Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Letter to Representative Lois Frankel in Response to Her Vote Against Peace

My Congressional Representative, Lois Frankel voted against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which forces Iran to divest itself of nuclear weapons in return for having sanctions against it removed.  I feel that this deal should go forward and to have my representative vote against it does not meet with my approval.  To that end, I contacted her office (by email) and told her I wanted her to vote in favor of the proposal.  She did not, however the measure passed without her.

The following is her letter to me explaining her decision, as well as my response to her.  I apologize for the length but each letter is about two pages long.


Dear Mr. Gavin,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the P5+1, European Union partners, and Iran.  I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond. 

Let me start with the obvious: Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, lending support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Assad regime in Syria.  As disturbing, if Iran becomes a threshold nuclear state, it is expected that other countries in the Middle East will seek nuclear weapons, leading to proliferation throughout an already unstable and dangerous region.

That's why the vote on the nuclear deal with Iran was one of most important votes I have faced in my public career.  In that regard I spent the 60-day review period, allotted to Congress by law, engaged in intensive and thorough hearings, briefings, and discussions with administration officials, colleagues, constituents, as well as global leaders. 

I believe that a diplomatic solution is the best course of action and value the tireless dedication of President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the U.S.-led negotiating team in that effort. With that said, I voted against approving the deal because I felt that it legitimized Iran's nuclear program after 15 years and gave Iran access to billions of dollars without a commitment to cease its terrorist activity.  It was a price too high to pay.

As members of Congress we placed ourselves in a complicated situation by weighing in after a deal had already been agreed to by top U.S. negotiators, five partner nations, Iran, and the United Nations.  It is an agreement that even ardent supporters admitted was far from perfect, but argued that rejecting it would entail sobering consequences, including isolating the United States on the international stage, unraveling sanctions without any gain, and allowing Iran back on the path of building a nuclear weapon.

As wrenching as this vote was for some lawmakers, it does not compare to the agony of the men, women, and children suffering at the hands of Iran's terrorist regime.  With this nuclear agreement, the Iranians will receive billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and future revenues that undoubtedly will be available to intensify their support of horrific activity aimed at innocent human beings.

Stripped of its technicalities, this deal essentially rewards—in fact, enables— a terrorist regime without extracting sufficient concessions. Concessions that could have made me support the resolution of approval would have been permanent nuclear disarmament and a cessation of non-nuclear terrorism. 

The release of sanctions without requiring a stop to terrorist activities is disturbingly counterproductive. We will be releasing billions to a destructive terrorist regime, while spending billions trying to keep peace in the Middle East. And we will be financially rewarding high ranking officials of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who have rich interests in businesses that will profit from the sanctions relief. 

The U.S. government classifies the Islamic Republic of Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism.  Iran has a long history of sponsoring terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel.  Iran's proxy Hezbollah, the first terrorist organization to use suicide bombing in the Middle East, has killed hundreds of U.S. citizens and Israelis at home and abroad.  Iran also lends support to Hamas, the Taliban, and militias in Iraq.  By supplying weapons, bombs, and militia to Assad in Syria, Iran is in large part responsible for the greatest humanitarian crisis of recent times.

There should be no doubt why Israel, our best friend and greatest ally in the Middle East, has determined that Iran poses an existential threat.  Iran's Supreme Leader has not only called for the annihilation of Israel, branding it a "cancerous tumor," but reportedly recently published a 416 page book detailing the means by which Israel's effacement should be achieved.

In 2006, Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets and missiles at towns and villages across Northern Israel.  With their augmented arsenal courtesy of Iran, Hezbollah now points over 100,000 missiles at Israel with launchers strategically placed in densely populated areas throughout Lebanon.

Since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas terrorists have fired more than 11,000 rockets into Israel with Iran's support. Over five million Israelis are currently living under threat of these attacks.  In Sderot, located less than a mile from Gaza, children, 75 percent of whom suffer post-traumatic stress disorders due to the violence, have less than 15 seconds to seek shelter when rockets are fired. 

