On one of my Google blogs "Benyamin Solomon's Anti-Constantine Research bin", I responded to Alex Constantine calling me a "Jewish Nazi collaborator". I thought I saw an excerpt of it and was unable to find the slanderous post. Now, I saw the post. And it turned out to be the whole post. Alex gives you a link to an article he cut and pasted on his blog about Zionists supposedly making a deal with the Nazis [never mind the fact that the Nazis opposed such a deal and the fact that Zionists risked their lives to save Jews in Nazi extermination camps]. The truth is that the real Nazi collaborators were Arabs, who opposed the creation of the Jewish state. Arab nationalist and radical Muslim groups even got their influence from the Nazis. Yet you don't know the depth of this stuff from reading Alex Constantine's propaganda. Then he takes you to a link of an article that I put on the Conservative Voice [the CV deleted most of their articles and merged with Townhall], but is now on this blog. Anyway, as I said in Benyamin Solomon's Anti-Constantine Research bin, I'm not a Nazi collaborator. Alex Constantine is a wacky conspiracy theorist who calls his opponents Fascists and/or CIA agents. Make no mistake about it. Alex Constantine is not an investigative journalist; but a wacky slanderous conspiracy theory. Since Alex Constantine makes such wacked out claims, I say to him, "Congratulations. You are now fit to have a job in the Obama White House". After all, with all these wacked out guys in government positions, maybe Obama will hire him to be one of his Czars or to hold another government position. Maybe Obama would put him as an investigaitve journalist czar, if such a position is ever created.

By Benyamin Solomon, Benyamin Solomon's anti-Constantine Research bin

August 6, 2009

I take responsibility for the edit of Alex Constantine's wikipedia biography. That biography already contained pro-Constantine errors. It called him an investigative journalist and said that his topics was on Fascism [or was it investigative journalism; either or it's not accurate]. I made it more accurate. I said that it said that he's a fringe conspiracy theorist and that the subjects was name calling. It is name calling. Alex called me plenty of names. He calls me a Fascist and claimed that I'm Nazified. He called me a "poor, young, innocent, willfully ignorant, nazified puddle-stain of fascist puke". Does that sound like an investigative journalist to you? No. It's a name caller and a fringe conspiracy theorist.

I added the criticism section in order to help bring the truth on wikipedia about Alex Constantine. The criticism section is needed, so Alex's wikipedia entry isn't pro-Constantine. I am responsible for bring the truth about Alex Constantine to wikipedia.

I also added in the list of investigative journalist an accurate note about Alex Constantine, since it lists hi as an investigative journalist. I turned subjects into specialities in Alex Constantine's wikipedia bio.

note from the heroic Benyamin Solomon:The subjects/specialties part was taken out of Alex Constantine's bio. But it is still fixed, with the criticism part.

note from the heroic Benyamin Solomon:The subjects/specialities part was taken out. Alex 

On one of my blogs, I have 9 comments made by Alex Constantine with his usual garbage about CIA [cough non-existent cough] experiments, hs slanderous accusations against his opponents [the slanderous accusations are of pedophiling and murder and of being a Fascist]. Alex Constantine called me a "neo-Fascist". Alex Constantine is no investigative journalist. He's a wacky conspiracy theorist from the far left. I'm making a response with the comments in the comment section, where Alex goes crazy with the libelous accusations.

By Benyamin Solomon, Freedom

July 26, 2009

On a scale of 1 to 10, Icarly deserves a 10. Or perhaps it's so good that it broke that scale.

On a scale of 1 to 10, Icarly deserves a 10. It's a hilarious show. It's one of my favorite shows.

It's about two teenage girls Sam and Carly, both of whom host a popular web show Icarly. Icarly also has funny clips like Idrive thru, where the main characters from Icarly mess around with the drive in guys at Inside Out Burger. The Idrive Thru videos never fail to be hilarious [as I said using my Youtube user name Dendoi].

I've seen every episode of Icarly that came out [but obviously not the new ones that didn't come out yet].

It's a hilarious and entertaining TV show that, on a scale from 10 to 10, deserves 10. But perhaps it's so good that it broke that scale.

