5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

[P F Tinmore]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Israeli troops, deployed in the east of the Shouhada cemetery and east of the town of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian farmers, injuring five of them on Friday, locals said.

Dr. Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told Quds Press Agency that five Palestinians were hospitalized with moderate wounds after being shot by Israeli occupation troops.

This incident is to be added to the ongoing occupation breaches of the truce signed on 21st of November between Palestinian resistance and the occupation under Egyptian auspices.

The IOF killed two Palestinians, injured dozens of others, arrested about 30 fishermen and bombed and confiscated a number of fishing boats in Gaza Sea, after signing the truce.

5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

 

[deltex1]

What kind of IEDs were the farmers planting?

 

[PaulS1950]

Moderate wounds? From Israeli soldiers? Really? They are better shots than that! If they were shot by Israeli soldiers, they would be dead.

 

[sealadaigh]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Israeli troops, deployed in the east of the Shouhada cemetery and east of the town of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian farmers, injuring five of them on Friday, locals said.

Dr. Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told Quds Press Agency that five Palestinians were hospitalized with moderate wounds after being shot by Israeli occupation troops.

This incident is to be added to the ongoing occupation breaches of the truce signed on 21st of November between Palestinian resistance and the occupation under Egyptian auspices.

The IOF killed two Palestinians, injured dozens of others, arrested about 30 fishermen and bombed and confiscated a number of fishing boats in Gaza Sea, after signing the truce.

5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

i think, because this is the clean debate zone, that we should make every effort to avoid using very obviously biased sources, to include propaganda sites and hate sites. the referring to the "IDF" as the "IOF" is a dead give-away.

we do not have to resort to that and i do not want to put myself in a compromising position, particularly in this forum, of not being able to object to the many, extraordinarily biased sources to which the pro-israeli posters resort in order to defend israeli acts of genocide and war crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/w...nd-5-palestinians-in-gaza.html?ref=middleeast

Five Palestinians wounded by IDF fire on Gaza border - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

i very sincerely doubt if the USA government would find it acceptable if the mexican police or military declared a "no go" zone across the border in california, arizona, new mexico and texas and started picking off our citizens. i think we would go to war.

thank you for establishing, with this incident and at least one prior incident where a palestinian was killed, that israel has violated the cease fire.

 

[Billo_Really]

What kind of IEDs were the farmers planting?

What evidence to do you have, to lead you to that conclusion?

What right does Israel have to question what the Pals plant on their own side of the fence?

 

[Billo_Really]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Israeli troops, deployed in the east of the Shouhada cemetery and east of the town of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian farmers, injuring five of them on Friday, locals said.

Dr. Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told Quds Press Agency that five Palestinians were hospitalized with moderate wounds after being shot by Israeli occupation troops.

This incident is to be added to the ongoing occupation breaches of the truce signed on 21st of November between Palestinian resistance and the occupation under Egyptian auspices.

The IOF killed two Palestinians, injured dozens of others, arrested about 30 fishermen and bombed and confiscated a number of fishing boats in Gaza Sea, after signing the truce.

5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

i think, because this is the clean debate zone, that we should make every effort to avoid using very obviously biased sources, to include propaganda sites and hate sites. the referring to the "IDF" as the "IOF" is a dead give-away.

we do not have to resort to that and i do not want to put myself in a compromising position, particularly in this forum, of not being able to object to the many, extraordinarily biased sources to which the pro-israeli posters resort in order to defend israeli acts of genocide and war crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/w...nd-5-palestinians-in-gaza.html?ref=middleeast

Five Palestinians wounded by IDF fire on Gaza border - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

i very sincerely doubt if the USA government would find it acceptable if the mexican police or military declared a "no go" zone across the border in california, arizona, new mexico and texas and started picking off our citizens. i think we would go to war.

thank you for establishing, with this incident and at least one prior incident where a palestinian was killed, that israel has violated the cease fire.

The source of a claim, does not decide the "truth or falsehood", of that claim. It's merely the citation one uses to show their point has merit. A person's own feelings towards a particular website, is irrelevent. It's more important to provide evidence to the contrary.

