLO charge that the "Palestinian refugee problem" stems from supposed civilian massacres carried out by Jewish forces, which created a panic resulting in the flight of the Arab population. The argument rests almost exclusively on the repetition of the allegation that Jewish forces perpetrated a massacre of Arab civilians at Deir Yassin. Since the entire argument rests heavily on Deir Yassin, what will be left of the accusation against the Jews if Arab civilians were not massacred at Deir Yassin?

What happened at Deir Yassin? Annoyingly, most people take it for granted that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin, even though this allegation has always been hotly disputed.

You need to remember the facts, the war was launched not only by the surrounding Arab nations, but also by huge portions of the Arab-Israeli population, in an attempt to erradicate the Jewish state just three years after Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews in gas chambers (Something which Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini approved of and promised to do so in Palestine). Im fact, during World War II, Haj Amin became organized SS divisions in Yugoslavia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who were responsible for many of the hundreds of thousands of Serbian, Jewish, and Roma civilian deaths at the Croatian death-camp system of Jasenovac (others they killed in their homes). Haj Amin also played a leading role in getting some 400,000 Hungarian Jews sent to die in Auschwitz.

The allegations about Deir Yassin on the Arab side all seem to go back to a certain Hussein Khalidi. As Palestine Facts explains,

“Khalidi was one of the originators of the ‘massacre’ allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi’s claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as ‘proof’ of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.” This is what Dana Schmidt from the New York Times wrote in 1948: "Dr. Hussein Khalidi, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, denounced the 'massacre' of 250 Arab men, women, and children by Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, Zionist terrorist groups, at Deir Yassin on Friday."

Let's jusr review:

1) the genocidal anti-Semite Haj Amin had a policy to make the Arabs flee;

2) the man responsible for making up "rumors of Jewish atrocities" to make the Arabs flee was Hussein Khalidi, Hajj Amin's deputy;

3) these "rumors of Jewish atrocities" were rumors, specifically, about Deir Yassin.

4) the guy Khalidi got to spread these rumors about Deir Yassin, Nusseibeh, confesses that they made it all up.

So what ACTUALLY happened at Deir Yassin? Certainly, quite a few Arab civilians died (the best estimate puts the toll at 110, not 254), but they died during the course of the battle, and they were not targeted for destruction. On the contrary, efforts were made to warn them before the battle started.

How could the accusation of a massacre at Deir Yassin -- even had it been true -- make the argument that it is recruited for, namely, that the moral position of the Israeli Jews is inferior and therefore that they owe the Arabs?

Even if the Jews had massacred Arabs at Deir Yassin (which they did not), given the historical context of the 1948 war, it would not alter the global moral position of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

First, the Jews did not start the 1948 war. After the UN voted to create the state of Israel alongside an Arab state in the Levant in 1947, the Arab states chose not to recognize Israel and immediately declared war, with the support of Arab civilians living in British Mandate Palestine, who participated.

It was a lopsided contest. Israel, at the time a sliver of land much smaller even than its current diminutive size, and without a real army, was attacked simultaneously by all the surrounding Arab states.

Moreover, Israel’s enemies stated very clearly that their objective was genocide, something which Hitler had only recently failed to complete.

The war was brutal, and the Arabs took no prisoners. Any Jews who fell alive into Arab hands were routinely tortured to death (I shall spare you the details of the methods). This happened to such an extent that most Jewish soldiers left wounded on the battlefield, beyond the reach of their comrades, would commit suicide by exploding a grenade.

The Arabs also directed many attacks against civilians. For example, on April 13, 78 Jews, medical personnel riding to Hadassah Hospital, were slain. That was the Arab answer to Deir-Yassin. The two events are not even remotely equivalent. Deir Yassin was being used as a base to attack Jewish convoys going to Jerusalem. It was a legitimate military target. Many civilians did die there, but they died as a result of combat operations, and efforts were made to warn them before the attack began. Nobody targeted the Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.

