Editor, Times-Union:
I’m beginning to get a little sick and tired of the Israel slamming by commentators that are either ignorant, prejudiced as all hell or merely filling space with their commentary.
Thank you, Lonnie, for your “Stand With Israel” letter. You are right on.
Now, let's move on to Eugene Robinson, Washington Post employee. He has written several pieces on the Gaza problem and seems to feel Israel is responsible for all the mayhem in the area. The Palestinians agreed to have Hamas govern them. Hamas has always wrapped women and children around themselves for protection, storing ammunition and weapons in schools, residential areas and day care centers as they fire rockets into Israel. Palestinians accept this as perfectly all right until Israel gets fed up and fights back in defense of their women and children. Then Robinson makes the asinine remark that both Israel and Hamas seem willing to fight to the death of the last Palestinian civilian. Kerry is not only naive, he is a self-centered, lying egotistical ass. (Remember his comments following his stint in Vietnam?)
You seem to have the answers, Robinson. What is Israel to do? Refuse to fight back as the rockets continue to rain merely because Hamas (with Palestinian concurrence) fights from schools? I really liked your solution to the problem that has existed since Mohammad came on the scene. You believe Israel needs to merely offer Palestinians a brighter future under moderate leadership. Have you never read the Koran, Robinson? Or the Sira or the Hadith? Fully 60 percent of this trilogy deals with the treatment and eradication of Kafirs (Christians, Jews, Polytheists, idolaters, atheists, agnostics and pagans). Offer them a brighter future? Hamas has been the one to break every cease-fire to date. Doesn’t this register? You sound as naive and illiterate on foreign policy as Obama. Or, perhaps you are a Muslim merely practicing taqiyya (sacred deception).
You close by saying the United States should channel the radical Islamist impulse onto a constructive path. That’s not worthy of comment.
Greg Smith
North Webster, via email