Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

joseph brand · 16-11-2012 05:01PM

Max Blumenthal interviewed on RT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayD_rm1Vls

Eggy Baby! · 16-11-2012 05:46PM

Ah yes. RT. We meet again.

Interesting interview though.

southsiderosie · 16-11-2012 06:05PM

MOD NOTE:

Per the charter, please don't post videos without a clear explanation of what is on the video - not everyone can watch them from where they are reading the thread.

Memnoch · 16-11-2012 08:12PM

My own feeling on this is that this is a deliberate ploy by the Israeli government in order to derail Palestine's UN application for observer status. Much easier to make a case when there has been a reasonably held peace but without any negotiations. They may yet have more moves to make in this scheme.

WakeUp · 16-11-2012 08:44PM

Hamas are claiming they have captured an Israeli pilot in the last few mins. Dont know if the plane was shot down or malfunctioned but the pilot has been captured according to them.

Mr.Micro · 16-11-2012 09:54PM

WakeUp wrote: »

Hamas are claiming they have captured an Israeli pilot in the last few mins. Dont know if the plane was shot down or malfunctioned but the pilot has been captured according to them.

If I recall correctly that last time Israeli military personnel were captured Lebanon was invaded, so if true, Gaza is next?

Suff · 16-11-2012 10:37PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If I recall correctly that last time Israeli military personnel were captured Lebanon was invaded, so if true, Gaza is next?

They're going to invade regardless, since their operation hadn't achieve the results they had hoped for, and for them (Israeli government) to safe face they're going to further escalate the situation, but it's too late, the myth of the mighty Israeli army has been abolished by Hizballah in 2006, that's why we see the Palestinians shelling Tel Aviv, and went even as far as to shell Jerusalem.

I think the Israelis are panicking now... which means things are going to get worst.

junder · 17-11-2012 12:27AM

Suff wrote: »

They're going to invade regardless, since their operation hadn't achieve the results they had hoped for, and for them (Israeli government) to safe face they're going to further escalate the situation, but it's too late, the myth of the mighty Israeli army has been abolished by Hizballah in 2006, that's why we see the Palestinians shelling Tel Aviv, and went even as far as to shell Jerusalem.

I think the Israelis are panicking now... which means things are going to get worst.

Don't let your hatred of isreal blind you To the facts or anything

Sierra Oscar · 17-11-2012 12:37AM

junder wrote: »

Don't let your hatred of isreal blind you To the facts or anything

Is Suff not correct though? The surgical strikes have not eradicated the capabilities of Hamas to target Israeli centres of population. Indeed we have seen Tel Aviv targeted alongside Jerusalem, which was unimaginable prior to the outbreak of this current conflict.

The IDF will have to move in to save face.

BlaasForRafa · 17-11-2012 12:58AM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Suff not correct though? The surgical strikes have not eradicated the capabilities of Hamas to target Israeli centres of population. Indeed we have seen Tel Aviv targeted alongside Jerusalem, which was unimaginable prior to the outbreak of this current conflict.

The IDF will have to move in to save face.

Targeted? missing the target by several miles is hardly targeted.

Hamas are lobbing missiles out there in the hope they'll kill as many civilians as possible but they couldn't be called targeted in any meaningful sense.

BlaasForRafa · 17-11-2012 01:00AM

Suff wrote: »

They're going to invade regardless, since their operation hadn't achieve the results they had hoped for, and for them (Israeli government) to safe face they're going to further escalate the situation, but it's too late, the myth of the mighty Israeli army has been abolished by Hizballah in 2006, that's why we see the Palestinians shelling Tel Aviv, and went even as far as to shell Jerusalem.

They'd need to have artillery in order to shell anything. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to Hamas's artillery capability or are you are just talking out of your hole?

