Save Martin Grossman

To save one life is like saving the whole world:

We need your help today to save the life of Martin Grossman who  is set to be executed on February  16th. We are only  advocating that he not get the death penalty at this time. We are asking that the Governor take the time to hold a proper clemency  hearing to determine if the Death Penalty  is really appropriate in this case. This may not be easy for you to go  out of your way to  try  and  save the life of someone who  took someone else’s life but we must do what is just and right and  what  the Torah  teaches us is correct. Prominent Rabbis have ruled that every  Jew has the responsibility to  save this man’s life. Please sign the petition at the end of this story.

There is no question that Martin Grossman committed a grievous and violent act, robbing Margaret Parks of her life and her future but also robbing her family of their beloved daughter and sister and the future they hoped for her.  Having counseled Martin and providing spiritual guidance to him over the course of the last 25 years, we know without any doubt that he takes full responsibility for his evil deed and that he lives (as he should) with tremendous daily guilt and remorse.  He often speaks of the anguish and devastation he wreaked on Ms. Park’s family and of his impotence, being completely unable to do anything to relieve their sorrow or make amends.

His childhood history, in fact, is marked by the fact that as a young child, Martin had this very feeling of impotence imposed upon his undeveloped psyche, much too young, because he was unable to relieve the suffering of his father (a veteran who was never known to his son during healthy productive years and whom Martin only knew as an ailing and needy invalid).

The unusual circumstances in Martin Grossman’s case include:

1.    The unfortunate arbitrary character of the death sentence in Martin

Grossman’s case.  In fact, we think it is clear that if Martin were tried in a criminal court today, he would not have received the death sentence.  We think you may agree that it was imposed as a result of many distinctly unusual factors that were never well understood, at various levels of the trial and appeal process.  For instance, the reason that his crime was identified as “premeditated murder” was a technicality, and nobody who actually knows what took place the day he committed the crime would really use the word “premeditation” for that situation.  (He was a drug-addicted youth without much guidance in the world who was surprised and taken aback by the sudden approach of an officer, and he “lost it” and tried to prevent her from turning him in.  He was not knowingly committing a crime at the time he was apprehended although technically he was committing the crime of probation violation.)  We would ask permission to show the following:

a.    The “aggravating circumstance” was not what we would consider to be aggravating circumstance today, and in fact, did not amount to what most people consider “heinous, atrocious or cruel.”

b.    The “mitigating circumstances” were not explored because of the situation including Martin’s communication deficits.

c.    The crime was not what any of us today would probably consider “cold, calculated or premeditated.”

d.    Martin Grossman’s history points to the high probability that he would be considered in “extreme mental and emotional disturbance” at the time of the crime, although that could not come out at the time of the trial.

e.    Martin Grossman acted “out of frenzy, panic or rage” although that was also not brought out at the trial.

f.    Martin’s sentence was extremely disproportionate to other criminals who receive the death sentence, and was not worse than many, many other criminals who receive considerably less punishment.

2.    The fact that Martin’s mental capacity is so seriously challenged (Martin has an IQ of 77 and was uneducated, and also suffered from a seizure disorder and possible organic brain dysfunction since earliest childhood) that he probably misunderstood the nature of his crime itself and surely was not very capable of cooperating in his own defense to the degree needed, considering the gravity of his situation.  At the same time, his support system of family and friends was seriously deficient for many of the same reasons, and nobody “kicked in” properly to help his defense at that critical moment.  Had he been able to garner support or to provide his lawyer with vigorous assistance in defending himself it is almost certain that he would not have been sentenced to death.

3.    The fact that Martin’s tragic childhood and adolescence provided a backdrop for the trial and the appeal that was never adequately presented to jury, judge or appeals courts.  In the sentencing phase, 30 out of 33 of the witnesses he wanted to call in his defense were not called, and the terrible result was that he received the ultimate penalty.  When he brought this issue up in post-conviction litigation, the court held that the missing 30 witnesses did not matter because they knew Martin when he was much younger than 19 (when he committed the crime) but the three who did testify knew him closer to the contemporaneous time period.  In fact, that is the very reason these 30 witnesses would have so much to add to the knowledge that a fact-finder would need to conscientiously decide whether or not a man should die for his crime:  what childhood circumstances went into the making of the man who stood before them?  In the case of Martin Grossman, the jury decided that they knew his motivations when he killed his victim.  Had they heard from the 30 witnesses who were precluded from testifying, they would have had a much different body of knowledge about his motivations.  They believed his motivation was purely evil and wicked.  Information from these 30 individuals would have made it much more likely that they would have believed that he was motivated by panic, confusion, and a degree of utter helplessness to manage his own emotions brought on by a deficient childhood and deprivation of the ability to mature into a responsible and confident adult.

