History of Earthquakes before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

History of earthquakes in Lower Hudson Valley

Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy

9:05 a.m. ET Feb. 7, 2018

At around 6:14 a.m. this morning, a 2.2-magnitude earthquake was reported about three miles northwest of Mohegan Lake in Yorktown, according to the United States Geological Survey. The epicenter of the quake was in Putnam Valley.

Social media was rife with posts on the quake with people from Chappaqua, Cortlandt, Lewisboro, Mahopac and Putnam Valley chiming in with their rattling experiences, though it wasn’t nearly as strong as the 5.0 earthquake our forefathers experienced here in 1783.

Lower Hudson Valley earthquakes through the years:

1783 — The epicenter of a magnitude 5.0 earthquake may have been the Westchester-Putnam county line and was felt as far south as Philadelphia.

1884 — A magnitude 5.2 earthquake was centered off Rockaway, Queens, causing property damage but no injuries to people. A dead dog was reported.

1970 to 1987 — Between these years, instruments at the Lamont-Doherty Observatory in Rockland County recorded 21 quakes in Westchester and two in Manhattan.

October 1985 — A magnitude 4.0 earthquake was centered in an unincorporated part of Greenburgh between Ardsley and Yonkers. Tremors shook the metropolitan area and were felt in Philadelphia, southern Canada and Long Island.

November 1988 — A quake 90 miles north of Quebec City in eastern Canada registered magnitude 6.0 with tremors felt in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York City.

June 1991 — A 4.4-magnitude quake struck west of Albany, rattling homes.

April 1991 — A quake registering between magnitude 2.0 and 2.6 struck Westchester and Fairfield, Conn. It lasted just five seconds and caused no damage.


January 2003 — Two small earthquakes struck the area surrounding Hastings-on-Hudson. One was a magnitude of 1.2, the other 1.4.

March 2006 — Two earthquakes struck Rockland. The first, at 1.1 magnitude, hit 3.3 miles southwest of Pearl River; the second, 1.3 magnitude, was centered in the West Nyack-Blauvelt-Pearl River area.

July 2014 — “Micro earthquake” struck, 3.1 miles beneath the Appalachian Trail in a heavily wooded area of Garrison.

January 2016 —  A 2.1 magnitude earthquake occurred at 12:58 a.m. northwest of Ringwood, N.J., and the earthquake was felt in the western parts of Ramapo, including the Hillburn and Sloatsburg areas.

April 2017 —  A 1.3 magnitude quake rumbled in Pawling on April 10. Putnam County residents in Brewster, Carmel, Patterson and Putnam Valley, as well as Dutchess County residents in Wingdale felt the earthquake.

Twitter: @SwapnaVenugopal

Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Miscalculation

Pakistan’s tactical nukes: What are the options for India?

Vikas Sv

Published:October 31 2018, 5:00 [IST]

New Delhi, Oct 31: Time and again Pakistan keeps talking about the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Indian forces if any attempt is made to enter its territory. Pakistan’s clamour in fact grew louder ever since it came to fore that India has something called as the Cold Start doctrine which is said to be an offensive plan of the Indian forces intended to quickly mobilise forces and subdue Pakistan before it even considers nuclear retaliation. This is is said to be a plan of swift multi-pronged attack in the event of conflict.

Pakistan has hinted in the past that it would not hesitate to use tactical nukes if Indian forces advance. Pakistan’s short range missle NASR is the weapon that the Islamabad boasts of whenever the issue of Indian aggression comes up.

A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, generally smaller in its explosive power, which is designed to be used on a battlefield situations, in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front. Tactical nuclear weapons are of the range of 20-60 km with the blast radius of 3-5 km. These are developed to be used as deterrent against aggression on the border and not for a full-fledged war.

Pakistan claims that NASR can carry nuclear warheads of low yield with high accuracy. Pakistan has also claimed that it was designed to overcome missile defense systems.

Hypothetically speaking, if Indian Forces do enter Pakistan’s territory and Islamabad does indeed use tactical nukes then it would also be risking the lives of its own civilians as the device would detonate in Pakistani soil.

Another thing is once Pakistan uses a nuclear weapon in any form, Indian retaliation would be unimaginable as New Delhi will not be bound by ‘No First Use’ policy. India had declared ‘No First Use’ (NFU) as a policy; Pakistan is averse to it and feels that NFU in principle negates its deterrence advantage against India. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are intended to compensate for conventional forces which is largely believed to be lagging behind India.

