1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

dublincelt

knackerwacker wrote: »

There would be less colateral damage if Hamas didnt use civilians for human sheilds to fire rockets from from. There is no nation (other then France) that would tollerate terrorists firing rockets at them from across the boarder, intentionally targeting civilians. Hamas needs to stop the indiscriminate killing, or the only place they will speak arabic will be in hell.

There is only one country doing the indescriminate killing and it aint Hamas. Do you even read the news or are you just delibrately trying to cloud the issue. I am not going to go back into it but Israel broke the ceasfire. ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE. Can you get that into your thick head or are you happy to watch Sky News and have a blinkered view?!!

Sand

The Irish Republic was formed on the basis of terrorism. Micheal Collin's 12 apostles were assassins who killed men in their homes in front of their friends and families.

Collins and the then IRA did not call this terrorism, rather urban guerilla warfare, but the fact of the matter is, his actions were designed to spread fear throughout the British occupying force (and the Irish who may inform on them).

However, Collins is celebrated now as a war hero. The victors usually write the history.

The latter terrorism in northern Ireland cannot be justified, nor am I trying to. I am merely stating that what the IRA did in the early 1900's to gain independence could and would be deemed terrorism by todays standards.

Some of the IRA [as opposed to PIRA] activities would be terrorism, however the assassination of military intelligence officers would not be.

Too many people confuse terrorism and guerilla warfare. Terrorism is deliberately targeted at civillians. Guerilla warfare remains within the laws of warfare by not deliberately targeting civillians. Its a significant difference and shouldnt be weakened.

What is the UN is there for, Israel should make use of it, but it does not want UN peacekeepers.

UN peacekeepers will not protect Israel and prevent Hamas from launching rockets into Israel. Can you honestly see the French risking their troops to protect Israel? If anything, the UN troops would simply be used as human shields for Hamas activities. The UN and its peacekeepers have no creditibility whatsoever.

Hence the pressure on Egypt to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.

Well didn't your Sinn Fein win government seats during the Irish conflict?

If you are referring to Northern Irish conflict, then no - the Provos never, ever served in any Irish government. And they remain dirty goods to this day, even Bertie Ahern, perhaps the slimiest politician in modern Irish history was shamed into ruling out any agreement with them.

They already did, they lobbed hundreds (source: Guardian) of shells into Gaza over a period, they killed dozens of innocents. This was long before last month.

Yep, in response to the thousands of rockets Hamas have fired into Israel. Long before last month.

Hamas and the people of Gaza are simply reaping the whirlwind they have sown. They engaged in a stupid, pointless rocket attacks on Israels civillian population. Israel endured years of this with restraint. None of our TDs called for the expulsion of the Palestinian delegate in response. Annie Lennox didnt make tearful pleas on TV for the rocket attacks on Israel to end. Nor did 160 page threads fill up with people bawling out the evil attacks on Israeli civillians.

Israel withdrew from Gaza entirely in 2005. A fine opportunity for Palestine to demonstrate what a Palestinian state could look like. So they did. Hamas. Firing rockets into Israel. A pure terrorist state. Any effort to improve the lot of Palestinians was ignored, Hamas priority was murdering as many Israelis as they could. And all this time, they were encouraged to do so, directly and indirectly by their so called friends across the world.

Finally, finally - Israel responds and acts to defend its citizens from thousands upon thousands of rocket attacks. Now suddenly people are concerned about civillians. Now people are suddenly concerned about war crimes and state terrorism.

To be honest, it says a lot about the value people place on the life of Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. To the point where no one places any pressure on Hamas to stop its attacks - everyone is agreed - Hamas is allowed to launch rocket attacks on Israeli civillians, but Israel is a monster if it defends itself.

Manic Moran

The Irish Republic was formed on the basis of terrorism. Micheal Collin's 12 apostles were assassins who killed men in their homes in front of their friends and families.

Collins and the then IRA did not call this terrorism, rather urban guerilla warfare, but the fact of the matter is, his actions were designed to spread fear throughout the British occupying force (and the Irish who may inform on them).

I went over this a couple of score of pages ago, but given it's unreasonable to expect people to go read back 150 pages to find them, I'll put up the Cliff's Notes.