New reports indicate that Iran is funding the rebuilding of Hamas' sophisticated tunnel network to attack Israeli civilians.  Despite sectarian differences, Tehran and Hamas are united in their call for the extinction of Israel.

While the struggle of Israel has been at the forefront of the Iran deal debate, the horrific stories coming out of Syria must not be ignored.  Iran props up the brutal Syrian dictator Assad who carries out mass torture on his own population in order to maintain power.  Barrel bombs with nails and chlorine, sarin nerve gas, starvation, and rape are just a few of his sadistic methods of repression.  His regime is responsible for the deaths of over 250,000 people and the displacement of 10 million from their homes as they try to escape in terror, pouring into neighboring countries and Europe.

The world has witnessed their desperate plight: thousands fleeing for freedom, children's lifeless bodies washing up on shore, refugees suffocating in trucks.  Along with the moral calamity, displaced Syrians are straining the resources of nearby countries and Europe.

What's more, Assad's brutality has become a rallying cry for ISIL recruitment.

Proponents of the Iranian nuclear agreement argue that it was never meant to address Iran's terrorist and expansionist activities—that only nuclear related sanctions will be lifted and those aimed at terrorism will continue to be enforced.  The tradeoff proponents advance is unsatisfactory: at best a 15 year delay on nuclear enrichment,  unlocking the next generation's door to a wealthier emboldened Iran on the threshold of nuclear breakout. 

As you may know by now, after a vigorous and contentious review, Congress did not block the JCPOA. All parties to the deal are apparently moving forward with its implementation. Now, it is time for those of us on both sides of the debate to work together to make sure that Iran lives up to the agreement and stops its carnage of terrorist activity.

Thank you again for sending me your thoughts.   I encourage you to visit my website at http://frankel.house.gov/ to read my policy statements and learn how I voted on past legislation. 

It is a privilege to serve you as Representative for Florida's 22nd District.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with other issues that concern you in the future.  I welcome your input as I share ideas with my colleagues in the 114th Congress.    

Lois Frankel Member of Congress

My reply to her follows:

Dear Lois:

In response to your letter of October 2, explaining your reasons for voting against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), I have to say that I am appalled. Your reasoning and logic do not take into account certain relevant facts, and I have to wonder if you are truly that misinformed or if you choose to believe lies that support your opinions.

You mention Iran's support of both Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah was formed in Lebanon in 1982 as a reaction to the ILLEGAL invasion of that country by Israel. It was created as a direct response to Israeli hostility and were it not for Israel, that organization would not exist.

Hamas was formed in Palestine in 1987, coming out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. Again, this organization was created as a reaction to the ILLEGAL actions of Israel, this time in stealing land from the Palestinians.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee it is vital that you understand this history and that you understand that the actions of Israel in the Middle East have exacerbated the hostilities in that region.

You claim in your letter that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Yet, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel, who is NOT a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) currently has 80 nuclear warheads. Why are we allowing ANY non-NPT country to have nuclear weapons? Why have we singled out Iran and completely ignored Israel?

You claim that Iran supports the Assad regime in Syria, which is true (Iran uses Syria to funnel weapons to both Hezbollah and Hamas), however Iran is not responsible for the crisis in Syria today. Syria is. This is a civil war and even if Iran were to completely divorce itself from that country, the war would continue. Iran did not start it. It was a dictatorship that is being fought by its own people. Civil wars are horrible things; our own country had one. But they can also be necessary and they resolve themselves over time. Iran's intervention in the war in Syria is no better or worse than our own. They just happen to be on the other side and there is no right or wrong side in this war. The best we can do for Syria is to open our own borders to the refugees. We should strike the Assad forces because of their use of chemical weapons, but beyond that, this is a war for the Syrians to fight themselves. We cannot prevent Iran from participating any more than we can prevent Russia from participating. What we could do is peacefully negotiate with Syria and Russia to step back and allow the Syrians to settle this themselves. Which means we should also stay out of it.

You cite that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has written a book calling for the effacement of Israel. You fail to mention the man's name, however, or the title of the book. The book is titled, "Palestine" and yes, he does call for low-level warfare against Israelis to remove them from the land and regain it for the Muslims. This is one person's opinion, not the work of the nation of Iran. And I would expect that as an American you would respect the constitutional right of all people to Freedom of Speech. Khamenei is entitled to his opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. To cite this as a reason to vote against this deal is anti-American at best and treasonous at worst.