India’s options against Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons:

What Pakistan must keep in mind is that India has fairly developed secondary strike capability. India has ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead that can be launched from submarines in short notice. Pakistan can rest assured that any use of nukes- tactical or strategic – the retribution will be swift, severe and devastating threatening its very existence.

A tactic that India can use is to get closer to populated areas in Pakistan which would force Islamabad to think of collateral damage if a nuke device is used in its own territory. Indian Army can use this tactic to negate Pakistani nukes by inserting divisons in densely populated Pakistani regions like Punjab. If Pakistan resorts to battlefield nukes then it would effectively endanger its own population also making Pakistan lose its status and face in international society and will create a soft spot for India.

Use of assets like QR-SAM, S-400 and Akash Surface to Air missile can effectively negate Nasr. But, that would require careful and effective surveillance about where NASR would be fired from and how it can be met mid-air with air defence systems.

Best would, however, be for India to hit the locations where NASR missiles are deployed with conventional short range weapons. It must be considered that since NASR is aimed at stopping advances, it would be stored at locations close to the border and not in some remote area like strategic nuclear missiles. Again, effective intelligence and precise prior knowledge of military installations would be essential.

America is Stoking Nuclear War

World War 3: US military stokes tensions with Global Thunder 2019 nuclear drills | World | News | Express.co.uk

Simon Osborne11:12, Tue, Oct 30, 2018

SIMMERING international tensions have been ramped up with the launch of the US military’s Global Thunder 2019 command and control exercise.


Operation Rising Thunder 2018: USA and Japan collaborate

The annual training drills are designed to assess all US Stategic Command mission areas with a specific focus on the West’s nuclear readiness to “curb, locate and, if necessary, avert strategic attacks on the US and its allies”.

Forces personnel from the UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark and South Korea are also taking part in this year’s war games.

US Strategic Command chief General John E. Hyten said: “For Global Thunder 2019, the headquarters staff, USSTRATCOM components and subordinate units are participating in this exercise to test readiness and ensure a safe, secure, ready and reliable strategic deterrent force.

The nuclear triad is the backbone of strategic deterrence.”

Deterrence in the 21st century has to be a global approach and it must involve our allies and partners

General John E. Hyten

He continued: “Exercises like these integrate our unique capabilities across the joint force, in order to deter strategic threats and defend the nation.

“Our forces must be ready and prepared to execute orders globally wherever and whenever needed.”

Gen Hyten said personnel from allied forces integrate into senior leadership teams and work across a broad spectrum of areas, offering legal, public affairs and policy support as well as targeting and information operations insight.

He said: “Deterrence in the 21st century has to be a global approach and it must involve our allies and partners.

A US soldier taking part in nuclear readiness drills (Image: USSTRATCOM)

US warplanes on manoeuvres (Image: GETTY)

“This is why Global Thunder is a multinational exercise that operates on a global scale.

“Large-scale exercises like Global Thunder involve extensive planning and coordination to provide unique training for assigned units and our allies.”

US Strategic Command is responsible for strategic deterrence, nuclear operations, space operations, joint electromagnetic spectrum operations, global strike, missile defence and analysis and targeting.

Global Thunder 2019 are the first military manoeuvres since the US announced it was pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia – an agreement dating from the Cold War era.

The decision to withdraw from the treaty sparked fears of fresh conflict between the two old foes.

Andrei Belousov, deputy head of the Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, declared Moscow would defend its territorial integrity and principles in response to US aggression.

He said: “Here recently at the meeting, the United States said that Russia is preparing for war. Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I have confirmed it.

“We are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people – we are preparing for such a war.”

The Peril of Nuclear Idiocy

Trump is pushing the world closer to nuclear peril

Katrina vanden Heuvel

I have called my daughter, Nika, a “perestroika baby.” She was conceived in Russia during that earthshaking period when, under the radical tenure of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the country began to open up and the Cold War began to thaw. Nika was born just a few years after Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan signed the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, one of the world’s most important nuclear arms accords.

With the stroke of two pens, the agreement banned an entire class of nuclear weapons, led to the destruction of nearly 2,700 warheads and diminished the threat of nuclear war in Europe. At the time, Gorbachev said, “We can be proud to plant this sapling, which someday may grow to be a full tree of peace.”

