Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Tony Baloney]

Saw a few Libyans that are protesting in London being interviewed on the telly there, they are a very shifty looking bunch.

You wouldn't need to stray too close to the Libyan Embassy.

[give her dixie]

Muammar Gaddafi told us last night that he had not even begun to use bullets against his enemies – a palpable lie – and "any use of force against the authority of the state shall be punished by death", in itself a palpable truth which Libyans knew all too well without the future tense of Gaddafi's threat.

On and on and on he ranted. Like everything Gaddafi, it was very impressive – but went on far too long.


He cursed the people of Benghazi who had already liberated their city – "just wait until the police return to restore order", this dessicated man promised without a smile. His enemies were Islamists, the CIA, the British and the "dogs" of the international press. Yes, we are always dogs, aren't we? I was long ago depicted in a Bahraini newspaper cartoon (Crown Prince, please note) as a rabid dog, worthy of liquidation. But like Gaddafi's speeches, that's par for the course. And then came my favourite bit of the whole Gaddafi exegesis last night: HE HADN'T EVEN BEGUN TO USE VIOLENCE YET!


So let's erase all the YouTubes and Facebooks and the shooting and blood and gouged corpses from Benghazi, and pretend it didn't happen. Let's pretend that the refusal to give visas to foreign correspondents has actually prevented us from hearing the truth. Gaddafi's claim that the protesters in Libya – the millions of demonstrators – "want to turn Libya into an Islamic state" is exactly the same nonsense that Mubarak peddled before the end in Egypt, the very same nonsense that Obama and La Clinton have suggested. Indeed, there were times last night when Gaddafi – in his vengefulness, his contempt for Arabs, for his own people – began to sound very like the speeches of Benjamin Netanyahu. Was there some contact between these two rogues, one wondered, that we didn't know about?


In many ways, Gaddafi's ravings were those of an old man, his fantasies about his enemies – "rats who have taken tablets" who included "agents of Bin Laden" – were as disorganised as the scribbled notes on the piece of paper he held in his right hand, let alone the green-covered volume of laws from which he kept quoting. It was not about love. It was about the threat of execution. "Damn those" trying to stir unrest against Libya. It was a plot, an international conspiracy. "Your children are dying – but for what?" He would fight "until the last drop of my blood with the Libyan people is behind me". America was the enemy (much talk of Fallujah), Israel was the enemy, Sadat was an enemy, colonial fascist Italy was the enemy. Among the heroes and friends was Gaddafi's grandfather, "who fell a martyr in 1911" against the Italian enemy.


Dressed in brown burnous and cap and gown, Gaddafi's appearance last night raised some odd questions. Having kept the international media – the "dogs" in question – out of Libya, he allowed the world to observe a crazed nation: YouTube and blogs of terrible violence versus state television pictures of an entirely unhinged dictator justifying what he had either not seen on YouTube or hadn't been shown. And there's an interesting question here: dictators and princes who let the international press into their countries – Messrs Ben Ali/Mubarak/Saleh/Prince Salman – are permitting it to film their own humiliation. Their reward is painful indeed. But sultans like Gaddafi who keep the journos out fare little different.


The hand-held immediacy of the mobile phone, the intimacy of sound and the crack of gunfire are in some ways more compelling than the edited, digital film of the networks. Exactly the same happened in Gaza when the Israelis decided, Gaddafi-like, to keep foreign journalists out of their 2009 bloodletting: the bloggers and YouTubers (and Al Jazeera) simply gave us a reality we didn't normally experience from the "professional" satellite boys. Perhaps, in the end, it takes a dictator with his own monopoly on cameras to tell the truth. "I will die as a martyr," Gaddafi said last night. Almost certainly true.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/gaddafi-raved-and-cursed-but-he-faces-forces-he-cannot-control-15093357.html#ixzz1EmO7RgcN

[Groucho]

Iranian naval vessels major provocation: Israel
By MARK LAVIE | AP

Published: Feb 22, 2011 22:09 Updated: Feb 22, 2011 22:09

JERUSALEM: As two Iranian warships sailed into the Mediterranean on Tuesday, an Israeli leader charged that Iran's goal was hegemony in the Middle East.

