DEAL WITH THE DEVIL: WHAT DO THEY WANT? HOW ABOUT THREE FOR THREE?
I saw a Syrian spokesman on the PBS NEWSHOUR last night, and couldn't believe what I heard. This guy was saying that Israel "kidnapped," or "illegally detained" over 9,000 Palestinians, among them the 9 Palestinian Hamas legislators. I wasn't born yesterday, and can see this for the load of crap this is.
I have an idea: why doesn't Israel offer a three for three trade of the "hostages?" The Syrian spokesman seemed to make a big point of how small a trespass the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was, and how awful the arrest of the Hamas legislators was. Doesn't it stand to reason that any exchange of "prisoners" should be a fair trade, and not a ridiculously unbalanced exchange?
The Hamas legislators should be worth much more, in relation to the Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah, of course, doesn't give a s#!t about the Hamas legislators, or the Palestinians. Lebanon is facing the consequences of not fighting the terrorists in their midst, after giving Hezbollah free reign in the south of their country, and continuing to permit terrorist training camps in the Bekka valley.
Further, I take issue with the whole "illegaly detained" charge against Israel. I don't know of any society that has lived under such circumstances that has not had restrictive arrest policies. Any body, national or international, that criticizes this policy is hypocritical, because they would probably use harsher methods if they were the targets of this kind of terrorism (Or they would run, like the UN did after one big terrorist attack in Iraq).
I suppose I should thank PBS for broadcasting the Syrian representative's propaganda, but I resented them putting the Syrian on second, giving him the opportunity to rebut the Israeli spokesman, but not vice-versa. They had a good panel debate after the interviews, with Bill Kristol getting a few words in. I still don't understand why libs are so reluctant to condemn this terror, other than hatred of Israel. WHY? Maybe because they're a US ally?
I have an idea: why doesn't Israel offer a three for three trade of the "hostages?" The Syrian spokesman seemed to make a big point of how small a trespass the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was, and how awful the arrest of the Hamas legislators was. Doesn't it stand to reason that any exchange of "prisoners" should be a fair trade, and not a ridiculously unbalanced exchange?
The Hamas legislators should be worth much more, in relation to the Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah, of course, doesn't give a s#!t about the Hamas legislators, or the Palestinians. Lebanon is facing the consequences of not fighting the terrorists in their midst, after giving Hezbollah free reign in the south of their country, and continuing to permit terrorist training camps in the Bekka valley.
Further, I take issue with the whole "illegaly detained" charge against Israel. I don't know of any society that has lived under such circumstances that has not had restrictive arrest policies. Any body, national or international, that criticizes this policy is hypocritical, because they would probably use harsher methods if they were the targets of this kind of terrorism (Or they would run, like the UN did after one big terrorist attack in Iraq).
I suppose I should thank PBS for broadcasting the Syrian representative's propaganda, but I resented them putting the Syrian on second, giving him the opportunity to rebut the Israeli spokesman, but not vice-versa. They had a good panel debate after the interviews, with Bill Kristol getting a few words in. I still don't understand why libs are so reluctant to condemn this terror, other than hatred of Israel. WHY? Maybe because they're a US ally?
Comments