Thirty-one years later, President Trump is taking an ax to that tree. This month, he announced that the United States will withdraw from the INF, all but inviting a new arms race: “We have more money than anybody else by far,” Trump said. “We’ll build it up until [China and Russia] come to their senses.”

Withdrawal from the INF will weaken global nonproliferation efforts and compromise all nations’ safety. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the move would “ultimately undermine the security of the United States and its allies.” The European Union’s foreign ministry declared, “The world doesn’t need a new arms race that would . . . bring even more instability.” At Brookings, Steven Pifer, an arms control expert who served in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, called the withdrawal “a loser all around.”

Gorbachev himself weighed in in an op-ed for the New York Times last week: “I am convinced that those who hope to benefit from a global free-for-all are deeply mistaken. There will be no winner in a ‘war of all against all’ — particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. An unrelenting arms race, international tensions, hostility and universal mistrust will only increase the risk.”

The risk, and the militarization of relations, have increased over past years and administrations. As Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University (disclosure: he is also my spouse), recently pointed out for the Nation, Bill Clinton expanded NATO farther and farther east toward Russia’s borders, and Bush unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

In that way, Trump’s action is simply the latest in a line of American provocations that have led Russia to violate the treaty. However, these violations, disputed by Russians, alone “would not by itself be a compelling argument for withdrawal,” according to former defense official and INF critic Elbridge Colby.

Regardless, Trump’s raw aggression sets him apart from his predecessors. Last year, I argued that “Trump’s decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal recklessly imperils the landmark agreement and our security.” Since then, it has only worsened as he pushes the world ever closer to nuclear peril. At least partly because of his policies, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is now set to two minutes to midnight, tied for the highest threat of nuclear war ever recorded.

In a recent speech, Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), laid out a road map that citizens can follow to push back against Trump and forward toward a nuclear-free world. The first step, says Fihn, is to inform and be informed: “Learn how your community, the bank, the services you use are complicit in developing nuclear weapons. And share with others the reality of the threat, the great humanitarian harm that would follow any nuclear attack and will spread across borders. Don’t let people forget that these weapons exist until is too late.”

Members of Congress, too, must take action to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Several are. Back in January 2017, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced a bill “that would prevent the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a congressional declaration of war . . . legislation meant to pry the nuclear football out of the president’s hands,” as Emily Tamkin put it in Foreign Policy.

Democratic policymakers have demanded answers about the INF decision. Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) of the Armed Services Committee, and Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) and Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.) of the Foreign Affairs Committee, released a letter calling for a briefing on the decision and refusing to “support, [or] enable, a precipitous course of action that increases the risk of an unconstrained nuclear arms race.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) made an even stronger statement. He tweeted that the withdrawal “plunges us back into a nuclear arms race and endangers our troops, allies, & the world, while wasting taxpayer dollars to prepare for a nuclear war that must never be fought . . . We cannot contribute to a ratcheting up of tensions that could put our nation and the globe at risk of catastrophic war.”

That kind of thinking and leadership is needed now, more than ever.

Common-sense legislation is also needed to deal with the approximately 900 missiles currently on “hair-trigger alert,” ready to launch in a matter of minutes. And in the American Conservative, Bruce Fein, who served as associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, smartly suggested that Congress “approve legislation that prohibits the expenditure of any funds of the United States to deploy weapons or in any other respect contravene the INF treaty.”

In 2002, as editor of the Nation, I had the honor to be presented with the Global Green USA award by Gorbachev. In accepting, I said, “From the moment [Gorbachev] came to power, he insisted that there are always alternatives in history and politics . . . alternatives that are better than the status quo.” It is not too late to end this dangerous status quo. Let’s demand a better future, one that is free from nuclear weapons.

3 Boys From Gaza Are Buried Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

Relatives mourning over the bodies of three teenagers killed in an Israeli airstrike.Khalil Hamra/Associated Press

3 Boys From Gaza Are Buried After Israeli Strike

Oct. 29, 2018

JERUSALEM — Thousands of Gaza residents on Monday attended funerals of three Palestinian boys killed by an Israeli airstrike along the security fence with Israel the day before.

The Israeli military said three figures had been spotted trying to sabotage the security fence and had appeared to be laying an explosive device under the cover of darkness.