4.    Martin’s unequivocal contrition and changed nature – Rabbi Katz with The Aleph Institute has been Martin’s spiritual advisor for the past 15 years and can speak to the man that Martin has become and, as his aunt has written also, he is now a “solid, humble human being” far from the disturbed youth who shot Ms. Parks over 25 years ago.  In this case, the rehabilitation given to him by the State of Florida has been effective, and Martin Grossman, far from being a hopeless criminal who must be put to death for fear of worse behavior, has become an example of correctional services effectively correcting both behavior and character.

5.    Martin’s age (19) and physical state and state of mind at the time of the offense – Martin was an addict – he had been taking prescription barbiturates for seizures since early childhood and developed as an adolescent an addiction to other drugs. He was regularly high, suffered from a permanent state of paranoia and a lack, sometimes complete absence of judgment.  On the night of his crime, Martin was on all kinds of drugs including PCP, Cocaine, Crystal Meth and other pills.

6.    Life in prison without parole is an effective sentence to serve justice.  Martin’s crime was not actually cold-blooded.  His conduct since that night has been exemplary and he is a model prisoner.  He did not set out to commit a crime that night over 25 years ago – it was very truly a juvenile lark that went terribly and tragically awry.  Note that the medical report of Dr. Fisher, a forensic psychiatrist who studied Martin and a wealth of background information, concludes at page 12 in its final paragraph “Given the facts and diagnosis described above it would be inconsistent and highly illogical to characterize Martin’s actions during the murder as rationally directed towards the goals of avoiding arrest or avoiding law enforcement. No such goal-oriented behavior or cognition was possible given the severely altered mental state in which Martin was functioning at this time. Because he was in a psychotic state he was likewise unable to form the premeditation for the underlying felonies present in this case (robbery, burglary and escape).”  For the real person who really committed the real crime, death is not necessary; correction has been working and can be expected to be 100% effective.

7.    The Affidavit of Charles Brewer dated 21 July 1990.  Charles Brewer, a fellow inmate in 1985, testified for the prosecution.  Subsequently he provided a very disturbing affidavit that states that his testimony was not completely true and that he expected, and received, consideration for enhancing what he really knew and what he actually heard from Martin Grossman.  What is most disturbing is that he appears to have been a critical witness, bringing into question the strength of the case without Brewer, who admits his testimony was tainted and improperly procured.

Moreover, the case relied on such witnesses as Brewer, the accomplice Taylor (who was sentenced to a mere three years), and others who all had something to gain by lying or at least embellishing the truth.  This may have, at the very least, made the difference between life and the death sentence.  We do not know what attempts, if any, were made to plead Mr. Grossman “down” on diminished criminal responsibility.  We are looking into this question now.

 In a death penalty system in which approximately 2% of known murderers are sentenced to death, fairness mandates that those few who are sentenced to death should be comparable to others who are similarly sentenced, and worse than those who are not.  Problems with the trial of Martin Grossman have been admitted by the appeals courts (while being called “harmless” one by one, but their cumulative effect was far from harmless) and in one case, a new law was passed to say that judges were required to do things differently from the judge in Martin’s trial.  In today's system, the sentence of death depends on many factors other than the moral depravity of the defendant or the actual severity of the offense.  Especially in the case of Martin Grossman, it seems that it came about because of many misunderstandings that could be carefully and dispassionately explained if Martin Grossman is given a 60-day stay for the preparation of a clemency petition. 

Please sign the petition today to  save the life of Martin Grossman:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/save-martin-grossman

See (hear) the entire broadcast on: www.jmintheam.org

Nachum Segal

With Simcha Hochbaum

With Yossi Baumol

L-R: Noam Arnon, Yoni Bleichbard, Yossi Baumol,
Mordechai Yitzhar, Nachum Segal, David Wilder

On far left, Hebron Executive Director Menachem Livni

With Yoni Bleichbard and Yossi Baumol

With Bentzi Vataro

The giant and the midget

Mordechai Yitzhar

With Noam Arnon

Yoni Bleichbard, Noam Arnon, and Menachem Livni, with Nachum Segal and Yossi Baumol from David Hebron on Vimeo.

