Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Gilad Shalit Solution



There has been a great deal written lately about the failed efforts to make a deal with Hamas to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas and held in captivity for 998 days, and it's become a major politicaL issue in Israel.


For almost three years, he's been held incognito. The Red Cross has not been permitted to see him. He's has had no contact with anyone and there is no news about his physical condition or the conditions under which he's being held. Simply put, like every other Israeli captured by the Arabs, he's been treated as less than human.

The Shalit family in particular has been critical of the Olmert government for failing to pay whatever price Hamas asked to bring Shalit home..although they cam pretty close to doing exactly that, including releasing 450 murders convicted in Israeli civil courts with what the Israelis refer to as blood on their hands.

This issue resonates in Israel because of its citizen army, because of a long standing Jewish history of ransoming captives and because of the IDF's tradition of leaving no one behind.

The problems with Shalit started, as far as I'm concerned, once Israel started 'negotiating' with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah on these matters during Ariel Sharon's tenure as prime minister, and it's gotten worse since Olmert took over. We've seen things like child murderer Samir Kuntar released from Israeli custody in exchange for the tortured and mutilated bodies bodies of two Israeli servicemen who were kidnapped by Hezbollah, the act along with Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel that precipitated the Lebanon War.

We've also seen numerous good will releases of Arab terrorists during Olmert's tenure as 'gestures' to bolster Fatah capo del tutti Mahmoud Abbas, something that was equally as worthless as the millions of dollars spent by the west to try and provide Abbas with some kind of legitimacy.

As much as I sympathize with the Shalits, trading people like these for one Israeli soldier who may very well be returned dead in a box is a recipe for failure and a horrendous precedent for the future, and Hamas has already said as much. The price just keeps going up, both in terms of how many murderers being released it will take to ransom future kidnap victims and in terms of the number of innocent people who will be victimized by the released murders in the future.

Actually, there's always been a simple way to get Gilad Shalit home, and in one piece. Hamas, among the green hats they wear are also politicians who have to deal with constituents, some of whom have family members in Israeli custody.

If I were dealing with this, I would simply have sent a public message to Hamas to release Shalit unharmed with 48 hours, or Israel would start releasing its Palestinian prisoners in its own way until he was freed...one about every half hour from an airborne helicopter over Gaza, each with a nice piece of pork in his mouth.
And if Hamas did not release him, I would have 'freed' two hundred fifty prisoners in exactly that fashion...as a lesson for the future that kidnapping Israelis was not good business.

Had that been done, Gilad Shalit would likely have been home in one piece a long time ago.

When one deals with the sort of degenerate gangsters happy to welcome into their society the murderers of innocent woman and children, one has to speak in a language they understand.

And for the record, I proposed exactly the same solution 2 years ago.

Selah.


7 comments:

Anat, Israel said...

Joshua,
We cannot do this. You know, Geneva Conventions and all that.

Freedom Fighter said...

Ma nah Mim Anat,

I don't see why not.

The Geneva Convention was signed for one reason only - to provide an incentive for nations to trewat each other's prisoners humanely.

It was remarkable chiefly for the non-compliance of certain signatories. Ask anyone who was a prisoner of the Germans or Japanese during WWII.

Also, since Hamas is NOT a signatory and has made no pretense of affording Gilad Shalit even the most basic consideration, and since these prisoners are mostly murderers convicted in civilian court for murdering civilians, I fail to see where the 'Geneva Convention' applies in any respect.

Drop a few greenhats from a helicopter over Gaza with a piece of pork in their mouths where their pals can see and not only would Shalit be free ASAP but Hamas would forego kidnapping in the future..and they might just have a lot more problems recruiting homicide bombers without the reward of the 72 versions to look forward to.

It would certainly work better than swapping live murderers for dead IDF soldiers murdered in captivity.

The Torah is a very good guideline on how to deal with Amalek and his minions.

It's very important to speak a language your enemy undestands if you want to get the point across.

And it's not like Israel is getting any credit for the humane way it treats these criminals now...b'emet?

B'Shalom,
Rob

Nameless Cynic said...

See, Rob, here's the problem. You want to see the world in black and white. And to do that, you're willing to ignore all the shades of grey.