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 01:01AM

Good article on media coverage of the conflict; it's primarily about the BBC, where the servility isn't exactly surprising, but it's interesting to have criticism spelled out so well:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=706:gaza-blitz-turmoil-and-tragicomedy-at-the-bbc&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 01:17AM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Suff not correct though? The surgical strikes have not eradicated the capabilities of Hamas to target Israeli centres of population. Indeed we have seen Tel Aviv targeted alongside Jerusalem, which was unimaginable prior to the outbreak of this current conflict.

The IDF will have to move in to save face.

Actually the amount of missiles being fired from Gaza drops off significantly after sustained attacks from Israel. It has happened time and again.

i'm of the opinion that assassination and surgical strikes does little to stop actual attacks, particularly in the medium to long term, however I can't see how any country is going to react any differently to dozens of missiles being lobbed into their territory for a week.

If Hamas is the legitimate representative of the Gazan people, then it is their responsibility to ensure their territory is not used as a base to attack Israel. If it is their military wing that is/was attacking then what are they but legitimate targets for the Israeli military?

Their are far too many people who feel comfortable ignoring Hamas' attacks and declared aims, merely because they are often to weak and inept to make any headlines of their own.

I hope to god most people declaring their support for an organisation that wants to fight and kill their enemy, 'the Jew' (note, not Israel in their manifesto, a racial group), is just the childish ignorance and reductionism so common in this country. Otherwise people here have very serious racial issues.

But on the other hand, there is so much suffering and poverty in the Gaza strip in particular its hard to sympathise with Israel - given much of it is caused by their blocade.

Untill the Palestinians have a Gandhi or Martin Luther King they will remain where they are - and given the attitude polls show the people their have towards violence directed at Israel (even childern) it is incredibly difficult to see how any mass peace movement would take hold there.

Suff · 17-11-2012 01:19AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They'd need to have artillery in order to shell anything. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to Hamas's artillery capability or are you are just talking out of your hole?

Basically, you have ignored the point put forward in my post and concentrated on my choice of words 'Shell' to a point it compelled you to post a comment, and seeing that you have the nature of a good debater, I see no point in discussing it further.

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 01:20AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Good article on media coverage of the conflict; it's primarily about the BBC, where the servility isn't exactly surprising, but it's interesting to have criticism spelled out so well:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=706:gaza-blitz-turmoil-and-tragicomedy-at-the-bbc&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

If only the BBC could be as even handed and criticaly fair as the author of this article! :rolleyes:

The ability of people to see bias only where they want to will never fail to amaze me.

It's interesting how so many people in this conflict see any reporting or recognition of wrongs done by one side as some sort of massive betrayal and confirmation that the autor/publication is behind the other faction all the way. Sad how terrifyed people are of recognising any complexity to a situation.

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 01:21AM

Suff wrote: »

Basically, you have ignored the point put forward in my post and concentrated on my choice of words 'Shell' to a point it compelled you to post a comment, and seeing that you have the nature of a good debater, I see no point in discussing it further.

Maybe if you just use the right terms everything will work out better for us all?

As to your point, if you believe Hezzbollah proved anything comprehensive its pretty clear you are saying what you want to believe rather than what is fact.

Given Arab public and poltical opinion in surrounding states fear of the Israeli military is certainly one of the main factors stopping (yet another) mass attack. You only have to look at opinion polls to see the truth of this, with intense racial hatred being endemic throughout the region.

17-11-2012 01:29AM

MOD REMINDER:
Please focus on the thread topic, and not each other.

Suff · 17-11-2012 01:34AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Untill the Palestinians have a Gandhi or Martin Luther King they will remain where they are - and given the attitude polls show the people their have towards violence directed at Israel (even childern) it is incredibly difficult to see how any mass peace movement would take hold there.

Could you please elaborate further on the required character of this leader that resembles Ganhi or MLK, and what sort of decisions he or she would have to make to satisfy Israel? - sorry, I meant Peace, and shouldn't we ask for one of those on the other side?