The ships exited the Suez Canal Tuesday afternoon. It was the first time Iran has sent warships through the canal since the 1979 revolution. Israeli leaders have called the move a provocation.

"The passage of the Iranian ships is part of the comprehensive struggle that Iran is conducting against the West for hegemony and control in the Middle East," Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told an energy conference in Israel's southern resort of Eilat.

"The objective of the Iranian provocation is to signal to the leaders of the Arab world who the new leader is in the Middle East," he said.

Iran and Israel are bitter enemies. Israel considers Iran a threat because of its nuclear program, missile development and frequent references by its leader to Israel's destruction. Iran also backs anti-Israel groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Despite the strong language, Israel was seen as unlikely to take action against the boats, which are expected to remain in international waters as they head toward Syria, past the Israeli coast.

Military analysts on Israeli TV news programs said the Iranian military vessel and its trailing supply ship do not pose a real threat to Israel.

Israeli security officials said that as long as the ships remain in international waters, there is nothing Israel can legally do. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

[Hardy]

Iranian naval vessels major provocation: Israel
By MARK LAVIE | AP

Published: Feb 22, 2011 22:09 Updated: Feb 22, 2011 22:09

JERUSALEM: As two Iranian warships sailed into the Mediterranean on Tuesday, an Israeli leader charged that Iran's goal was hegemony in the Middle East.

The ships exited the Suez Canal Tuesday afternoon. It was the first time Iran has sent warships through the canal since the 1979 revolution. Israeli leaders have called the move a provocation.

"The passage of the Iranian ships is part of the comprehensive struggle that Iran is conducting against the West for hegemony and control in the Middle East," Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told an energy conference in Israel's southern resort of Eilat.

"The objective of the Iranian provocation is to signal to the leaders of the Arab world who the new leader is in the Middle East," he said.

Iran and Israel are bitter enemies. Israel considers Iran a threat because of its nuclear program, missile development and frequent references by its leader to Israel's destruction. Iran also backs anti-Israel groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Despite the strong language, Israel was seen as unlikely to take action against the boats, which are expected to remain in international waters as they head toward Syria, past the Israeli coast.

Military analysts on Israeli TV news programs said the Iranian military vessel and its trailing supply ship do not pose a real threat to Israel.

Israeli security officials said that as long as the ships remain in international waters, there is nothing Israel can legally do. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Since when has that been a consideration for them?

[give her dixie]

Click on the following link for some footage that has been smuggled out of Libya, and passed onto a friend of mine who works for Press TV.

It is footage of soldiers who have been murdered by Gadaffi's mercenaries because they refused to kill protestors.

Before you click, I must warn you that this is not pretty, so if you are squeemish in any way, don't click.


http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150391419625262&oid=124004870965718&comments

[give her dixie]

Tripoli: a city in the shadow of death

Gunfire in the suburbs – and fear, hunger and rumour in the capital Thousands race for last tickets out of a city sinking into anarchy

Robert Fisk, with the first dispatch from Libya's war-torn capital, reports


Thursday, 24 February 2011

Up to 15,000 men, women and children besieged Tripoli's international airport last night, shouting and screaming for seats on the few airliners still prepared to fly to Muammar Gaddafi's rump state, paying Libyan police bribe after bribe to reach the ticket desks in a rain-soaked mob of hungry, desperate families. Many were trampled as Libyan security men savagely beat those who pushed their way to the front.


Among them were Gaddafi's fellow Arabs, thousands of them Egyptians, some of whom had been living at the airport for two days without food or sanitation. The place stank of faeces and urine and fear. Yet a 45-minute visit into the city for a new airline ticket to another destination is the only chance to see Gaddafi's capital if you are a "dog" of the international press.

There was little sign of opposition to the Great Leader. Squads of young men with Kalashnikov rifles stood on the side roads next to barricades of upturned chairs and wooden doors. But these were pro-Gaddafi vigilantes – a faint echo of the armed Egyptian "neighbourhood guard" I saw in Cairo a month ago – and had pinned photographs of their leader's infamous Green Book to their checkpoint signs.

