Welcome Home

I always say. Do the research!! Todays events are only the reflection of yesterday. In the next few articles the issue of the Palestinians and the Palestinian refugees will be addressed. These articles will be based in fact and not emotion. In order to be an honest researcher, put away what you have learned off of the evening news and do some thinking from facts.

The beginning of the Palestinian issue begins way back during ancient Roman times. When the Romans conquered the Jews in 70 CE (Common Era aka A.D.) and destroyed the Temple, the Romans still had problems with the Jewish People. The Jewish People were not willing to give up their Land without a fight. So finally in 135 CE, the Romans had had enough. They wiped out the stronghold of Masada, and gave the Holy Land the new name of “Palestine”, named after the Greek Philistines of Bible fame, and scattered the Jews across the known world. This new “slave name” was created to break the connection that the Jews had with their homeland and to destroy the Jews as a People. As 2000 years of history has shown us, Rome is gone and Israel is back. However, the “slave name” stuck. Although the Jews were the original “Palestinians” we now seem to have a “new” Palestinian people.

It’s time to skip ahead in history to post-WWI. The Ottoman Empire picked the wrong side and its Empire was split up among the victors of the War To End All Wars. Part of the Empire was called “Palestine” or Greater Syria, which included what is now Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The Palestine Mandate was the area given to Great Britain to administer. The Mandate included what are now the countries of Jordan and Israel.

Up and through this time of post World War I, there were small communities of Jews living in the Land. The Jews had never even attempted to establish another homeland anywhere in the world. At the same time, the Land of Israel had waited for them. The Land had exchanged hands many times over the centuries, from the Romans, to the Muslims, to the Crusaders, and to the British to name a few. Amazingly enough, no nation had ever established a capital city or independent country in the Land and it was always part of larger empire.

At this time, the majority of Arabs in the area considered themselves Syrian. Who considered themselves “Palestinians”? Strangely enough, both Arabs and Jews considered themselves “Palestinians”. Both people had this identification stamped in their passports. (From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters) Since both pre-state Jordan and Israel were part of the Palestine Mandate they were free to travel back and forth between parts of the Mandate.

Now things get complicated. In 1917, the British promised the Jewish People a homeland in all of the Palestine Mandate - Jordan and Israel. There was even Arab support for this plan. Faisal Ibn Hussein, son of Hussein the Sharif of Mecca and King of the Hejaz, (and great grandfather of the current King of Jordan), was recognized as the legitimate leader of the Arab world after WWI. He was also the official head of the Arab delegation to the 1918 Paris Peace Conference, which most nations attended. Faisal recognized Jewish Palestine in London in February 1919 when he signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement with Chaim Weizmann, the officially recognized head of the Zionist delegation to the peace conference. Weizmann would later become the first president of Israel. This agreement formally recognized the Balfour Declaration, which called for the creation of a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine.

On March 8, 1919, Faisal sent a letter to Harvard Law School Dean and later Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter which shows the attitude that Faisal and most Arabs of his generation had toward Zionism. “Dear Mr. Frankfurter, ...We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement...We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another...The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist; our movement is national and not imperialist; and there is room in Syria for us both...People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and Zionists, have been trying to exploit the local difficulties...I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us...”

What went wrong? Tune in next week.

Free Speech in Israel

Today is election day in Israel. No, it is not a farce like the Iraqi elections with 100% of the population voting for Saddam Hussein. We were all on the edge of our seats wondering who was going to win that election.

Israel has a parliamentary system of government. The governing body is called the Knesset in which 120 members conduct business. There are 28 parties that fight each other every election for these seats. These include Liberals, Conservatives, Arabs, Greens, Marxists and Communists. There's even a party devoted to the legalization of marijana.

It needs to be remembered that while Israel is a democracy, it was created with a Jewish character as well. Paragraph 7a of the Basic Law in Israel gives a framework for the establishment of political parties. "The Knesset expressly disqualifies the candidacies of parties and individuals who negate Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state; engage in racist incitement; or support an enemy state or terror organization's armed struggle against the state."

In America we can understand this concept by looking at the oath of office for Congressional Representatives and Senators. "I, (fill in the name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." It is clear that in both countries only loyal citizens are wanted in government.

Last month there was some controversy when two Arab ministers were banned temporarily from running for Knesset office. These two Arab ministers, Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara were disqualified from running for office based on Paragraph 7a stated above.

In one case, we find Minister Ahmed Tibi to be an advisor to Yasser Arafat, whose terrorist connections have been well documented. In addition to being an advisor he has been vocal in his praise of the violence against Jewish Israelis.