Saying the IDF should not be referred to as the IOF, is not a biased position from a hate site. It is the position of every member state of the UN and is in compliance with the legal definition of this area for the last 45 years. Why do you think they are referred to as the "occupied territories"? Trying to infer there is no "occupation" after 45 years and in light of the fact that there isn't one country on the planet that has recognized Israel's right to that land (including the Israeli Supreme Court), is a pretty biased position in itself.

On the subject of "no-fly" zones, you are correct, we would not allow it. Unfortunatly, we do that all the time to other nations and that level of hypocrisy (from us), makes me sick! Note that my use of the term "us", is to denote that as American citizens, we are responsible for the actions of our government, because everything they do, is done in our name, it is not to be construed as a personal attack on you, as a person.

 

[sealadaigh]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Israeli troops, deployed in the east of the Shouhada cemetery and east of the town of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian farmers, injuring five of them on Friday, locals said.

Dr. Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesman for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told Quds Press Agency that five Palestinians were hospitalized with moderate wounds after being shot by Israeli occupation troops.

This incident is to be added to the ongoing occupation breaches of the truce signed on 21st of November between Palestinian resistance and the occupation under Egyptian auspices.

The IOF killed two Palestinians, injured dozens of others, arrested about 30 fishermen and bombed and confiscated a number of fishing boats in Gaza Sea, after signing the truce.

5 farmers injured by Israeli fire in Gaza

i think, because this is the clean debate zone, that we should make every effort to avoid using very obviously biased sources, to include propaganda sites and hate sites. the referring to the "IDF" as the "IOF" is a dead give-away.

we do not have to resort to that and i do not want to put myself in a compromising position, particularly in this forum, of not being able to object to the many, extraordinarily biased sources to which the pro-israeli posters resort in order to defend israeli acts of genocide and war crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/w...nd-5-palestinians-in-gaza.html?ref=middleeast

Five Palestinians wounded by IDF fire on Gaza border - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

i very sincerely doubt if the USA government would find it acceptable if the mexican police or military declared a "no go" zone across the border in california, arizona, new mexico and texas and started picking off our citizens. i think we would go to war.

thank you for establishing, with this incident and at least one prior incident where a palestinian was killed, that israel has violated the cease fire.

The source of a claim, does not decide the "truth or falsehood", of that claim. It's merely the citation one uses to show their point has merit. A person's own feelings towards a particular website, is irrelevent. It's more important to provide evidence to the contrary.

Saying the IDF should not be referred to as the IOF, is not a biased position from a hate site. It is the position of every member state of the UN and is in compliance with the legal definition of this area for the last 45 years. Why do you think they are referred to as the "occupied territories"? Trying to infer there is no "occupation" after 45 years and in light of the fact that there isn't one country on the planet that has recognized Israel's right to that land (including the Israeli Supreme Court), is a pretty biased position in itself.

On the subject of "no-fly" zones, you are correct, we would not allow it. Unfortunatly, we do that all the time to other nations and that level of hypocrisy (from us), makes me sick! Note that my use of the term "us", is to denote that as American citizens, we are responsible for the actions of our government, because everything they do, is done in our name, it is not to be construed as a personal attack on you, as a person.

do you really want the discussion on this forum to sink to the level of that on the israel palestine forum. i don't.

referring to the IDF as the "IOF" is not the position of the UN.

calling the IDF the IOF reflects bias, just as the blanket labeling of those involved in a legitimate struggle for the autonomy of their people as "terrorists" reflects bias.

if you think that using biased sites and/or hate ssites is the way to win these "battles" when the truth is clearly on your side, then you are playing the game by their rules, and it is a fool's game.

look at the responses by the pro-zionist posters. do you really wnt to go that route. i can go there. i happen to be very good at it. i see no need though.

let's keep it clean.

i provided two, very legitimate, mainstream sources that said that israel is breaking the cease fire. let them argue with that.

maybe you should go back and reread what i said.

 

[Billo_Really]

do you really want the discussion on this forum to sink to the level of that on the israel palestine forum. i don't.

