If you are so smart then where did the Palestinian Refuges come from?

I take it as an honor to have a rating of -36 on this forum given the brillance of comments I've read here that seem to ignore history.

They came from Palestine, which is now called Israel. So you want to send them back to Israel. Great solution!

Palestine as a state - hmmm
The area that Israel and Palestine are in has been according to references been called Palestine since at least 450 BC to 1948 AD

The Palestine state boundaries were defined by the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of 1920 and the transjordan memorandum during the British Protectorate. The Jews took the land from the Arabs in 1948, much like the US did to the indians, and renamed it Israel. This was done based on promises made by the Disraeli government in exchange for financing the British Government by Jewish Bankers as well as a means for Europe getting rid of its holocast guilty as well as for other reasons.

Consequently the Palestinians aren't asking for anything new but rather set right a wrong they have suffered at the hands of the Western World because they didn't have the money to out bribe the politicians.

This isn't about right or wrong but about money for campaigns and the fact that the US Congress lives in terror of the Jewish Lobby in America.

Let's remember that Israel was craved out of the Palestinian state in 1947 as a sop to European guilt and the bribery of politicians by jewish bankers. Since then the US as expended a considerable amount of dollars in support of Israel in part due to the mau mau tactics of IAPC and other jewish lobbying groups. Israel continues to build settlements in Palestinian territory contrary to UN resolutions. Just as the American settlers who encorached on the indian reservations had a right to self-defense so do the illegal jewish settlers have a right to self-defense even though they are an impediment to peace. I for one am tried of the US squandering both our money and our foreign policy interests because congress is held hostage by IAPC or whatever their acronym is. If Israel doesn't want to compromise then let them be hard headed on someone else's dollar.

I will assume that you have never been there. I accepted the accountability and liability of being responsible for their safety and well being while at troop meetings and camping trips. But I can't and shouldn't be in the tents with them. Teachers and youth-group leaders (paid) generally have specific training for unique circumstances.
Perhaps you should volunteer to lead a group of kids with little help from other parents and then reconsider you post.

ACLU is attempting to punish the BSA with indirect action. They are not complaining they are acting.

I think it would be a good thing for the BSA to change their policies and it would be nice if people came up with proactive ways and provide tools and training so volunteers who are not child welfare specialists would know how to deal with these issues.

Solutions would be a lot nicer than indirect retribution

Boy Scouts and gays is a very complex issue and direct confrontation by the ACLU on local levels is not likely to result in much progress. I've been a scout master and a post adviser to one of the first co-ed high adventure explorer posts. I was also a cub scout, boy scout and explorer. I also have a gay step son.
As a scout I witness the cruelty of kids to overweight scouts (me) as well as to those who appeared different. As a scout master of a tri-cultural troop with an economic spread ranging from poverty to very affluent I can testify to the difficulty of balancing the difference and teaching the basic values of scouting. I'm an engineer not a sociologist nor a pyschologist. While I would have no problem as an individual accepting a gay young person I know I would have consider problems as a scout master ensuring that he would be safe and accepted. This is an additional burden including the liability issues that as a volunteer I wouldn't be willing to accept. I also don't think the organizational structure of the BSA is willing to accept that sort of liability either. They have enough problems screening scout masters. Instead of attacking an organization that on the whole does a tremendous amount of good perhaps the energy and money used to sue would be better spent to seek compromise, solutions, and education. The ACLU pulled a similar stunt here in Santa Fe with United Way such that United Way pulled their funding from local BSA districts. As a result a number of people stopped giving to United Way and gave directly to BSA. The achievement of the crusade was to create a more divisive environment.

At least she has clothes on. That is a visual I DON'T want to see airbrush or not

The US has a policy about hostages and just because 3 stupid people go hiking in dangerous territory is no reason for the US or Obama to do anything different. The policy:
The State Department's Fact Sheet from 1995 - "International Terrorism: American Hostages
Fact sheet released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State, October 17, 1995..

U.S. Government Policy

The U.S. Government will make no concessions to terrorists holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage. It will not pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies, or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists.

Definition

Hostage-taking is defined under international law (International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, adopted December 17, 1979) as the seizing or detaining and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain a person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the seized or detained person. "

Live with it.