Minister Azmi Bishara seems to be even busier than Ahmed Tibi. He traveled to Syria, a well known terrorist nation committed to the destruction of Israel. On television, standing next to the President of Syria, Bashar Assad and the head of Hizbullah (a terrorist organization) praised Hizbullah and called on the Palestinian Arabs of Israel to continue to fight Israel and kill Jews. In June 2000, when Israel withdrew from Lebanon Bishara went to a celebration in northern Israel and told the cheering Israeli-Arab crowd: "Hizbullah has won...Hizbullah has every right to be proud of its achievement and to humiliate Israel."

The Central Election Committee, made up of representatives of the other Knesset parties decided to ban Tibi and Bishara from running in todays election based on Paragraph 7a. However, their decision was overturned when Israel's Supreme Court took on the case. Tibi and Bishara are free to run.

In the 1980s, there was a Jewish party that was banned from running. The party name was Kach, and the party leader was Rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane's party was also banned based on Paragraph 7a that he spread "racist incitement". In actuality, his platform was one of a Jewish democracy and the policy of population exchange. The idea was since Israel had taken in the Jewish refugees that had been thrown out of the Arab countries in the 1940s and 1950s, it was time to return to the Arab countries the Arabs that lived in Israel. He did not promote violence against Arabs and even predicted the violence we are witness to today. The Israeli Supreme Court never overturned this decision.

The Jerusalem Post, a centrist Israeli newspaper, made an interesting observation based on these cases. "Unlike a growing number of Arab legislators, the Jewish far-right's aim is anything but the Jewish state's demise...A democracy is not supposed to be a suicide pact." What can be seen here is that those who are committed to the destruction of the state are allowed to run, while the other who believes in a democratic state is not. What can be seen is that the far-left is allowed free speech, and the far-right is not.

Having a difference of opinion and calling for the destruction of the state that you are meant to uphold as a legislator are very different things. Will the loyal citizens of Israel please stand up?

To learn more about Israeli elections and to vote in a mock election, check out the website: www.israelvotes2003.com

Martin Luther King Jr. and the Jews

Yesterday we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Wayne State gave us the day off, but did anybody think about his message? Every group uses his message to support the causes that fit their agenda. Arab groups use him too to argue against the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. However the opposite is true.

Most people would be surprised to know that Dr. Martin Luther King was a great supporter of the State of Israel. Dr. King was alive at the time the Jewish State was created in 1948, and around to see the amazing Six Day victory of Israel in 1967. His words stand on their own, and need no explanation. He stated what he believed in.

In 1967, Dr. King wrote to Adolph Held, the president of the Jewish Labor Committee after a meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that, “I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution ... calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers.”

In the same letter Dr. King stated, “Israel’s right to exist as a state is incontestable.” Instead of imagining what Dr. King believed about the State of Israel, it is very clear to anyone interested in finding out to read the words that he himself wrote.

In addition to his positive outlook toward Israel, he expressed his opinion about the Arab countries. “At the same time, the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten peace and harmony.” He puts the blame for this poverty and backwardness on the people who created it. “...some Arab feudal rulers are no less concerned for oil wealth and neglect the plight of their own people.”

On March 25, 1968, two weeks before Dr. King was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee, he was at a Rabbinical Assembly and spoke clearly, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

Dr. King was even more clear in his “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend,” (Saturday Review Aug. 1967) “...You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’... When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God’s own truth....

“Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land....

“The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How must he revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just ‘anti-Zionist!....”

Dr. King was aware of the situation of the world in which he lived. He watched the creation of the State of Israel. He watched the Jews win back and reunify Jerusalem. He watched the Palestinian Liberation Organization as it was founded in 1964, before there were any “occupied territories”. And after all this, he still claimed the territorial integrity of the Jewish State with no exception. The world would be a better place if we would listen to his message.

Santa, the Simpsons and the Second Amendment

Tim Allen’s movie The Santa Clause 2 is the best political statement I’ve seen in a long time. Of course I don’t know if they meant to defend the Second Amendment but it is very well done.

For those who have not been to a Political Science class recently, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns in order to protect themselves and their families against a bad government and from intruders.

Santa Clause 2 demonstrates clearly why it is important that individuals need to have weapons to protect themselves against a bad government. Examine the movie carefully. There’s Santa Clause himself, the benevolent dictator. Since he is such a good natured fellow, the elves, the population, have no need to be armed.

As in any story, there arises a crisis. The wonderful, good natured, jolly Santa Clause is replaced by a mean, obnoxious Santa Clause who was terrible to the cute elves. This rude dictator empowers himself by having armed guards making sure the elves don’t mount a revolution. Since the population is unarmed, they are unable to do anything about the situation. This highlights the problem of the unarmed population against a bad government.