There is little food in Tripoli, and over the city there fell a blanket of drab, sullen rain. It guttered onto an empty Green Square and down the Italianate streets of the old capital of Tripolitania. But there were no tanks, no armoured personnel carriers, no soldiers, not a fighter plane in the air; just a few police and elderly men and women walking the pavements – a numbed populous. Sadly for the West and for the people of the free city of Benghazi, Libya's capital appeared as quiet as any dictator would wish.

But this is an illusion. Petrol and food prices have trebled; entire towns outside Tripoli have been torn apart by fighting between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. In the suburbs of the city, especially in the Noufreen district, militias fought for 24 hours on Sunday with machine guns and pistols, a battle the Gadaffi forces won. In the end, the exodus of expatriates will do far more than street warfare to bring down the regime.

I was told that at least 30,000 Turks, who make up the bulk of the Libyan construction and engineering industry, have now fled the capital, along with tens of thousands of other foreign workers. On my own aircraft out of Tripoli, an evacuation flight to Europe, there were Polish, German, Japanese and Italian businessmen, all of whom told me they had closed down major companies in the past week. Worse still for Gaddafi, the oil, chemical and uranium fields of Libya lie to the south of "liberated" Benghazi. Gaddafi's hungry capital controls only water resources, so a temporary division of Libya, which may have entered Gaddafi's mind, would not be sustainable. Libyans and expatriates I spoke to yesterday said they thought he was clinically insane, but they expressed more anger at his son, Saif al-Islam. "We thought Saif was the new light, the 'liberal'", a Libyan businessman sad to me. "Now we realise he is crazier and more cruel than his father."

The panic that has now taken hold in what is left of Gaddafi's Libya was all too evident at the airport. In the crush of people fighting for tickets, one man, witnessed by an evacuated Tokyo car-dealer, was beaten so viciously on the head that "his face fell apart".

Talking to Libyans in Tripoli and expatriates at the airport, it is clear that neither tanks nor armour were used in the streets of Tripoli. Air attacks targeted Benghazi and other towns, but not the capital. Yet all spoke of a wave of looting and arson by Libyans who believed that with the fall of Benghazi, Gaddafi was finished and the country open to anarchy.

The centre of the city was largely closed up. All foreign offices have been shut including overseas airlines, and every bakery I saw was shuttered. Rumours abound that members of Gaddafi's family are trying to flee abroad. Although William Hague's ramblings about Gaddafi's flight to Venezuela have been disproved, I spoke to a number of Libyans who believed that Burkina Faso might be his only viable retreat. Two nights ago, a Libyan private jet approached Beirut airport with a request to land but was refused permission when the crew declined to identify their eight passengers. And last night, a Libyan Arab Airlines flight reported by Al Jazeera to be carrying Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, was refused permission to land in Malta.

Gaddafi is blamed by Shia Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran for the murder of Imam Moussa Sadr, a supposedly charismatic divine who unwisely accepted an invitation to visit Gaddafi in 1978 and, after an apparent argument about money, was never seen again. Nor was a Lebanese journalist accompanying him on the trip.

While dark humour has never been a strong quality in Libyans, there was one moment at Tripoli airport yesterday which proved it does exist. An incoming passenger from a Libyan Arab Airlines flight at the front of an immigration queue bellowed out: "And long life to our great leader Muammar Gaddafi." Then he burst into laughter – and the immigration officers did the same.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/tripoli-a-city-in-the-shadow-of-death-2223977.html

[dowling]

Give her dixie do you think what's happening in Libya is any different to what's happening in other Arab countries. My take on Gaddafi is that his contibution to his country was progressive. Of course like any country at odds with America it has been demonised in the western press, attacked and continually in need to defend itself. But the picture painted of Gaddafi doesn't usually refer to developments within his own country that benefit Libyans or perhaps that he was one of the first Arab leaders to condemn 9/11. Would you know much about him yourself? Could you give us your take on him. Call me cynical but I think the western press are taking a lot of satisfaction from what's happening in Libya where it was more amazement about the other countries and hoping for the worst.

