/quote/
"That would be [the family of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik] Hariri [assassinated by Syrians], and his son.
/endquote/

Any proof that Syrians killed Hariri? A long investigation didn't find any.

Hariri essentially robbed the owners of titles in center Beirut of their money. There were many people who wnated him killed. Why blame the Syrians?

What continues to be most interesting is that the MSNBC.com tag-line (this morning) read:
"Mugniyah killed by Israel"
even though on the (inside page) 'body' of the same story, it also read that Israel denied any role in the killing.
Whether or not Israel had any role (even a passive one) is not the issue.
With any other country, the tag-line would have said:
"{insert name} killed, {insert country} denies responsibility"
Anyone who thinks the main-stream media favors Israel, needs a cold swim in the Hudson Bay.

Re: b on 02/13/08-
Have you read the UN report on Hariri? i remember thinking that its unfortunate the only people linking the events around the assassination of Hariri to syria have disapeared or accidentally shot themselves twice in the head.
But let it be known i read the report (Malis report, i think that was the name, there might have been a second, but i can't remember the name) more than a year ago. So other information may have corrupted memory, and thus this response.
Although i have a feeling even if u read the report and remember the events before and after, you may not find enough 'proof' to change your mind, but i think it will give you a good idea where to point your finger. Or atleast the knowlegde of why other people point their's that way.

Re: Trollstein on 02/13/08-
I don't think the Hudson Bay is big enough. we might be able to do it if you said 'cold swim in the Atlantic ocean.'
Its not just that mainstream (i'll narrow it down to mostly american mainstream) news is bias, which it is, its how the isrealis are able to use it in a way palastinians aren't that adds a bias.
its the diction used in the reports, palastinian with a gun = terrorist. Israeli with a gun = security.
Oh, and who's doing the illegal occupation again?
All news is bias, they have no choice when so much happens in the world. the best is not to watch just one channel and read.
(sorry if there are spelling mistakes)
Peace!

In our news, a Muslim who just killed 12 civilians, (one at a time) is generally referred to as:
"a suspected militant".
Israeli military is referred to as "Israeli Military". The factual slantings are much more subtle though relentlessly frequent.
From "The New Anti-Semitism" by phillis Chesler:
"In October, 2000, an Algerian man stabbed a 20 year old Rabbinical student, Mayer Meyers, twenty times on the North London city bus. In Sept. 2002, a {British} judge ordered the assailant, Nabil Ouldeddine, 29, held in a hospital for the criminally insane. On being arrested, Ouldeddine told police: "Israel are the murderers. They kill women and children. So I stabbed him."
An article by Frances Marion posted online with the National Free Press
{http://www.nationalfreepress.org/}
. . . refers to the Rabbinical student as an "alleged homosexual" and the Algerian as a "freedom fighter". The article also states:
"Decent people the world over applaud his {Ouldeddine's} noble action against Zionism. As a result of the stabbing incident, Jewish women in the Stamford Hill neighborhood have stopped riding the buses. How nice it must be to at least have even a brief respite from the presence of obnoxious, hateful Jewish women when riding the bus in North London""
{End Quote}

Whodunit? The last words of the prophet to his people were,"Always wear your turban and never trust the Jews." If he were to return todays he would probably amend that to Israeli & Americans. However, we are all of us superstitous lying barbarians and will soon be back to fighting each other with sticks and stones. That will be the war after the next one...

3/28/01 Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize letter: “If you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognized as private property because it can be confiscated. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.” Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter agrees.

About one thing, the former CIA officer was sure: "I know goddamn well we didn't do it. Because it's too good of an operation. If we did it, it would be fifteen years in the making, and there'd be video surveillance from Washington....I'm serious."

This seems to me to be a fairly foolish comment, even from an ex CIA officer. The CIA has many people who could pull off a hit like this (The CIA's SAD paramilitary branch, is considered one of the best in the world at these types of Ops). The questions isn't could the CIA have done it, but would the CIA's leaders have authorized it. The CIA has never lacked talent, they have lacked leaders who would authorize the use of said talent.

Mossad has both the talent and the neccessary leadership. But it may also have been a joint Mossad/CIA op. The CIA has proven quite capable of killing terrorist leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia...I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.

What if Iran or Syria did this in some sort of backdoor deal with the U.S.? Is that possible?

My friend these scenarios are nothing new! Bob Marley said that "man to man is so unjust". Don't blame the Israel, don't blame America; blame those of humanity who are unjust to each. Less we for got, my fore-parents came to the West Indies on slave ships. Was it the European to blame? No, it was collective injustice.Our African brothers conspired with the European, who learned the methods from the Arabs, on how to catch black people and use them for economic gain. So who are you going to blame?

Tyrone:
Nelson Mandella was the son of a tribal leader who (aside from being black) was also the adversaries of its rival African tribe and its eldest son (Butilazi). He never forgave Israel for selling arms to So. Africa. He (like Saddam) was also a lawyer. As far as his other rantings and embracement of Yasser Arafat as a "brother", I suggest you ask some Blacks from Southern Sudan who their "brothers" are. Those who are not long dead will answer that their brothers are the Israelis and Americans. Every minority group in the entire world has some civil-rights denied them. Every such example has some racial hatred (usually going two ways). To put this in perspective, reverse the roles:
500 million Jews on 98.5% of the land--surrounding 6 million total Arabs on 1.5% of the land? Are the Jews going to blow up women and children on city buses and pizza shops, to regain the missing 1.5%?
The white South Africans were totally imported whereas about 1.8 million Jews were originally from the M.E. region. No comparison there. The balance of the Israeli Jews were racial and religious refugees.
All the Jews acquired by Jordan when they annexed Palestine were refused citizenship. They were not just second-class citizens, they were zero class non-citizens.
While Arabs in Israel are second class citizens, their status places them far above Arabs in most other Arab countries. And THAT is what the Arab leaders can't possibly tolerate.
Its an unimaginable embarrassment and disgrace and must be erased, even at the cost of the waisted lives of the millions of Palestinian-Arabs.

Troll Stein you are a racist. There is no room for hate speech. This is Black History month. Do you want Brother Al Sharpton to go to Crown Heights again and educated the people? When B. Hussein Obama becomes President, you will get the education of your life.

Tyrone.
You do not impress me with your insults.
My father was a civil rights activist in the 1960s south.
You have not stated where you believe I have factually mis-spoken, or, where your conclusion that I am a "racist" stems. You don't even know if I am black, white, brown or albino.
I support Obama.
It is (apparantly yourself) who is in for the shock if he wins.
The truth burns your ears.
That is not my fault.

Troll Alert:Troll Stein is a Troll, don't feed the Troll.

Ty
The name is Trollstein.
One word only.
And you're feeding me.
Besides, your strategy has been tried before and failed before. Trollstein is my adopted name. I use it with pride.
Generally, people come around to agree with me, though not everyone. I shed no tears for those who do not. Just as a doctor can not help everyone. I work the averages.
I hope that you can be a success but if not . . .
Other bridges.

Trollstein, you insulted my Hero, Nelson Mandela. "Look at the biggest Jewish right wing nut, Moses. He had a policy of genocide to steal the land from the original inhabitants. (Moses's policy for genocide is all in the Bible) Modern day Zionists base their right to the land on this ancient first Hitler. What goes around comes around. We live in the 21st Century. " State where you believe I have factually mis-spoken.

