Statistical help wanted

On Facebook, I linked to Bret Stephens’ article about the slaughter of the Fogel family in Israel (which is behind a pay wall).  In it, Stephens says that we in the West have essentially dehumanized the Palestinians by giving them a free pass for acting on their baser instincts:

I have a feeling that years from now Palestinians will look back and wonder: How did we allow ourselves to become that? If and when that happens—though not until that happens—Palestinians and Israelis will at long last be able to live alongside each other in genuine peace and security.

But I also wonder whether a similar question will ever occur to the Palestinian movement’s legion of fellow travelers in the West. To wit, how did they become so infatuated with a cause that they were willing to ignore its crimes—or, if not quite ignore them, treat them as no more than a function of the supposedly infinitely greater crime of Israeli occupation?

That’s an important question because it forms part of the same pattern in which significant segments of Western opinion cheered Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe and even Pol Pot. The cheering lasted just as long as was required to see the cause through to some iconic moment of triumph, and then it was on to the next struggle. It was left to others to pick up the pieces or take to the boats or die choking in their own blood.

A friend objected to the article on the ground that it made the Palestinians sound murderous, since “some” of them celebrated the death.  She said the vast majority of Palestinians just desire peace.  I responded that one wishes that was so, and pointed to polls from just last year showing that the majority of Palestinians think Jewish deaths are a good thing.  Her comeback, which I’ve edited slightly, went this way:  The majority of Palestinians weren’t celebrating the murders, only some were.  Also, the same poll to which I cited shows that most of the Palestinians oppose violence, but are so frightened of the PA that they feel they cannot criticize it.  She also said a more recent poll said that, while a clear majority of Israelis polled say they want peace, the Palestinians are so misinformed that, when polled, they say that they don’t believe that the Israelis actually want peace.

So if I understand it correctly, she’s saying that Palestinians are lying to pollsters about wanting to kill Israelis because they’re afraid of the PA.  The illogic seems to be to be that, if they’re that scared of the PA, why are they freely admitting that fear to the pollsters?  Either you lie across the board (hate Israelis/love PA), or you don’t lie (want peace/fear PA).   As to the Palestinians’ misunderstandings about Israeli goals, it still doesn’t seem to me to deny their blood-thirstiness.  It just gives them yet another excuse, which is precisely what Stephens was bemoaning.

What do you say?  And can you think of a polite way for me to make the points or, perhaps, even better points.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    You’re giving me, a Hebrew lesson Z as in chutZpah.

     
    Here’s another. All Hebrew words have a 3, 4, or 5 letter root word. Think of it as tree from which all words grow.
     
    Start with the root word: palash פָּלַשׁ
    This would be the 3 letter root word for any of the translations you supplied. I’ll even supply the definition of the root word:
     
    A primitive root; to roll (in dust) — roll (wallow) self.

  2. says

    Charles Martel: there are no “Palestinians.” There is no “Palestine.” 

    Of course there are. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: All the Palestinians need to do to have their own country and thrive is to say, “We will live in peace with Israel and foreswear all violence against Israel and the Jews”. Simple.

    What national boundaries? What about the rights of refugees? The settlements in the West Bank?
     
    SADIE: A primitive root; to roll (in dust) — roll (wallow) self.

    That’s right. It also means to spread, as in migration. The original Philistines were Greek migratory sea peoples. In any case, now you understand that the term is very ancient. 
     

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach, why don’t you’all ask Clinton about the deal he had made to Arafat, with Israelis support? All that could have been worked out but the Palestinians rejected it. However, they had to reject it: their primary objective is the destruction of the Jews and the return of Israeli territory to the caliphate
     
    [ a hudna shall now commence as the Zach gang furiously Googles and leafs through various rule books on international pontifications in order to craft a proper response ]
     
    Re. Palestine, there never was a Palestinian nation, only a province of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the non-Jewish inhabitants migrated there in relatively recent history. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Jews were the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem. Charles M is absolutely correct.
     
    Must be very comfortable there in your armchairs, Zach. Y’all really need to get out into the real world more.
     

  4. says

    Palestine: from L. Palestina (name of a Roman province), from Gk. Palaistine (Herodotus), from Heb.Pelesheth “Philistia, land of the Philistines.”