Isreal is good. Always. (White.) The Palestinians are bad. Again, always. (Black.) And you're unwilling to bend on this. Nothing the Palestinians do can be anything but reprehensible. Nothing the Israeli's do can be wrong. At worst, "some mistakes have been made," but they can be ignored for the bigger picture.

By definition, though, in order for there to be a conflict, there have to be at least two conflicting sides. And you're only looking at one of them.

(Let me get ahead of your slowly building ad hominem attack. I don't give a particular damn about either side in this conflict. I think that they're both wrong.)

Let's back away from this for a minute, and use a hypothetical example.

There'a a town in northern Oregon called Loomis. It's not a particularly big town, but there are people who've spent their whole lives there. Their families, for generations, lived there. One of these people is named Bob. In1975, he turned 25. He grew up in Loomis; he swam in a stream nearby, he spent the fourth of July in a field watching the fireworks, he ran through the backyard with a tennis racket and smacked junebugs. Life wasn't perfect, but it was good.

Now, here's where we get hypothetical. Let's say that, back in the 70s, the Quebecois from Canada, to end their conflict with the Canandian government, were relocated to Loomis. Bob and his family weren't given a choice: they were told "this is what's happening. If you don't like it, you can leave."

(I know, this wouldn't happen in America. I said "hypothetical," right? But keep that feeling. "This shouldn't be happening." That's how Bob feels, too.)

Now, Bob may have sometimes complained about what he had, but it was his. He drove his Chevy down Bleeker Street and gassed up at the Quik-Serve. He drove to the McDonalds and had lunch, and then went back to work at Smith's Garage.

But all the damned Canadians have taken over, and things start changing. The Quik-Serve goes out of business and a dry cleaners opens up called something stupid like "La Chemise Nettoy." And now you can't get gas unless you drive across town.

The McDonalds is sold to some damn Frenchy, and it ends up as some stupid bakery and cheese shop, and instead of frying burgers, when you walk by it and somebody walks out, it smells like moldy feet. Who the hell wants to eat something that smells like that?

Things are changing, and Bob doesn't like it much. Keep thinking about Bob - that's the point of this exercise.

Smith closes his garage, and it gets bought by some guy named Gaston, who plays some stupid music with horns and violins. Bob keeps installing carburetors, but now it's for Gaston, who barely speaks English.

Now, how does Bob react to this? How would you feel? He hates it, but what can he do? The government said that the Frenchies are here to stay. And it isn't like he can move away - even if he could afford to, they're up in Gresham and over in Sandy, too.

So Bob has to live with it. He doesn't like it, but he's a God-fearing, law-abiding citizen. He learns to adapt.

His son, though, Tom, is raised hearing stories about how life used to be, with the fireworks and the junebugs, before the Frenchies screwed it all up. And Tom has to go to school with the Q'beckers (that's what he calls them when they aren't around - and sometimes when they are). And then, when he's 20, his dad gets run over by a drunk driver named Pierre.

How does Tom react? He grew up angry and hating the Canadians anyway. They took the home that should have been his. They're dirty. They smell bad. And now they killed Bob. But what can he do?

He can get drunk.

And one night, he's looking for the controller for his Atari (remember, this is the 80s now), and he finds a picture of his dad, about 12, with some guy in uniform. His grandfather, who went to Vietnam.

And behind that, in a couple of boxes, is his granddad's stuff. Some uniforms, a couple of souvenirs from Vietnam.

And a gun.

Tom had never been to Canada. He didn't know anything about the fighting in Quebec. And neither did Tom. All they knew is that the Frenchies were just given their town, had just taken over, the town where Tom and Bob had both grown up.

What do you think Tom would do next? What would you do, if your country was invaded and taken away from you? Would you just sit and take it? And keep taking it? Or would you eventually fight back?

Now, let's make it less hypothetical. The town isn't Loomis, Oregon; it's Abasan, in the Gaza Strip. Tom's name is actually Omar, and he's Palestinian. And the guys who took over weren't from Quebec - they're a bunch of Jews, most of whom speak German.

