Ok, it's time for another hot, spicy, brutal, violent debate. Here's the topic: Should Israel assassinate Palestinian PM Yasser Arafat? I say YES. Here is why; Picture Israel as the US, and Palestinian terrorists as nazi-Germany. Now picture nazi-Germany without hitler, they would have stopped and given up. This is like the Palestinians. If Arafat is killed, the terrorists would have no one to look up to as their righteous leader. Of course they'll go in a frenzy of violence, but it soon stop afterward. Though, I'm not so sure if Arafat should be killed, because then violence would escalate, so it's a hard decision. Don’t say that Arafat should be given time to stop the terrorism, he’s had 15 years to do that. It has finally come to the time Israel steps up and says “no more bitch!”, and do some ass-whippin’. One thing I DON’T agree with is making a Palestinian nation. That’ll be the WORST thing, because not only would it take land from Israel, but most importantly, it would give the Palestinians and any other Arab country that wants to, a place to organize a real army to attack Israel. That’s what they really want to do, organize a full army to attack. Of course if that did happen, Israel would easily win, but no one in Israel wants a full-scale war. I think the only way to solve this battle is to assassinate Arafat, and wipe out the terrorist groups, primarily Hamas and several others. Don’t go into saying “it’s Israel’s fault, they keep cheating and lying”, come on, who’s the enemy? The civilized ones? Or the ones that blow themselves up? Yesterday, a Palestinian blew himself up at a Passover party, killed 20, and today, an 18-year-old Palestinian girl blew herself up at a supermarket killing 2 others! An 18-year-old!!! That’s sad. In a Palestinian newspaper printed yesterday (according to either Time or Newsweek magazine), it said that “Passover is the Jewish celebration of the murdering of children under the age of 10”, umm, ok…, a Saudi newspaper said “Passover is the Jewish Mardi Gras”. At least the Saudi is a bit kinder. There's really no right answer, there's pros and cons to both, and the only thing we can do is wait and see.
Another thing I wanted to say, which can be debated if you want. On the news a few days ago, they said there was an earthquake in northern Afghanistan, and that it killed more than 5,000 people. This is obviously very tragic, but the story was only 2 seconds long on the news. No pictures, no maps, nothing, just said “in other news today there was an earthquake in northern Afghanistan that has killed over 5,000 people. Now onto Pamela Anderson. She claims that she caught Hepatitis C from a past boyfriend…” That’s exactly what it said. I thought it was extremely rude to do that, only say it for a second, and go into Pamela Anderson’s disease. The death of 5,000 incident people is horrible, but because it happened in Afghanistan, people laugh at it. Well, probably not everyone laughed, I didn’t, but I just thought it was very disrespectful not to really say anything about it.
Let the pointless endless debate begin!
).