You state that since 2005 Hamas "terrorists" fired 11,000 rockets at Israel. What you fail to mention is that the majority of "rockets" coming out of Palestine are homemade. Why not face the truth, Lois? From 2001 until April 2014 rockets out of Gaza killed a total of 44 Israelis. From 2000 until 2014 a total of 1,198 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks throughout the entire region of Palestine/Israel. By contrast, 9,151 Palestinians were killed. Nearly ten times as many.

Let's break those numbers down further. In Israel 129 children were killed. In Palestine, 1,523 children were killed. Palestinians killed 731 civilians compared to the 3,535 civilians that Israelis killed. In Israel, 596 people died on their own land. In Palestine 6,756 people died on their own land.

The numbers do not support your claims. Palestinians are freedom fighters, trying to keep their lands and their lives in spite of a much stronger army that is invading them. Israel are the terrorists who are stealing that land. Since 1948, when Israel first became a state, not one inch of land has been taken back from then. Considerable land has been stolen by the Israelis and remains occupied to this day.

You consistently support Israel, even though Israel has been the cause of unrest in the Middle East ever since the Zionist movement began illegally taking land from the Palestinians. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee you MUST know this. If you do not, you are not qualified to sit on this committee and I call on you, as your constituent to remove yourself from this panel. If you do know this information, then I expect to see legislation presented to move forward a peace process in the Middle East.

To begin with, we must stop financially supporting Israel. A country that is able to stockpile nuclear weapons is not a country that needs our support, either financially or militarily. Today we give $3 billion annually to Israel. This is far more than we give to any other country and this needs to be reduced to zero. There is no reason for the United States to continue to support a terrorist nation. And yes, Israel is a terrorist nation. History has already proven that. In fact, to date the United Nations has passed 79 resolutions against Israel for illegal actions, and that does not include the nearly 30 additional resolutions against Israel that the United States managed to veto.

We must lead the United Nations and other military forces in enforcing Israel's 1948 borders; which means the withdrawal of ALL Israeli occupation from Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and all Palestinian lands outside of those borders.

We must lead the United Nations in the establishment of a country of Palestine, respecting the 1948 borders of Israel and work with all nations in the Middle East to ensure that WITH THESE BORDERS these countries all have a right to exist. We must work toward ensuring that peace ensues.

We must impose the same sanctions against Israel that we imposed against Iran until Israel relinquishes its own nuclear weapons program. It must divest itself of its current stockpile of nuclear weapons and disassemble its plants so no additional weapons are created.

I will expect to see this legislation coming from your office, Lois. You claim that your vote against JCPOA was because of the potential for terrorism in the Middle East, then I expect you to live up to your words. Stop Israel's state-sponsored acts of terrorism. Prevent Israel from any further violence against the Palestinians and Muslims of the Middle East. Ensure that Israel is made to live by the same rules of war as the rest of the developed world, something Israel has never done.

Anything less than this is unsatisfactory and will be met with your dismissal at the next election. And all of AIPAC's money will not be enough to help you to win when your constituents are confronted with the truth.


Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Disabled American Veterans

Today I received a mailing from the Disabled American Veterans.  This group routinely sends out address labels and holiday cards and then requests a donation, and they apparently do quite well with this endeavor.  The money they raise is then supposed to be used to assist disabled veterans here in the United States.

I say "supposed to be used" because I have often heard allegations from veterans stating that the organization does not help vets.  While I can neither prove nor disprove this, I can do a little research on my own.

Disabled American Vets (DAV) is a non-profit organization and as such, they are required by law to file a Form 990 with the IRS every year.  This form must list the salaries of the board members and highest paid employees of the organization.  For years now I have relied on this form to let me know if I should give to a charity or not.  My criteria is quite simple; if the organization is paying exorbitant salaries they don't need my money.