Yoni Bleichbard, Noam Arnon, and Menachem Livni, with Nachum Segal and Yossi Baumol

Printed in the Jerusalem Post on 27/1/10: http://goo.gl/Ub7V  

The past two weeks witnessed massive attacks aimed at Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon as a result of his "infamous" meeting with Turkish Ambassador Ahmet Oguz Cellikol. The meeting was purported to be an Israeli diplomatic scolding following airing of a Turkish television show which allegedly portrayed IDF soldiers kidnapping and shooting Arab children. The Turks denied the allegations, retorting that the soldiers in the show were not Israeli.
The TIPH presence is detrimental, damaging and disadvantageous to the State of Israel... Ayalon emphasized that the "T" in TIPH stands for temporary


When the meeting commenced, Ayalon refused to shake the ambassador's hand, Cellikol was seated undiplomatically on a low sofa and the Turkish flag, customarily present as such an event, was missing. If the point wasn't readily understood, Ayalon verbally described the scene to Israeli cameramen present in the office.

What followed, which might have been expected, was a small, virtual war between Turkey and Israel, which led to an Israeli apology.

However, clearly, behind this less than diplomatic rendezvous was more than meets the eye. Only a few weeks ago, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman instructed Israeli diplomats stationed around the world to "stop turning the other cheek." At a heads of missions conference in Jerusalem he declared: "The problem with Israeli diplomacy over the years is that it does not do enough to preserve the honor of the State of Israel. Terms like 'national honor' have value in the Middle East. There is no need to provoke or exaggerate, but there must not be an attitude of obsequiousness and self-deprecation, and the need to always justify the other side. This is a wrong approach."

This is exactly the policy Ayalon represented when meeting with Cellikol. And it had little to do with a television show. For the past year, since Operation Lead Cast, Israel-Turkish relations have hit an all time low. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of "inhuman acts" in Gaza and demanded placement of international observers there to prevent Gaza's "self-destruction."

ERDOGAN'S SUGGESTION of "international observers" strikes a raw nerve, especially in Hebron. Turkey is one of six countries participating in the Temporary International Observer Force (TIPH) in Hebron. This organization has been actively operating in Hebron for the past 12 years, since the implementation of the "Hebron Accords" between Yasser Arafat and Israel, which divided Hebron into two, unequal parts.

According to the official TIPH mandate, its major functions include:

• providing a feeling of security to the Palestinians of Hebron with their presence;

• helping to promote stability and an appropriate environment conductive to the enhancement of the well-being of the Palestinians of Hebron and their economic development;

• observing the enhancement of peace and prosperity among Palestinians.

The allegations implicit in this mandate are clear. In spite of the fact that the Palestinian Authority now controls 80 percent of Hebron, its Arabs are "insecure" and their lives are abnormal due to the Israeli presence in the city. TIPH has no obligation to observe Arab instigation or violence against Hebron's Jewish citizens.

Unfortunately, TIPH is far from objective. The organization also partakes in activities outside of the framework of its mandate. Such activities include interference in internal Israeli affairs. For example, following the purchase of Beit Hashalom in Hebron, TIPH head of mission Karl-Henrik Sjursen, in a media release, said: "TIPH urges the IDF to evacuate the settlers from the building to avoid that new facts of the ground are being established... This action of the settlers can be seen by the Palestinians as an unnecessary provocation in an already tense environment. It might have serious consequences for the security situation in the city."

He later added, "The occupation of the house has not only led to increased violence but also further destabilized the situation in Hebron as a whole. In this respect TIPH again urges the Israeli authorities on all levels to take necessary measures to evict the occupants. In the light of the ongoing violence and the continuing violation of both Israeli and international law, we also encourage the Israeli authorities to evict the settlers occupying the house on Patriarchs' Hill with no further delay."

This type of intervention by a foreign body is blatantly negative toward Israel and certainly produces negative impressions in countries around the world, most definitely in the other countries participating in TIPH and the "host countries" - the US and Russia.

IN FEBRUARY 2004, outgoing head of mission Jan Kristensen, in a media interview, accused both Israeli civilians and the IDF of ethnic cleansing in Hebron: "The activity of the settlers and the army in the H-2 area of Hebron is creating an irreversible situation. In a sense, cleansing is being carried out."

