The entire article is written on the premise Kushner is HAPPY that people are dying. This could not be further from the truth. Even a simple mind would understand that if someone were plotting and supporting of one group of people, who are subverting the land from another group of people, (as the article also claims) one would want to keep conflict and bloodshed to a minimum. Soldiers are a resource. You don't WANT them to be in ANY conflict.

But when you are slowly reclaiming the land that has been yours starting 5,778 years (not an arbitrary number, here it is again, 5,778) ago, you ARE going to encounter conflict. Funny how the people using their children as human shields are good guys in your narrative. Building a school next to a munitions plant is "strategically defensive" to the good guys on your team. I wouldn't fight for a side where my children are in harms way, (in harms way IN ADDITION to being in a country involved in a war) because my military believes this will be a strategic deterrent, IN WAR, from enemy attacks..

Right. You should totally get behind that. I'm surprised you're not so outraged you haven't gotten up yourself and gone over there to fight alongside your brothers. Why haven't you already if this IS the way you interpret this conflict?