The distinction in current terms between a 'terrorist' and an 'urban guerrila' such as Collins is in the choice of target. Terrorists tend to be fairly indescriminate about who gets caught up in the violence, Collins et al had specifically identified targets in all cases, all of whom had some link to the British government. That both rely on psychological effect for their primary purpose (and the example I gave was the attack on USS Cole, it was never going to militarily affect the US Navy to any consequence, but was intended more for political effect) is indeed true, but to call someone a 'terrorist' in ordinary conversation has a particular meaning which is not applicable to such cases.

NTM

Nodin

knackerwacker wrote: »

There is no nation (other then France) that would tollerate terrorists firing rockets at them from across the boarder, .

'And behold, from beneath the bridge did come....'

knackerwacker wrote: »

The difference is that the Irish are native to Ireland, while the Arabs are not native to Israel. .

Genetic study wrote:

The same study of Nebel 2001 also suggest that Arab Israelis and Palestinians together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously Christianized and later largely Islamized, then both ultimately becoming culturally Arabized. Another study [85] Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

Any comment?

Camelot wrote:

Its fallacies like this that really annoy me & perpetuates the myth that terrorism pays off ~ it does not pay

Only if you win. Ask the Israelis.

Sand wrote:

Hamas and the people of Gaza are simply reaping the whirlwind they have sown.

.....and, as was pointed out earlier, your logic means that by voting in Governments that have continued the occupation, the Israeli people have justified Hamas launching rockets into Israel. Bit harsh for me, but have it your own way.

Sand

.....and, as was pointed out earlier, your logic means that by voting in Governments that have continued the occupation, the Israeli people have justified Hamas launching rockets into Israel. Bit harsh for me, but have it your own way.

Whoooooosh.

Hamas and Israel could all be justified doing what it is they do.

It doesnt change that its terminally, recklessly, stupidly moronic for Hamas to engage in thousands of rocket attacks - which are totally ineffective in any military terms - on the greatest regional military power, provoking a totally predicatable retaliation. Right or wrong, its dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And Gaza is now paying the bill. If they want it to stop, its very simple - stop the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks are utterly pointless anyway - why does Hamas place so much value on murdering Israeli civillians that it will gladly trade hundreds, or thousands of Palestinian lives so it can have the opportunity to do so.

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

The distinction in current terms between a 'terrorist' and an 'urban guerrila' such as Collins is in the choice of target. Terrorists tend to be fairly indescriminate about who gets caught up in the violence, Collins et al had specifically identified targets in all cases, all of whom had some link to the British government. That both rely on psychological effect for their primary purpose (and the example I gave was the attack on USS Cole, it was never going to militarily affect the US Navy to any consequence, but was intended more for political effect) is indeed true, but to call someone a 'terrorist' in ordinary conversation has a particular meaning which is not applicable to such cases.

Not entirely true. Inthe 1916 rising the casualty rate was 318 dead and 2,217 wounded. Many civilians were included in those figures and it is very hard to swallow they were ALL victims of British fire.

Collin's IRA targeted and executed Irish civilians, including the RIC and the DMP (who were unarmed police) who were Irish catholic police, accused of betraying republican values. Policemen are still civilians. When hundreds of civilians are killed as a result of a guerilla war, I find it hard not to be counted as terrorism.

The attack on the Dublin Custom's office and the plot to assassinate the British Cabinet are both acts of terrorism.

PeakOutput

manic have you got a definition of civilian? from the geneva convention or otherwise? id be very interested to see what it says

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Whoooooosh.

Hamas and Israel could all be justified doing what it is they do.

It doesnt change that its terminally, recklessly, stupidly moronic for Hamas to engage in thousands of rocket attacks - which are totally ineffective in any military terms - on the greatest regional military power, provoking a totally predicatable retaliation. Right or wrong, its dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And Gaza is now paying the bill. If they want it to stop, its very simple - stop the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks are utterly pointless anyway -.

Without them, nobody seemed to be paying much attention to the slow strangulation to death of the place.........Certainly not my idea of a 'good idea' but its not without some logic.