And Tom (Omar) is just doing exactly the same thing that you would in hte . He's fighting for his country, which was taken away from him before he was born.

Don't think about the Israeli side for a minute. You aren't from Israel. It doesn't matter if anybody says "It's their native land - the French used to hunt and trap here, back in the 1850s."

That doesn't matter to you - you grew up here. The French didn't - they were gone before you were born. As long as your family has been here, it's been America (Palestine).

How would you react? What would you do, if you were Palestinian?

Did you ever see Red Dawn?

Like I said, there's two sides in every conflict. And maybe the other side has a viewpoint that's equally valid. Once you get past that, maybe it could change how you look at the whole conflict.

For instance: "Also, since Hamas is NOT a signatory and has made no pretense of affording Gilad Shalit even the most basic consideration, and since these prisoners are mostly murderers convicted in civilian court for murdering civilians, I fail to see where the 'Geneva Convention' applies in any respect.

Drop a few greenhats from a helicopter over Gaza with a piece of pork in their mouths where their pals can see and not only would Shalit be free ASAP but Hamas would forego kidnapping in the future..and they might just have a lot more problems recruiting homicide bombers without the reward of the 72 versions to look forward to."


But they aren't Hamas - they're just a bunch of guys who used to get together to drink and bowl. Like the Masons. They just got tired of their lives getting turned upside down, and they decided to fight back.

Yes, they killed a couple of people, so of course they were "convicted in civilian court." Remember, people die when you're fighting for your way of life. Finish this sentence: "You can't make an omelette __________"

Freedom Fighter said...

Well, Hello Cynic.
I hope all's well.

Your comment is instructive in that it reveals the mistaken viewpoint a great many well-meaning people have about the
Arab-Israeli conflict. It's based on a lack of knowledge of the history of the region, which is why your analogy unfortunately doesn't hold water.

I'll try and explain, using the situation as you've laid it out.

For one thing, 'Bob' likely didn't grow up in `Loomis' , and he never owned a home there. Contrary to popular fiction, there were always Jews in 'Palestine' even before Israel. During Ottoman times, it was a desolate, depopulated wasteland except for Safed, Jerusalem ( both with large Jewish majorities, according to the Ottoman's own census)and Jaffa, a small mostly Arab port.

In the latter 19th and early 20th century, Jews from Europe began coming back to Palestine in response to the Chelmnitsky pogroms which killed a third of the Jews in Europe and the Dreyfuss case, which convinced a lot of European Jews that they weren't going to assimilate into European society no matter what.

The Turks encouraged this, because the Jews were willing to pay outrageous prices for land that was virtually worthless and because they had already seen that the Jews in Jerusalem and Safed tended to be properous, hardworking and taxable.

Once they began building farms, businesses and jobs, the 'Bobs' began to come back to Palestine from places like Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and the Hejaz. (Yasir Arafat, an Egyptian is a good example).

Second, you're forgetting a little something. The borders of pre-1967 Israel were merely ceasefire lines that occurred after the Arabs rejected a UN partition plan that the Jews accepted, even though it turned Jerusalem into an international city. And not only did the Arabs reject it, they attacked Israel and tried to murder every Jew there.

Care to explain to me why Israel is responsible for a 'refugee' problem that was caused by seven Arab nations ( all UN members, BTW) attacking them? I guess that's what happens when you have oil and billions of dollars and people are prepared to accede to your hatreds and fantasies in order to get a piece of it. Guys like Jimmy Carter and Charles Freeman come to mind.

The real takeover and ethnic cleansing didn't happen in Israel, Cynic. It happened in the Arab World, where almost a million Jews were stripped of everything but the clothes on their backs and got out with their lkives, if they were lucky.They were almost all settled in Israel at Israel's expense, without a dime from the UN.Funny how that never gets mentioned.

That included Jews who legally owned land in Judea and Samaria (what you'd call the West Bank)in places like Gush Katif and Ariel ( you know, those 'settlements')and East Jerusalem, which is how we got the 'traditionally Arab East Jerusalem' so beloved of CNN and al-Reuters.