Sink to what level? I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

referring to the IDF as the "IOF" is not the position of the UN.

calling the IDF the IOF reflects bias, just as the blanket labeling of those involved in a legitimate struggle for the autonomy of their people as "terrorists" reflects bias.

No it isn't! They're apples and oranges. On the one hand, you have an actual occupation, by a belligerent force that is from Israel; on the other, you're broadstroking an entire population of people as terrorists, of which many, don't commit any acts of terrorism at all.

If Israel calls their military, the Israeli Defense Force, why is it wrong to call their military that occupys the West Bank, the Israeli Occupation Force?

if you think that using biased sites and/or hate ssites is the way to win these "battles" when the truth is clearly on your side, then you are playing the game by their rules, and it is a fool's game.

That's a matter of perspective and subjectivity. Just because you think a site is biased, doesn't mean the site is biased. In truth, all sites are biased to some extent. So why even go there?

look at the responses by the pro-zionist posters. do you really wnt to go that route. i can go there. i happen to be very good at it. i see no need though.

I agree with that, but that's not what we're doing here.

let's keep it clean.

I thought they changed that to "civil"?

i provided two, very legitimate, mainstream sources that said that israel is breaking the cease fire. let them argue with that.

I don't consider an Israeli newspaper as an un-biased source when being critical of the Israeli government. See what I mean? You can play this source game until the cows come home, so why go down that road? Why can't you deal with what the source is claiming, instead of the obvious ad hominem of killing the messenger. I thought fallacious forms of logic were prohibited in this forum? Ad hominems ARE a fallacious arguments.

maybe you should go back and reread what i said.

I understood you the first time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

i think, because this is the clean debate zone, that we should make every effort to avoid using very obviously biased sources, to include propaganda sites and hate sites. the referring to the "IDF" as the "IOF" is a dead give-away.

we do not have to resort to that and i do not want to put myself in a compromising position, particularly in this forum, of not being able to object to the many, extraordinarily biased sources to which the pro-israeli posters resort in order to defend israeli acts of genocide and war crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/w...nd-5-palestinians-in-gaza.html?ref=middleeast

Five Palestinians wounded by IDF fire on Gaza border - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

i very sincerely doubt if the USA government would find it acceptable if the mexican police or military declared a "no go" zone across the border in california, arizona, new mexico and texas and started picking off our citizens. i think we would go to war.

thank you for establishing, with this incident and at least one prior incident where a palestinian was killed, that israel has violated the cease fire.

The source of a claim, does not decide the "truth or falsehood", of that claim. It's merely the citation one uses to show their point has merit. A person's own feelings towards a particular website, is irrelevent. It's more important to provide evidence to the contrary.

Saying the IDF should not be referred to as the IOF, is not a biased position from a hate site. It is the position of every member state of the UN and is in compliance with the legal definition of this area for the last 45 years. Why do you think they are referred to as the "occupied territories"? Trying to infer there is no "occupation" after 45 years and in light of the fact that there isn't one country on the planet that has recognized Israel's right to that land (including the Israeli Supreme Court), is a pretty biased position in itself.

On the subject of "no-fly" zones, you are correct, we would not allow it. Unfortunatly, we do that all the time to other nations and that level of hypocrisy (from us), makes me sick! Note that my use of the term "us", is to denote that as American citizens, we are responsible for the actions of our government, because everything they do, is done in our name, it is not to be construed as a personal attack on you, as a person.

do you really want the discussion on this forum to sink to the level of that on the israel palestine forum. i don't.

referring to the IDF as the "IOF" is not the position of the UN.

calling the IDF the IOF reflects bias, just as the blanket labeling of those involved in a legitimate struggle for the autonomy of their people as "terrorists" reflects bias.

if you think that using biased sites and/or hate ssites is the way to win these "battles" when the truth is clearly on your side, then you are playing the game by their rules, and it is a fool's game.

look at the responses by the pro-zionist posters. do you really wnt to go that route. i can go there. i happen to be very good at it. i see no need though.

let's keep it clean.

i provided two, very legitimate, mainstream sources that said that israel is breaking the cease fire. let them argue with that.

maybe you should go back and reread what i said.