Tyrone:
Mandela spent many years (as you know) behind bars as a political prisoner.
Remembering back to that time, it was fairly universal that all sorts of people from most every country felt sympathy for him and were also impressed that he never gave up or broke down. Plus, he had this warm smile and soft, grandfather method of speaking. I can’t say that Mr. Mandela ever achieved “hero” status with me but Mohammad Ali did and Dr. King was such a hero in my house that when news arrived of his murder, my mother nearly had to be put in a psycho hospital. She never was fully the same again.
But things were different then. Many liberals supported Israel.
Ralph Nader & Jane Fonda for two (non-Jewish) examples.
The right-wing, in tandem with Texaco, Standard Oil (Amoco) and the British Royal Family (quietly) were the core of the “Western” anti-Israel movement.
When Nelson Mandela embraced Yasser Arafat (and his cause) whatever love there might have been ended for me. I later learned that he was actually in line for the kingship of his family’s tribe. This also affected my overall opinion since I do not believe in royalty and at least considered that his political action might have been the result of him feeling deprived from his ‘throne”. But how did I insult him, other then provide a detailed biography,?
I do a LOT of blogging and rarely does anyone snag me on a factual inaccuracy. When they do, I have admitted being mistaken.
I did not question the accuracy of your quotation, even though, frankly, it sounded a bit extreme, even for Nelson Mandela. So lets explore it:
Quoting:
“ . . . a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead"
{end quote}
The above is incorrect. I know Israelis up to the office of the Prime Minister and I can assure you that while such sentiment does exist in small pockets, if that many (1/3) Israelis wanted the Arabs dead, they would have been dead. But also, these groups have been at war for 90 years. Do you expect a love-fest? Even in the midst of the fighting, there are large groups (on both sides) who make a special effort to get along. Mandela does not mention the intentionally mixed (Arab and Hebrew) neighborhoods, mainly in the North of Israel. Did he not know of them? But here is the real key point: Whatever inter-ethnic tolerance exists, stops squarely at the border of Gaza and West Bank. It does not include non-Israeli citizens but why is this point a one-sided equation? Is the rampant hate which the Palestinian-Arabs have for Israelis not also considered “openly declared racism?”
In the above quote, Mr. Mandela not only takes sides and not only using over exaggerated statistics, but he also lawyers his statement by saying:
“ . . of the nature of . . . ”
What that means is that not every example he quotes is actually a statement of “hate” or specifically about Arabs or actually wishing them “dead”.
I am sorry if this upsets you but I know of no totally sugar-coated way to chronicle the true facts, without distorting those facts with the sugar.
The conclusions are (mainly) left up to the individual reader.
Nelson Mandela also is quoted:
“It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.”
{end quote}
While the bulk of the quotation you provided is merely one side of the story, sometimes being embellished, the above (specific) quote is not only flat out false but factually backwards from reality. It is pure propaganda and I don’t really care how many Nobel prize-winners agree.
Alfred Nobel, by the way, manufactured Gun Powder, which fueled World War one.
Mr. Mandela did not win his prize for his work in the Mid East. Jimmy Carter did not win for decades, after his direct involvement in the Mid East ended.
The Swiss (where the Nobel committee is headquartered) sound peaceful enough--given that they have not had a war themselves for over 400 years. However, They (the Swiss) have managed to prosper in each major war, through the keeping of other people’s gold. I know the Swiss culture. I did business there for 20 years. Out of all the countries in Europe, they allowed the fewest Arabs and the fewest Muslims to legally immigrate. Please trust me on one point, if the Swiss were under attack, from a border population, their patience would last about 15 minutes, after which--the party shooting the rockets would be totally obliterated. They, like the Israelis have mandatory military service for every civilian male, several weeks a year (with no wars) up to the age of 45.
Have a nice weekend and please . . . . . don’t hate me for being beautiful . . . cause I’m not beautiful at all.

Mr. Tyrone:
PS>
I care nothing for Moses, as I consider the whole story an antique and probably half-baked. Since he married an Egyptian and had 1/2 Egyptian children, he (Moses) is held as a hero to the Muslims in the Qur~an.

Trollstein,your father in the 60's was doing "repariations." Dr. Raphael discusses the central role of the Jews in the New World commerce and the African slave trade (pp. 23-25Jews and Judaism in the United States Jews and Judaism in the United States
pp. 14, 23-25.
"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.”

"This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent." E.g. Judah P. Benjamin - Secretary of State - US Confederacy

"The Swiss (where the Nobel committee is headquartered) sound peaceful enough--given that they have not had a war themselves for over 400 years." Your posts are full of lies Troll.
The Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish and Norwegian: Nobels fredspris) is the name of one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

The Peace Prize is awarded annually in Oslo, the capital of Norway (Alfred Nobel's will stated that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded in that city). The actual prize always is presented on the 10th of December, the anniversary of the death of Nobel. The Norwegian king is in attendance. "In Oslo, the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway. Under the eyes of a watching world, the Nobel Laureate receives three things: a diploma, a medal and a document confirming the prize amount." The Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony is held at the Oslo City Hall, followed the next day by the Nobel Peace Prize Concert, which is broadcast to more than 450 million households in over 150 countries around the world. The concert has received worldwide fame and the participation of top celebrity hosts and performers. The selection of Nobel Peace Prize winners sometimes causes controversy, as the list of winners includes people who formerly used violent methods of problem-solving, but then later made exceptional concessions to non-violence in the attempt to achieve peace. This is the only Nobel Prize not given out in Stockholm, Sweden. It is not Switzerland fool, it is Norway that awards the peace prize. Pastor Bob says that this is the gravest insult of all, confusing the Swiss with the Norse.

Tyrone:
You really don’t like Jews, do you?
But what makes you so sure I am Jewish? How do you know I’m not black? I told you that Trollstein is not my real name. I could be Kofi Annon’s nephew for all you know.
Lets talk about “reparations”.
Why would an entire population of one religious group, be liable to pay anything back to another ethnic group, for the way the entire world made money in the 16 and 1700’s?
I have heard many such claims about prolific Jewish involvement in slavery and I have comments:
1. The point which is certainly overlooked is that back then, like now, there are (were) not enough Jews in the world to have the type of effect being blamed on the Jews. Today, Jews equal about 0.3% of the world’s population. Roughly enough people to put one adult Jew in every post office in the world.
The fact that a few Jewish (historical) names have been drudged up for dramatic effect, does not confirm that Jews somehow ran or controlled this trade.
2. Jews were involved in shipping and international trade (in general). This was because Jews were generally good with linguistics and translations between languages, especially written languages. Since shipping required a lot of paperwork, in multiple languages, Jews were natural managers of shipping lines. I’m sure that one of the commodities which were handled were humans. However, there was nothing illegal about shipping people. I know it sounds cold but the concept of “reparations” generally relates to actions which were unlawful. For example, for decades in the USA cocaine was not illegal. It was an ingredient in Coca-Cola. Now, should Coca-Cola be responsible for paying reparations to crack babies of 2007? BTW: 75,000 white Irish men were shipped to Jamaica (as criminal slaves) by England. That is why the Jamaican language sounds almost Irish and some of the Jamaican people have grey/blue eyes. Are reparations to the Irish in order there?
Now, here’s an example of where reparations are in order:
What is today Bank of America is actually the same corporation that used to be known as:
“First Bank of Providence”.
This bank collected tariffs on African slaves entering the USA AFTER IT WAS ALREADY ILLEAGAL TO DO SO. Therefore, of the $26-billion in B-of-A market capitalization, some percentage of that amount DIRECTLY results from early slave profits. So, you do any business with Bank of America? I suggest that if you have a Bank of America credit card, you charge up the balance and refuse to pay and also tell your African-American friends to so the same, OK?
Moreover, many Arabs (due to the Muslim invention of Algebra) were commonly found as navigators on board these slave ships. Do the Arabs have to contribute reparations?
What about the Black Africans who rounded up the Slaves in the first place? Any responsibility there?
If you like, I’ll put you in touch with a close friend of mine who is a runaway slave.
Not a long dead ancestor, from the 17 or 1800’s. A living person who spent three years as a human slave, being treated worse then livestock. You may think I am kidding but I am completely serious. He was a free man, captured and sold into slavery by Muslim slave-traders in Africa. He is young enough to be my son.
You are missing the boat. In many respects, you have been mis-informed, or, partially informed or selectively informed. Jews are no better then anyone else, That is not the issue. The issue is if Jews should be EXPECTED to be any better. Apparently, you think they are worse and expect them to be better, both at the same time.
I hope you can get over this (mainly mis-placed) anger. Such feelings impede one’s ability to learn and/or expand one’s data-base of wisdom.