I understand and respect your pro-Israel position, but could you tolerate the idea of perhaps looking from the other side of the equation, for the reasons behind the Palestinians resentment/ hatred towards Israel? But please, before you use the Anti-semetic, racial tags; know that Palestinians are semitic.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 01:41AM

SamHarris wrote: »

If only the BBC could be as even handed and criticaly fair as the author of this article! :rolleyes:

The ability of people to see bias only where they want to will never fail to amaze me.

It's interesting how so many people in this conflict see any reporting or recognition of wrongs done by one side as some sort of massive betrayal and confirmation that the autor/publication is behind the other faction all the way. Sad how terrifyed people are of recognising any complexity to a situation.

You haven't put out a single solid criticism of the article there, this is just a patronizing sneer, where you try to attribute a whole bunch of unstated views to me, as straw-men, based on the content of that article.

Pick out the parts of the article you disagree with; there are dozens of criticisms of the BBC's coverage in that, point out the ones you actually disagree with, and back them up with an argument.

There's every reason to be critical of their coverage, and it's wholly ignorant to suggest that's anything about picking a 'side', as you don't need to pick a side or have a motive to criticize any media outlet, if there is a problem or bias in their reporting.

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 01:47AM

Suff wrote: »

Could you please elaborate further on the required character of this leader that resembles Ganhi or MLK, and what sort of decisions he or she would have to make to satisfy Israel? - sorry, I meant Peace, and shouldn't we ask for one of those on the other side?

I understand and respect your pro-Israel position, but could you tolerate the idea of perhaps looking from the other side of the equation, for the reasons behind the Palestinians resentment/ hatred towards Israel? But please, before you use the Anti-semetic, racial tags; know that Palestinians are semitic.

Yes yes, you don't recogonise anti-semetic as a label to describe a legitmate historical phenomenon of hatred of the Jews, what a surprise.

As in a leader determined to meet violence with peace, to secure the moral high ground for those to weak to win in any other fashion than garnering support.

You may feel that Palestinians have excellent reasons for their 'hatred' and dedication to violence (again shown in poll after poll and the support for Hamas) I, and anyone in a position to make descisions with regard to the situation, really don't care. The fact of it remains, and the fact of it is what Israeli's and people in power have to deal with.

At least you are honest in that you recognise it. So your position is that Israel should just take it? Are they allowed to hate and resent the Arabs for their positions and attacks?

How easy it is for people to absolve the 'right side' of any responsibility.

If Israeli's had the same intent, however, we would not be seeing a dozen deaths a week but tens of thousands a day. One of the lessons of history.

Suff · 17-11-2012 01:48AM

SamHarris wrote: »

As to your point, if you believe Hezzbollah proved anything comprehensive its pretty clear you are saying what you want to believe rather than what is fact.

And this fact is according to ...?

Given Arab public and poltical opinion in surrounding states fear of the Israeli military is certainly one of the main factors stopping (yet another) mass attack. You only have to look at opinion polls to see the truth of this, with intense racial hatred being endemic throughout the region.

I would disagree on this. There is no fear of Israel what so ever. There are many political cobwebs-like factors within the region that is stopping any 'mass attack'. the likes of the USA keeping a tight grip on all the ME's government - Egypt, Saudi, Jordan for example. If there's a real government in the ME that represents the general public, we wouldn't be talking about this conflict.

To clarify when you use the term 'racial' which is not, Arabs are semitic... which makes its a political matter. The very concept of Israel and Zionism had caused such conflict, since it projects a racial and colonised agenda. Zionism takes a discriminational racial view on religion.

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 01:59AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You haven't put out a single solid criticism of the article there, this is just a patronizing sneer, where you try to attribute a whole bunch of unstated views to me, as straw-men, based on the content of that article.

Pick out the parts of the article you disagree with; there are dozens of criticisms of the BBC's coverage in that, point out the ones you actually disagree with, and back them up with an argument.

There's every reason to be critical of their coverage, and it's wholly ignorant to suggest that's anything about picking a 'side', as you don't need to pick a side or have a motive to criticize any media outlet, if there is a problem or bias in their reporting.

A patronizing sneer was all it deserved.

If you can't see the enormous bias of the article on it's face, you don't want to.