[stew]

Ghadaffi appeared on Libyan TV last night to say he was still in the country and not in Venezuela as reported. He also declared war on his own civilians but heh lets ignore that and muddy the waters instead by talking about Chavez!

The words 'an inconvenient truth' come to mind.

Somebody put a bullet in the fcuker as soon as possible, and while they are at it, put one in Chavez and that nutter in N korea.

[give her dixie]

Dowling, Gadaffi has proven to be as mad as ever. However, whenever vast reserves of oil were discovered in Libya, he suddenly became a right fella in the eyes of the west. Tony Blair led the charges for Gadaffi to come in from the cold, and his puppet master Bush followed suit.

Libya have the largest reserves of Oil in Africa, and BP signed a deal with him for roughly $900 million. Tony handled this deal, and part of the deal was the release of Megrahi from prison in Scotland. Since the protests have broke out in Libya, Tony Blair hasn't said a word.

2 years ago we drove through Libya en route to Gaza. We spent a few days there, and witnessed the boom taking place across the country. However, as in most countries ruled by Dictators, the average person doesn't see a penny of the wealth. Foreign compaines drill and produce the oil, with foreign workers. The construction going on everywhere is also carried out by foriegn workers and companies. Gadaffi and his family pocket the profits from the oil, and uncle Tony gets his cut.

Speaking to the locals, it was quite clear they were fed up with Gadaffi and his brutal regime. Poverty is rife in Libya, and people really struggle to make ends meet. If he had been sharing the wealth, people wouldn't mind, however, he hoovers it all up, and doesn't care about the average Joe.

The article below gives an indication of who else profits from Gadaffi's oil:

The website of the US-Libya Business Association (USLBA) was down on Monday as protests in the Arab nation targeting leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's 41-year regime dramatically intensified.

USLBA, incorporated in 2005, describes itself as "the only U.S. trade association focusing on the United States and Libya," and has organized policy conferences attended by senior US officials.

A Web cache of the group reveals that over a dozen oil and energy companies and military contractors are members of its executive advisory committee, including Dow Chemical, Chevron, Halliburton, Shell, Raytheon and Occidental Petroleum.

The Bush administration lifted Libya from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism in May 2006, reopening diplomatic relations between the two longtime foes.

Sanctions were initially placed after Gaddafi's government was implicated in terrorist attacks that led to the deaths of US soldiers. Libyan terrorists reportedly bombed a Pan Am flight over Scotland in 1988.

Libya has a rich supply of known oil reserves, and much of the country remains untapped. The US Energy Information Administration reports that Libya "has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa."

In 2009, USLBA announced that it had transitioned management to the National Foreign Trade Council, a free trade group.

It's unclear when exactly USLBA's website went down, but the group appears to have been active as recently as this month. USLBA's executive director Charles Dittrich took part in a discussion weeks ago about US-Libya relations, and mentioned his ties to the group.

A call to USLBA's Washington, DC office and an email to the group were not immediately returned Monday afternoon.

Clashes in Libya grew violent on Monday as demonstrators crowded cities and regime officials reportedly used air strikes to fend off protesters fighting the military and setting government buildings on fire.

[give her dixie]

Ghadaffi appeared on Libyan TV last night to say he was still in the country and not in Venezuela as reported. He also declared war on his own civilians but heh lets ignore that and muddy the waters instead by talking about Chavez!

The words 'an inconvenient truth' come to mind.

Somebody put a bullet in the fcuker as soon as possible, and while they are at it, put one in Chavez and that nutter in N korea.

What has Chavez done to you Stew? Did you not get any of the free oil that he sent to the poor in the US when all other oil companies refused?

[give her dixie]

Iranian naval vessels major provocation: Israel
By MARK LAVIE | AP

Published: Feb 22, 2011 22:09 Updated: Feb 22, 2011 22:09

JERUSALEM: As two Iranian warships sailed into the Mediterranean on Tuesday, an Israeli leader charged that Iran's goal was hegemony in the Middle East.

The ships exited the Suez Canal Tuesday afternoon. It was the first time Iran has sent warships through the canal since the 1979 revolution. Israeli leaders have called the move a provocation.