    Emperor Hadrian specifically renamed Judea to a name after the ancient enemies of the Jews, because he was pissed off at the Jews. Every ancient history should know this. Why don’t you, Z?

    Hadrian made it up. On a dime.

  5. says

    Danny Lemieux: why don’t you’all ask Clinton about the deal he had made to Arafat, with Israelis support?

    It was a missed opportunity. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: However, they had to reject it: their primary objective is the destruction of the Jews and the return of Israeli territory to the caliphate

    According to the poll that Bookworm cited at the top of the thread, most Palestinians would accept peaceful coexistence with Israel in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Most of the non-Jewish inhabitants migrated there in relatively recent history. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Jews were the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem.

    You conflated two statistics. Jews have comprised a majority of the population of Jerusalem over the last century, but not of Palestine/Israel. Arabs were the predominant population in the area until displaced by the 1948 war. 
     

  6. Mike Devx says

    It is amusing to me to see “intellectual discussion” going on here about polling among the Palestinians, when their official state-run media runs the most monstrous propaganda – in TV and in Print – against Israel and Israelis.  The worst of propaganda, especially on kids’ shows, worse than is seen anywhere else in the world.  And you want to discuss “polling” among the people???
    Zach: This is not inconsistent with what most Palestinians see as armed struggle in a just cause, though. [...] The majority [...] would support a U.S. imposed plan along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative. A plurality support armed attacks against Israeli citizens until peace is achieved.
     
    My question: When is an “armed struggle” NOT a war?  When is “armed attacks” NOT a war?  Subterfuge armed attacks can be carried out by a weak enemy whose “soldiers” hide in civilian clothing – is that reason enough NOT to treat it as an act of war?  Just because they’re weak?  If one is weak and one attacks the strong, is that not still an act of war?  Why should Israel not seek to win such a war?  If my enemy is attacking me, why should I be required to delineate his “level of weakness”?  He’s at 31% weakness; no, oops, he’s at 36.3% level weakness, still I cannot respond, for that is too low a delineation level!  Ooops, he’s now at 44.234% level weakness, NOW I’m allowed to respond!!!  Seriously, the enemy’s level of weakness is his problem, not mine.  That’s not MY problem, is it?
     
    As far as I’m concerned,if someone weak attacks me, they’ve simply made a serious error of judgment, that’s all, and they’ll be easier to defend against (and wipe the F#&#&CK OUT, by the way, due to their aggressive initiation of hostilities in the first place.)  And let me add that the state-run vicious propaganda program, advocating genocide, is enough of an indicator for me of deadly serious intent, as an act of war.)
     
    Zachriel never comes out and states their exact position on the Israel/Palestine issue.
    I’ve never seen so many “on the one hand/on the other hand” sets of ambiguous statements, purporting to set the record straight.  Objective?  Probably not.  Everyone has opinions, but Zach is refusing to disclose their opinions behind carefully chosen “commentary” that hides motivation.
     

  7. Charles Martel says

    “Zachriel never comes out and states their exact position on the Israel/Palestine issue.”

    And never will. Besides his theft of other people’s language, he hides his antipathies well. “Who, ME, a Jew hater?”

  8. Mike Devx says

    Charles Martel 62: Besides his [Zachriel's] theft of other people’s language, he hides his antipathies well.

    I’ve often noticed that those who think of themselves as intellectuals are guilty of rationalizations and self-delusions far worse and far more often than “the common people”.  I don’t really understand why this is so.  You’d think they would catch their self-rationalizations more easily!  But they don’t; the opposite occurs.  My suspicion is that they refuse to synthesize their higher-level conceptual considerations with concrete factual occurrences “on the ground”.  This makes most of their argumentation nothing more than floating abstract conceptual arguments, bereft of any considerations of reality.  We all used to do that in University, usually at 2 am when we were all on our sixth or seventh beer.  Arguing in circles… getting nowhere…  so sure of ourselves while so insulated in our ivory towers at such young ages; so consumed with our certain intellectualized conclusions, while completely lacking all experience and wisdom gained by interactions and actually living within the real world.