How do I define "exorbitant"?  I define it with a dollar amount.  I don't see that anyone working for a non-profit needs to be paid more than $75,000 annually.  Even in a major city, this salary is more than enough to live on.  Anyone who can't needs to take a class in money management because they're living beyond their means.

DAV does not do well based on my criteria.  The three highest paid members (based on their 2013 990 form, which is the most recent I was able to find) were paid more than $300,000 each.  Christopher Clay was paid the most at $354,139, followed by Barry Jesinoski ($320,055) and Marc Burgess ($319,888).  Of the top ten salaries, seven of them are paid in excess of a quarter of a million dollars per year.  In addition to those already named, the others are Arthur Wilson ($289,761), Joseph Violante ($276,574), Anita Blum ($273,137) and Susan Loth ($272,511).  Rounding out the top ten are Brian Coward ($234,112), Larry Palzin ($130,303) and Joseph Johnston ($117,781).  

These figures are all pulled directly from the Form 990 filed with the IRS for 2013.  Since this document is filed by the organization it is reasonable to assume that the information is accurate.  $2,588,261 that was donated to the organization was used to pay salaries of only ten people.  

I'll use the address stickers, and I might even use the holiday cards, but I will not be sending any money to this organization.  Any organization that would use my contribution to make its board of directors wealthy does not need my support.  Nor does it deserve my support.  An organization like this should be put out of business and I do hope that more people learn of how they spend their money.  Maybe that will help to eradicate this scourge on the public.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Immigration Reform

With the unrest in Syrbia and the economic difficulties of both Greece and Puerto Rico, there is a sudden surge in immigration throughout the developed world.  While the bulk of these are coming from the Middle East, the people of Puerto Rico are leaving their island and coming to the United States in larger numbers.  This has once again brought immigration back into the spotlight.  While Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, it is not a state and as such, its people should be treated the same as any other people entering this country.

Our current immigration system is broken and it has been for years.  It simply does not work and it's long past time to revise it.  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," are the famous lines from the poem, "The New Colossus" which is engraved on a plaque and is part of the Statue of Liberty.  As a nation, we should live by these words.  Living by these words must be done in such a way to be fair to the immigrants and fair to the Americans who welcome them.  I suggest the following:

Anyone who desires to come to America for a better life must do it legally.  They should visit their local American Embassy and fill out an application.  That application will then be reviewed, mostly for past criminal activity.  If there is a history of violent crime, the application is denied.  We do not need the criminals of other countries coming here to commit their crimes.  Those are not the tired, poor, huddled masses.

This background check should be completed within two weeks.  It does not take any longer than that to run a background check and extending that period only makes illegal entry easier than legal.  Run the background check immediately and be done with it.

Once the background check is complete and assuming no violent crime has been found, the application will be approved.  Approval means a visa to live and work in the United States.  The person then has 30 days to find a place to live and register with their local government with their American address.  Once they have done this, they will be able to apply for a Social Security number and a driver's license.  

Within the first six months the person must report to the local government that they have found employment or are attending school on a full-time basis.  They must report every six months to update their information and if they move, they must immediately notify their local government office.

In order to make this fair to the American people, no public benefits will be available to anyone who has not paid taxes for a minimum of ten years.  In the event of a child born in the United States, benefits are not available until their parents have paid taxes for ten years.  This includes welfare, medical, food stamps and all other public benefits.  If the person has not been working in this country and paying taxes, they are not eligible for benefits. 

Lastly, before any public benefits are paid to any immigrant, they must be granted citizenship.  If they do not choose to become a citizen of this country, they are not eligible to receive benefits from this country.  

This is the simple plan of immigration reform that I propose.  It would be equitable for all involved, it involves a path to citizenship and it eliminates the need for illegally entering this country.  

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  This is the wording of the second amendment as passed by Congress.  When it came to the states to ratify this amendment, it was changed slightly to; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Slightly different but the same general idea.

For decades organizations like the National Rifle Association have touted their "right to bear arms" as being a constitutional right.  In looking at the amendment, it certainly does give the right to bear arms but it does not give that right exclusively.  Look at the beginning of the sentence.  The part that organizations like the NRA ignore.  It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Remember, this was written at a time when the United States did not have much of a standing army.  We were not the most powerful nation on the planet yet.  And many people lived in what we would now call the wilderness.  They needed to be able to protect themselves.