Lemming

PeakOutput wrote: »

manic have you got a definition of civilian? from the geneva convention or otherwise? id be very interested to see what it says

Taken from here

Geneva Convention wrote:

Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population
Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population


1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

and in reference to part one there

Bespoke Article 43

Article 43 wrote:

Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War

Art 43. Armed forces


1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

and from point 1 as well:

Bespoke Genva Convention III articles 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6)

Geneva Convention III wrote:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

.....

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

paulaa

The Palestinians are entitled to defend themselves just as Israel are. Whether you like it or not Hammas were democratically elected by the people who saw them as the only ones looking out for them. Hammas once elected set up the institutions that all civilised societies, schools, clinics etc. Because those countries who shout the loudest for democracy, didn't like it when they got it, the government of Gaza was ostracised and deemed to be "illegal".

Meanwhile Israel continued to tighten the noose on an already dispossessed people, remember most of the Gazans were refugees from other areas of the Palestine who had been evicted from their land so that Israeli settlers could build their houses there. No compensation was ever paid to these people,eg. farmers whose olive groves and orchards were bulldozed, thereby depriving them of any way to make a living. 8000 Israeli settlers left Gaza in 2006 in the agreed withdrawal but then resettled more than 12,000 in the Palestinian West Bank.

They then set up a ring of steel around Gaza, the blockade. Nothing was allowed in or out without permission from the Israelis. There were frequent incursions from the Israeli troops. Food, medical supplies were held up, sometimes for days, electricity and water were intermittent because most of the desalinated water came through Israel and parts for the power plant were held up at the border. Anything that was produced in Gaza wasn't allowed out so businesses folded and the economy collapsed.

Then as we have seen over the last 3 weeks, Israel decided, while their protector Bush was still in office and partly as a vote catching exercise to keep Olmert and Co in power, to finish the job they had started 2 years before.

IMO the rockets are only the excuse they needed to carry out this annihilation of the Palestinians. A country with the most hi-tech killing machine and most very sophisticated early warning system in the world, were scared of home-made rockets, I don't buy that.


Anyway that's my take on the situation in Gaza after following ME politics for nearly 30 years.

GuanYin

Under international law, police officers and law enforcement agents are classified as civilians unless directly incorporated into the armed forces.

Ref - The Conduct of Hostilities Under The Law of International Armed Conflict - Yoram Dinstein, Cambridge University Press

PeakOutput

paulaa wrote: »

IMO the rockets are only the excuse they needed to carry out this annihilation of the Palestinians.

you really believe thats what they are trying to do? and if you do you really believe that the best way for them to do this is to send in their ground forces?

sounds to me that, in your own words,

A country with the most hi-tech killing machine

could eradicate 1.5 million people in such a densely populated area in way more efficient and cost effective manner

youcrazyjesus!

PeakOutput wrote: »

could eradicate 1.5 million people in such a densely populated area in way more efficient and cost effective manner

Yes be thankful Israel are stopping just short of undisputed genocide, they're very restrained.

paulaa

PeakOutput wrote: »

you really believe thats what they are trying to do? and if you do you really believe that the best way for them to do this is to send in their ground forces?

sounds to me that, in your own words,



could eradicate 1.5 million people in such a densely populated area in way more efficient and cost effective manner

Yes I do.
Public opinion is turning against this "war" even in Israel, with disagreement even in the government as to whether to continue or not. They cannot continue to just bomb from a distance as they need to have some of the "evil Hammas masterminds" to parade in front of an impressed and grateful electorate.
If the IDF politburo daily dispatches are to be believed they have to send ground troops in because they know that Hammas are trapped inside the city now.

They have until Jan 20th to do this because Hammas are still "bombarding them with rockets"

Of course they have taken steps to minimise casualties by not allowing the press into Gaza :rolleyes:

marco murphy

Sand wrote: »

Some of the IRA [as opposed to PIRA] activities would be terrorism, however the assassination of military intelligence officers would not be.

Too many people confuse terrorism and guerilla warfare. Terrorism is deliberately targeted at civillians. Guerilla warfare remains within the laws of warfare by not deliberately targeting civillians. Its a significant difference and shouldnt be weakened.

Who defines terrorism??