In addition to Santa, the Simpsons do a fine job in dealing with the second part of the Second Amendment, the right to protect ourselves from each other. You and I might be good people, but what about the zombies coming back from the grave? Do we trust them?

Lisa Simpson visits a graveyard and comes across a headstone that reads “I dream of a world without guns”, not realizing that this is the grave of Billy the Kid. Lisa begins a campaign against guns and is successful. Since this is a Halloween episode, Billy the Kid comes back from the grave to terrorize the town of Springfield. How is he able to do this? There is no deterrent when the citizens are unarmed. All criminals “dream of a world without guns”. When people are armed it makes criminals think twice before entering a home.

Since these are just movies and television shows, let’s check back with reality. We need to look at why the Second Amendment was put into place. The first reason was for the people to protect themselves against a bad government. Genocides have happened in country after country throughout the century. One of the first things the government does is to disarm the population so they cannot revolt successfully. Take a look back in history: Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda are just a few examples.

The second reason for the Amendment is to protect ourselves against people who want to hurt us. Even if all gun owners hand in their guns to the government, do we honestly believe that the criminals will hand their guns in too? As things stand now, criminals don’t register their guns with the police, or get fingerprinted as part of the process of carrying a gun legally. What makes anyone think that even though criminals have not followed the rules until now, they will suddenly begin to do so?

The faulty logic begins with the false premise that less guns will lead to less crime. It may be a nice thought, but totally unsubstantiated in reality. Looking across the pond at the UK, we see that in 1997, England effectively banned all citizens from owning firearms. The result is that the balance of power has shifted to the criminals. England has already passed the United States in rates of robberies and burglaries even though the United States has five times as many people as the United Kingdom, never mind the fact that more people in the United States are owning and carrying guns. (Nat’l Center for Policy Analysis www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd120202c.html). In addition, murder rates have hit an all time high in England since records began to be kept 100 years ago. (www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html)

According to the Associated Press, Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation in England said that the ban makes little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. “The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.” (www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html) This should not surprise us.

The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were well aware of the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. These were not words written for the sake of taking up space on paper. We also have to be aware of these reasons and not be caught up in anti-gun sentiments, not based in reality, such as Lisa Simpson who brought the downfall of Springfield with her idealized “world without guns.”

Quick Note

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

The institution that wants to shut down free speech in Israel is the Center for Jewish Pluralism. How "funny" is that? Pluralism is great, as long as you agree with me.

You Must Be Joking

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

So much for free speech. Arutz 7, a pirate radio show, is now required to show the government that it is not biased toward the right wing in Israel. What kind of nonsense is that?

Has anybody checked out Ha'aretz lately? There's a left wing paper for you. Have they been told that they have to prove that they are unbiased?

It's like telling Rush Limbaugh that he needs to be unbiased. Or telling any left wing commentator the same. They don't have the right to broadcast their opinions.

What about talking about the issues and policies that the government is planning and carrying out? Do the people have to follow the government blindly over the edge? They are not allowed to discuss what are some of the more important matters that will directly involve them- that may cost them their lives?!

It's obvious that the government feels pressured. As a result they made free speech in Israel a joke. Not a funny one at that either. I'm not laughing.

Say No to Lieberman

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Lieberman supports a Palestinian State. I guess he sees fit to reward terror. We should see fit not to vote for him for President in 2004.

Smart Fellow

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Finally we have someone with half a brain in their head. An Arab sees exactly what will happen when we hand away half of Jerusalem on a silver platter. Why is it an Arab who can see what will happen and not a Jew?

Zuheir Hamdan, one of the mukhtars of the Sur Baher neighborhood, in Jerusalem can see clearly that whatever the Palestinians have touched has been destroyed. Handing over Jerusalem will let all the terrorists in and the death toll will rise even higher, G-d help us.

May the Jews get a clue...quickly.

Can we say "Insane"?

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

The Labor Party has officially gone off the edge. Their platform is now -- divide Jerusalem, and civil marriages. They also want public transportation to run on Shabbat, but they'll keep shops closed. Why bother with one and not the other? The Labor Party has finally lost it.

What is the point of living in Israel? What's the point of being Jewish in Israel? If they want to be Jewish without the restrictions, let them move to Los Angeles with the rest of the Israelis that have left the country. Don't bother the Jews that want to be there. I'd even start a collection to help them move out. Let's be more American than the Americans. Why bother being Jewish in a Jewish land? Go to America.