One further example of TIPH's bias: On November 12, 2000, Mary Robinson, then chairwoman of the UN Council for Human Rights, visited Hebron. While driving in a TIPH vehicle up the hill to the Tel Rumeida neighborhood, her car was shot at. TIPH later examined evidence concerning the attack and concluded: "TIPH received the results of a ballistic expertise carried out by the Danish police. The expertise showed that the shot was fired from a Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle. Moreover, a reconstruction conducted by TIPH personnel in cooperation with the Danish experts clearly designated the origin of the shot: a house in the H1 area, north of Bab al-Zawiya."

This information was included in the 15th periodic report published by TIPH, but it was not publicized to the public-at-large, leaving many people believing that the attack had been perpetrated by Jewish civilians or IDF personnel serving in Hebron.

The TIPH presence is detrimental, damaging and disadvantageous to the State of Israel. In conducting tours for civilians and diplomats without any Israeli representation, TIPH presents a very one-sided, biased account of Israeli and IDF policies, which only add to the negative propaganda being disseminated internationally.

When Ayalon visited Hebron, in response to a question, he emphasized that the "T" in TIPH stands for temporary, and clarified that the organization's mandate would not be automatically renewed. His spokesman told The Jerusalem Post that it would not be "rubber stamped," as had been practiced in the past. Clearly, the logical continuation of the Lieberman-Ayalon doctrine, preserving Israel's pride against foreign animosity, leads to the conclusion that Israel must end the TIPH mandate in Hebron when the it expires at the end of this month.

This morning, still at home due to a lingering virus, I listened to Yaron Dekel on Israel radio’s Reshet Bet 'HaKol Diburim' – (It’s all talk) daily morning program. His first guest was Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, who initiated Israel’s latest law, passed yesterday, granting blanket pardons to some 400 ‘criminals’ – Israelis indicted due to ‘illegal activities’ during the expulsion of 10,000 people from Gush Katif and the northern Shomron. Dekel’s questions centered around the idea that such clemency will only encourage further ‘ideological crimes’ in the future. Rivlin’s responses focused on the ‘national trauma’ caused by the expulsion and the need for a ‘national healing process,’ of which the pardons would play a major role.
the fact that some of the ‘leaders’ who initiated and implemented the expulsion still serve in public positions continues to encourage additional ideological crimes against the state in the future

These pardons are almost five years too late. As a matter of fact, they are totally superfluous.  The Knesset should never have had to pass such a law because the charges against these people should never have been issued in the first place. This because the ‘disengagement – expulsion law’ was as illegal as a law can be, as can be witnessed in the Israeli supreme court’s decision which ruled “that the evacuation of settlements do harm human rights, including the right to property, freedom of occupation and proper respect for the evacuees.” The only dissenter among 11 judges, Judge Edmund Levy, lambasted the law and ruled that it should be canceled. [http://goo.gl/TW16]

The fallout from the Gush Katif catastrophe is still raining down on Israel, and will, it seems, continue to emanate deadly emissions for some time to come. Unfortunately, all our doomsday predictions, foreseen and publicized prior to the expulsion, have come true. Rockets fell on Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod, a war ensued, the rockets continue to fall, and another war is virtually inevitable. One can only guess what kinds of missiles are presently aimed at Tel Aviv from the very land Israeli supplied to our enemies. (Should Netanyahu and his government decide to finish off the Iranian nuclear threat undoubtedly, one of the responses will include rocket attacks from Gaza.)

The treatment of the expellees has been no less appalling, as most recently expressed by MK Uri Ariel, testifying before the special commission investigating the State’s treatment of these Israeli-Jewish refugees, saying that the “'slap in the face to expellees echoes on to this day!” . In my opinion, there’s a problem with this description: Israel’s treatment of the Gush Katif refugees is much more than a ‘slap in the face’ – it’s more like an arrow in the heart; in the heart of those people expelled and more significantly, an arrow in the heart of our existence as a state: Gush Katif residents represented the best of the best, combining hard work, ideology, patriotism and authentic mesirut nefesh – dedication and determination, even at the cost of their very lives.  Such scandalous treatment of such people is an indelible stain on the entire country.  

This being the case, I would like to suggest that the Knesset immediately legislate two additional laws.

