dagblog - Comments for "No Jews = No Outrage"

Thanks for the link.

rmrd0000 — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 01:14:21 +0000

In reply to RM,

Thanks for the link.

I think the response from former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg hits the right tone. Netanyahu's position is that Hamas cannot be at the negotiating table. He has also said that Abbas was not trustworthy. Hamas has forced the issue. Netanyahu has to strengthen Abbas by loosening the screws on the West Bank, and subsequently the Gaza.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amb-marc-ginsberg/can-gaza-ever-be-pacified_b_5659460.html

From your article on the

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:39:11 +0000

In reply to It's the Rafah crossing to

From your article on the Gateway

Human rights groups say Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza through controlling Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and land crossings, especially the Erez pedestrian terminal that links Gaza with the occupied West Bank.

Abbas has to rely on funds from Israel to pay Palestinian Authority workers in Gaza. If funds are withheld because Hamas is in charge, it still gives the impression that the Palestinian Authority is incompetent.

It's the Rafah crossing to

NCD — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:34:35 +0000

In reply to Gazans may not be fond of the

It's the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under siege by Egypt and closed for a year, that is the main and primary 'Gateway to the world' for Gaza. Since Egypt is Muslim, Hamas doesn't fire missiles at them. No Jews, no outrage.

Jews always being a convenient target of hate.

Hamas wants an open border for one reason only, to ease import of weapons to strike Israel. Israel cannot negotiate peace or open borders with terrorists bent on her extermination. Egypt closed the Gaza border because Hamas was supporting terror attacks and murder of troops in Egypt.

If there are no protests over Hamas tactics in actively and intentionally bringing destruction on Gaza, it could be due to hate, ignorance, or the fate of those who Hamas believes oppose them.

The Brits were the masters of

Peter — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:18:34 +0000

In reply to Arabs and Africans are

The Brits were the masters of ,Divide and Rule, but the US has used this tool effectively as they did to instigate the Iraqi Civil War and more recently in Ukraine and Syria. Even educated people are caught up in this manipulation so your concern trolling is wasted.

You don't even have to leave the Homeland to experience this nasty business just look at the reaction to immigrants here, even helpless child refugees are attacked.

RM,

Bruce Levine — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:07:12 +0000

In reply to Gazans may not be fond of the

RM,

You may have already seen this article from the Atlantic by Hussein Ibish about the options that Hamas has at this juncture, but I think it's really worth a read. Also some interesting thoughts by Ibish about public support for Hamas in the short and long-terms in both the WB and Gaza.

I think the Palestinians see

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:48:02 +0000

In reply to I'm somewhat skeptical of

I think the Palestinians see any Israeli role in security as a guarantee that Palestinians will be abused.

Gazans may not be fond of the

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:41:18 +0000

In reply to No Jews = No Outrage

Gazans may not be fond of the governance of Hamas, but they view the siege by Israel that keeps them trapped as the greater evil.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/07/the-gaza-paradox-hamas-...

I'm somewhat skeptical of

Aaron Carine — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:44:14 +0000

In reply to Netanyahu has stressed often

I'm somewhat skeptical of this article, because they attributed views to Netanyahu without actually quoting him saying these things. Bibi did say Israel would retain "security control" in the West Bank, which is ominous, but it doesn't necessarily rule out Palestinian statehood. Here is another interpretation of Netanyahu's remarks.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5895567/netanyahu-this-is-why-israel-can-ne...

Netanyahu has stressed often

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:53:58 +0000

In reply to Netanyahu says he is for a

Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan

http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/

Edit to add

Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.

Netanyahu says he is for a

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:46:44 +0000

In reply to Israel is a state and thus

Netanyahu says he is for a two-state solution, although he intends to keep a slice of the West Bank.