All of that has changed.  Today we have a military.  We have police departments at the city, county and state levels.  We have a national guard.  We are very well protected and we no longer need individual citizens to make up our militia.  However, there is a large population of our citizens who believe that they still have the right to bear arms.

So, in all fairness, we must follow the amendment as it is written.  I propose that all gun owners must register their weapons with their local police department.  That registration is to be sent to the federal government where a listing will be kept of who has which weapons and where they live.  Once that information has been compiled, then it will be disseminated to the military recruiters throughout the country, who will then go to the homes of the gun owners and escort them to their nearest military base for basic training and to begin their service to their country.  

A militia is an organization of citizens who are required to assist the military in time of need.  Our citizens cannot assist the military if they are not properly trained and basic training will take care of that.  Of course they will be paid for their time.  They will receive the exact same payment as anyone else going through basic training.  Once the training is complete, they will be allowed to return to their homes and their jobs and their lives but they must report to their commander once per month the way any reserve soldier would.   They will report, gun in hand and serve their country.  This service is until death or for as long as they own a gun, whichever comes first.

This is the price for owning a weapon, as is spelled out in the constitution.  Since the gun lobbyists and activities insist on calling upon their second amendment rights, let them live up to what the second amendment actually says.  

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Why I May Not Vote For Hillary Clinton

Like most progressives I was very excited to see Hillary was going to run for president.  I believe it is long past time that we see what a woman can do as the leader of the free world and Hillary is the most qualified by far.  When she finally announced her candidacy, I was a little disappointed that her website did not have bumper stickers.  I went to another site (www.carryabigsticker.com) and they had Hillary stickers for $3.50 with free shipping.  I bought one and put it on my car.

While I was on Hillary's site, I did sign up to be kept informed and I made a donation to her campaign.  A few weeks later, I received an email from her site that they now had merchandise, so I went to look.  They did have bumper stickers, two for $5.00.  I decided that even though I already have one, I would like an official one, so I ordered it.  Or them.  Or I would have.  When I got to the shipping page I was informed that it would cost $5.87 for the shipping.  Of two bumper stickers.  When other sites ship them for free.  Two bumper stickers would easily fit in an envelope and could be mailed for less than fifty cents.  Why is the cost $5.87?

I asked the Hillary campaign this.  I received an email in return (without a person's name on it) stating that this is the way the fulfillment center is set up but that they are working on correcting it.  That was on May 27, 2015.  Today is June 11, 2015 and I went back and looked at the site again and the cost for shipping two bumper stickers is no longer $5.87.  It is now $6.09.  So, the way they fixed the problem was by charging more.

I told them that if they could not get the fulfillment center to ship the merchandise at a reasonable cost, then they should order the bumper stickers themselves and keep them in their office and if anyone is only ordering bumper stickers, the office can send them out for fifty cents (even though carryabigsticker.com is free) and that would be acceptable.  They never responded on why that was not possible, only that they were working to correct the problem, which they have by making it worse.

Is this a major problem?  No.  Is it a problem?  Yes.  Did Hillary fix the problem?  No.  Do we want a president who does not fix problems?  I don't think so.

But wait.  There's more.  Remember I said I signed up to be kept informed of her campaign?  What a mistake that was.  Three emails in one day.  And the campaign season hasn't really started yet.  And none of them gave me any indication of her platform or why I should vote for her.  They were all either to buy merchandise, to give more money, to enter a contest to meet Hillary, to host a party (Hillary would not be coming to it) or some other lame excuse to send an email.

Thank God for unsubscribe.  I am no longer receiving Hillary's emails.  At this point, I wonder if I am going to vote for her.  I seriously think if she wants the American people to vote for her, she needs to get in touch with us and reduce her shipping prices to reasonable pricing.  $6.09 to mail two bumper stickers is beyond excessive.