"The passage of the Iranian ships is part of the comprehensive struggle that Iran is conducting against the West for hegemony and control in the Middle East," Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told an energy conference in Israel's southern resort of Eilat.

"The objective of the Iranian provocation is to signal to the leaders of the Arab world who the new leader is in the Middle East," he said.

Iran and Israel are bitter enemies. Israel considers Iran a threat because of its nuclear program, missile development and frequent references by its leader to Israel's destruction. Iran also backs anti-Israel groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Despite the strong language, Israel was seen as unlikely to take action against the boats, which are expected to remain in international waters as they head toward Syria, past the Israeli coast.

Military analysts on Israeli TV news programs said the Iranian military vessel and its trailing supply ship do not pose a real threat to Israel.

Israeli security officials said that as long as the ships remain in international waters, there is nothing Israel can legally do. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Since when has that been a consideration for them?

Hasn't stopped them before all right Hardy.....

Since they can't do anything for now, they sure as hell are trying to provoke Iran into using their ships today.
From early today, the United States Of Israel have been pounding Gaza with shells and missiles.

This morning, US tanks made incursions into the besieged strip, and shelled several area's. 1 young girl was murdered, and another 3 children were critically injured. Another 14 were also injured.

A couple of hours ago, US Apache helicopters fired several missiles injuring a further 15 people, and damaging more property.

In the past 30 minutes, US F16's have been firing missiles in Northern Gaza. It is too soon to report any injuries or damage.

No doubt they are trying to provoke Iran, and while the world is watching Libya and the crazy Gadaffi, the lunatics in the White House in Tel Aviv are plotting and carrying out more death and destruction. How long will it be until they strike Iran?

[Arthur_Friend]

Ghadaffi appeared on Libyan TV last night to say he was still in the country and not in Venezuela as reported. He also declared war on his own civilians but heh lets ignore that and muddy the waters instead by talking about Chavez!

The words 'an inconvenient truth' come to mind.

Somebody put a bullet in the fcuker as soon as possible, and while they are at it, put one in Chavez and that nutter in N korea.

What a bizarre post. What exactly has Hugo Chavez done to deserve to be assassinated? Started any illegal wars recently? Has Venezuala now got "Weapons of Mass Destruction" ?

[give her dixie]

That's the US way Arthur. If anyone doesn't like the US, well then, sure just shoot or bomb them. No excuse needed.........

Even if it's protestors in Wisconsin, they too are ripe for shooting......

World Breaking NewsThe Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Indiana AG's office: Deputy fired after tweeting cops should shoot Wisconsin protesters

By: Charles Wilson, The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS - An Indiana deputy attorney general "is no longer employed" by the state after a magazine reported he tweeted that police should to use live ammunition against Wisconsin labour protesters, the attorney general's office said Wednesday.

Mother Jones magazine reported Wednesday that Jeffrey Cox responded "Use live ammunition" to a Saturday night posting on its Twitter account that said riot police could sweep protesters out of the Wisconsin capitol, where thousands have been protesting a bill that would strip public employees of collective bargaining rights.

Cox also referred to the protesters as "thugs physically threatening legally-elected state legislators & governor" and said "You're damn right I advocate deadly force," according to the magazine. He later told an Indianapolis television station the comments were intended to be satirical.

The Indiana attorney general's office said it conducted "a thorough and expeditious review" after the report.

"We respect individuals' First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility," the office said in a statement.

[Groucho]

Settlements: Obama's surrender
Never before has an American president's fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress been so exposed as it was by Barack Obama's decision to veto the Security Council resolution condemning continued, illegal Israeli settlement activities on the occupied West Bank and demanding that Israel "immediately and completely cease" all such activities.

In a different America — an informed America — some might think, I do, that Obama should be impeached. The charge? Treason.

After she had exercised the Obama administration's first veto, the plea made by US Ambassador Susan Rice for understanding of America's position could not have been more absurd. "Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should not be misunderstood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."

So why the veto? Ambassador Rice said:

"The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating it. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore our opposition to continued settlements."