I have some agreement with you that we should not use sites that call names because that shows a bias. I do not use sites, for example, that call Israel Nazis. However, calling Israeli forces "defense" is a misnomer. Forces that do nothing but enforce an occupation can more accurately be called occupation forces. It could be said that using the term IDF is in itself propaganda.

Of course, if we did not use sources that called names that would eliminate the entire MSM.

 

[Billo_Really]

I have some agreement with you that we should not use sites that call names because that shows a bias. I do not use sites, for example, that call Israel Nazis. However, calling Israeli forces "defense" is a misnomer. Forces that do nothing but enforce an occupation can more accurately be called occupation forces. It could be said that using the term IDF is in itself propaganda.

Of course, if we did not use sources that called names that would eliminate the entire MSM.

Maybe we should call the ones enforcing the checkpoints in the West Bank, the Israeli Transit Authority?

 

[sealadaigh]

I have some agreement with you that we should not use sites that call names because that shows a bias. I do not use sites, for example, that call Israel Nazis. However, calling Israeli forces "defense" is a misnomer. Forces that do nothing but enforce an occupation can more accurately be called occupation forces. It could be said that using the term IDF is in itself propaganda.

Of course, if we did not use sources that called names that would eliminate the entire MSM.

Maybe we should call the ones enforcing the checkpoints in the West Bank, the Israeli Transit Authority?

if you want to go that route, fine. why don't you hold the door open for the roudys and iRosies of the world to come in.

you will have no complaint when people throw "islamo-nazi terrorist" right back in your face and claim that sources like MRMRI, CAMERA, and jihad watch are legitimate.

if you need cutesy little names and knee jerk reactions to make a point than you are as bad as the other guys.

whether IDF is a misnomer or not, that is what they are known as. play by their rules and you will look as foolish as they do.

 

[sealadaigh]

another headline from "The Palestinian Information Center".

"Zio-Nazi group attacks academics critical of Israel "

Zio-Nazi group attacks academics critical of Israel

talk to me?

personally, if i have a mainstream israeli paper talking about a breach in the cease fire by the IDF. i am going to use that rather than tri to make my points using a propaganda sheet that uses terms like the "IOF" and "Zio-nazi".

 

[sealadaigh]

do you really want the discussion on this forum to sink to the level of that on the israel palestine forum. i don't.

Sink to what level? I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

referring to the IDF as the "IOF" is not the position of the UN.

calling the IDF the IOF reflects bias, just as the blanket labeling of those involved in a legitimate struggle for the autonomy of their people as "terrorists" reflects bias.

No it isn't! They're apples and oranges. On the one hand, you have an actual occupation, by a belligerent force that is from Israel; on the other, you're broadstroking an entire population of people as terrorists, of which many, don't commit any acts of terrorism at all.

If Israel calls their military, the Israeli Defense Force, why is it wrong to call their military that occupys the West Bank, the Israeli Occupation Force?

That's a matter of perspective and subjectivity. Just because you think a site is biased, doesn't mean the site is biased. In truth, all sites are biased to some extent. So why even go there?

I agree with that, but that's not what we're doing here.

I thought they changed that to "civil"?

i provided two, very legitimate, mainstream sources that said that israel is breaking the cease fire. let them argue with that.

I don't consider an Israeli newspaper as an un-biased source when being critical of the Israeli government. See what I mean? You can play this source game until the cows come home, so why go down that road? Why can't you deal with what the source is claiming, instead of the obvious ad hominem of killing the messenger. I thought fallacious forms of logic were prohibited in this forum? Ad hominems ARE a fallacious arguments.

maybe you should go back and reread what i said.

I understood you the first time.

calling the IDF the "IOF" is ad hominem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

another headline from "The Palestinian Information Center".