To top it all off, Labor will continue to talk to the Arabs without making them stop the terror attacks with the conclusion being that the Arabs will get Judea and Samaria within a year - if not sooner- if the Israelis and the Arabs can make a peace agreement. Ben-Eliezer, the last Labor chairman before Mitzna, even said -- what's the point of the Arabs making a peace agreement if they already know they'll be getting the land at the end of the year anyway? Duh?!

Who needs peace agreements anyway, when all we have to do is roll over and die? May as well start packing, Los Angeles here we come.

Bill of Rights Day

This coming week, some of us will be celebrating what should be a National holiday. We will be rejoicing by doing the same things we do every day. We will be celebrating by writing letters to our Congressional representative or to the President, by praying to whatever Power we believe in, or by going target-shooting and hunting. The holiday that encompasses all these is Bill of Rights Day.

Last year, the Michigan House of Representatives passed Resolution 264 proclaiming December 15th as Bill of Rights Day. These amendments were ratified 210 years earlier on December 15, 1791, and this year will commemorate 211 years that the Bill of Rights has been on the books.

As United States citizens, we have the obligation to remember that the Constitution would not have been ratified if the Bill of Rights were not guaranteed. The unfortunate truth is, most Americans have no idea what the Bill of Rights includes.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. They list the most basic rights of the people living in this country. Some include: the freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable searches and testifying against oneself, as well as eliminating cruel and unusual punishment. The two most important amendments are the last two, those that are directed not at specific rights, but to guard individuals against any future encroachment by the government.

Since the early Americans founding the United States had just broken away from Great Britain where they had limited freedoms, they were afraid of a strong central government. They assumed that breaking the government into three different, and sometimes competing, parts, would create a self-checking system. While some, federalists were happy with this compromise, others, such as the anti-federalists, felts that a three-pronged government was simply not enough to guarantee the freedoms of the ordinary citizen. This is where the Bill of Rights came in.

While America is not perfect, and there is quite a bit that needs work, we must realize that the basic framework is solid. Instead of people complaining that there are too many problems, and relying on others to fix it, we should look at the fundamentals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights show us what can be done and where we can move ahead as a country. Whether you are a Socialist or a Libertarian, a Liberal or a Conservative, a Democrat or Republican, there is a place for all of your philosophies.

Other countries around the world do not have many of these freedoms. Slavery still exists in the world. So does torture. Limitations on free speech still exists in the world, and how you practice your religion is still limited and made illegal in parts of this planet.

While people living in this country have difference in views on the United States and its future, we all have the right to disagree and discuss our views without worrying that we are breaking the law. This is our entitlement.

On this upcoming holiday, please remember how lucky we are compared to the rest of the world. Don’t take for granted what our forefathers fought and died for, and that we live everyday.

Hey, maybe you’ll even break out the barbeque.

Enough is Enough

We Jews have tried to be nice. We have tried not to offend anyone. We have tried to be politically correct and talk around the real issues. We discuss two state solutions. We discuss replacing Yasser Arafat with someone we can “talk” to. We discuss achieving normalized relations with our Arab neighbors.

Enough is enough.

During an Arab student rally here on Detroit's Wayne State University’s campus we heard the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” There is no compromise in that chant. There is no attempt not to offend anyone. There is a claim being made to the Land of Israel. They are claiming an “historic Arab Palestine” while negating the Jewish connection to the Land.

Let us deal with “historic Arab Palestine”. When did it historically exist? Where were its borders? Who were its leaders? What kind of culture did those ‘ancient’ Palestinians have? What kind of political system did they have? This “historic Arab Palestine” never existed.

“Palestine” is the slave name given to our Land by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 CE to destroy the Jewish connection to the Land. Both Jews and Arabs were “Palestinians” during the British Mandate period of 1917-1948. Today’s “Palestinians” are a politically expedient creation by the Arabs as another tool to destroy Israel. Nothing more. We owe nothing to them.

Self-respect demands the Jewish claim, the only real right that we have to the Land of Israel and the current State. The Land of Israel was given to us 4,000 years ago by G-d before there were Muslims, before there were Christians, and before there were “Palestinians”.

Who is man to decide what belongs to G-d and His Jewish People? What power does the United Nations have to decide that the Jewish State should or should not exist? Resolutions condemning Zionism as racism. Resolutions that demand that Israel compensate the same Arabs who attempted, and failed, to destroy her 54 years ago. Resolutions that we give away the Holy Land that we won in defensive wars. A United Nations that is filled with nations that are united in their hatred toward the Jewish People and the modern miracle of the State of Israel.

Enough is enough.

Two thousand years ago the Jewish People said enough was enough. No more compromise. Those were the Maccabees. They made their statement to the World. “Who is with G-d, is with me.” This is Jewish Pride. This is a Pride in the Torah. This is a Pride in being the Jewish People. This is a Pride in having a Jewish Land run by Jews.

