A Terrorist is Assassinated in Damascus: A Whodunnit

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.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice?relentless propaganda and disinformation?were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

*****

That's be none other than the GOP and the neocons.

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.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities?where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? It is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is.

" 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.

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.

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}

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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)

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

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.