The answer is obvious


From The Jerusalem Post:

Prisoners may be anesthetized before force-feeding
Changes added to bill to make it safer for prisoners, but doctors still refuse to uphold it.
By LAHAV HARKOV | 06/18/2014 15:26

Prisoners who go on hunger strike may be anesthetized before being force-fed, if a bill on the issue passes its final vote Monday.

The Knesset Interior Committee prepared the legislation for its second and third (final) readings Wednesday, adding significant changes for the prisoners’ comfort and safety. For example only a doctor can administer the IV or gastronomy tube, and the procedure may only take place in a hospital.

Still, the Israel Medical Association instructed doctors not to uphold the law if it passes.

As such, many in the Knesset see the bill as impossible to implement and a form of posturing toward prisoners in an attempt to get them to stop their hunger strike.

The committee reached an article in the bill saying that a doctor should try as much as possible to get the prisoner to agree to be force-fed by explaining to him the adverse effects of his hunger strike on his health and detailing the force-feeding procedure. If the prisoner still does not acquiesce, the doctor can use reasonable force to coerce him into the treatment and must try to do so without causing pain and suffering.

More at the link.

OK, let me be blunt here:

  1. if the Palestinian prisoners starve themselves to death, the Palestinians will be outraged; and
  2. if the government force-feeds the prisoners, the Palestinians will also be outraged; but
  3. if the Palestinian prisoners do starve themselves to death, at least they won’t be problems any longer.

The answer is obvious: if the prisoners want to hunger strike themselves to incapacity or death, let them! Why interfere?


  1. In the early 1980′s some IRA terrorists held in a British prison threatened to go on hunger strike if their demands weren’t met. To her considerable credit, Margaret Thatcher basically said “Fine! Let ‘em starve!” and refused to cave in to their demands. One or two of them actually did starve themselves to death but the Iron Lady remained unmoved and the rest started eating again realizing their “Hunger strike” was going nowhere and that, outside of IRA circles, they were not getting the sympathy they were craving.

    Now THAT’s how you handle hunger strikes! The Israelis should take note.

  2. Okay, but how about:
    4. Don’t force feed anybody and let the bastards rot. The only people who would give a damn are the Palestinians and Perry. And frankly who cares about them?

    Or how about:
    5. Anyone who dies on a hunger strike will be buried in a pig carcass.

  3. Gee, Dana. I notice that you have engaged in an exchange with Little Miss Marxist on the Bridge My Gap site you maintain for him.

    I also noticed that you had expressed the wish that traceable microchips had somehow been introduced into the 5 terrorists swapped for the traitor Bowe Bergwhatever.

    Imagine if these Taliban became convinced that the very food they had ingested contained organic molecule based nanomachinery, which would lodge in and under the right conditions – being activated by a specific RF trigger which could basically be broadcast – emit signals from say, somewhere like the liver, where it would otherwise remain undetectable by all conventional medical scanning methods.

    In fact, it is not really at all farfetched. I would not be surprised if the technology is not already there. Certainly all the individual elements are.

    My oh my. What would they do … what would they do … Lay themselves on a granite slab for Allah, and start cutting?

  4. Well, the obvious answer is to be the first to volunteer for the next suicide bombing mission, but these were Taliban leaders, these were the higher ranking guys, and, strangely enough, it seems that the suicide attackers all come from the peons. The higher ranking men might encourage such noble self-sacrifice, but they encourage it in others.

  5. The higher ranking men might encourage such noble self-sacrifice, but they encourage it in others.

    You mean like leftists here in the US do regarding taxes, regulations, laws etc., etc.?

  6. When I first read this article, I thought I read a different word. I then glossed over it several times before I actually read the actual word actually used. And then I thought like Hillary said (albeit in slightly different circumstances). Anesthetize, euthanize. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    But chipping the terrorists? As a firm believer in the FACT of End Times Prophecy, I say: never, not even to our greatest enemies.

  7. Well, if refusing to eat isn’t going to gain them any concessions, the terrorists could always try holding their breath till they turn blue, smearing themselves with excretia, or gouging out their own eyes, or cutting off their own tongues, or ears, or some other body part. It’s entirely a personal matter, I’m content to observe, make snide comments, and to remain uninvolved. If it was up to me, I’d have already shot the lot of ‘em and been done with it.

  8. Ropelight wrote:

    If it was up to me, I’d have already shot the lot of ‘em and been done with it.

    But, but, but if civilized nations just shot the lot of ‘em and been done with it, then we’d have had no one to trade for Bowe Bergdahl.

  9. First of all to me the point is moot. I never took a prisoner. Secondly Bergdahl would have been listed as KIA had they sent me to get him.

  10. Speaking of trades, here’s an old joke, from back when Slick Willie was president:

    Clinton walks into the White house with a pig under his arm.

    Marine sentry: What’s with the pig, sir?
    Clinton: I got it for Hillary.
    Marine: Nice trade, sir!

  11. Obama has found a simple way to release OJ Simpson from prison in Nevada.

    All OJ’s gotta do is join the Taliban.

Comments are closed.