<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"> 
    
<channel>
    

    <title>With Obama mostly silent on Gaza, Dems move to fill void</title>
    <link>http://jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/obamas-silence-on-gaza-leads-democrats-to-speak-out/</link>
    <description>Congress members speaking up as the president&#45;elect says little about Israel&apos;s retaliatory strikes in the Gaza Strip, opening the door to criticism from some sectors of the pro&#45;Israel community.</description>
    <dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>rkampeas@jta.org</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2009</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2009-01-06T;20:47:00-05:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.pmachine.com/" />
 


    <item>
      <title>Comment by Richard Finn</title>
      <link>ransjfinn@rcn.com</link>
      <description>Any thought that a peace can be obtained between Israel and the 160,000,000 Muslim Arabs, most of whom wish that a Jewish Israel must be destroyed, is a very naive thought.&amp;nbsp;  The Palestinian Arabs have been made pawns in this struggle 60 years ago to inflame the emotions to destroy Israel.

At best Israel must be allowed to destroy Hamas, which is a threat to both Israel and Egypt and Jordan.&amp;nbsp; Both Egypt and Jordan are threatened by a Sunni terrorist organization supported by a Shia terrorist country, Iran

Unfortunatly for the &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; Arabs, they have been lead by terrorists and thugs who have exploited them for 60+ years.

When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, they also left an agricultural infrastructure that rational people would have used to create wealth for themsleves.&amp;nbsp; The Arabs immediately destroyed it when they took over the Strip.

Proportionality:&amp;nbsp; The Israelis are outnumbered by the Arab Muslims 160 to 5.5, a proportion of 30:1.&amp;nbsp; Should it be that the Israelis &#8220;proportional response&#8221; should be 30 Arab deaths to one Israeli death?

In comparison to the USA the proportionalty ratio is about 56 to one.&amp;nbsp; I think that most of the people of the USA would be quite pistoff if 200&#45;300 Americans where murdered by a terrorist group.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any thought that a peace can be obtained between Israel and the 160,000,000 Muslim Arabs, most of whom wish that a Jewish Israel must be destroyed, is a very naive thought.&nbsp;  The Palestinian Arabs have been made pawns in this struggle 60 years ago to inflame the emotions to destroy Israel.
<br />
At best Israel must be allowed to destroy Hamas, which is a threat to both Israel and Egypt and Jordan.&nbsp; Both Egypt and Jordan are threatened by a Sunni terrorist organization supported by a Shia terrorist country, Iran
<br />
Unfortunatly for the &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; Arabs, they have been lead by terrorists and thugs who have exploited them for 60+ years.
<br />
When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, they also left an agricultural infrastructure that rational people would have used to create wealth for themsleves.&nbsp; The Arabs immediately destroyed it when they took over the Strip.
<br />
Proportionality:&nbsp; The Israelis are outnumbered by the Arab Muslims 160 to 5.5, a proportion of 30:1.&nbsp; Should it be that the Israelis &#8220;proportional response&#8221; should be 30 Arab deaths to one Israeli death?
<br />
In comparison to the USA the proportionalty ratio is about 56 to one.&nbsp; I think that most of the people of the USA would be quite pistoff if 200-300 Americans where murdered by a terrorist group.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2009-11-04T;15:24:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Comment by michael zacharia</title>
      <link>mikh_zak1974@yahoo.com</link>
      <description>One concerned about the security and welfare of both the Palestinians and Israels should hope President&#45;elect Obama would bring a different approach than the Bush administration has followed during the past 8 years. Since the end of the Clinton administration progress on a resolution to the situation that would establish peace and security between the Palestinians and Israelis has been on hold. Under 8 years of Bush the Israelis in the south have experienced no security and the Palestinians have experienced no economic progress or progress in their aspiration to have their own country. This being the case, clearly Obama should try a different tack that gets both parties to the negotiating table to resolve this conflict once and for all.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One concerned about the security and welfare of both the Palestinians and Israels should hope President-elect Obama would bring a different approach than the Bush administration has followed during the past 8 years. Since the end of the Clinton administration progress on a resolution to the situation that would establish peace and security between the Palestinians and Israelis has been on hold. Under 8 years of Bush the Israelis in the south have experienced no security and the Palestinians have experienced no economic progress or progress in their aspiration to have their own country. This being the case, clearly Obama should try a different tack that gets both parties to the negotiating table to resolve this conflict once and for all.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2009-11-04T;15:24:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Comment by Arnold Rosenzweig</title>
      <link>ar@jhvonline.com</link>
      <description>Dear JTA,

Your headline says Obama is &#8220;mostly silent&#8221; on Gaza, and your article speaks questionably about Democrats supposedly being increasingly &#8220;antsy&#8221; about  his purported refusal to weigh in on the Gaza war. Then you report, &#8220;Obama said he was paying close attention to the civilian casualties on both sides.

&#8220;The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern to me,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And after Jan. 20th, I&#8217;m going to have plenty to say about the issue.&#8221;


That&#8217;s not what being &#8220;mostly silent&#8221; means to me. Why should a quoted person be depicted as &#8220;mostly silent&#8221;? Should he have been expected to go on at length?&amp;nbsp; Even if  you and your JTA pals disagree, at least spell Haas correctly; you have his name spelled two ways

Regards from erudite Dixie, 

AR, down South</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear JTA,
<br />
Your headline says Obama is &#8220;mostly silent&#8221; on Gaza, and your article speaks questionably about Democrats supposedly being increasingly &#8220;antsy&#8221; about  his purported refusal to weigh in on the Gaza war. Then you report, &#8220;Obama said he was paying close attention to the civilian casualties on both sides.
<br />
&#8220;The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern to me,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And after Jan. 20th, I&#8217;m going to have plenty to say about the issue.&#8221;
</p>
<p>
That&#8217;s not what being &#8220;mostly silent&#8221; means to me. Why should a quoted person be depicted as &#8220;mostly silent&#8221;? Should he have been expected to go on at length?&nbsp; Even if  you and your JTA pals disagree, at least spell Haas correctly; you have his name spelled two ways
<br />
Regards from erudite Dixie, 
<br />
AR, down South
</p>]]></content:encoded>
    <dc:date>2009-11-04T;15:24:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

 
</channel>
</rss>