  9. Charles Martel says

    I suspect Asperger syndrome:

    Asperger syndrome or Asperger’s syndrome or Asperger disorder is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development.

    Works for me.

  10. binadaat says

    that’s why I’m bina daat. One is reflection (bina) that leads to understanding and wisdom.
    Rambam calls knowledge that isn’t connected to anything human, not to the heart or “values” as we would say today as meaningless. He says wisdom and understanding is when knowledge attaches itself to and intergrates with values. Rambam says true integrated knowledge always results in a change of behaviour. When a person knows something  he does something about it: He stops eating salt, or fried food, or he starts taking a walk, or votes democratic and cancels his subscription to the WSJ, or commits suicide to reduce his carbon footprint for the good of the planet, or pays rent to the Indians.
    I think of  knowledge by itself like a doll or marble collection.  Nice!, good work there, champ! but meaningless.
    Z is the guardian of the planet Jupiter, by the way.

  11. says

    Intellectual capacity must be trained and used properly, otherwise it’s junk cluttering up the freeways. Somebody’s going to get a flat tire trying to drive fast all in a hurry to go nowhere.
     
    Z consistently does not present the evidence and then make a claim that this evidence proves himself right or somebody else wrong. What he does far more often is to show some quote or link, and say that this speaks for Z’s righteousness.  Since the link isn’t arguing on behalf of Z, that’s rather hard to take at face value.
     
    So somehow Herodotus is now arguing on behalf of Z that Palestine is real and the Israelis wrong, when in fact Herodotus didn’t say a damn thing in favor of Z to begin with.

  12. says

    Mike, the Left doesn’t want a decisive conclusion. They want to bleed us. To do that, they need to prevent the match from being decided, so they give handicaps and advantages to the weak side, in order to prolong the chaos of war, the cycle of violence, and the dread of death.
     
    That’s what they call entertainment, Mike, the Left people so admire for their ‘social justice’.

  13. says

    Mike Devx: My question: When is an “armed struggle” NOT a war?  When is “armed attacks” NOT a war?  Subterfuge armed attacks can be carried out by a weak enemy whose “soldiers” hide in civilian clothing – is that reason enough NOT to treat it as an act of war?  Just because they’re weak?  If one is weak and one attacks the strong, is that not still an act of war?  Why should Israel not seek to win such a war?  

    Israel has every right to defend themselves, but if they want peace, they have to make peace with their enemies. 
     
    Mike Devx: Zachriel never comes out and states their exact position on the Israel/Palestine issue.

    Yes, we have. A reasonable two-state solution should be the goal, and will eventually be achieved. 
     
    Ymarsakar: So somehow Herodotus is now arguing on behalf of Z that Palestine is real and the Israelis wrong, when in fact Herodotus didn’t say a damn thing in favor of Z to begin with.

    The question was whether “Palestine” was a modern term. In fact, the term is ancient, and the Palestinians have very deep roots in the area, as do the Jews. They have to learn to live together. Palestinian terrorism only hardens the hearts of the Israelis, just as Israeli bombs harden the hearts of the Palestinians. It’s important to remember that many more Palestinian children have died in the last decade due to the conflict than Israeli children. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but blame won’t lead to peace.
     

  14. says

    The question was whether Palestine is an artificial construct, to which it is whether by modern or ancient standards.
     
    Since you show such deep admiration for roots, I’m sure you would also respect the roots of America’s Constitution and the lack of need for radical social change. But your incredible (not credible) inconsistencies on this matter, favoring age and tradition when it suits our enemies and favoring social chaos and upheaval when it suits your ideology, is unworkable.
     
    America is currently at peace with all Native Indian tribes, past, present, future, constructed, born, or made. Yet you poopoo America’s history with the Amerindians. And you poopoo Israel’s conflict with the palis. The fact is, America created peace with methods you poopooed, and now you want to use your own “advice” on the Israelis.
     
    Another way to run from reality and make your own inconsistencies as you go forth to slay illusionary dragons that do not exist, and cannot exist without your presence.
     
    Democrats never got rid of their KKK roots, yet they and you believe Democrats know the fix for racial peace in America. You and the Democrats have been restored a biosphere nor maintained one, yet you believe you and the Democrats know what is good to do on Global Climate Change.
     