Even it's headlines are blatant editorilising - GAZA BLITZ - HOW CAN THIS BE SELF DEFENCE? is all very clearly already taking a strong position.It's entire tone is tailored with this in mind.

Claiming the failure of a media outlet to report fairly by linking your own piece of yellow journalism isn't exactly a fantastic strategy.

I will say this about the appaling BBC headlines. They change often. They often report on Israeli attacks. At that time the news was the visit of the Egyptian PM. Reporting it, or acknowledging the existence of rocket attacks in the lead up to and after the Israeli attack, is not evidence of a propoganda machine, or even pro-Israeli bias. It is reporting what is happening at that time.

That those on the right believe the BBC has an enormous left-wing bias, and vica versa, I take as a very good sign that a media outlet is doing at least a reasonable job.

junder · 17-11-2012 02:12AM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Suff not correct though? The surgical strikes have not eradicated the capabilities of Hamas to target Israeli centres of population. Indeed we have seen Tel Aviv targeted alongside Jerusalem, which was unimaginable prior to the outbreak of this current conflict.

The IDF will have to move in to save face.

And the random lobbing of missiles into isreal has hardly eradicated the IDF either. Isreal is not about to implode, collapse or in anyway disappear so aide from the deaths of mostly innocent people Hamas are not exactly achieving much.plus if your a right wing government having a group of terroists on the fringes is a good way of keeping in power as even moderates start to demand tougher actions against Hamas. On the other side, hiding behind a civilian population (which if your Actually honest is what Hamas are doing) and having them bear the brunt of the IDF, is a good way to keep in power as well, plus keep a steady steam of ready recruits to. So if your a cold hearted, cynical politician or terrorist ( which lets face it you have to be to get anywhere in the real politik) it's win win. It's a symbiotic relationship in which innocent civilian blood is the currency.

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 02:13AM

Suff wrote: »

And this fact is according to ...? .

You.

Suff wrote: »

I would disagree on this. There is no fear of Israel what so ever. There are many political cobwebs-like factors within the region that is stopping any 'mass attack'. the likes of the USA keeping a tight grip on all the ME's government - Egypt, Saudi, Jordan for example. If there's a real government in the ME that represents the general public, we wouldn't be talking about this conflict.

To clarify when you use the term 'racial' which is not, Arabs are semitic... which makes its a political matter. The very concept of Israel and Zionism had caused such conflict, since it projects a racial and colonised agenda. Zionism takes a discriminational racial view on religion.

I said it was ONE of the factors. You honestly don't think the fact that they couldnt does not play into that they don't? Fair enough.

We would, a democratic government is not going to initiate a war it almost certainly would lose, regardless of how much it populace would like to initiate it. The Arab leadership are more than old enough to remember how poorly it went last time, and if anything Israel (and far more, the US) is even more dominant now than it was then.

Semitic is a language group.

And yes, the fact that for example 98% of Yemeni's dislike 'Jews' is extremly racial. Or that Hamas wishes to combat their enemy 'the Jew'. Their is an enormous racial as well as religious aspect to the confilct, there nearly always is particularly in the Arab regions.

Yes, I acknowledge and loath the racial/ religious aspects of the Israeli state. However, given that you are ultimatly arguing for another Islamic Arab state disparaging Israel for it's religious and racial tones holds no legitmacy. Given the example set by every other state in North Africa and the Middle East any Palestinian state will be extremly discrimanatory both racially and religiously.

Suff · 17-11-2012 02:14AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, you don't recogonise anti-semetic as a label to describe a legitmate historical phenomenon of hatred of the Jews, what a surprise.

Where have I state this? The Israelis have used this anti Semitic card in this conflict far far too long, and yet people still fall for it. Arabs are semitic, in all their sects; christians, muslims and jews. Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew are all semitic languages.

Israelis have been trying to make a race out of Judaism, its a faith and not a race. It's like stating Christianity is a race!

I am Semitic, and would be anti-Zionist - its a political view, not a racial one.