In contrast, over 100,000 Arabs who stayed in Israel became full citizens and participate freely in all aspects of Israeli life, including serving in Israel's Knesset. Some of them (the Druse, Bedouins and Circassians) serve with pride in the IDF, next to Jews.They wouldn't have it any other way.

During the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation, none of the people you think of as the 'Palestinians' so much a squawked about another Palestinian state until Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 in another attempt to drive the Jews into the sea...and lost. The same is true of Gaza, except there the Arabs were crammed into UN administered 'refugee camps' because their Arab brothers wanted them there as a permanent grievance club to use against Israel.Same in Lebanon. Read up on Ein al hewar, a camp where people deemed to be 'Palestinains' are virtually kept in jail by the Lebanese government.

Having tried to annihilate the Jews several times unsuccessfully, the guys who lost at the casino are now demanding their money back..even though they've already gotten back 80% of the land they lost in `67. It wouldn't fly in Vegas, but Obama and his friends seem to like the idea, as long as it's at somebody else's expense.


And would it surprise you, Cynic, to learn that thousands more Arabs have been killed or expelled by their Arab brothers than by those evil Israelis? It's true. You claim to have served in Iraq and Kuwait. Maybe you're even aware of what happend to the Palestinians living there. And then there's Black Septemeber, where King Hussein killed at least ten thousand people and drove a whole lot more over the border into Lebanon.

Lastly...I have to tell you I find your comparison of the kind of murderers Israel is holding to a bunch of masons to be pretty offensive, to say the least.And I only excuse it because it's obvious that you just not aware of what you're saying.

You have to have seen grown men weeping as they pick up kid's body parts and put them into plastic bags after a homicide bombing..while you can hear the 'Palestinians' just over the border ululating and celebrating their latest 'operation'. You have to see what an infant looks like with nail shrapnel wounds and an oxygen mask on. You have to smell it up close.

The fact that the Israelis haven't done their own little ethnic cleansing is little short of miraculous.

These are cold blooded killers who deliberately targeted non combatants, including kids. They've used child soldiers, and Red Crescent ambulances to transport homicide bombers and explosives And they have had a number of American citizens as victims as well.

Masons, Cynic? Would you want these people loose in your neighborhood? The 'Palestinians' do, which says a great deal about them.

Dealing with them the way I suggested would be downright merciful, considering what they've done. And of course, all Hamas would have to do is let Gilad Shalit go free to stop it.

Oh, and being an American, why would I give a crap? Here's why, any feelings of right and wrong and basic morality aside.

And you should too, by the way. If you served in the Gulf War and Iraq, the IDF likely saved your personal assets by taking out Saddam's reactor at Osirak. Even though they didn't do it for you.

Nameless Cynic said...

You know, that's a fascinating view of history you have there. The one I gave was specifically slanted to show the "other side" - the popular viewpoint of the common Palestinian. Yours? Well, "slanted" is still a good description, I guess. Let's see.

In the latter 19th and early 20th century, Jews from Europe began coming back to Palestine in response to the Chelmnitsky pogroms which killed a third of the Jews in Europe and the Dreyfuss case, which convinced a lot of European Jews that they weren't going to assimilate into European society no matter what.

Basically correct. But you're leaving out a few details.

There have been 5 major waves of immigration to Israel. The First Aliyah was in 1881, with Jews fleeing the Eastern European pogroms; this added about 35,000 people to the population of Palestine. The Second Aliyah took about a decade, starting in 1904, and brought about 40,000 Jews to Palestine. In both cases, about half left within a decade.

The Third (1919+) and Fourth (1924+) Aliyah brought about 100,000 Jews to Palestine (roughly 125,000 total, with only around 25,000 leaving). (I think the plural might be aliyot, but I'm not sure.)

The Fifth Aliyah was primarily triggered by the rise of the Nazis, and brought 250,000 Jews to Palestine by 1940. Now it gets tricky, because the waves of immigration didn't stop - they just stopped numbering them.

Think about the population pressures here - people you don't want coming into the area; then, just when you get used to them, they leave again. You've started selling your produce to them, maybe ramped up production, and they're gone. I'm figuring you can guess where this might cause some stress.

But the Jews leaving was only a minor annoyance; mostly, the influx was in, not out. In fact, by the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine, up from 11% in 1922.