Mr. Trollstein your incorrect statement on confusing the Swiss with the Vikings is inexcusable. I have read your other posts and you appear knowledgeable(This Tyrone kid, what do you expect from him, anyway, I think that he is a Troll), but I expect more from you. Apparently you purposely did this to offend the Vikings. You made a mistake to take us on. We are getting our long ships to go Viking to go Troll hunting. You are in trouble, you better go hid under a toadstool, like all the rest who seek out the damp places under the rocks by the tree roots. Are you a Jætte or a Vitterfolk troll? Anyway, we Norse(unlike those Swiss) are experts at Troll hunting. We will catch you.

Lars:
lol ~ lol
I am regretfully sorrowful to have offended the Viking nation in any way. I can hardly make amends herein but I ask for your oh, so kind understanding and acceptance of this, your humble miscreant and eternal admirer.

Tyrone:
I have tried to be civilized in speaking with you but you are rude, dude.
You are correct about Norway vs. CH. I had a rough and stressful day on Sat. and blew throuh a few too many brain cells. However, Alfred Nobel did market gunpowder. He in fact invented dynamite and converted a steel mill into 'Bofors', where he sold armaments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_nobel
My comments about Switzerland were not wrong, just misplaced for this conversation. Nobel was a Swede, not a Norwegian. But lets talk Norway.
Still controlled by Royals.
One of the most violent histories of all.
A holdout against whaling treadies and a willing member of the Nazi "Axis" powers in WW2.
These Nobel prizes are often handed out for poltical reasons more then humanitarian ones. Nelson Mandella may have deserved the prize but his comments (as you quoted) still varied between misleading and backwards.
If you continue to insult me I will not continue being nice to you.
OK? Fair is fair. Please ask ‘Pastor bob’ if I am allowed to be rude back.

" willing member of the Nazi "Axis" powers in WW2" Now Trollstein. You make enemies right and left. Starting with the invasion of April 9, 1940, Norway was under military occupation of German forces and civil rule of a German commissioner in collaboration with a pro-German puppet government. The occupation ended May 8, 1945, after the capitulation of German forces in Europe.

This period of occupation — usually referred to as the "war years" or "occupation period" in Norway — had defining significance for Norwegian society, and it is only recently that Norway considers itself as having passed out of the "post-war era." the pretext that Norway needed protection from British and French interference, Germany invaded Norway for several reasons: strategically, to secure ice-free harbors from which naval forces could seek to control the North Atlantic; to secure the availability of iron ore from mines in Sweden, going through Narvik; to pre-empt a British and French invasion with the same purpose; and to reinforce the propaganda of a Germanic empire.

Consistently with the doctrine of Blitzkrieg, German forces attacked Norway by sea and air in the operation Weserübung starting April 9, 1940. On establishing a foothold in Oslo and Trondheim, they launched a ground offensive against scattered resistance inland in Norway. Allied forces attempted several counterattacks, but all failed. While military resistance in Norway had little military success, they had the significant political effect of allowing the Norwegian government, including the Royal family, to escape and form a government in exile, primarily due to the sinking of the German cruiser Blücher in the Oslofjord on the first day of the invasion, and the pitched battle fought between German forces and an improvised Norwegian position at Midtskogen.

Norwegian mobilisation was hampered by the fact that much of the best equipment was lost to the Germans in the first 24 hours of the invasion, the unclear mobilisation order by the government and the general confusion caused by the tremendous psychological shock of the German surprise attack. The Norwegian Army rallied after the initial confusion, what units could be mustered were thrown into the fighting and on several occasions managed to put up a stiff fight, delaying the German advance. However, the Germans proved unstoppable due to their superior training and equipment. Allied reinforcements came too little, too late, and as the British and Norwegian Forces were ground down in the Gudbrandsdal valley. The campaign in Southern Norway came to an end on the 2nd of May with the evacuation of British forces and the surrender of the Norwegian 2. Division in Gudbrandsdal valley, 4. Division in Valdres and 5. Division north of Trondheim. The occupation had a profound effect on the collective Norwegian psyche. It instilled in many Norwegians a durable fear of scarcity, which led to a widespread habit of frugality, especially with food. It also educated a generation of Norwegians on proper nutrition.

The adversity strengthened and further defined the Norwegian national identity. The history of the resistance movement may have been glorified excessively, but it has also provided Norwegian military and political leaders with durable role models. The shared hardship of the war years also set the stage for social welfare policies of the post-War Norwegian Labour Party governments. It also led to the abandonment of Norway's neutrality policy, formalized when Norway was a founding member of NATO.

This Trollstein girl is really a dummy. Lars, I don't think that she meant to insult the Norwegians, he is just dumb, just like that Tyrone chap. They are both retards. See you at the pub. We can go troll hunting afterwrds.

actually I know because of the history, that if Israel has gotten so close to the deceased, they would have aprehended him instead and taken him to israel.

The Jerusalem Post:
'Cancerous Israel to vanish soon'
"The cancerous growth Israel will soon disappear," Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Muhammad Ali Jafari wrote to Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the FARS news agency reported Monday.
"In a letter of condolences following last week's assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh, Jafari said: "I am convinced that with every passing day Hizbullah's might is increasing and in the near future, we will witness the disappearance of this cancerous growth Israel by means of the Hizbullah fighters' radiation [therapy]."
{End of Quote}
The use of the term:
"Radiation Therapy"
is a clear reference to Iran's Nuclear ambitions.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203283465824&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Dr. Q:
The one thing to be certain of in the Mid East is that no one really knows what is going on.

Dr. Q, me and my associate Olaf went troll hunting last night(after we had too many beers at the pub) and guess what we found, a Trollstein, a Jætte troll, one of the dumbest. I suggest that you starve him.