As in a leader determined to meet violence with peace, to secure the moral high ground for those to weak to win in any other fashion than garnering support.

So, what you're saying here is that the Palestinian leader must be determined to meet the violence from Israel with Peace, to secure the moral high ground for those too weak to win.

Which brings me to your statement below..

You may feel that Palestinians have excellent reasons for their 'hatred' and dedication to violence (again shown in poll after poll and the support for Hamas) I, and anyone in a position to make descisions with regard to the situation, really don't care. The fact of it remains, and the fact of it is what Israeli's and people in power have to deal with.

At least you are honest in that you recognise it. So your position is that Israel should just take it? Are they allowed to hate and resent the Arabs for their positions and attacks?

If we're going to play 'point the finger' at who did what and why, a little back tracking (which isn't that far back) to the beginning of this conflict would clearly state that the whole thing started by invading Palestine, enforcing a zionist doctrine by declaring it a jewish state. Zionism took a discriminational racial view on religion.

Here's a link: Racist and sexist Israeli military shirts show the mindset that led to war crimes in Gaza | source Mondowei Online newspaper that I've posted earlier about the Israeli view to Palestinians.

quotes:
A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him.

A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills."

Says a lot!

How easy it is for people to absolve the 'right side' of any responsibility.

This is a two-sided statement, and could be easily re-applied to your views.

Suff · 17-11-2012 02:24AM

SamHarris wrote: »

As to your point, if you believe Hezzbollah proved anything comprehensive its pretty clear you are saying what you want to believe rather than what is fact.

Suff wrote: »

And this fact is according to ...?

SamHarris wrote: »

You.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I have asked what is this fact that I am trying to deny?

SamHarris · 17-11-2012 02:28AM

Suff wrote: »

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I have asked what is this fact that I am trying to deny?

Sorry, you claimed that their was a perception of invincibility that Hezzbollah destroyed. I was trying to say the conflict and it's success/failure means little in larger terms. I shouldn't have used the word 'fact', both were merely opinion.

Chuck Stone · 17-11-2012 02:37AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, you don't recogonise anti-semetic as a label to describe a legitmate historical phenomenon of hatred of the Jews, what a surprise.

The words stereotype, prejudice and discrimination have Jews covered. The term anti-Semitism, because it has been leveraged to stifle criticism of the state of Israel by invoking memories of the holocaust, has lost its emotional impact and has become effectively worthless in a reasonable discussion.

Suff · 17-11-2012 02:39AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Sorry, you claimed that their was a perception of invincibility that Hezzbollah destroyed. I was trying to say the conflict and it's success/failure means little in larger terms. I shouldn't have used the word 'fact', both were merely opinion.

Thanks for clearing it.

My point was that, the general view at the moment; media and the arab street alike is that Israel's image as the unbeatable army has been broken in the 2006 war with Hizballah. And as a result it gave Hamas the courage to attack Tel Aviv. This doesn't mean that Hamas are capable of taking Israel full on face to face, for Israel would wipe out the gaza strip and what's left of it.

Anyway, the current issue for the Israeli government is that after the 2006 war they cannot afford to stop their current operation until they achieve something they can sell/ boast about in their coming elections.

KyussBishop · 17-11-2012 03:09AM

SamHarris wrote: »

A patronizing sneer was all it deserved.

Oh nice, an admission you didn't actually have an argument against the article at all, but were just smearing it.

SamHarris wrote: »

If you can't see the enormous bias of the article on it's face, you don't want to.

Even it's headlines are blatant editorilising - GAZA BLITZ - HOW CAN THIS BE SELF DEFENCE? is all very clearly already taking a strong position.It's entire tone is tailored with this in mind.

Claiming the failure of a media outlet to report fairly by linking your own piece of yellow journalism isn't exactly a fantastic strategy.

I will say this about the appaling BBC headlines. They change often. They often report on Israeli attacks. At that time the news was the visit of the Egyptian PM. Reporting it, or acknowledging the existence of rocket attacks in the lead up to and after the Israeli attack, is not evidence of a propoganda machine, or even pro-Israeli bias. It is reporting what is happening at that time.