I think Hillary Clinton is out of touch with America.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A Not-So-Long-Ago Story

An invading army entered a country, killed many of its inhabitants and occupied the territory.  A small group of the people who lived in the country eventually rose up against the invaders and, using whatever means they could, fought back and drove them from their land.

This happened in the 2nd century BCE in Jerusalem when the Seleucid Empire attacked Jerusalem and occupied it as part of their country.  A small group of Israelites know as the Maccabees retaliated against them and were successful in driving them out.  This event is commemorated to this day in the festival of lights that we commonly call Hanukkah.

In 1987, after years of having their land confiscated from them by an invading force, a small group of Palestinians called themselves Hamas and began fighting back against the Israeli army.  The same geographic area and the same scenario yet the ancient fighters merit a festival while the modern fighters are branded as terrorists.

The men and women of Hamas are freedom-fighters trying to liberate their land from the hands of an invading force that would take it from them.  If someone tried to take your land, wouldn't you fight back?

It is disgraceful that in a nation that values freedom as highly as we claim to, we do not rush to the aid of the Palestinians.  Instead, our government financially supports Israel and places Palestine on a Terror Watch List.  These people are not terrorists.  They want to live in peace just as we do but Israel will not allow it.

It is long past time to end this.  Our financial support of Israel must end.  Our branding Palestinians as terrorists must end.  Our military support needs to be sent to Palestine to push Israel back behind the borders that were established in 1948.  Israel is not entitled to any land beyond those lines.

As the leader of democracy in the free world, it is our duty to protect the innocent men and women of Palestine and give them back their land.  It is our duty as peace loving Americans to help these people in their time of need.  

Anyone who does not know about this conflict and the true reasons for it, should read Arabs & Israel For Beginners by Ron David.  Also check out the website http://www.imemc.org for news on the Middle East told without the bias of American news organizations.  In other words; for the truth.

Another Case of Fraud In The Justice System

This is probably one of the worst cases of fraud that has ever blemished the American Justice System.  A jury in New York awarded $218.5 million in damages to the families of victims of suicide bombers in Israel in the early 2000s.  On the surface, this looks like a good thing but we need to see what's truly happening here.

The defendants in this case were the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority, which is now known as the State of Palestine (since 2013).  The jurors found that these two entities are liable for the deaths of Americans and under the Anti-Terrorism Act, they awarded them monetary settlements.

In the first place, did the bombers act under orders of the PLO or the State of Palestine?  Nothing in any of the news articles I could find proved that they did.  If these were lone bombers who were attacking Israel, then these organizations cannot be held responsible, any more than the United States is responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Second, the PLO did not exist until 1964 and the Palestinian Authority until 1993.  Both were formed out of a need due to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians.  How, then, is Israel not being held accountable for their part in this?  Had they not stolen Palestinian land, these organizations would not exist, and therefore no trial could have been held.  Israel is the proximate cause of this action, yet Israel is not being charged, as they should be.  Israel is a nation of state-sponsored terrorism and the United States continues to support them.

Third, how many of the jurors were Palestinian-Americans?  In our country, a defendant is entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers.  If Palestine is on trial, then Palestinians should be in the jury box.  If the Israel Law Center is allowed to represent the plaintiffs, then the jurors need to be Palestinians.  Otherwise, a fair trial cannot be guaranteed.  In this case, it certainly was not a fair trial.

Fourth, assuming that awards are merited (which is not certain by any means), how did they come up with this amount?  If all 33 victims were 35 years old and earning $60,000 per year, and all received a 5% salary increase annually until their retirement at 65, they would have earned a total of $131,548,923 or 60% of what the jurors awarded.  Why such a hefty increase over their lost earnings?

This is just one more example of Americans being uninformed and lied to.  Palestine has been the victim for decades and our government not only allows it, they sponsor it.  The Israelis need to be held accountable.  The Israelis are the root cause of the problems in the Middle East and the Israelis need to pay their fair share for damages done.

I say bring Israel to trial for these crimes.  Let the actual perpetrator of the unrest in the region be held liable for their actions.  I doubt very much that Attorney Yalowitz or the Israel Law Center will be much of a help in that regard.  They certainly don't care about justice.  They only care about harming Palestine.  Again.