Lars:
You did NOT find a Trollstein. We are a very select group, with magical abilities to which, had you known, you would never risk upsetting.
What you likely found was a bearded female dwarf, whom, one of you probably impregnated. In about 12 weeks, the world will have a newborn bearded baby, that looks like a cross between yourself and a squat Ed Sullivan (your new girlfriend ‘Trojlie’ bringing the better of the looks to the child.) But I digress:

Thank you for the earlier briefing.
I have a next-door door neighbor, a native Norwegian, who was part of the Nazi (Norwegian) Navy, wore a Nazi uniform (which he still displays proudly in his basement--even to the Troll next door) and tells a somewhat different story.
While your recount is quite likely true, about the Royal family resisting subjugation, my earlier post dealt with a great array of points--other then that one. You have zeroed in on one word of my entire posting, namely: "willing".
The Viking effort to stop the Nazis was more then a token one, true. And it may have had other causes behind it, then simply protecting the sovereignty of Norway. But Norway started out as officially “Neutral”. In that sense, I humbly retract my wording “willing” but your position is also somewhat ambiguous. There is no such thing as “Neutral” between Hitlerism and Democracy. The entire concept is nonsensical. Its like being neutral regarding AIDS or al Qaeda. BTW: The same holds true for Switzerland, who today are among the most elitist and anti-Semitic people outside of the Mid East.
One of my other (earlier) statements about Switzerland also holds true for Norway: Namely, the Vikings would NOT take 20,000 anti-civilian rockets being fired into their population centers (in one year) without a major storm being unleashed onto the terror cells shooting them (and anyone else who so happened to get in the way). Do you disagree on this point?
Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling:
“ . . . the son of a Church of Norway pastor and genealogist Jon Lauritz Qvisling from Fyresdal, and both of his parents belonged to some of the oldest and most distinguished families of Telemark {Norway}.
On May 17, 1933, Norwegian Constitution Day, Quisling and lawyer Johan Bernhard Hjort formed Nasjonal Samling ("National Unity"), the Norwegian fascist political party. Nasjonal Samling had an anti-democratic, Führerprinzip-based political structure, and Quisling was to be the party's Fører (Norwegian: "leader", equivalent of the German "Führer"). He was sometimes referred to as "the Hitler of Norway". The party went on to have modest successes; in the election of 1933, four months after the party was formed, it garnered 27,850 votes.
. . . under the German occupation by 1945 some 45,000 Norwegians were members of the {Viking Nazi} party.”
{end of quote}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling
Part 2 begins below:

Part 2--
I am quite sure my next door neighbor was one of those. He refers to the time not as “the war years” but as “his previous life”. The poster linked below helps clarify:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Nordpost.jpg

Trolls are liars(e.g.that lie about your neighbor). Living next to a Nazi, I don't think so. Just like when you lied about the Swiss and all the other lies about the Norse, which are too numerous to go into. By the way, all the Nazi collaborators were taken care of with extreme prejudice. I think that you are one that was the collaborator(not your neighbor)that escaped. We are on your trail, Troll. You can hide, but eventually, Lars and his Biker friends will find you.

Olaf:
You know nothing of trolls and you contribute nothing to this converstion.
If you are going to use up valuable trolltime with jokes, please see to in the future that they are funny.

Trollstein's post about Moses shows that he is an anti-Semite, probably a Communist anti-Semite.

Rabbi Weiss:
I am beginning to think all you guys are the same mental patient. Perhaps blogging from inside the hospital or, heck, its 2007, just as easily from inside a maximum security prison.
Next time just make sure you call yourself "Gomer Pyle".

Washington Post, “on Faith” 1/7/08, Mahatma’s grandson, President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.(Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi. He is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York)

It has now become common to blame anti-Semitism on the Jews themselves.
If the Holocaust is now so unimportant, why have so many Jew-haters taken to denial of it?
The fact is that the Holocaust was far from the only time when Jews were the victims of Genocide. Throughout recorded history, several major genocides and dozens of minor ones have occurred. In pre-Switzerland Europe, the Germans and Austrians had a span of about 35 years, wherein many Jewish towns were burned alive for the same crime. Known as “Host Desecration” members of the Hebrew community were accused of desecrating communion wafers. This sounds like a joke, which is why I used the example but not intending for it to be funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration
Society goes through regular repetitive cycles, wherein Jews become everyone’s enemies. In that respect, if Israel did not exist, a Jewish Homeland might have to be created--in order to help set the stage wherein the Jews were rationally guilty of some tangible offense, punishable (of course) by death.
At these times, the world can’t tolerate Jews succeeding (at pretty much anything).
Jews conversely, have the tendency to succeed, further exacerbating the situation.
Mahatma Gandhi was a lawyer and ten bucks says his grandson is also one. Even if he isn’t, he is still a simpleton. His synopsis is anti-Semitic because it blames the Jews for the hatred. Plus, I for one do not believe in hereditary transference of leadership skills (if his grandfather indeed ever had any). Mahatma Gandhi is (you see) a much bigger hero internationally then he is in India. Like Heineken beer, which is considered piss-water in Holland. This helps explain why Arun Gandhi does not live in Bombay but Rochester, NY instead, where he can claim movie-star status.

Look who is talking, the Moses blasphemer Trollstein. You really are a Troll.

Rabbi:
The fact that you can spell blasphemer suggests that you might not be one of the split personality people, who have been up my arse.
However, if you really were a Rabbi, you would not act like a child.

When WW-I ended, no one could reconcile the claims of Arabs, Zionists, British & French so, in 1919, Woodrow Wilson "dispatched the King-Crane Commission to the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire to ascertain the wishes of their inhabitants regarding the postwar settlement of their territories." [Britannica]
The King-Crane report stated:
90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine;
If they are given Palestine, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants."
The King-Crane Commission said that a Jewish state in Palestine would violate the Palestinian Arabs' right to self-determination. They recommended that Zionists respect the wishes of Palestine's inhabitants & find another place to plant the Jewish state.
The Zionists were furious! They didn’t want democracy; they didn’t give a damn about “the will of the people.” The Zionists wanted Palestine, no matter what they had to do to get it. So they simply “rewrote” the history of the conflict. The usual versions of Israel's history either don't mention The King-Crane Commission Report or they minimize its importance. Anyone who believes in Democracy must consider the King-Crane Commission's official report—which even now can be documented by any interested party —irrefutable proof that:
In 1919, even after 30 years of intensive Jewish emigration into Palestine (inspired by Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State, published in 1898), 90% of Palestine’s inhabitants were non-Jewish and did not want a Jewish state in Palestine. The will of the people was clear
The Zionists knew they were acting against the will of the people.
The Zionists knowingly subverted Democracy.
The Government of the United States confirmed the legitimacy of the claim that Palestinians make today.

Some Quotes from the Commission's Report
"a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State."
"nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
"In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great 'ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting': 'The settlement of every question, whether of territory or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for their own exterior influence or mastery."
"If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done to Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principles just quoted, and of the peoples' rights, though it kept within the forms of the law."
"No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms."
"That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of injustice of the 'Zionist program.”
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.''
"the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered."
Among other things, the indigenous Arab population—the people who actually lived in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.—had been promised control over their own countries at a price: IF they helped the Allies overthrow the Turkish Army that occupied their land.
They did.