    The sheer ignorance and arrogance presented here, is unworkable. And it has never been shown to work either. While that which does work, you force yourself to ignore. Because you don’t want to admit it works better than your way of doing things. Or rather, breaking things.
     
     

  15. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach claims “Israel has every right to defend themselves, but if they want peace, they have to make peace with their enemies.”
     
    This comment is so a** backwards and divorced from historical reality that it should stand on its own as a testament to ignorance and stupidity. Some good news, though: you can fix ignorance.
     
    No, Zach. Israel has tried and tried again to make peace with its enemies. What you don’t understand is that Israel’s enemies can’t make peace with Israel without destroying their very self-identity.
     
    That fabulous book that 11B40 put us onto (Comanches: The History of a People by T.R. Fehrenbach) made the same point about the Comanches in the old West: the Comanches could not stop murdering, torturing, mutilating, raping and enslaving people (Spaniards, Mexicans, Americans, other Indians) without giving up the very essence of their identity. Doing these execrable things was how Comanche men and women achieved their status in their tribe.
     
    The Spaniards, Mexicans, Texans and Americans tried for 300+ years to find accommodation with the Comanches but to no avail, because they couldn’t understand salient aspect of the Comanche identity. So, they had to be destroyed as a people. Sad but that’s the way it is. Today, both Comanches and non-Comanches are better off for it.
     
    Similarly with the Palestinians: the way they move up their social pecking order is by killing Jews: fathers, mothers, children and babies.

  16. Mike Devx says

    Zach: A reasonable two-state solution should be the goal, and will eventually be achieved.

    Fair enough, though rather vague.  And it is also true that Zach takes very strong opinions on global warming as well.

    And concerning Zach’s statement: “if they [Israel] want peace, they have to make peace with their enemies.” I will do an Obama and agree with Zach in my most weaselly, Obama-like, lawyerly-slippery, vomit-inducing way possible: Because the U.N. is thoroughly anti-Semitic, and because of the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the globe, Israel’s ENEMIES do not have to make peace with Israel to achieve peace; all they have to do is achieve success in performing the genocide of the Israeli people.  The peace and silence that would shroud the millions of dead Israelis IS a form of peace, one could suppose.  If the silence that would hover over the vast graveyard resulting from genocide could be called peace.  No, it is only the Israelis who, if they want peace, will have to find a way to make peace with their enemies.

    You will note, of course, that Zach did NOT say that if Israel’s enemies want peace, they will have to make peace with Israel.  It is the usual, sometimes subtle, argument from the left that this is Israel’s fault, that Israel must sacrifice, that Israel’s enemies are not to be held accountable for their actions.  Pardon me for stepping away, but that wonderful Palestinian kids show, run by their state government, is about to air an episode this morning – you know, that show that teaches Palestinian kids to murder all Israelis and compares them to vermin.  God, I just LOVE that show.

  17. suek says

    >>Arabs were the predominant population in the area until displaced by the 1948 war. >>
     
    There are consequences to elections, and there are consequences to wars.  The Arabs – including those who today call themselves Palestinians – chose the wrong side.  Those they supported in the war lost.  Their lands – their lives, even – were forfeit.  They were allowed to keep their lives.  They chose not to live in the land designated for the Israelis.  When they left those lands, they forfeited yet again.
     
    The Israelis have every right to destroy them – one and all.  The only thing that holds them back is their own sense of morality and – I have no doubt – a concern that they would cause world opinion to turn against them if they did.  The world seems against them in any case – they have, up until now at least, had the complete support of the US.  If they lose that, what else do they have to lose?  What will restrain them then?  If nothing restrains them, the Palestinians are gone.  They simply cannot stand against the Israelis in open battle.  They know it – which is why they play the games they play.
     
    It reminds me of my own kids when they were small … the smaller ones would pick pick pick at an older one, then the older one would get mad and whop them one.  The smaller one would then come running to me with the old “he hit me” routine.  Mom has to protect the smaller one – but not too much, because they need to learn that “actions (also) have consequences”.  If the Palestinians weren’t surrounded by their bigger Arab brethren (who originally goaded them into leaving Israel with a promise that they would eventually possess it all), they’d already be long gone.  The surrounding nations are “Mommy”…

  18. says

    The Spaniards, Mexicans, Texans and Americans tried for 300+ years to find accommodation with the Comanches but to no avail, because they couldn’t understand salient aspect of the Comanche identity. So, they had to be destroyed as a people. Sad but that’s the way it is. Today, both Comanches and non-Comanches are better off for it.