Gaza’s militant factions accused Israel of killing the boys “in cold blood” and said claims they had been planting a bomb were fabricated.

In the light of day Monday, there appeared to be no evidence of an explosive device in the area. But there were suggestions in Israel that the boys might have been sent by militants as scouts, to test whether the area was under military surveillance or to cut a hole in the fence for others to go through later.

It was just the latest deadly episode in the caldron of tensions that the border area has become.

The dead were identified as Khaled Abu Saeed, 14; Abdul Hamid Abu Dhaher, 13; and Muhammad al-Satari, 13.

Palestinian protesters on Monday protecting their faces from tear gas fired by Israeli troops during a demonstration on the beach near the border with Israel.Mahmud Hams/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

In the village where the boys lived, Wadi al-Salqa, in the southern Gaza Strip, there was talk that they might have been laying nets for hunting birds, though the security fence — a known danger zone, especially at night — is hardly an obvious place to catch wildlife.

The boys were neighbors and lived about a mile from the border. Their relatives said they did not know what they were doing by the fence at night.

The mourning tents were filled with visitors and decorated with the banners of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Israeli leaders have come under increasing political and public pressure either to reach a stable cease-fire arrangement with Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, or to go in and try to crush Hamas by force.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled on Monday that he preferred to give more time to efforts by Egyptian and United Nations mediators to reach a truce agreement.

Israel’s hard-line defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said he saw no chance of a cease-fire with Hamas without “dealing the toughest blow that we can.” But he acknowledged that he was in a minority in the security cabinet, where decisions on broad military operations are made, and where, he said, most of the members “do not think like me.”

A Palestinian protester using a slingshot to hurl stones during a demonstration on the beach.Mahmud Hams/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Around the time of the airstrike that killed the boys Sunday night, residents of Israeli communities along the border blocked a main interchange in Tel Aviv.

Their protest came after an intensive flare-up of violence over the weekend, the fourth in recent months.

Gaza militants fired nearly 40 rockets into southern Israel between Friday night and Saturday morning, and the Israeli Air Force retaliated with strikes on more than 90 unmanned militant targets in Gaza.

Aside from sporadic rocket and mortar fire, incendiary balloons flown from Gaza have set hundreds of fires on the Israeli side of the border, charring forests and farmland.

Thousands of Palestinians continue to attend weekly Friday protests along the border that often include the hurling of grenades and firebombs and efforts to breach the fence, according to the military.

Called the “Great March of Return,” the protests are orchestrated by Hamas to pressure Israel into lifting its blockade on the coastal territory, imposed with Egypt’s help, and to press claims to lands in what is now Israel. Israel says it acts to prevent infiltrations and protect nearby civilian communities.

More than 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the protests began on March 30, according to Gaza officials. They said another man, 27, was shot dead during a protest on Monday in northern Gaza near the border with Israel.

Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem and Iyad Abuheweila from Wadi al-Saqa, Gaza Strip. Ibrahim El-Mughraby contributed reporting from Gaza City.

Three Boys Buried Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

Relatives mourning over the bodies of three teenagers killed in an Israeli airstrike.Khalil Hamra/Associated Press

3 Boys From Gaza Are Buried After Israeli Strike

Oct. 29, 2018JERUSALEM — Thousands of Gaza residents on Monday attended funerals of three Palestinian boys killed by an Israeli airstrike along the security fence with Israel the day before.

The Israeli military said three figures had been spotted trying to sabotage the security fence and had appeared to be laying an explosive device under the cover of darkness.

Gaza’s militant factions accused Israel of killing the boys “in cold blood” and said claims they had been planting a bomb were fabricated.

In the light of day Monday, there appeared to be no evidence of an explosive device in the area. But there were suggestions in Israel that the boys might have been sent by militants as scouts, to test whether the area was under military surveillance or to cut a hole in the fence for others to go through later.

The Development of the Nuclear Horns (Revelation 15)

image-1313Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons

29th Oct ’18

With the rising problem of climate change, countries are searching for non-carbon producing forms of power generation. Concurrently, global demand for electricity is increasing. In this context, Saudi Arabia is seeking to purchase nuclear power technology from the United States. Nuclear power technology, while a carbon neutral form of electricity generation, can easily be misused for nefarious purposes. In order to promote global nuclear nonproliferation, states need to restrict, rather than promote, nuclear power exports.

