KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip — In the 12 years that he has lived here in the Abassam neighborhood adjacent to Gaza’s eastern border, Eyad Qudaih said, he had never ventured more than 20 yards east of his white stucco home because Israel said the entire area was off-limits.
But Friday morning, emboldened by the fresh cease-fire, he took his four young daughters 300 yards east, to the small plot of land where he dreams of growing wheat and malt like his father once did.
Comments
It's interesting to read Jodi Rudoren's "fixed" impression of Gaza after reading several of her "tweets" last week, referring to New York Times "fixers" whose job is to doctor stories with a spin that distinctly favors the viewpoint from Gaza rather than from Israel. But no matter - this is simply another example of the yellow journalism that has permeated the mainstream media whenever Israel does something objectionable, such as defend its security and the lives of its citizens.
Caroline Glick writes an excellent editorial on the ceasefire:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1112/glick112312.php3#.ULDSKoYt6Sp
The ceasefire agreement that Israel accepted Wednesday night to end the current round of Palestinian rocket and missile attacks is not a good deal for Israel by any stretch of the imagination.
At best, Israel and Hamas are placed on the same moral plane. The ceasefire erases the distinction between Israel, a peace-seeking liberal democracy that wants simply to defend its citizens from molestation, and Hamas, a genocidal jihadist terrorist outfit that seeks the eradication of the Jewish people and the destruction of Israel.
Under international law, Israel is not just within its rights to defend itself from Hamas. It is required to. International law requires all states to treat Hamas terrorists as criminals and deny them safe haven and financing. But the ceasefire agreement requires both the Israeli policeman and the Hamas criminal to hold their fire.