    The Comanches refused to accept that the only constant in nature is change. They refused to change and adapt to a new world. Thus the new world left them behind.

    They refused the white man’s way of life entirely, and so did many other tribes. Some tribes tried to assimilate or learn the white man’s ways and apply it to their own communities, but they failed. Some due to a lack of time, others due to the fact that the white man had centuries to build, and their people were just too slow once the 13 Colonies started expanding.

    It’s ironic how Leftists that like to call themselves Progressive, are in favor of the regressive Amerindian hunter-gatherer way of life. Humans left that life style tens of thousands of years ago. It’s about time, don’t you think, for progress, eh? But the tribes thought the white men were weak. And to a certain extent, they were right. But the true test of a civilization’s strength is in WAR. And obviously the white man wasn’t so weak in war.

    If two people are arguing about which fighting system is better, the only decisive proof they need is one person alive, and the other person dead. Pretty simple if they can’t come to an agreement socially.

  19. says

    During WWII, some of em were put to good use fighting on our side against the Nazis.
     
    The Comanches still had their pride as a people and they certainly have the motivation to fight and be aggressive, regardless of what other faults they had. So we made good use of them there. The power and righteousness of any land is based entirely upon how many groups of people they can get to work together for the common good. But it’s impossible to get everyone on the safe page, but you still have to make use of people as resources, rather than killing them or exiling them like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Chavez did and does.
     
     
     
     

  20. says

    Ymarsakar: Since you show such deep admiration for roots, I’m sure you would also respect the roots of America’s Constitution and the lack of need for radical social change.

    Prudence, indeed. 
     
    Ymarsakar: Yet you poopoo America’s history with the Amerindians. And you poopoo Israel’s conflict with the palis. The fact is, America created peace with methods you poopooed, and now you want to use your own “advice” on the Israelis.

    The historical treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. did not live up to America’s own ideals. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Israel has tried and tried again to make peace with its enemies. What you don’t understand is that Israel’s enemies can’t make peace with Israel without destroying their very self-identity.

    Israel insists on settlements in the West Bank, which many Jews consider part of their self-identity. Setting up armed camps within densely populated Palestinian areas undermines any realistic chance for peace. Both sides have vested themselves with unrealistic goals. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: That fabulous book that 11B40 put us onto (Comanches: The History of a People by T.R. Fehrenbach) made the same point about the Comanches in the old West: the Comanches could not stop murdering, torturing, mutilating, raping and enslaving people (Spaniards, Mexicans, Americans, other Indians) without giving up the very essence of their identity.

    The Comanches entered into several peace treaties, some of which were long lasting. Those that were broken often had very tangible reasons, such as territorial encroachment.
     
    Mike Devx: It is the usual, sometimes subtle, argument from the left that this is Israel’s fault, that Israel must sacrifice, that Israel’s enemies are not to be held accountable for their actions.  

    In fact, both sides will have to sacrifice. 
     
    suek: There are consequences to elections, and there are consequences to wars. 

    Yes, there are. However, in the long run, people have a right to self-determination. That applies to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians.
     
    suek: The Arabs – including those who today call themselves Palestinians – chose the wrong side.  Those they supported in the war lost.  Their lands – their lives, even – were forfeit.  They were allowed to keep their lives.  They chose not to live in the land designated for the Israelis.  When they left those lands, they forfeited yet again.

    Many Arabs were forced off the land by war, expelled by the Israeli army, and by the threat of Israeli terrorism. 
     
    suek: The Israelis have every right to destroy them – one and all.

    No one has a right to genocide.
     

  21. suek says

    >>Many Arabs were forced off the land by war, expelled by the Israeli army, and by the threat of Israeli terrorism.>>
     
    Sources please???
     