So we have the following:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression with the aim of destroying a legal nation state naturally are.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies was to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely targeted Jewish civilians and murdered/tortured captured Jewish soldiers.

Source?

There was a history of violence against Arabs by Zionist groups in the British Mandate even before WWII so your whitewashing of Deir Yassin seems a bit far fetched. Not all Zionists attacked Arabs, not all Arabs attacked Zionists, but this violence existed before the creation of Israel by colonial powers.

[Saiwania]

I don't know why Israel restrains itself so much. If it were up to me I'd be using a whole lot of napalm.

If it were up to me, Gaza and the West Bank would be fully annexed to Israel and would have no autonomy. Both Fatah and Hamas wouldn't exist because they would be forcibly disbanded and outlawed.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I don't know why Israel restrains itself so much. If it were up to me I'd be using a whole lot of napalm.

If it were up to me, Gaza and the West Bank would be fully annexed to Israel and would have no autonomy. Both Fatah and Hamas wouldn't exist because they would be forcibly disbanded and outlawed.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Saiwania]

Why do you hate freedom?

The IRA never achieved their goal of getting northern Ireland annexed to Ireland, neither should the Arabs ever manage to get an independent Palestine so long as they won't agree to a permanent truce with Israel. It is time for Israel to forget about the US sponsored "Road map to Peace" plan entirely.

I want the dream of an independent Palestine to seem so remote and futile that the Palestinians will be forced to give up on it, or at least feel coerced enough to accept a deal with Israel just as the IRA was forced to quit in 1998 after agreeing to end "The Troubles" with the UK. Palestinians need to quit thinking that they have the battlefield initiative on their side or the upper hand when they don't. I feel this hasn't adequately been shown to them yet.

It is said that a rusty nail that sticks up can only be hammered down so many times before it breaks.

[MERIZoC]

If it were up to me, Gaza and the West Bank would be fully annexed to Israel and would have no autonomy. Both Fatah and Hamas wouldn't exist because they would be forcibly disbanded and outlawed.

Why do you hate freedom?

He doesn't like brown people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why do you hate freedom?

He doesn't like brown people.

It's funny cuz it's true

It's even funnier he thinks he could just disband Hamas.

[Saiwania]

It's even funnier he thinks he could just disband Hamas.

If the NSDAP (which was much larger and more powerful in its heyday than Hamas will ever be) can be outlawed, then so too can Hamas. It is no more special of an entity than Hezbollah, which could be disbanded by Iran if Tehran ever saw it fit to do so.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's even funnier he thinks he could just disband Hamas.

If the NSDAP, which was much larger than more powerful in its heyday than Hamas will ever be can be outlawed, then so too can Hamas. It is no more special of an entity than Hezbollah, which could be disbanded by Iran if Tehran ever saw it fit to do so.

The NSDAP didn't have a militant arm that could disappear into the civilian population if need be. How are you going to know who is a militant and how are you going to stop the weapon shipments they get?

[Saiwania]

The NSDAP didn't have a militant arm that could disappear into the civilian population if need be. How are you going to know who is a militant and how are you going to stop the weapon shipments they get?

I think if the Palestinians were under Israel's jurisdiction, that they'd have no place to hide like they do under the status quo of a de facto independent Gaza and West Bank. The Israeli military and police have to have a permanent presence in those areas that they don't have now.

Israel could put everyone who was ever a Hamas member along their their family under surveillance or bring them in for questioning. Along with having strict gun control and registration.

[Papait]

The NSDAP didn't have a militant arm that could disappear into the civilian population if need be. How are you going to know who is a militant and how are you going to stop the weapon shipments they get?

I think if the Palestinians were under Israel's jurisdiction, that they'd have no place to hide like they do under the status quo of a de facto independent Gaza and West Bank. The Israeli military and police have to have a permanent presence in those areas that they don't have now.

Israel could put everyone who was ever a Hamas member along their their family under surveillance or bring them in for questioning. Along with having strict gun control and registration.

So basicly oppression?

