Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ISRAEL SAYS THAT it will accept an Egyptian truce proposal for Gaza, which has US backing, but Hamas appeared to reject the bid, as the death toll in the week-long conflict rose to 186 Palestinians.
The truce proposal came as Egyptian state media reported that US Secretary of State John Kerry was due in Cairo to discuss an end to the hostilities, and after Washington warned Israel against a ground invasion of Gaza.
US President Barack Obama welcomed the Egyptian initiative and described the deaths of Palestinian civilians as a “tragedy” while reiterating that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks.
“We are encouraged that Egypt has made a proposal to accomplish this goal that we hope can restore the calm that we are seeking,” Obama said at an Iftar dinner marking the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan in the White House.
“The pictures that we are seeing in Gaza and in Israel are heart-wrenching,” he added.
Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, intended to stamp out militant rocket fire, had killed 186 people in Gaza by late Monday — exceeding the toll in the last similar flare-up of violence in 2012.
Late Monday, Cairo announced a proposal for a ceasefire that would begin Tuesday, saying it was willing to host high-level Israeli and Palestinian delegations for talks after a truce went into effect.
“0600 GMT has been set for the beginning of the implementation of truce arrangements between the two sides,” the text of the Egyptian proposal, released late Monday, said.
But that deadline was likely to be delayed, with Israel saying its security cabinet would meet today to weigh the proposal.
Death toll tops 2012
With Israel’s punishing air campaign in its seventh day, the death toll in Gaza hit 186, higher than the 177 people killed in the last major round of violence in and around Gaza in November 2012.
Human rights groups say more than 75 percent of the dead have been non-combatants. The UN agency for Palestinian refugees says more than a quarter of them have been children.
The raids have prompted some 17,000 people to flee their homes, particularly in northern Gaza, with many taking refuge in UN schools.
Sixteen people were killed in strikes on Monday, far fewer than the 56 killed on Saturday, the bloodiest day by far of a campaign which began before dawn on July 8 with the aim of halting militant rocket fire on southern Israel.
So far, no Israelis have been killed. Four have been seriously wounded.
Originally posted 07:10
Can we please stop propagating the lies of the English media? Brexit did the damage, not the protocol.
@James Pelow: Very well said. They’re actually using it as a distraction. And it’s drawing us into something that has nothing to do with us. Brexit is the problem. End of story.
You can’t hold a poll asking people if they think the Protocol is good for Northern Ireland without clarifying what the alternative is.
That’s like asking a child if they think the settlement that their parents agreed to after divorce is good.
Let’s be clear… article 16 does not end the protocol. It can suspend a part of it for a short period of time. When the UK says it will trigger A16, call it out for what they want to do….they want to scrap it and force a border on the island of Ireland or a border between Ireland and EU. That’s their plan and I believe it’s been the plan all along. This mess has been made by the UK and the protocol is a plaster. The GB companies that send those goods that will never end up back in the EU (including ROI) need to be better catered for. The issue is that there is no trust between the UK and EU as, so far, the UK hasn’t implemented main parts of the protocol so all at risk goods must be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Ok theJournal…. Time to correct your headlines… “Is Brexit bad or good for firms in Northern Ireland?”
The protocol is a workaround to the main issue, Brexit..
While I’ve no doubt it has caused some legitimate disruption for businesses heavily linked to GB, how did the study take into account costs (for consultancy etc) that would’ve been incurred without the procotol because they also trade with the EU?
Or how did it take into account all the paperwork NI businesses save because they can trade with the Republic and the rest of the EU freely?
All these analyses seem to assume that trade with Ireland was either insignificant, or its continuity was a a given (neither of these are true) and that any disruption with GB is a cost without any quantifiable benefit (again not true).
It’s not the protocol that’s not working. It’s brexit that’s not working.
How dare the EU break away from the United Kingdom. They’ve made things very difficult for everyone, especially the Brits!
By leaving the CU and SM and going for a Sharia Brexit GB turned itself into a legal and regulatory Kaliningrad. Their call-their choice…If they hadn’t CHOSEN that there would be no protocol. They want a hard border in IRL or IRL out the the EU-they will get neither but what they will get is humiliation.
It is improving trade between north and south.
have your say