What nonsense! If the Obama administration really wanted to underscore its stated opposition to Israel's ongoing colonization of the occupied West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem, there was no better or more effective way of doing so than voting for the resolution or abstaining. In either case the resolution would have passed and that would have opened the door to real global pressure on Israel if it continued to defy international law.

As for advancing the goal of a two-state solution, the Obama administration has done the opposite. By allowing Israel to continue its illegal settlement activities and consolidate its occupation, it, the Obama administration, has helped to guarantee that there can never be a viable Palestinian state living side by side with an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war.

In the context of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, the only thing to which the Obama administration has been deeply committed is not provoking the wrath of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media. For all practical purposes Obama has surrendered policy making on Israel-Palestine to this lobby. (The veto marked the complete surrender).

The essence of the problem this presents can be simply stated. The Zionist lobby's agenda — unquestioning support for Israel right or wrong — is not in America's best interests. (In reality it is not in anybody's best interests including those of Israeli Jews and the Jews of the world).

As I pointed out in an earlier piece (Crunch time coming for America in the Middle East?), what all Arab peoples want is not only an end to corruption and repression and a better life in their own countries. They also want an end to the humiliation caused by Israel's arrogance of power and American support for it.

It is clear that the manifestations of Arab people power the world is witnessing were not instigated by Islamist extremist groups and are spontaneous protests with demands by citizens from all sections of civil society. So at the present time that is no evidence to suggest that change brought about by people power in Arab states will create more cover, more scope and more popular support for extremist and violent forces which use and abuse Islam in much the same way as Zionists use and abuse Judaism. But this could change, in my view will change, if America goes on supporting Israel right or wrong. In other words, the more the administration in Washington D.C. is perceived by the Arab street as being complicit in the Zionist state's defiance of international law and crimes, the more American interests and citizens are likely to be targeted and hit.

The American Constitution states that a president can be impeached and removed from office for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

In my view a president who allows a lobby group to put the interests of a foreign power above those of the country of which they are citizens, and who by doing so puts his fellow citizens more in harm's way than they otherwise would be, is guilty of treason. (And all the more so when the American-Jewish lobby in question does not speak for more than about a third, and possibly only a quarter, of America's mainly silent and deeply troubled Jews)

The admirable and courageous Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, has a brilliant article (which I have tweeted) in Ha'aretz with the headline "With settlement veto resolution, Obama has joined Likud."

And this is how Gideon concluded his piece:

"If the US had been a responsible superpower, it would have voted for the resolution on Friday to rouse Israel from its dangerous sleep. Instead, we got a hostile veto from Washington, shouts of joy from Jerusalem and a party that will end very badly for both."

— Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.

[Groucho]

Since they can't do anything for now, they sure as hell are trying to provoke Iran into using their ships today.
From early today, the United States Of Israel have been pounding Gaza with shells and missiles.

This morning, US tanks made incursions into the besieged strip, and shelled several area's. 1 young girl was murdered, and another 3 children were critically injured. Another 14 were also injured.

A couple of hours ago, US Apache helicopters fired several missiles injuring a further 15 people, and damaging more property.

In the past 30 minutes, US F16's have been firing missiles in Northern Gaza. It is too soon to report any injuries or damage.

No doubt they are trying to provoke Iran, and while the world is watching Libya and the crazy Gadaffi, the lunatics in the White House in Tel Aviv are plotting and carrying out more death and destruction. How long will it be until they strike Iran?   


Nothing to do with Iran......

Israeli tanks strike Gaza after mortar attack
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Feb 23, 2011 17:03 Updated: Feb 23, 2011 17:04

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: Palestinian officials say 11 people, including at least six militants, have been wounded by Israeli tank fire in the Gaza Strip.

The military says it opened fire Wednesday after the militants detonated a bomb targeting a passing Israeli patrol near the border and then fired mortars at the soldiers.

Gaza health officials say two of the wounded militants are in serious condition. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas militants say they fired mortars at the troops.

No Israeli soldiers were hurt.

Israel and Hamas have largely observed an unofficial cease-fire since an Israeli military offensive in Gaza two years ago. But clashes sporadically flare up along the volatile border as Gaza militants fire rockets and mortars into Israel, drawing military reprisals.