Then, between 1948 (when the Jews kicked ass on 5 different countries who invaded) and 1958, the Holocaust survivors and Jews from neighboring Arab countries increased the population of the region from 800,000 to 2,000,000. This was what I was referring to by the "Quebecois settlers" in Oregon, and the government declaring that they belonged there.

I pretty much ignored the comings-and-goings of the Palestinian people - that's a problem that isn't really easily reflected in American society. The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949; add in all descendants, and the number of refugees now stands at around four million. Palestinian negotiators, most notably Yasser Arafat, have so far insisted that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967 (including those within the 1949 Armistice lines) citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as evidence.

So the Palestinian viewpoint is that they belong here, their parents (or more often, grandparents) were born here, and this is their land, which they were displaced from.

Once they began building farms, businesses and jobs, the 'Bobs' began to come back to Palestine from places like Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and the Hejaz. (Yasir Arafat, an Egyptian is a good example).

That's one way to look at it. Or, you could say that they were kicked out or fled the fighting, and have been trying to return ever since.

The official story of the Israeli government is that during the 1948 War, either the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state, or that the Palestinians were trying to escape the fighting out of fear.

The Palestinian story is that refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and by the Israeli army, and they were following a plan that had been established before the war. So historians are still arguing about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus.

The legal justification vs. the historical justification gets all tied up in knots about here (I'll just steal this next part directly from wikipedia)

- Several authors included in the broader New Historians assert that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun.

- The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put.

- The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed by some as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left.

- The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return.

Second, you're forgetting a little something. The borders of pre-1967 Israel were merely ceasefire lines that occurred after the Arabs rejected a UN partition plan that the Jews accepted, even though it turned Jerusalem into an international city. And not only did the Arabs reject it, they attacked Israel and tried to murder every Jew there.

Or, alternatively, "In 1967, as a result of the Six-Day War, Israel gained control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights. Israel also took control of the Sinai Peninsula, but returned it to Egypt as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty."

And then you lump all the Arabic countries together as "the Arabs." And though they're mostly bad, each country is slightly different.

In the summer of 1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum in response to the war, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached consensus that there should be no recognition, no peace and no negotiations with the State of Israel, the so-called "three noes".

Egypt, for instance, launched the "War of Attrition" in 1969, to get Israel to surrender the Sinai. (The war ended in 1970, when Nasser died.) Then, in 1973, they worked with Syria to launch the Yom Kippur war, which lasted about three weeks. But then in 1979, Jimmy Carter got them to sign the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty (you remember, the whole Camp David thing). They're really the only success story of the region, though.

Lastly...I have to tell you I find your comparison of the kind of murderers Israel is holding to a bunch of masons to be pretty offensive, to say the least.

Feel free to manufacture all the false outrage you want. That seems to be your SOP anyway. If you can get all spun up when I was trying to put a more human face on them, rather than the faceless mass of ghouls that you prefer to think about, you just knock yourself right out.

Masons, Cynic? Would you want these people loose in your neighborhood? The 'Palestinians' do, which says a great deal about them.

Yes, and thanks for making my point for me. It says that they consider them friends, family, cousins, and neighbors, fighting against a common enemy.

These are cold blooded killers who deliberately targeted non combatants, including kids.

Yup. SOP for a lot of combat. Surprised you aren't aware. After all, the Israelis do it, too.

And no, I don't understand a culture with suicide bombers either - fairly common guerilla tactic, though.

If you served in the Gulf War and Iraq, the IDF likely saved your personal assets by taking out Saddam's reactor at Osirak.Way before my time, Rob. Sorry about that.

Freedom Fighter said...

Speaking of standard operating procedure Cynic, yours appears to be a selective ignoring of facts combined with a really kinky moral relativism.

And I'm pretty tired of it.

Your first point is a good example. Why would Arabs have any say in how many Jews moved to Ottoman Palestine, especially as they didn't own it themselves? That is, unless you embrace the idea that Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in certain places simply because they're Jews.

That's essentially the Arab viewpoint and the one you appear to espouse.

