One problem is the NYT is reframing the problem with the peace talks as Israel backing away and adding new conditions: "In broad terms, the U.S. proposal appears to conform to new demands added by Mr. Netanyahu in July that some Israeli troops continue to patrol part of an area of Gaza along the border with Egypt, according to Hamas and …
One problem is the NYT is reframing the problem with the peace talks as Israel backing away and adding new conditions: "In broad terms, the U.S. proposal appears to conform to new demands added by Mr. Netanyahu in July that some Israeli troops continue to patrol part of an area of Gaza along the border with Egypt, according to Hamas and Israeli officials....Hamas rejects a continued Israeli presence in the area and is demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Egypt says that keeping Israeli troops in the Philadelphi Corridor would raise national security concerns and would be unacceptable to the Egyptian public. Mr. Blinken told reporters on Tuesday that Israel has already agreed to terms of withdrawal and reaffirmed that the United States would “not accept any long-term occupation of Gaza by Israel.” To me it makes perfect sense for Israel to keep troops in an area that hosts horrific terrorist attacks against it, and monitor the corridor used to smuggle in weapons. Why is that considered unreasonable?
What I don't understand is Bibi said, when Israel is done, they want nothing to do with Gaza. It would be someone else problem. Hamas states no two state solution, does blinken not understand these simple concepts? The only question is, will the next president go into office trying to manage a regional war in the Middle East growing into a possible third WW?
One problem is the NYT is reframing the problem with the peace talks as Israel backing away and adding new conditions: "In broad terms, the U.S. proposal appears to conform to new demands added by Mr. Netanyahu in July that some Israeli troops continue to patrol part of an area of Gaza along the border with Egypt, according to Hamas and Israeli officials....Hamas rejects a continued Israeli presence in the area and is demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Egypt says that keeping Israeli troops in the Philadelphi Corridor would raise national security concerns and would be unacceptable to the Egyptian public. Mr. Blinken told reporters on Tuesday that Israel has already agreed to terms of withdrawal and reaffirmed that the United States would “not accept any long-term occupation of Gaza by Israel.” To me it makes perfect sense for Israel to keep troops in an area that hosts horrific terrorist attacks against it, and monitor the corridor used to smuggle in weapons. Why is that considered unreasonable?
It's unreasonable because it's Israel. Any other nation, everyone would accept it as the obvious solution.
What I don't understand is Bibi said, when Israel is done, they want nothing to do with Gaza. It would be someone else problem. Hamas states no two state solution, does blinken not understand these simple concepts? The only question is, will the next president go into office trying to manage a regional war in the Middle East growing into a possible third WW?