That those on the right believe the BBC has an enormous left-wing bias, and vica versa, I take as a very good sign that a media outlet is doing at least a reasonable job.

Well then point out the problems with it's criticisms! You're effectively asserting "oh it's obvious! if you can't see the bias you don't want to", which is a simple unbacked assertion.

Okey lets see:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=706:gaza-blitz-turmoil-and-tragicomedy-at-the-bbc&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

Right, lets pick out some quotes:

The Israeli attacks have routinely been reported as 'retaliation' for Palestinian ‘militant rocket attacks’ on southern Israel

What is wrong with that criticism? The timeline clearly shows Israel having initiated and escalated this conflict:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline

Another:

On Newsnight (November 14, 2012), BBC presenter Gavin Esler allowed Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, to present his state’s propaganda view essentially unchallenged. The 'taking' of Ahmed al-Jabari, Ayalon said, was 'self-defence, it’s a classic self-defence', adding:

'There is no other way to deal with terrorists who you cannot reason with but by defending yourself in a way that they will not be able to operate again.'

Esler did not counter the Israeli 'self defence' argument by pointing to the actual chronology of recent events. Ayalon then went on to state that Israel 'gave Gaza, entirely so, to the Palestinians. We left Gaza altogether in 2005, seven years ago.'

Again, Esler failed to offer any serious journalistic challenge. He did not point out that although Israel says it 'withdrew' from Gaza in 2005, its control of Gaza’s water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications systems, and its control of Gaza’s land and sea borders and airspace, means that the UN still views Israel's control of Gaza's population as an occupation. As indeed does the UK government.

Perfectly valid criticism, of a wholly one-sided exchange; can you imagine a Hamas leader being interviewed in such a one-sided way on the BBC?

There was also no mention during Newsnight of released Israeli state documents revealing that the blockade of Gaza is state policy intended to inflict collective punishment. The documents showed that 'the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level. This documents the statement made by a number of Israeli officials that they are "putting the people of Gaza on a diet".'

Another apt and excellent criticism; any issues with that?

And more again:

Between December 2008 - January 2009, Israeli forces mounted a massive campaign of violence against Gaza in Operation Cast Lead. B’Tselem estimates that 1,389 Palestinians were killed including 344 children. In addition to the large numbers of killed and wounded, there was considerable damage to Palestinian medical centres, hospitals, ambulances, UN buildings, power plants, sewage plants, roads, bridges and civilian homes.

The BBC later refused to broadcast a charity appeal on behalf of the people of Gaza, an almost unprecedented act in BBC history.

Amena Saleem, a campaigner with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, points to the BBC ‘keep[ing] the truth about Israel’s illegal actions from its audiences’, a clear failing which is ‘spread across the whole of BBC programming, from news right through to entertainment.’

Why is this? One factor is the intense pressure applied by a powerful pro-Israeli lobby. The flak sometimes originates from the Israeli government itself. The Glasgow Media Group's Greg Philo and Mike Berry noted in their 2009 book, 'More Bad News From Israel':

‘to criticise Israel can create major problems. Journalists spoke to us of the extraordinary number of complaints which they receive. We have presented our findings to many groups of media practitioners. After one such meeting a senior editor from a major BBC news programme told us: "we wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis". He then said that the main issues they would face were from how high up had the call come (e.g. a monitoring group, or the Israeli embassy), and then how high up the BBC had the complaint gone (e.g. to the duty editor or the director general).' (p. 2)

All highly relevant disclosures of bias in the BBC.

The impression so far, is that you're trying to smear and shut down this source of criticism, of heavily biased pro-Israeli news reporting, and by your own admission, without even bothering to engage in actual counterarguments with the criticism, until pressed for points.

Can you engage in actual argument on those points I've quoted, or are you just going to attempt to smear again, for lack of any arguments?

Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

Comments