    I believe you are mistaken.  The UN granted the land to the Israelis.  Those who were there resisted the influx of Jews.  Understandable.  The arab countries encouraged the inhabitants to leave and settle in refugee camps with the promise that the Israelis would be dispatched shortly, and they’d be able to return to their homes.  Not all did.  Many stayed, and today enjoy a freedom greater than virtually any other arab country.  The arab countries who made the promises to destroy the Israelis were defeated and lost yet more land – some of which the Israelis have given back in hopes of obtaining peace.  Their mistake.  Peace will only come when the Palestinians accept their situation and _make_ peace.  As long as they are determined that the only good Jew is a dead Jew, there will not be peace.  They consistently make the judgment that it must be either Jews or Palestinians – not both.  The only way that will happen is if one group or the other is either dead or accepts defeat.
     
    How do you explain the fact that there are many – in fact, I think about 30% of Israel’s population – arabs in Israel, living in peace?  Why are there no Palestinians among them – or are there?

  22. suek says

    >>No one has a right to genocide.>>
     
    Everyone has the right to survival.  If “genocide” (and I dispute the term – these are not a genetically identifiable group) of one group is necessary for the other group to survive, then one group is going to get wiped out.
     
    Survival of the fittest, remember??  There is no morality in evolution.

  23. says

    suek: Sources please???

    There were many cases of expulsion of civilians during the 1948 war, such as the Lydda death march during Operation Danny, and the Deir Yassin massacre which spread fear among the Palestinians. There was a general panic. Even after the war, Israel expelled Palestinians from border areas. There’s a great deal of scholarship. These are not secrets. The only controversy is whether it was planned in advance. Yitzhak Rabin wrote about the expulsions in his memoirs
     
    suek: The Israelis have every right to destroy them – one and all.

    Zachriel: No one has a right to genocide.

    suek
    : Everyone has the right to survival.  If “genocide” (and I dispute the term – these are not a genetically identifiable group) of one group is necessary for the other group to survive, then one group is going to get wiped out.

    Killing “one and all” is not necessary for survival. And yes, killing every Palestinian, one and all, would be genocide.
     
    suek: Survival of the fittest, remember??  

    Fitness for social mammals includes compassion.
     
    suek: There is no morality in evolution.

    There’s no morality in gravity either. 
     

  24. SADIE says

    Binadaat (post #66) Kol Ha Kovod and worth repeating.
     
    Rambam calls knowledge that isn’t connected to anything human, not to the heart or “values” as we would say today as meaningless.
     
     
     
    Charles Martel (post #65)
     
    Side effects:  AGHAST- purger syndrome, resulting in the reader of Z’s comments having the urge to vomit.
     
     
     

  25. SADIE says

    You’re right, Charles Martel, I’ll let the words of a plague above the bed of Yoav speak:
     
    First responders who rushed into the blood-drenched bedroom of 11-year-old Yoav Fogel last Friday night were confronted with a sight that nearly stopped them in their tracks.
    A colorful little wooden plaque hung above the slain young boy’s bed, proclaiming his love for his people and a prayer for peace between all.
    The prayer above Yoav’s bed, written originally in Hebrew, reads as follows (in English):
    May it be Your will, L-rd G-d and G-d of our forefathers,
    That I love every one of Israel as myself, and
    To graciously perform the positive commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself.
    And may it also be Your will, Lord G-d and G-d of my forefathers,
    That you cause the hearts of my friends and neighbors to love me fervently, and
    That I be accepted and desirable to everyone, and
    That I be loving and pleasant, and
    That I be gracious and merciful in the eyes of all who see me.
    As water reflects face to face, so the heart of man is to man.
    And all for the sake of Heaven, to do Your will,
    Amen
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142938
     
     
     
     
     

  26. says

    Sadie, DQ might say that the absence of fulfilling those prayers means God is absent. I say it means that divine wrath is discharged through mortal hands and by mortal blood. To say that there is a God that allows such to happen, is the same as saying we don’t have a responsibility to stop it ourselves or to take punitive actions in order to deter future such incidents.
     
     

  27. Charles Martel says

    SADIE, I guarantee you that in all of “Palestine” there is not a single child who sleeps under a plaque like the one Yoav slept under. And that is the difference between the two nations: one is populated by civilized people and the other by semi-savages.

Leave a Reply