The time for politics is over. The time for discussion has passed. The Arabs have made their claim to all of the Land between the river and the sea. During the height of the “peace process” in 2000, 25,000 Arab children were being trained, in a summer camp, to ambush, kidnap and murder Jews. When the Arabs were given Schem (Nablus), they destroyed the Tomb of Joseph, and rebuilt it as a mosque. The Arabs have made their statement. They have taken what is ours and rebuilt it in their own image.

Stop using the slave names forced on us. Judea, Samaria and Gaza, not the “West Bank” and the “occupied territories”.

Jerusalem is a Jewish city. Chevron (Hebron) is a Jewish city. Tzfat (Safed) is a Jewish city. Schem (Nablus) is a Jewish city. Tveria (Tiberias) is a Jewish city. These cities belong to the Jewish People.

The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews without any apologies. It was given to us by G-d. Enough said.

The Culture of Violence

Since writing the last article about how Arabs are using their children to wage war against the Jews in Israel, I have done more research into this unacceptable state of affairs. This Culture of Violence is more deeply imbeded than I had first believed.

The Palestinian Broadcast Corporation, which includes both television and radio, was created in the early years of the peace process. One would think that this would be a great opportunity for the Arabs to use the media to talk about peace and reconciliation. However this was not the case. Instead, the PBC became the mouthpiece for inciting violence and inviting children to join the war against the Jews even though the use of children in an armed conflict is strictly forbidden by the international community. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and recent UN Security Council Resolution 1261 specifically described the use of children as soldiers as a “violation of international law.”

In January 2002 on Palestinian Authority television, in an interview with Yasser Arafat when asked what message he’d like to send to the Palestinian children answered, “...The child who is grasping the stone, facing the tank; is it not the greatest message to the world when that hero becomes a Shahid [dies for Allah]? We are proud of them.”

Arafat in another televised appearance (8/18/02) speaking to an auditorium full of children said, “One of you, a boy or a girl, shall raise the [Palestinian] flag over the walls of Jerusalem, its mosques and its churches...Onward together to Jerusalem!” The children responded, cheering and chanting, “Millions of Shahids marching to Jerusalem!”

This is not recent development. Four years earlier, on February 8, 1998, The Children’s Club, a childrens television show similar to Sesame Street, a ten year old girl declared that she wanted to “turn into a suicide warrior” in Jerusalem. On July 2, 1998, The Children’s Club showed an episode with young boys chanting, “We are ready with our guns; revolution until victory; revolution until victory.” On the same show an 8 year old boy announced to the audience of children, “I come here to say that we will throw them to the quiet sea...We will settle our claims with stones and bullets.”

One Palestinian broadcast in 2001 that got reported on NBC with Martin Fletcher was a “commercial” for child martyrdom. In reenactments, Palestinian children were shown putting down their toys and picking up rocks to follow the paths of the martyrs. In the commercial, paradise after death is shown as an inviting, green, sunlit meadow where friends meet and play.

The Palestinian Authority sends different messages to the world and to their own people. The PA “banned journalists from photographing Palestinian children carrying weapons...saying that the pictures harm the Palestinian cause.” At the same time they are preventing the world from seeing what’s going on in the Culture of Violence, PA television interviewed a boy in his home and placed a Kalatchnikov automatic rifle over his shoulder (AP, The Jerusalem Post 8/26/02).

The parents also help to start the children in this unacceptable Culture of Violence. They are proud of their young terrorists. In the London Times, one mother said, “I am happy that he [her 13 year old son] has been martyred. I will sacrifice all my sons and daughters (12 in all)...(10/19/00)” Another mother bragged that she had bore her son to fight the Jews. Her husband bragged that he was the one who had trained his son militarily.

Some parents try to go against this Culture of Violence and keep their children safe. However, Hafez Bargutti, the editor in chief of the Palestinian Authority (PA) official daily newspaper, Al Hayyat Al Jedida, wrote an editorial condemning parents who forbid their children from joining the riots (10/27/00).

The PA has also threatened Christian Arab parents in the Bethlehem area “because no Christian blood has been spilled, only Moslem blood” and because “Moslems have donated their children to the cause, but Christians haven’t.” These Christian parents have been told that the families of “martyrs” will get food first. As a result of protecting their children, they may starve.

When the international media challenged Palestinian Legislative Councilwoman Hanan Ashrawi about the use of children during the conflict, she reacted, “They’re telling us we have no feelings for our children. We’re not human beings, we’re not parents, we’re not mothers and fathers.”

After looking at all the evidence, we have to wonder.