Tariq:
Your post is one-sided and in places, misleading or even false. I hardly know where best to start.
During the time-frame in question, late 1800’s to early 1900’s, all sorts of political waves washed over the mid-east. These tides came and went from both (all) directions. You left out one very important point:
For most of the previous 400 years, in fact, for most of the previous 1750 years, Jews were legally prohibited from moving into Palestine. First by the Romans and then by the Turks. There was no large scale Jewish immigration into Palestine before the end of WW1 because it was against the law. Some Jews managed to bribe their way in or had names which were close enough to Muslim names to pass. Nonetheless, your 90% non-Jewish number is (I believe) exaggerated and may include Syria, which was often heaped into the same geography as Palestine.
You leave out two important statistics:
The Population of Jerusalem was 40,000 Jews and 7,000 non-Jews, as of 1907, according to the Travel Guide to Syria and Palestine by Karl Bedaker, written at the time. The population of Jerusalem in 1863 was 15,000, including 8,000 Jews and 4,500 Muslims, according to documents retrieved from the British Office of Records and found in “The Fight for Jerusalem” by Dore Gold.
Besides, modern (2008) Israel is only 20% of total Palestine. And Israel includes millions of Arab citizens. Jordan contains no Jewish citizens, by virtue of the Jordanian Citizenship laws of 1967.
The land of Palestine itself belonged to private citizens, but was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, who were the legal authority.
In the Treaties of Versailles and San Remo, Turkey willingly traded title of the entire region in return for a truce and end of WW1.
http://english.katif.net/index.php?sub=2&id=1824
Some say that all of Palestine was reserved for a Jewish National Homeland and others say that only a part was so designated. Few (if anyone) claim that no section of Palestine was legally reserved for a Jewish National Homeland. As I said, we are now debating over 20%, with millions of Arab citizens and after the murder of 7-8 million Jews as result of Israel not being on the map when it legally should have. Whether the Arabs in the region liked the idea is not entirely dispositive of the law and/or the equity. I’ll tell you something for certain, the Arabs who least liked the idea were the many tenant farmers, who owned no property and were not expecting any cash-out when the Jews were to take over parcels of land, legitimately purchased from their Turkish landlords. The only point you make clearly is that the Jews were an ethnic minority and that the Arabs demanded they remain so, in spite of the international treaties and laws to the contrary. Merely sub-dividing the land into Jewish and Arab zones, created a Jewish ethnic majority, in the newly formed Israel. Due to the escalating tensions, Jewish families who had lived for thousands of years in neighboring Arab communities were forced to flee. You call those people “Zionists”. I call them “refugees”.
If the Arabs had been smarter then they were angry, they would have embraced the Jews and today be educated, much more affluent then they now are and probably also have the modern amenities of a free-press and a functional democracy. I have more but I have to take a break as all this is beginning to become upsetting.

Trollstein, your reply is nothing but typical Zionist lies and cleaver distortions that does not require further elaboration. Who pays you?

Tariq:
At the moment, no one pays me. I am a Sept. 11 victim who’s life’s work was destroyed.
I do not believe that “Zionism” even exists, in spite of those who (themselves) claim to be “Zionists”. “Zionism” was a movement to restore the ancient Jewish homeland. Once that was accomplished, “Zionism” ceased to exist--as a practical movement, and now exists only as a phantom. Anti-Slavery people were called “Abolitionists” but after the end of slavery, there were no longer any “Abolitionists” remaining, because their cause had been fulfilled. Women’s voting rights activists were known as “Suffragettes” and they too no longer exist, after women won the right to vote.
“I do not believe in “isms”, I only believe in me”
{Ferris Buhler, quoting John Lennon}
You think I lie but you are short on counter-points. In fact, you are without any.

"I only believe in me". You are a very selfish person, a very bad man, Trollstein.

This is an interesting article on the subject:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWM2ZjY3YjNkMTA3ZDY4Mjg1OWY3OTUyNzcyYTc3NmU=&w=MA==

Soup Nazi, aka Kasim:
Its an expression, meant to convey that political movements can often be devisive. Its not an expression of egotism. I am a very good man. And an honest one.

"Its not an expression of egotism. I am a very good man. And an honest one." You just contradicted yourself, just like all the nonsense in your posts. You are a very boring person with no life. Good by schmuck.

I know this Trollstein from another web site. It always starts like this with angry and personal attacks. In the end, even Muslims agree with him. Because he makes sense and his information is usually sound.

I did not research the Troll's points because its a lot of work but the people who disagree have next to nothing. They clip and paste from some other web site and when challenged by the Troll they have no reply except to call him names. I think the troll is right. I think these guys are the same person with multiple names.
Dr. Freud (Alias) said "Good by schmuck", mis-spelled "bye" and had no earlier post in his name. He was signing off from a group of other names.

Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years
By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal.
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote :
“Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, it is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle.…” The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.

Steve:
So you are suggesting that Jews AGREE when told that they are natural thieves?
At that stage of Luther's life, he WAS a Jew-hater. You conveniently left out the part of the story wherein Luther was initially quite fond of Jews. Luther's story closely mirrors many other religious revolutionaries, including Paul from the Gospels, (who started out a Jew who hated Christians) and ended up a Christian who disliked Jews.
The Islamic Prophet Mohammed was brought up in a Jewish town (Medina) and well liked Jews. But in all three examples, these religious leaders expected the (educated) Jews to (naturally) be their first (and strongest) followers. When this failed to materialize, all three turned against the Hebrews and the effects of such are still strongly felt today. The other part of the puzzle your story omitted, is that Islam has a similar problem with Christianity, as its forbearer.
Lastly, even if technically true (which I debate), the Luther narrative becomes racist anti-Semitism, because it can make no distinction between religious Jews versus cultural (ethnic) Jews--who do not follow the quoted religion. And that is the purpose of it. Just as the quote from Arun Gandhi heaped all Jews together, with Israelis and Israelis with Zionists, the sum purpose of it is to damage Jews, not to help anyone else.
Jews as a group, do not hate anyone. Some have a superiority complex, which also applies between themselves and other Jews but most Ethnic minorities share some set of superiority complexes, especially ones with as many accomplishments as the Jewish people.
You may like to refer to:
www.prophetofdoom.net
Jews are only 0.3% of the world's population and "if left alone, the only thing they would do is argue everyone to death" {Dennis Miller}.
They have been spotlighted and criticized in the beginning stages of what some hope will become another holocaust. Ironically, some of the same people who vigorously deny that the first Holocaust ever occurred are the same ones who are busy triangulating the next one.

Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
UNITED NATIONS - Louise Arbour, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, has thrown her support behind a major pan-Arab human rights charter that commits to the elimination of Zionism.
In a statement from her Geneva headquarters, the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada welcomes the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which will come into force in mid-March.
"Regional systems of promotion and protection can further help strengthen the enjoyment of human rights, and the ... charter is an important step forward in this direction," Ms. Arbour says. The charter's preamble speaks of "rejecting all forms of racism and Zionism," alleging they violate human rights and threaten international peace and security.
Article 2 of the 53-article document says "all forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination" should be "condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."

Real progressives condemn Zionism.

Steve:
Another lawyer has their 15 minutes of infamous Jew bashing.
The U.N. is a political organization which does not represent the population of the world.
Five nations alone, USA, India, China, Russia and Indonesia have more then 50% of the world's population, but only have 2.5% of the votes in the G.A.
France is a permanent member of the only worldwide law making and enforcement arm, (the Security Counsel) while the world's largest Democracy, India is not.
No members are required to have free speech or a free press and free religion? Not a chance.
Africa has about 1/9th the world's population and controls nearly 1/2 the G.A. votes.
I have earlier stated that Zionism does not exist, except as a phantasm in the minds of those who either love it or hate it. So the debate is moot.
Israel exists. It will continue to exist. If it is left in peace, its neighbors will also enjoy peace.
The rest of the discussion is political garbage. If the oil was not in the Arabs control, few would care a spit for them. Go a step further, if the Arabs did not have oil leverage, the Jews would today, probably be the only outside nation that cared one spit for them.

I don't know what a "progressive" is other then a fancy way of saying Liberal. I am an old fashioned Liberal, like old fashioned Jane Fonda (a 1960's supporter of Israel) and old fashioned Ralph Nader (another old fashioned supporter of Israel in the 1960s).
So is:
Alan Dershowitz and (was) Bella Abzug ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug ) and Phillis Chesler and Eugene McCarthy and many more.