Jack Bauer999

Sand wrote: »

Whoooooosh.

Hamas and Israel could all be justified doing what it is they do.

It doesnt change that its terminally, recklessly, stupidly moronic for Hamas to engage in thousands of rocket attacks - which are totally ineffective in any military terms - on the greatest regional military power, provoking a totally predicatable retaliation. Right or wrong, its dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And Gaza is now paying the bill. If they want it to stop, its very simple - stop the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks are utterly pointless anyway - why does Hamas place so much value on murdering Israeli civillians that it will gladly trade hundreds, or thousands of Palestinian lives so it can have the opportunity to do so.

i think its a brillant strategy by Hamas,

1) All of a sudden they have turned from terrorists into freedom fighters becuase of Israel's being so stupid in slaughtering so many civilians.
2) Israel now look a big bunch of Nazi's and have lost so much credibilty
in the western world.
3) Who are the palestinian people going to blame for all this, its sure as hell
not going to be Hamas, this 'War' will more than likely swell Hamas numbers
along with the other terrorist groups in the area.
4) Theres going to be massive pressure on Israel now with so much critisim
coming from Governments everywhere, the UN even the Red Cross which
has never been as outspoken as before.
5) Hamas have slaughtered Israel in the PR battle, while dead Palestinian
children are being flashed across newspapers and tv stations around the world, Israel are constantly on the defence with the same lame excuses
that people are not buying anymore.

hamas rockets may be totally ineffective in military terms but they have
much more of an impact in every other term.

paulaa

IF anyone doubts the Israeli land-grab claims, have a look at this

http://www.friendsofsabeel.org.uk/images/Israel-Palestine_maps.jpg

TOMASJ

GuanYin wrote: »

The latter terrorism in northern Ireland cannot be justified, nor am I trying to.

the terrorist in the view of the nationalist & republican people in the six counties were the british forces,
as it was these people who suffered under brit thugs,

Latest case in point being Robert Hamill, (findings at an inquiry just yesterday) after 11 years of campaigning by his family,
Murdered by loyalists while british forces watched from 10 yards and aided and abetted the perpetrators

Time will be the judge of who were the terrorists in the six counties the IRA or the british army.

TOMASJ

The Israeli Army today shot a Hamas terrorist aged 4 years a young girl,-(thank God still alive) - and was able to describe how an Israeli solider/terrorist - after watching her for a short while fired two rounds into her leg and upper body.

How much lower can you go Israel?

Manic Moran

Under international law, police officers and law enforcement agents are classified as civilians unless directly incorporated into the armed forces.

Whilst this is true as a legal definition (despite widespread misuse of the term 'civilian' by US police instead of 'private citizen'), for the purposes of the warfare it is not an accurate distinction: The important criterion is 'combatant' or 'non-combatant.' For example, the Italian Carabinieri have a military role, but are not part of the military. On the other hand, the French Gendarmerie have are legally part of the military but work primarily in a policing role for the Ministry of the Interior. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police used to have a 'Regiment of Dragoons' which earned a few battle honours in its time before that unit was disbanded in the 1960s. Even the US Coast Guard, which until its transfer to DHS used to be part of Dept of Transportation, carried anti-ship missiles and could sink most navies.

In the most extreme case I can think of, since the West Germans were not allowed a military presence in West Berlin during the cold war, the Berlinpolizei had a Schwerekompanie (Heavy company) of Leopard 1 main battle tanks. Complete with a flashing blue light. A civilian force, but you'd be hard pressed to argue not a valid military target.

NTM

sceptre

TOMASJ wrote: »

Time will be the judge of who were the terrorists in the six counties the IRA or the british army.

The difference between illustrating a point with reference to Northern Ireland and driving the discussion to a discussion on Northern Ireland is rather significant. You're doing the latter. Please don't. I don't have a problem with a coherent thread on what you're doing but make it a different thread if you do.

Manic Moran

5) Hamas have slaughtered Israel in the PR battle, while dead Palestinian children are being flashed across newspapers and tv stations around the world, Israel are constantly on the defence with the same lame excuses that people are not buying anymore.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather lose the PR battle and have the other guy get slaughtered to 'really quite dead and not breathing' levels.