Signatory states to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) can be divided into two categories – those that do, and those that do not have nuclear weapons. Part of the “grand bargain” of the NPT is that the nuclear have-nots, in exchange for never developing nuclear weapons, will be allowed nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes.” The clause in question comes from Article IV of the NPT: “nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

Unfortunately, it is too easy for technology associated with nuclear power generation to be used for nefarious purposes. In order to fuel the most common reactor designs, uranium must be enriched to contain around 5% U-235 to U-238 (natural uranium contains only 0.7% U-235). While it takes a great deal of power and effort to get uranium enriched to 5%, once uranium is 20% enriched it becomes significantly easier to go to weapons-grade, or roughly 95% U-235.

Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed into usable nuclear fuel by removing the plutonium (Pu-239 and Pu-240) that has accumulated in the fuel as it is burnt in the reactor, and then re-milling the remaining uranium into fuel. But what happens to the plutonium? Plutonium-239 is really only useful for one thing: nuclear weapons. Despite asserting the contrary, it is very possible to use Pu-240 in nuclear weapons.

This is the reason why supporters of the 2009 123 Agreement with the UAE lauded the strict inspection requirements that the UAE agreed to in exchange for US assistance in developing the UAE’s nuclear power industry. This is also why many experts are critical of any effort to spread nuclear power, as the technology can be too easily misused. For example, Canada and the United States sold nuclear technology and materials to India on the basis that they be used for peaceful purposes. It was only through these contributions that India was able to develop its own nuclear weapons, which were first tested in 1974.

Unlike the UAE deal, the proposed deal with Saudi Arabia is believed to be more lax than the “gold standard” 123 Agreement with the UAE. Furthermore, before the JCPOA was signed, Saudi Arabia was reportedly in talks to buy nuclear warheads from Pakistan and missiles adequate enough to reach over the Persian Gulf into Iran. It cannot be guaranteed that Saudi Arabia will use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

So what can be done? The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was established after the enactment of the NPT to control access to nuclear technology. The NSG sets strict requirements that must be met and verified before any member state can export technology or nuclear fuel. Additionally, many regions of the globe have created, by treaty, nuclear free zones or have regional anti-nuclear weapons agreements (such as the Treaty of Tlatelolco) that have their own inspection or verification requirements. The NSG and various treaties have shown effectiveness in stemming nuclear proliferation.

There are, however, some blind spots. Four nuclear powers, India, Pakistan, Israel, and now North Korea, currently remain outside both the NPT and the NSG. They are able to sell technology and nuclear materials at will. Indeed, Pakistan has, in the past, facilitated the sale of nuclear enrichment technologies through its principle nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

With regard to the Saudi Arabia deal, the United States must be able to guarantee that the Saudi government will not attempt to use its nuclear power generation technology for hostile intent. If not, then the United States cannot let the deal proceed.

Sadly, Saudi Arabia has not demonstrated that it is trustworthy enough for this deal. Their suspected involvement in the death of a Washington Post journalist, and the Crown Prince’s pledge to develop nuclear weapons if Iran does, show that the Saudi government cannot be trusted to not use nuclear technology for malicious purposes. The United States is left with only three responsible options: cancel the deal altogether; reconstruct the deal identically to the UAE deal; or insist Saudi Arabia join the NSG before the deal can go forward.  These options are the only way to guarantee that the nuclear materials and technology cannot be used to covertly create nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology is simply too dangerous to be left unsupervised.

Russia Threatens the Other Nuclear Horns

Putin says Russia will target nations who host US nuclear weapons

‘European countries… must understand that they are putting their own territory at risk of a possible counterstrike,’ says Russian

Russia would immediately target any European nation that agreed to deploy US missiles on their soil, Vladimir Putin has said, following the announcement from Washington that it would withdraw from a landmark arms control treaty..

It would be “quick and effective.” Mr Putin said. The Russian president added that if the US “delivers” any new weapons to Europe after they pull out of the deal, Moscow would have no choice but to defend itself.

“European countries that agree to host them, if things go that far, must understand that they are putting their own territory at risk of a possible counterstrike,” he said.

The comments, delivered during a news conference following talks with Italian Prime Minster Conte, came a day after meeting US National Security Advisor John Bolton in Moscow.