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I think if the Palestinians were under Israel's jurisdiction, that they'd have no place to hide like they do under the status quo of a de facto independent Gaza and West Bank. The Israeli military and police have to have a permanent presence in those areas that they don't have now.

Israel could put everyone who was ever a Hamas member along their their family under surveillance or bring them in for questioning. Along with having strict gun control and registration.

So basicly oppression?

"Liberation through Apartheid" will be his comeback I'm sure.

[West Aurelia]

Palestinian killed in clash with Israeli troops near Gaza border.

Israeli forces shot dead a member of Hamas's armed wing after a firefight erupted along the border with the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, Palestinian hospital officials in the territory said.

The Israeli army said in a statement that a routine patrol on the Israeli side of the border came under attack from snipers in the southern Gaza Strip and that forces responded with fire from the ground and the air.

Hamas sources named the dead man as Tayseer Asmairi, a member of its armed wing's monitoring unit in the southern Gaza Strip.

A military spokeswoman declined to comment on any Israeli casualties in the clash.

The clash is the latest in a handful incidents in recent weeks since a 50-day war ended in Gaza in August. On Friday, Israeli planes bombed a Hamas militant base in the Gaza Strip in response to a rocket that militants launched earlier that day.

Israel launched its Gaza offensive on July 8 with the declared aim of halting cross-border rocket salvoes by Hamas. The fighting was ended by an Egyptian-brokered truce on Aug. 26.

More than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed in seven weeks of fighting, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Sixty-seven Israeli soldiers and six civilians in Israel were killed.

Lots of violence recently…

[Alyakia]

Why do you hate freedom?

The IRA never achieved their goal of getting northern Ireland annexed to Ireland, neither should the Arabs ever manage to get an independent Palestine so long as they won't agree to a permanent truce with Israel. It is time for Israel to forget about the US sponsored "Road map to Peace" plan entirely.

I want the dream of an independent Palestine to seem so remote and futile that the Palestinians will be forced to give up on it, or at least feel coerced enough to accept a deal with Israel just as the IRA was forced to quit in 1998 after agreeing to end "The Troubles" with the UK. Palestinians need to quit thinking that they have the battlefield initiative on their side or the upper hand when they don't. I feel this hasn't adequately been shown to them yet.

It is said that a rusty nail that sticks up can only be hammered down so many times before it breaks.

it's a shame you mention the IRA. it's like. you're so close to actually finding a peace plan that actually works. but then you fuck it up at the last second.

[Saiwania]

It's a shame you mention the IRA. it's like. you're so close to actually finding a peace plan that actually works. but then you fuck it up at the last second.

The peace plan hasn't been shown to be working. If it did, there wouldn't have been a need for all the various IDF operations since 2000. Particularly Operations Brother's Keeper and Protective Edge which were retaliation for Arab provocations this year against the Jewish state. If the British managed to break the Irish republican will in northern Ireland, I don't see why it should be impossible for Israel to do the same with regards to Palestinian nationalism.

If the IDF moves in to permanently occupy where they live, there will be no more Jihadist propaganda and training if the children all the way up to the elderly in Palestinian areas are closely monitored and supervised by the Israelis at all times.

[Rabopari]

The NSDAP didn't have a militant arm that could disappear into the civilian population if need be. How are you going to know who is a militant and how are you going to stop the weapon shipments they get?

I think if the Palestinians were under Israel's jurisdiction, that they'd have no place to hide like they do under the status quo of a de facto independent Gaza and West Bank. The Israeli military and police have to have a permanent presence in those areas that they don't have now.

Israel could put everyone who was ever a Hamas member along their their family under surveillance or bring them in for questioning. Along with having strict gun control and registration.

So your suggesting a police state in Gaza home to many Arabs, enforced by European immigrants? Wow, clearly must have never watch the news, other that the horse shite CNN and Fox cum out. And what is it you have against Brown people

[The Berdanvian Empire]

Palestine should be recognized as a nation and should also re-gain the land that the recently lost due to the agreement with Israel.