The Fifth Aliyah was primarily triggered by the rise of the Nazis, and brought 250,000 Jews to Palestine by 1940. Now it gets tricky, because the waves of immigration didn't stop - they just stopped numbering them.

Your full of it, Cynic. The Brits wanted to appease the Arabs and they didn't much care for Jews anyway, so they cut back severely on Jewish immigration while allowing unlimited Arab inmigration. The Brits finally cut off all Jewish immigration to Palestine on the eve of the Holocaust, thus becoming complicit ( like the Arabs)in the death toll that resulted.

Since you like international law, what about the League of Nations Mandate the Brits were supposed to abide by to facilitate a state for the Jews?

An dwhat about the 1923 agreement th eBrits made with the Jews an dth eLeague that Jordan was going to be the Arab 'Palestinian' state, and th eJews were to have everything west of the Jordan?

And you misread or deliberately miscontrued my point here:

"Second, you're forgetting a little something. The borders of pre-1967 Israel were merely ceasefire lines that occurred after the Arabs rejected a UN partition plan that the Jews accepted, even though it turned Jerusalem into an international city. And not only did the Arabs reject it, they attacked Israel and tried to murder every Jew there."

I'm talking about 1948 here, Cynic, when 5 seperate UN members illegally attacked Israel after the Jews accepted the UN partition plan.What happened in 1967 occurred because of a second atempt by the Arabs to annihilate the Jews...and believe it not, Jordan did attack Israel in that war after hostilities commenced, because they believed Nasser's BS about how he was winmning a great victory and wanted to get in on the spoils.

Looks like you only like international law when it suits you.

And that includes parroting the standard BS about 194, the key partof which is 'agreed to live in peace' which has never ever happened.You also conveniently forget about Resolution 224, that makes no mention of a Palestinain State or of any BS 'right of return'. That's fair, because if the Jewish refugees are unable to return or get compensation for their losses why should the Arabs?
Especially since most of them did indeed leave voluntarily. Why do you think those 'refugees' carried those famous house keys with them?

Oh and you might also want to revisit your numbers. The last Brit census showed about 550, 000 Arab residents in what became Israel, and we know about 100,000 decided to stay there. As usual, the 'Palestinians' are exagerrating their numbers, mostly because they get aid dollars on a per capita basis. And
even the original UNRWA workers acknowledged that a lot of indigenous Arabs showed up as 'refugees ' for the free grub, housing and medical care who never set foot in 'Palestine.' You really need to stop using wikipedia for a source...they'll print almost anything.

an dyou still haven't given me any logical or moral reason why Israel should be made to deal in the least with a refugee crisis of that involved both Jews and Arabs that was only created because the Arabs refused to abide by th eUN resolution that created Israel and tried to take it all for themselves.

Finally we come to your moral relativism on Arab terrorism. 'Fake outrage?' You unmitigated asshole. You know nothing about me and you have no clue what you're talking about.

To compare the IDF and it's operations to the way the Palestinians have deliberately targeted non-combatants exactly what I'd expect from you at this point. You ought to hang your pointy little head in shame.

Oh, and by the way bubba - the UN acknowledged finally that Israel didn't bomb that school , but went after combatants OUTSIDE the school. Just another case of those peaceful Hamas guys using kids as human shields.

But of course if an anti-Semitc rag like al-Guardian says so, it must be true eh?

FTR, I don't consider all Arabs 'faceless ghouls'..just the one who make heroes out of people like Hamas. And at this point, I'd include you.

If the 'Palestinians' chose to embrace a bunch of genocidal thugs as heroes and role models, they deserve anything that happens to them.

Choices have consequences.

I'm pretty much done with your lame, bigoted Leftard gibberish at this point Cynic. Take a hike and don't come back.

Oh, and I'll finish off with this - the IDF did indeed save your worthless ass, Cynic if you served for twenty years like you say and did tours in Kuwait and Iraq. Imagine taking on Saddam if the Israelis hadn't bombed Osirak and he had nukes.

Anonymous said...

All cynics are idiots, and this one is no exception.

We need the Jews in Jerusalem in order for the Second Coming to occur. It's right in the New Testament. How can he be so blind?