You do not get to define the qualifications for being a leftist. The Israeli Jews are still outnumbered 80/1 and still reside on 1.5% of the regional land, surrounded by hostles. The Arab nations still lack free speech, free press and women are without rights (in many venues) or have limited rights in others.
They laugh at us 'leftist' humanitarians who by into their political trash.

Jewish billionaire George Soros was criticized recently for saying that Israeli policies provoke anti-Semitism. Yet it is well known that Zionist extremists like Ariel Sharon have fomented anti-Semitism over the years for one fundamental reason - Israel needs more Jews.
"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe," Jewish billionaire George Soros told the Jewish Funders Network (JFL) in New York on November 5. "The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that," he said. "If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish."
While most observers would say that Soros was merely stating the obvious, his comments reportedly caused "major shock" in the Jewish community as American-Jewish leaders reacted with "unusual vehemence."
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Soros' comments were "absolutely obscene." Soros' view is a "biased and bigoted perception of whatís out there," Foxman said.
Foxman revealed his own bias during a recent ADL speech when he compared the world's assembled Islamic leaders to animals, saying, "Heads of state, kings, potentates stood on their hind legs and gave him [Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohammad] a standing ovation."
Malcolm Hoenlein, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations said Soros' statement "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about anti-Semitism. It's ridiculous and unacceptable to say that attacks on Jews are related to Bush or Sharon's policies," Hoenlein said.
Mark Charendoff, president of JFL, supported Soros saying he was "enormously frank" and "candid."
Soros, however, is not alone. Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive echoed Soros in his Nov. 17 editorial "The Return of Anti-Semitism."
"Distressingly, the hard-line policies of Ariel Sharon are only fueling this anti-Semitism. By repressing Palestinians day in and day out, by continuing to build settlements, and now by building a wall into Palestinian territory, Sharon is providing footage for the next bin Laden video," Rothschild wrote. "Sharon's policies also breed new anti-Semites every day. That's the undeniable connection that he ought to examine himself."
Rothschild is apparently unaware that Sharon, like all Zionist extremists, understands the "undeniable connection" between anti-Semitism and Zionism very well. Zionists have long exploited anti-Semitism as a tool to construct an artificial ethnic state for the Jews.
While anti-Semitism is generally defined as prejudice or hostility toward Jews it has been redefined in the recent past to mean anything that opposes the policies and interests of Israel, according to Allan C. Brownfeld, editor of Issues, the journal of the American Council for Judaism.
This redefinition of anti-Semitism was evinced by Raanan Gissin, an adviser to Sharon, who cited a recent European poll in which 59 percent of respondents said Israel was the greatest threat to world peace as evidence that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe.
While it may seem odd, Zionists have fomented and promoted anti-Semitism over the years as a means to compel Jews to move to Israel.
"What few Americans understand is that there has been a long historical alliance ñ from the end of the 19th century until today ñ between Zionism and real anti-Semites," Brownfeld wrote in an essay "Zionism and Anti-Semitism: A Strange Alliance Through History."
Theodore Herzl, the Hungarian Jew who is seen as the father of the Jewish state, wrote in his diary: "The anti-Semites will become our most loyal friends, the anti-Semite's nations will become our allies."
The Israeli historian Benny Morris said Herzl saw in anti-Semitism a force that could be "harnessed" for Zionism. "The European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism," Morris wrote. "Herzl recognized that anti-Semitism would be harnessed to his own - Zionist purposes."
The seemingly perverse alliance between Zionists and anti-Semites is based on a shared view that considers Jews to be a race, a "foreign people" ñ that cannot be assimilated ñ living in "exile" outside of the "Jewish state."
"Zionism and anti-Semitism share a view of Jews, which the vast majority of Jews in the United States and elsewhere in the world have always rejected," Brownfeld wrote.

Steve:
Jews can be racists, like one would expect to find within all populations. So what? Jews can also be anti-Semitic and the Jews that seem to garner the most publicity are the most anti-Semitic ones. This should surprise no one as the most highly publicized Arabs are also the ones who criticize Islam and/or defend Israel.
Jews live in perfect peace and tranquility as minorities in hundreds of venues worldwide.
Those who reject the Nation of Israel generally drudge up the same (often tired) set of names.
We hear about Hertzel but we never hear about the real founding-father of Zionism, Yehuda Alkalai (circa 1865). Hertzel saw the "Zionist" movement as a social one. Alkalai saw it as a defensive and therefore religious measure. Those who claim that Jews have no need to fear (other then their support for Israel) are blaming the victim for the rape.
Example: A female victim of domestic violence leaves here household to stay in a shelter. The husband makes the shelter the issue saying: "This place has broken up my home".
How ridiculous would that sound?
The wall became necessary to protect Israel. Israel also vacated historical Jewish towns because they were undefendable. Israel's borders were supposed to be defendable in the first place. Obviously, they weren't. Now, maybe they will be.
Of course the Arabs don't like the wall. Why would they like the wall when they did not like the national borders to begin with?
The other name that won't quit giving is Ariel Sharon. In case you neglected to notice, he has been in a coma for years already. Like any phantasm, Sharon's total immobility does not stop him from continuing to commit "war crimes".
You say "Settlements", I say "neighborhoods". If the Israelis have agreed to stop construction, I think they should live up to their commitment and BTW: I don't agree with every decision made by the Israeli government, and, I am no Jew hater. But you guys are off the wall with your Orwellian semantics.
" . . . . Foxman revealed his own bias during a recent ADL speech when he compared the world's assembled Islamic leaders to animals, saying, "Heads of state, kings, potentates stood on their hind legs and gave him . . . "
Pat Buchanan stated on MSNBC that "the Israelis ran out of Lebanon with their tail between their legs." Is that also a racist reference? Oh, I forgot, the chances of you actually answering a question is about 1/500. Radical leftists generally refrain from answering questions, because it inhibits the total Orwellian domination of the "frame-of-reference".
Lets talk about the start of the latest "Intifada" because this gave rise to all the other issues being debated today.
Jimmy Carter blamed it on " . . . the provocative visit of Sharon to the Islamic holy site with armed troops . . . " in his 2001 Op-ed on the NY Times.
Phillis Chesler in "The New Anti-Semitism" explains otherwise:
" . . . . French journalist Raynal deconstructed the Agence French Presse (AFP) coverage of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000. Raynal notes that by omitting certain background facts—and by then downplaying or denying them—the AFP was able to blame Sharon—and not the Palestinians—for the Second Intifada. The world press did the same thing.

Raynal reminds us of the facts: two Palestinian suicide bomb attacks occurred the day before Sharon's visit, which killed an Israeli soldier who had been escorting a civilian bus in Gaza. Sharon's September 28th visit had been announced several days beforehand and had received the approval of the Muslim authori­ties. Sharon was accompanied by Knesset members, including Arab Knesset members. Responding to intelligence reports, the group was escorted by one thousand police officers. Sharon never entered the mosques. Upon his expected arrival, one thousand Palestinian demonstrators threw stones, heavy rods, and metal objects at him. Sharon's police escorts responded by firing rubber bullets. Thirty Israeli policemen and four Palestinians were wounded in a period of a few minutes.

Within four hours of Sharon's preapproved visit, Yasser Arafat, in a radio broadcast, declared the visit to be a "serious step against Muslim holy places." He called upon the Arab world to "move .. . against Israeli practices against holy Jerusalem." Palestinian Leg­islative Council speaker Ahmad Quray, on the voice of Palestine radio, described the visit as one that "defiled" the mosques; Pales­tinian Culture and Information Minister Yasir Abd Rabbuh decried the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.