"Zio-Nazi group attacks academics critical of Israel "

Zio-Nazi group attacks academics critical of Israel

talk to me?

personally, if i have a mainstream israeli paper talking about a breach in the cease fire by the IDF. i am going to use that rather than tri to make my points using a propaganda sheet that uses terms like the "IOF" and "Zio-nazi".

I think you are being picayune. How many MSM articles have you seen where Hamas was mentioned without throwing in the terrorist name calling thing?

And besides the author of your link, Khalid Amayreh, is op ed not news. In this article he was reiterating what he had heard from other sources.

Many intellectuals around the world have compared the Israeli approach toward the Palestinians with the Nazi policies in Europe.

Last month, the famous German poet Guenter Grass described Israel as the most dangerous state in the world.

Even liberal Jewish intellectuals made Zionist-Nazi analogies on several occasions. However, such criticisms have utterly failed to redirect Israel toward peace and civility as the Israeli Jewish society continues to drift toward Jewish fascism and jingoism.

I find that the Palestinian Information Center is better than the MSM in accuracy and name calling. Of course it is way better than Israel's many propaganda organizations.

 

[Billo_Really]

if you want to go that route, fine. why don't you hold the door open for the roudys and iRosies of the world to come in.

Explain to me how what I said, even in the same hemisphere, as the things they say.

you will have no complaint when people throw "islamo-nazi terrorist" right back in your face and claim that sources like MRMRI, CAMERA, and jihad watch are legitimate.

Back in my face? I have no interest in controlling what others say. Nor do I waste any time trying to filter the sites they use. That's their call, not mine. But when someone lay's something down that I disagree with, I will take them to task on it and I will have a good reason for doing so. But I would like to know why you keep throwing my responses in with that crowd? If I'm jumping to conclusions, then please let me know. If I'm not, then explain your reasons why you're treating them the same.

if you need cutesy little names and knee jerk reactions to make a point than you are as bad as the other guys.

Judging from your responses, I'm not really sure you understand what my point is. But if me being facetious rubbed you the wrong way, I apologize.

whether IDF is a misnomer or not, that is what they are known as. play by their rules and you will look as foolish as they do.

Who is "they" and what "rules" are you referring to?

IDF is not a misnomer, that's the official name of their military. But when that military is used to occupy land that isn't Israel's, it is considered an "occupational force".

 

[Billo_Really]

calling the IDF the "IOF" is ad hominem.

No it isn't! And I've already explained this. An ad hominem is a personal attack against someone (or something) making a claim, without any justification or evidence to back it up. If what you say can be proven, it's not an attack.

The official name of their military, is the Israeli Defense Force.

- they are Israelis
- they exist to Defend Israel
- and they are a military Force​

That's how we get the anacronym, IDF.

But if Israel uses that force to occupy (not defend) land that isn't Israel's, there is nothing derrogatory about referring to them as the Israeli Occupational Force.

- they are Israeli's
- they are a military that Occupy's land that isn't Israels
- and they are a military Force​

That's how we get the anacronym, IOF.

I have to admit, I don't see the logic in your objection to the term being used. But I do see how wrong it is to remove the word "occupation" from any discussion regarding Israel and Palestine.

 

[Mr. H.]

What are those idiots doing farming over there? They should come to the U.S. where we have $7 corn and $14 dollar beans, and government ag subsidies out the ass. If they don't want to farm, they can just stay at home and collect Obama dollars.

 

[sealadaigh]

calling the IDF the "IOF" is ad hominem.

No it isn't! And I've already explained this. An ad hominem is a personal attack against someone (or something) making a claim, without any justification or evidence to back it up. If what you say can be proven, it's not an attack.

The official name of their military, is the Israeli Defense Force.

- they are Israelis
- they exist to Defend Israel
- and they are a military Force​

That's how we get the anacronym, IDF.

But if Israel uses that force to occupy (not defend) land that isn't Israel's, there is nothing derrogatory about referring to them as the Israeli Occupational Force.

- they are Israeli's
- they are a military that Occupy's land that isn't Israels
- and they are a military Force​

That's how we get the anacronym, IOF.

