Comments on: Op-Ed: Hamas Attacked You, Mr. President

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Tue, 24 May 2011 14:20:42 +0000

No. 2: You are radically more pessimistic than I am. If you truly believe that ” Arabs['] only desired settlement is the destruction of Israel,” and that no Arab is of a different opinion, then peace will never come to Israel, without Moshiach. That is the Satmar view, the Nutraei Karta view. If that is your view, there is no point in worrying about what Earthly politicians do or say about Israel, as the attainment of peace, in your view, is beyond the capability of human beings and entirely in the hands of Hashem.

By: Daas Yochid

Daas Yochid — Mon, 23 May 2011 11:53:35 +0000

Charlie,

Any speech which doesn’t call for the destruction of Israel will be seen by Hamas as pro-Israel!

By: mdd

mdd — Mon, 23 May 2011 04:05:13 +0000

Charliehall, 90% of ARABS BELONG TO THE 1-ST GROUP. pRO-iSRAEL — RIDICULOUS!

By: charliehall

charliehall — Mon, 23 May 2011 03:35:55 +0000

What PM Neyanyahu and this author failed to note was that Hamas — and ever other Palestinian group that commented — attacked President Obama for his Thursday speech, as it was (correctly) seen as pro-Israel.

By: charliehall

charliehall — Mon, 23 May 2011 03:32:56 +0000

mdd, SOME Arabs only desired settlement is the destruction of Israel. Some are willing to make peace. The problem is that the first group is the one with the guns and the willingness to shoot them at both Israel and the Arabs of the second group.

By: mdd

mdd — Sun, 22 May 2011 19:21:34 +0000

Nfgo3, stop it ! Face reality, Arabs only desired settlement is the destruction of Israel. You have to be rooted in reality!! As Netanyahu pointed out: ” Peace built on illusions won’t last.”.

By: nfgo3

nfgo3 — Sun, 22 May 2011 16:43:15 +0000

The above op-ed states in part: “None of what Netanyahu said was new, but what was striking was the way in which he felt the need to provide this kind of a history lesson when discussing Israel’s situation with an American president.”

I am not sure whether Mr. Netanyahu intended to provide a history lesson to Mr. Obama, but what strikes me is that the author thinks the president needs a history lesson. Mr. Obama’s opponents – I assume from his Republican affiliations that the author is an Obama opponent – continue to underrate his knowledge, judgment and courage, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The tough talk in support of Israel in the Bush years (W and HW) has not brought the two sides to the negotiating table. Blame either side, blame both sides, but negotiations are not moving forward. President Obama’s change in emphasis, which unequivocally reiterates and continues US policy toward the State of Israel since 1948, is a risky but perhaps wise opening to enable Palestinian representatives to negotiate a settlement with Israel. If there is to be a settlement, it will happen because the two sides think that sitting down and talking will get them what they want. To the extent that Mr. Obama can encourage the two sides to believe that negotiations will be fruitful, he is taking a small step to the establishment of peace, and he does not any further history lessons from anybody.