One: It is not enough that the indictments against the “Gush Katif criminal” be quashed. All those people expelled from Gush Katif and the northern Shomron, along with all those who labored to prevent the expulsion must be recognized as national heroes. A state ceremony must be held, not in the Knesset, but at Temple Mount, during which they will receive a framed certificate, signed by the President, Prime Minister, Knesset speaker, and all members of Knesset, distinguishing them as national heroes.

In addition, these same ‘leaders’ must swear allegiance to maintaining the totality of Eretz Yisrael, as represented by Israeli’s eternal right to our sacred Jerusalem and Temple Mount. In other words, they must promise: Never Again. Never again will we repeat the Gush Katif disaster, anywhere in Israel: Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. (Perhaps, in order to avoid any claims of favoritism, Tel Aviv should also be mentioned.)

And finally, this law must guarantee that immediately upon Israel’s return to Gaza and Gush Katif, the destroyed communities will be reestablished, the expellee’s homes will be rebuilt by the State of Israel, and the former residents will be welcomed back in an additional State ceremony.

That’s the first law the Knesset must pass. But there is another one:

Two:  Those responsible for the Gush Katif abandonment and expulsion, following their trials and convictions, may never, ever be pardoned. It is only a matter of time until these bogus   ‘leaders’ are indicted, tried and convicted of crimes against the State of Israel. Once found guilty and sentenced, these people must serve their full sentences, without any chance of pardon or parole. Nothing, but nothing, can ever reduce the severity of their crimes, and they deserve absolutely no mercy or forgiveness.

Finally, concerning Yaron Dekel’s query concerning encouragement of additional similar ideological ‘crimes’ in the future: the fact that some of the ‘leaders’ who initiated and implemented the expulsion still serve in public positions continues to encourage additional ideological crimes against the state in the future. Recognition of Gush Katif’s residents and those indicted as national heroes will be a beginning ‘slap in the face’ to all those who demonized them, which should lead to a full-fledged spanking, which they should never forget.

Senator Mitchell's Wake-Up Call YnetNews, January 13, 2001
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
Executive Director, "Second Thought"
YnetNews, January 13, 2001
http://goo.gl/yt6y

The threat issued by Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to withhold US loan guarantees, in order to extract excessive concessions from Israel, constitutes a wake-up call for wishful-thinkers.

Senator Mitchell's January 7, 2010 interview with PBS' Charlie Rose refutes the notion that the Obama Administration will accept anything but full Israeli compliance with
President Obama has yet to respond to the reasonable request of the government of Israel to demand a cessation of incitement from the Palestinian Authority Leaders. The question remains: How will the US respond to the request for the US to ask Abbas to stop praising acts of murder?
Washington's terms.

Obama's confidant, George Mitchell, known for his deliberate style, made clear that submission to pressure is not rewarded but punishable by further pressure. That is certainly the case with a White House run by Rahm Emanuel, who is "the meanest shark in town."

Emanuel and President Obama, his Chicago-politics pal, were elated when Prime Minister Netanyahu rushed on June 14, 2009 to Bar Ilan University, as soon as he returned from a "cold shower" at Obama's White House, to enunciate a major transformation of his world view: The acceptance of the Two States Solution. They realized that their pressure was effective following Netanyahu's September 24, 2009 speech at the UN – which reaffirmed his newly found world view – and the full freeze of construction in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Leveraging their initial success, they now employ the threat of withholding loan guarantees and intensify the pressure on Israel to accelerate the timetable of concessions, to exclude the Jordan Valley from Israel's map of defensible borders, to release more Palestinian terrorists, to make more concessions to Abu Mazen, to refrain from construction even in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood, etc.

Israel's retreat in the face of Obama's pressure is a rarity in a world, which has not been kind to the newly-installed president. His precipitous drop in the polls is the sharpest in recent decades, other than President Ford's. A growing number of Democratic legislators distance themselves from him, lest they be defeated in November, 2010. Furthermore, President Obama is increasingly identified with a 10% unemployment rate, a 17% under-employment rate, a budget deficit which is the highest since 1945, a bigger government, a failed war in Afghanistan and rapidly destabilizing Iraq.

Obama's Liberal power-base is unhappy with legislative compromises concluded with Blue Dog Democrats.  Republicans are energized by Obama's difficulties and the 30% bloc of Independents, which accorded Obama the 2008 victory, is turning its back on Obama in 2010. Since assuming power in January, 2009, Obama has received slaps in the face from Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has also been targeted by French and West European cynicism. However, Jerusalem is acting as if it is facing an Imperial President.