If the other side is past caring about public relations, you really need a Plan B beyond getting deaded. Otherwise, the victory is... well.. kindof pointless, really.

NTM

paulaa

TOMASJ wrote: »

The Israeli Army today shot a Hamas terrorist aged 4 years a young girl,-(thank God still alive) - and was able to describe how an Israeli solider/terrorist - after watching her for a short while fired two rounds into her leg and upper body.

How much lower can you go Israel?

Not much unless they start digging.
How many of the children that will survive this will be crippled and maimed both mentally and physically ? How many of them are orphaned I wonder.

On a different point that I forgot to put in my other post.
Another reason for getting rid of the Palestinians is the rich gas fields that the Palestinians own. They have not had the finances or the help to harvest this yet.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680

edanto

paulaa wrote: »

Another reason for getting rid of the Palestinians is the rich gas fields that the Palestinians own. They have not had the finances or the help to harvest this yet.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680

That's something very interesting that I hadn't heard of before.

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst this is true as a legal definition (despite widespread misuse of the term 'civilian' by US police instead of 'private citizen'), for the purposes of the warfare it is not an accurate distinction: The important criterion is 'combatant' or 'non-combatant.' For example, the Italian Carabinieri have a military role, but are not part of the military. On the other hand, the French Gendarmerie have are legally part of the military but work primarily in a policing role for the Ministry of the Interior. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police used to have a 'Regiment of Dragoons' which earned a few battle honours in its time before that unit was disbanded in the 1960s. Even the US Coast Guard, which until its transfer to DHS used to be part of Dept of Transportation, carried anti-ship missiles and could sink most navies.

I think the most important part of the wording quoted was incorporation in the structure of whatever military you are talking about. The Carabinieri, Gendarmarie, RCMP Dragoons, & the US Coast Guard are (or were at one point in some cases) incorporated into their respective national military structures despite having civilian roles/duties as well.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather lose the PR battle and have the other guy get slaughtered to 'really quite dead and not breathing' levels.

If the other side is past caring about public relations, you really need a Plan B beyond getting deaded. Otherwise, the victory is... well.. kindof pointless, really.

While a bit of a moot point and cold comfort for the dead, dying, and the bereaved, it's possible to lose a battle in order to win a war and not all wars are won on the battlefield. Indeed, I could point to Vietnam being lost not in Vietnam but on US soil (to take an easy example and apologise for any off-topic meanderings).

... not that I'm suggesting that Hamas are some sort of devious Machavellian strategists or anything. Clearly they're not.

paulaa

edanto wrote: »

That's something very interesting that I hadn't heard of before.

The strange thing is edanto, the original link that I had bookmarked has disappeared sometime in the last 3 days.

It was on the US Dept. of State Blog website ........

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/ent...stinian_peace/

Manic Moran

While a bit of a moot point and cold comfort for the dead, dying, and the bereaved, it's possible to lose a battle in order to win a war and not all wars are won on the battlefield

True enough, but on that note, to quote a fairly intelligent woman.

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel

NTM

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

True enough, but on that note, to quote a fairly intelligent woman.

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel

NTM

No, the war in the Middle East will end when the occupation ends.

BlaasForRafa

paulaa wrote: »

Not much unless they start digging.
How many of the children that will survive this will be crippled and maimed both mentally and physically ? How many of them are orphaned I wonder.

On a different point that I forgot to put in my other post.
Another reason for getting rid of the Palestinians is the rich gas fields that the Palestinians own. They have not had the finances or the help to harvest this yet.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680

globalresearch.ca is not an unbiased source.

for example heres them complaining about the bbc being pro israeli...anyone who thinks the beeb is pro-israel would need to be pretty mad http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9307

more whining from globalresearch http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11664

alarmist claptrap http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11743 (hmmm globalresearch...ever think Israel might be using lots of bunker busting bombs at the moment...they might be useful against tunnels no?)



Heres a funny one http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11520 (like jews in Iran could be expected to say anything pro-israel without ending up beaten/shot/raped...etc.

eoin5

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel

She didnt use much of her intelligence in that statement unfortunately.