That visit made it clear that the United States intended to issue formal notice on the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, and brought forward the prospect of nuclear weapons returning to European soil.

Mr Putin said he understood there were “problems” with the treaty that began not “yesterday, or three days ago.” But he rejected American accusations that Russia had been in violation of the treaty.

Mr Putin instead claimed that the US MK41 “missile shield” systems and their use of drones represented a “direct violation” of the treaty.

The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, which was signed in Washington in 1987 by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, committed the two Cold War superpowers to destroy short range and intermediate range missiles (500-5,000km), and not to develop them in the future.

Many expect the imminent US withdrawal from this treaty to be followed by the non-renewal of another major arms control deal the strategic arms reduction treaty, the New START, which runs out in 2021.

Mr Putin said that prospect “worried him.”

“It is a very dangerous situation, which leaves nothing else but an arms race,” he said

Death Toll Rises Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

AP Photo/Adel Hana

Death toll for Friday border clashes rises to 7 after Gazan succumbs to wounds

A Palestinian has died two days after suffering gunshot wounds in ongoing clashes on the Israel-Gaza border, the health ministry in the enclave said Sunday.

The death raises to the number of Palestinians killed as a result of Friday’s to 7 where an estimated 10,000 protesters gathered at the border fence.

Israel Defense Force (IDF) troops responded to the hurling of grenades and flaming tires with “riots dispersal means,” an army spokesman said in a statement.

Yahya al-Hassanat, 37, was shot in the head along the border near Al-Bureij in central Gaza, the ministry said.

Five other Palestinians were also shot dead during Friday’s protests, the ministry said, while one died when a grenade he was carrying exploded accidentally, according to witnesses. Deaths included two men aged 22 and 27 years old.

Only hours before the protests erupted this week, reports emerged that Egyptian intelligence officials– who have been engaging in months of shuttle diplomacy — had successfully brokered an understanding between Israel and Hamas.

According to Al-Hayat news outlet, Hamas agreed to a cessation of border violence in exchange for Israel’s easing of the blockade on the coastal enclave.

Following news of the deal, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said he was “hopeful” this Friday will pass more quietly.” Liberman’s hopes were quickly dashed.


At least 214 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire in months of protests and clashes along the Gaza border, 50 of which are said to be Hamas members. One Israeli soldier has been killed since the protests and clashes began on March 30.

Israel says its actions are necessary to defend the border and stop infiltrations and attacks, which it accuses Hamas of seeking to orchestrate. Palestinians and rights groups say protesters have been shot while posing little threat.

Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza, run by Islamist movement Hamas, have fought three wars since 2008.

Later on Friday and into Saturday, Palestinian militants fired over 39 rockets into southern Israel in a period of less than 24 hours. In retaliation, IDF fighter jets struck 87 Hamas targets and 8 Islamic Jihad bases in three military compounds throughout the strip.

The violence came to an end after Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian militant group who eventually claimed responsibility for launching the rockets, said it had agreed to a new Egyptian-brokered truce.

There were no reported casualties or deaths from the rocket fire and air strikes which was viewed as the largest in months.

Several military flare-ups have occurred in the months since the protests began, prompting fears of a new war between the two sides.

AFP contributed to this report

Three Boys Killed Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

Gaza: three boys killed in Israeli airstrike, say Palestinian medics

Israeli army says aircraft hit three Palestinians who approached security fence

AP in Gaza CitySun 28 Oct 2018 16.51 EDT

Israeli army says aircraft hit three Palestinians who approached security fence

Palestinian medics say three boys aged 12 to 14 have been killed in an Israeli airstrike in the south-eastern Gaza Strip.

Ashraf al-Kidra of the health ministry said ambulance crews were bringing the children’s bodies to a hospital from the perimeter fence dividing Gaza and Israel.

The Israeli army said an aircraft hit three Palestinians who approached the security fence on Sunday “and were apparently involved in placing” an explosive device on to it.

The Gaza-Israel border area has been volatile for months as the enclave’s Hamas rulers organise weekly protests there against a decade-long Israeli-Egyptian blockade. Egyptian mediators relentlessly urge the two sides separately to restore calm and prevent wider conflict.

More than 160 Palestinians have been killed in the protests since March. One Israeli soldier was killed by a Palestinian sniper in July.