I have to admit, I don't see the logic in your objection to the term being used. But I do see how wrong it is to remove the word "occupation" from any discussion regarding Israel and Palestine.

i know how you got the term. it is a stupid term. they are the IDF and they are known as the IDF by the world.

i object\t to the term being used because it serves no purpose. u have no problem talkihng about the occupation.

if you want to use terms like that, be my guest, and if you think siyes like 'the palestinian information center" are also appropriate in this forum, again be my guest.

i myself am not willing to forgeit my right, in this forum, to object when zionists use similar sites in rciprocation. if you choose to use those sites, you can expect them to be ised against you.

i thinki there is plenty of evidence without using sites such as that and i think the use of such sites gives the impression, albeit a mistaken impression, that you are making arguments ffrom a weak position.

but go ahead. you ave just lost me. enjoy yourselves.

 

[Billo_Really]

i know how you got the term. it is a stupid term. they are the IDF and they are known as the IDF by the world.

And in the West Bank, they are legally defined as the "occupational power", according to international law, the UN and rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court.

i object\t to the term being used because it serves no purpose. u have no problem talkihng about the occupation.

Omitting that term after 45 years, is inferring there is no occupation at all. And that is not only a severe injustice towards the Palestinian's, it's not factually correct or legally defined.

if you want to use terms like that, be my guest, and if you think siyes like 'the palestinian information center" are also appropriate in this forum, again be my guest.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate? If you want to know what's going on in a certain area, there is no better source than the people who live and work in that area. Incidently, I read your links and they're not two sources, nor are they Haaretz or the NYT. It's the same article at both sites and the source is Reuters. Which is an international, non-biased, non-aligned media outlet, that I use as well.

If the Palestinian Information Center is not a good source, then why does your source say the same thing? Both articles said 5 people were shot. So where's the weakness? I'll tell you where it is, it's on the Reuters page and it's what they didn't say.

from Reuters:
Israel Defense Forces troops patrolling the border with the Gaza strip on Friday shot and wounded five Palestinians who were in an area on the Gaza side which Israel deems off limits, the IDF and Gaza medics said.

Do you see what is being omitted in this discussion? Why was no one questioning what right Israel has controlling any area that isn't Israel's? They have no legal authority whatsoever to deem anything off limits on the Palestinian side of the fence. The Pals have every legal right in the world, to walk up to that fence and paint it with graffiti, if they so deem. What do you think West Germany's response would be to East Germany trying to do what the Israeli's are doing now along the Berlin Wall? And the West German side of that wall, is covered in graffiti.

I know Reuters is neutral, but still they left out a very important point in this whole issue, which does play a role in preventing any progress from being made.

i myself am not willing to forgeit my right, in this forum, to object when zionists use similar sites in rciprocation. if you choose to use those sites, you can expect them to be ised against you.

No one is trying to take your rights away and I would hope you'd comment on things you object to. I'm just saying for me, I object to "what" is being said, not "who" is saying it.

i thinki there is plenty of evidence without using sites such as that and i think the use of such sites gives the impression, albeit a mistaken impression, that you are making arguments ffrom a weak position.

If that is what you believe, I'm fine with it. I don't argue against what anyone believes. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. But I do draw the line when they try to push those beliefs as "facts", without any evidence to back it up. And if you cannot prove it is a "weak" position using those sites, it is not a fact. And in this particular case, since both sites said the same thing, that is prima facia evidence the site is not weak (on this issue). Maybe on other issues, they are, but not this time.

but go ahead. you ave just lost me. enjoy yourselves.

That's unfortunate. I thought we were having a pretty decent conversation on a very volatile subject that is a "hot button" for a lot of people. Being able to discuss difficult, complex issues without getting all emotional, is a good thing. As we just showed.

 

[Billo_Really]

What are those idiots doing farming over there? They should come to the U.S. where we have $7 corn and $14 dollar beans, and government ag subsidies out the ass. If they don't want to farm, they can just stay at home and collect Obama dollars.

It's like the only export they're allowed to have. And just who is one of the biggest buyers of that exported crop? Israel. Call it the ME 's version of NAFTA.