What was reported and commented upon both in France and in the world media was the "provocation" of Sharon's visit and the "outrage" of Sharon's soldiers killing and wounding Palestinians.

No Palestinians died that day.

More annoying facts: since the failure of the peace talks in July, Israeli intelligence had known and the Israeli media had reported that the Palestinian Authority had been planning a return to vio­lence. In the early hours of September 29th a Palestinian police

man, Nail Suliman, killed an Israeli border guard with whom he had been carrying out a joint patrol.

These facts in this exact sequence were the beginning of the Intifada. They were buried, over and over again, not only in the French press but everywhere else as well."

A full thirty hours after Sharon's visit, Palestinians threw large,

k sharp, heavy stones at Israeli soldiers and at Jewish worshipers pray­ing at the Western (Wailing) Wall. The soldiers responded. At day's end there were 7 Palestinians dead and 220 wounded. That was the beginning of the Intifada as far as the world was concerned.

The original AFP reports of September 29 written by those "on the ground" did in fact mention the annoying facts cited earlier, but the information died right there; it had no informational legs. From then on, AFP blamed Sharon and the Israelis for the violence

It, of the Intifada. He provoked it. According to Raynal, the first dis­patch to reflect this view was not even written in the Middle East; it was written in Paris, and it relayed the views of the Palestinian Authority's representative in France, Leila Shahid.

The French and the world media essentially functioned as Yasser Arafat's private public relations firm—which did not stop the Arabs and the Palestinians from charging that the media were biased against them and run by Zionists.

Other bulletins sent from the Arab capitals followed closely in these footsteps and, Raynal notes, often took "the tone and vocab­ulary of governmental communiqués, of official press and of Pales­tinian organizations (whose words they echoed).""

Raynal notes the following with suspicion: at 11:50 A.M., an AFP bulletin from Damascus was titled "Damascus Denounces the `Massacre' at the Esplanade of Mosques in Jerusalem." An hour later, the Damascus spokesman for the Democratic Front for the Libera­tion of Palestine said that "the massacre committed by the Israeli forces of occupation on the esplanade of mosques, after the profana­tion of this esplanade by the terrorist Ariel Sharon, shows the absur­dity of pursuing peace negotiations.""

By the second day of the Intifada, the AFP told the

French press corps as a matter of fact that "the violence was started by Ariel Sharon's visit to the esplanade of mosques which is home to the third most holy site in Islam."" On October 1, this view was repeated thirteen times by the agency, and on October 2, more than twenty times.

According to Raynal, over the following months AFP repeated this explanation at every opportunity. At the same time, they con­tinued to fail to make any mention of the Palestinian decision to return to violence, the Palestinian shooting of two IDF soldiers in two separate instances, the Palestinian attack on Sharon, or the Palestinian attack on the worshipers at the Western Wall. The bul­letins kept mentioning Al-Aqsa as "the third holiest site in Islam" but rarely mentioned that it was also the single most holy site in Judaism. Day after day, the bulk of the AFP dispatches relating to violence in the region relied solely on Palestinian sources, with those few that contained Israeli information sent largely at the end of the day, after editorial staffs had gone home.”

{End of quote}

BTW: “Al-Aqsa” is mentioned no where in the entire text of the Qur~an, nor is Jerusalem mentioned even once. And for good reason. Jerusalem was under the iron-fisted control of the Holy Roman Empire, during the Islamic Prophet Mohammed’s entire life. The Mosque in question was (at the time) the Catholic church of Saint Mary of Justinian. It fell into Islamic control and was converted into a mosque some 56 years after the Islamic Prophet passed away. It is unlikely Mr. Mohammed ever set foot in Jerusalem. But this is all a clever zionist distraction from the REAL topic . . . . we’re her to talk about Jewish lies and thevory!
Israel was created to protect a traditionally oppressed population. It is not up to the opressors to decide if that level of protection is too effective.

The late Israel Shahak, author of Jewish History, Jewish Religion wrote: "Close relations have always existed between Zionists and anti-Semites." The Zionists, Shahak wrote, "use the anti-Semites for their own purposes."
As a new global campaign against "anti-Semitism" is launched, the way Zionists use anti-Semitism needs to be understood: Zionist extremists like Ariel Sharon have always fostered and fomented anti-Semitism for one primary reason ñ to compel Jews to come to Israel. Without anti-Semitism pushing more Jews to Israel the Zionist project is doomed to fail.
Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht, in her book The Fate of the Jews, wrote: "Zionism's success is based on a Jewish misery index; the greater the misery, the greater the wish to emigrate."
Only two days after three suspect "anti-Semitic" incidents occurred on Saturday, November 15, European and Israeli political leaders swung into action to confront what Israel's prime minister called "a great wave of anti-Semitism."
An unused upper level of a Jewish school near Paris, which had been under construction, was damaged in a mysterious pre-dawn arson attack and two bombs detonated "near" synagogues in Istanbul during the Jewish Sabbath.
While the Turkish bombings took more than twice as many Muslim lives than Jewish, and in spite of the fact that no one had claimed responsibility for the school fire, the politicians and mainstream media were quick to label the incidents as "anti-Semitic" attacks.
"The attacks in Istanbul and Paris are not isolated incidents, they are symptoms of growing anti-Semitism," Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said after the incidents. "When Jews cannot pray in synagogues without fear, we are all in danger. Europe has a moral obligation to make sure anti-Semitism is stamped out."
While France has the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, the number of attacks against Jews or Jewish property in France has actually decreased in 2003. During the first 8 months of this year there were 247 anti-Jewish attacks compared to 647 for the same period in 2002.
There are about 600,000 Jews and some 5 million Muslims among the French population of 60 million. French officials say most anti-Semitic attacks during the past three years have been committed by Muslim youths angered by Israel's brutal military occupation of Palestinian land.
After the fire at the Jewish school near Paris, the Israeli Ambassador to France Nissim Zvili said the "climate of fear" was compelling 2,500 Jews to emigrate from France to Israel every year.
"I think they're really exaggerated," Roger Cukierman, head of France's Jewish community said about Zvili's figures. "The Israelis need immigration, so one can understand that they want to see a maximum number of Jews coming to their country."
Before suspects and motives for the attacks could even be discussed, Israel's prime minister Ariel Sharon flew to Rome for a three-day visit with the president of the European Union, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Sharon said that Italy was Israel's best friend in Europe and that the issue of anti-Semitism would be "central" in his talks with Italian leaders.
"If Israel is weakened," Sharon said, "the Jews worldwide will not be able to live the lives they live today. We are witness to a great wave of anti-Semitism," Sharon said, "and apart from the usual anti-Semitism against Jews, there is today the added hate of the collective Jew, which is Israel."
Sharon's comments reveal the Zionist logic about anti-Semitism: "The best solution to anti-Semitism," Sharon said, "is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews."
Sharon's goal today is the same as it has always been for Zionists ñ to bring more Jews to Israel. Sharon, who has called for one million Jews to immigrate to Israel, is facing decreasing immigration figures. "Aliyah [coming up, or immigration to Israel] is the main answer to our problems, whether security or economic in nature," Sharon says. "Without aliyah, Israel cannot exist."
Jews, however, are clearly not responding to Sharon's appeal. Jewish immigration to Israel, the "cornerstone of Zionism," has fallen by 30 percent since last year and there has been a steady decline in the number of new immigrants to Israel every year since 1999. During the first half of 2003 a mere 8,000 Jews immigrated to Israel.
"Immigration is in a tailspin," Absorption Minister Tzippi Livni said in June. "It's impossible to remain indifferent to what is going on," she said, adding "immigration will define the strength of the state of Israel." One-in-two Israelis is an immigrant.
Mike Rosenberg, director of the Jewish Agency, the body responsible for bringing Jews to Israel, told the AP last June that he noted "perceptions of growing anti-Semitism in France" and the "uncertain economic situation in Argentina" and "believed that adverse conditions for Jews elsewhere in the world would push them to Israel."
"There is still a very great reservoir of potential immigrants for Israel," Rosenberg said. "Our job is to create the conditions to harness it."
Israelis, however, are leaving the Jewish state in droves. While statistics from the Israeli government obscure the fact, between 1997 and 2000 nearly three times as many Israelis left for extended stays abroad than returned. Current figures are not available but the situation is not likely to have improved given the on-going violence and economic depression in Israel.
While the numbers through 2002 are rounded and the figures provided by the Israel government "are suspected of being incomplete," it is quite clear that many more Israelis are leaving the Jewish state ñ at least 20,000 per year ñ than are returning.
A recent poll of Jewish settlers living in the occupied territories found that more than one-in-five would leave "Israel" if they could secure a "reasonable life in another country."
Furthermore, the Palestinian population in Israel and in the occupied territories is increasing at more than twice the rate of the Jewish population. Barring ethnic-cleansing by the Israeli military, the Palestinian population will at some point ñ if it has not already ñ overtake the Jewish population in Israel-Palestine, Andrew Killgore of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs wrote recently.
Israel's rapidly increasing Palestinian population - and its political power - is seen as a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state. "In their hands lies the power to determine the right of return or to decide who is a Jew," Arnon Soffer of the Center for National Security Studies at Haifa University said. "In another few years, they will be able to decide whether Israel should continue to be a Jewish-Zionist state or whether it should 'turn into a state of all its citizens.'"
"The proportion of all non-Zionist groups will reach 50 percent of the population of Israel by 2020," Soffer said.
"Palestinians see time and history on their side," Asher Susser of Tel Aviv University said recently. "It's working for them and there is precious little Israel can do about it."