In 1992, at the height of the Shamir-Bush battle over loan guarantees, I was told by then Majority Leader, Senator George Mitchell: "Doesn't Israel know that the US is not a monarchy, that the President is not omnipotent and that the Legislature is equal in power to the Executive?!"

In 2010, Israel still does not get it.  Instead of leveraging critical public and Congressional platforms of support – which will determine the success or oblivion of Obama's policy – Israel approaches Congress as the best supporting-actor in Washington, DC.  Jerusalem is intimidated by Emanuel's warning to "avoid bypassing the Administration via Congress." Jerusalem fails to realize that kowtowing to Emanuel's warning amounts to a slap in the face for the US democracy, the US public and its representatives on Capitol Hill, while severely undermining Israel's own cardinal interests.

Senator Mitchell's PBS interview reflects Obama's determination to dictate to the Jewish State a full withdrawal to the 1949/67 ceasefire lines, the uprooting of Jewish communities in the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, the repartitioning of Jerusalem, the negotiation of the "claim of return" by 1948 Arab refugees and the exchange of land. Such an approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a derivative of Oabma's worldview, which highlights the UN as a quarterback of international relations, considers Europe as a role model and Foggy Bottom bureaucracy as luminaries on international relations, burdens the West with partial-blame for international terrorism, regards the Jewish State as part of the exploiting West and the Arabs part of the exploited Third World.

In facing Obama's pressure, Israel should follow in the footsteps of all Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion to Yitzhak Shamir (1948-1992):Advancing Israel's national security while fending off US Presidential pressure. For instance, Ben Gurion declared independence in 1948 and constructed Israel's nuclear reactor in defiance of brutal pressure by Secretary of State George Marshall and President Kennedy respectively.  Levy Eshkol and Golda Meir built the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Neve' Ya'akov and Gilo in response to presidential pressure. And, Menachem Begin destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor irrespective of painful US, European, Global and domestic pressure. He initialed the Israel-Egypt peace process by overcoming opposition by President Carter, who preferred an international conference over direct negotiations.

Such steadfastness yielded short-term US-Israel tension.  However, it was rapidly transformed into long-term enhanced strategic respect, by American and Middle Eastern leaders, toward the Jewish State.

In 2010, Israeli leaders are endowed with a critical mass – which was not enjoyed by the 1948-1992 leaders - demographically (6 million Jews!), economically, technologically and militarily, bolstered by a formidable infrastructure of support in the US. Are the current leaders also endowed with the vision, faith, wisdom and backbone, which are the prerequisite to leverage this critical mass and advance key Israeli interests, while deflecting the Obama Administration pressure?
*************************************************
From: David Bedein: contact in Congress: Background on Israeli Demand of US to End To Incitement As Part Of Peace Process

Today the US Congress convenes for its second session, at a time when e Mitchell is en route to Israel...while there is no response from Obama to Bibi's request to the US to demand end to incitement


This is the time to swamp the  members of the Middle East Subcommittee of the US House and the near East Subcommittee of the US Senate with this kind of letter:.


Members of the United States House Middle East  Subcommittee

www.tinyurl.com/yctm932

Members of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs:

http://goo.gl/LHjA

===========================================

SAMPLE LETTER

From: Me [me@g.com]
To:      
Date: 01/19/2010 

Subject: Israel Asks US to Demand an End To Palestinian Incitement As Part Of Peace Process: What is your position?

For the first time since the genesis of Middle East peace negotiations, more than 30 years ago, the government of Israel has placed the cessation of official Arab incitement to murder Jews as a condition for the continuation of Middle East peace negotiations. Here is the Israeli government position in this regard:
 
http://goo.gl/BOz3

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared after last week's government weekly cabinet meeting: , "It is not only missiles and rockets that endanger security and push peace further off. Words can also be dangerous." In that context Prime minister Netanyahu asked President Obama to demand that the Palestinian Authority Leadership cease and desist from further endorsement of murder and violence against Jews. 
 
President Obama has yet to respond to the reasonable request of the government of Israel to demand a cessation of incitement from the Palestinian Authority Leadership.

The question remains:  How will the US respond to the request for the US to ask Abbas to stop praising acts of murder?

What is the position of Rep..... on this question?