Steve:
You are obviously not putting in much effort and are merely clipping and pasting from other's compositions, without giving out credit.
And, shock of shocks, you did not answer my first and only question.
Whatev.
When I was in Israel in 1984, there was no violence. The Arabs did not love Jews but they did not hate them either. According to your last posting, this requires an explanation. Did the Jews find this detente unsatisfactory? According to your post, this would explain the return to a state of war. In reality, what took place was two events:
1. The Soviet Union stopped its long -term practice of prohibiting Jews from leaving. This coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union and had nothing to do with Jewish claims of Anti-Semitism (or as you might submit, cultivation rather then mere claims).
2. Upon resentment by local Arabs, including hundreds of thousands of day workers, at the new Russian Jews moving in, Yasser Arafat gained a stronghold and was able to sell himself as a "peacenik" or at least, a 'necessary evil'. The entire (newest) controversy essentially started as a labor action by Arabs who were loosing 'market share' to Russian Jews.
And that remains the core of the controversy.
As a "Jewish National Homeland" rather then a simple non-descriptive nation, Israel permits Jews (and only Jews) to immigrate at will. This will never do, to Arabs who have 6.5 children (on average) per family. All that work and the anticipated results, reproductive conquest becomes mathematically more difficult. Of course they are frustrated, wouldn't anyone be?
Vatican City is a nation exclusive to Catholics.
Saudi Arabia does not permit any non-Muslim houses of worship to exist (thereby foreclosing any non-Muslim residence) and Jews per-se are not permitted to enter the Holy city of Mecca. Of course, these religious/ethnic apartheids do not factor into the discussion.
The fact that all but two Arab nations were allied with Hitler in WW2 and after the war, these governments were not only allowed to resume business-as-usual but became home to some very high level Nazi war criminals, is also not relevant to the conversation.
Lastly, in the relative scheme of things, the Palestinian Arabs are far from the most troubled population in the world, yet, they continue to garner the lion-king's share of the media attention. At any moment, several ethnic populations are being butchered, sometimes in the millions, with virtually not a drop of attention drawn. Right now, there is a genocide in Congo and another in the Sudan. During the Balkans war, 7,000 Muslim men were butchered and tens of thousands of Muslim women were systematically raped. Not only did this go unpublicized, but not even the world's Muslims seemed to give a hoot. However, where Jews are involved, the alleged crimes are not only of biblical proportion but "threaten to consume the entire world". According to your postings, this too is the work of the evil Zionists, who need the up-close attention.
PS> If you do not write back, rather then clip-and-paste, I will stop devoting my time and do the same. I have plenty of such materials available.

Trollstein, you do present the view of the secular Zionist very well. But, you can understand that We of the Progressive Left do not have to answer questions from the extreme right for obvious reasons. The EU and the Progressive Left know that Israel must change its ways in the treatment of third world people, just like the USA must change its ways. Israel is not being singled out anymore than the USA. In the USA, taxpayer money supports the oppression of third world people by Israel, hence our concern. "Not in our name." Vote Green.

Steve:
"extreme right"
I co-founded the Green party of New Jersey.
I also got trashed out of the 1992 Clinton Campaign, (after he locked the primary), because I (among many other "refugees") was far too liberal.
I observe a vegan diet (30 years) for ethical reasons.
The first Green party event I attended was in New York. A party member who had co-founded that group (some years earlier) was roundly booed--when he spoke--for claiming that the "feminists" were about to "take over" the party.
BTW: If you are NOT a vegetarian, you are a bull-jive greenist, as Animal farming contributes more to world famine and pollution then virtually anything else, including war.
Of course you do not have to answer questions from anyone. But if you don't choose to answer reasonable questions, you risk not being taken seriously.
May I ask another question?
Where is this nation of "Zion" I keep hearing about? I can't seem to find it on any map.
You sound like you are probably just a kid.
BTW: When I asked to be considered for a run for NJ Governor, one of the Green membership told me they were "looking for an Arab". She was actually thinking she was being nice (by even speaking candidly to me) and certainly by speaking to me so nicely. Perhaps that is so.
Americans squarely support the Israelis in this controversy. You may not like your tax money going in that direction but, I don't like my tax money going to Egypt or Jordan or Pakistan.
Of course, according to your thinking, all of this is the result of the all-pervasive "Israel lobby" who (naturally) controls every aspect of our lives.
The US is not the EU and thank God for that. They have their priorities, such as hoping to convert oil to be traded in Euros and we have our national priorities, such as not having that event occur.
The biggest problem with the so called "Green" party (IMHO) is that it is the only USA political movement that is under the influence of foreign national counter-parts. The first time I used the word "progressive" was when I was co-running a fundraiser for Mark Green. The flaming NY liberals in attendance kept asking:
"What does PROGRESSIVE mean???" No one answered because no one had an answer. Finally, after the natives got testy, I spoke up:
"It means LIBERAL".
Then, (and only then) the check-books opened. Had I not had the courage to answer, we would have gone home dry. It is that same courage which powers my keyboard today. You, (like the other fund-raisers then), seem aghast at my audacity to speak out.
You are behind the curve.
The only question in my mind is, whether that is accidental or intentional.
I was partly responsible for the federal legislation prohibiting the feeing of cows back to other cows.
What gives you the back-stage pass to question my credentials?

You live in the past Trollstein. Every look at the US Green Party resolution 190 calling for divestment and boycott of Israel?
Ever hear of Ralph Nader? Ever hear of his views on the occupation and Kerry being a puppet of Israel? I suggest that you come out of the past and into the present. Vote Green. Support the boycott.