By Benyamin Solomon, Conservative Voice

March 18, 2008

I must admit that in my article "Proof of Noam Chomsky's Anti-Semitism," I only used some of the proof. I did not use all of it. In this article, I may not use all of it either even it wasn't used in the last article. In my article Proof of Noam Chomsky's anti-Semitism, I have a quote from an interview with Shmate in which he called the American-Jewish community totalitarian and said that they don't want democracy or freedom. I showed some of the proof that Chomsky was excusing Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson. Like in the last article, in this article, I say that my claim that Chomsky is anti-Semitic and a self-hating Jew is not because of his criticism of Israel's occupation of the West Bank [Israel left Gaza in 2005] but because of other claims he made. In an article in Variant Randomstore.com, which was written by Noam Chomsky himself, he said in the article that American Jews are the most privileged people, that they have 98% of control and that privileged people want total control. "By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There's plenty of racism, but it's directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue." 

Chomsky later denied what he said. When there were different people asking questions and him answering them in the Independent, he was asked, "In 2002 you said that anti-Semitism in the US was no longer a problem but was raised because a "privileged people" wanted to make sure they had total control, and not just 98 per cent control. Do you really believe Jews have 98 per cent control of America?" 

Chomsky said, "You misunderstood. It was an ironic reference to people who would not be satisfied even if they had only 98 per cent control. Of course there is nothing even remotely like that." 

But if you read the article, you'd see Chomsky saying that we Jews [I'm an American Jew] in America have 98% of control. So if privileged people want total control and Jews in the US are the most privileged people, that's saying that American Jews want total control. That claim is defiantly anti-Semitic. It's not just criticizing Israel. It's demonizing all Jews in America. Anti-Semitism right now is being dressed up as criticism of Israel or of its occupation. 

Israel Shahak is another self-hating Jew. Unlike Chomsky, he's not an American Jew. He's an Israeli Jew. He wrote a book called Jewish history and Jewish religion, which is singling out and demonizing the Jewish religion and the Jews through their history. It was attacking Judaism and not just simply criticizing Israel. It was mainly about how the Jewish religion was evil. In the back cover, Chomsky called Shahak an outstanding scholar. Chomsky said, "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” I say Judaism like other religions deserve to be criticized. I'm a secular Jew myself. Being an Atheist or not believing in God is of course not anti-Semitic and I’m for that right [I will not say my positions on atheist or my position on weather God exists or doesn’t exist in this article]. Shahak demonized Jews. He wrote the book demonizing the Jewish religion with the purpose to demonize Jews. The "outstanding scholar" had the nerve to compare liberation movements with anti-Semitic movements that attacked Jews for being Jews. If you think I mean that he's comparing Palestinian terrorists to other liberation movements, you're wrong. He was not justifying the killing of IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers [not all IDF soldiers are Jewish but most are. But I'll let those fact pass] or innocent Israeli civilians [the killing of innocent Israeli civilians as any innocent civilian is already a horrible thing to do but let that pass in this article] but justifying the killing of Jews prior to the establishment of Israel. The "outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge" said in his book, "All Jews who really want to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the totalitarian Jewish past must face the question of their attitude towards the popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past, particularly those connected with the rebellions of enserfed peasants. On the other side, all the apologists of the Jewish religion and of Jewish segregationism and chauvinism also take their stand—both ultimately and in current debates—on the same question. The undoubted fact that the peasant revolutionaries committed shocking atrocities against Jews (as well as against their other oppressors) is used as an "argument" by those apologists, in exactly the same way that the Palestinian terror is used to justify the denial of justice to the Palestinians. 

Our own answer must be a universal one, applicable in principle to all comparable cases. And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish particularism and racism and from the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such an answer is not very difficult. 

After all, revolts of oppressed peasants against their masters and their masters' bailiffs are common in human history. A generation after the Chmielnicki uprising of the Ukrainian peasants, the Russian peasants rose under the leadership of Stenka Ryazin, and again, one hundred years later, in the Pugachev rebellion. In Germany there was the Peasant War of 1525, in France the Jacquerie of 1357-8 and many other popular revolts, not to mention the many slave uprisings in all parts of the world. All of them—and I have intentionally chosen to mention examples in which Jews were not targets—were attended by horrifying massacres, just as the Great French Revolution was accompanied by appalling acts of terror. What is the position of true progressives—and, by now, of most ordinary decent educated people be they Russian, German or French—on these rebellions? Do decent English historians, even when noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish peasants rising against their enslavement, condemn the latter as "anti-English racists"? What is the attitude of progressive French historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to answer it. But to ask a similar question of many "progressive" or even "socialist" Jewish circles is to receive a very different answer; here an enslaved peasant is transformed into a racist monster, if Jews profited from his state of slavery and exploitation." 

He also wrote in the Radio Islam, an anti-Semitic bigoted site, about Jewish "hatred" toward Christianity. He said this false claim, "Dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism. Spitting on the cross, an especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews. In the past, when the danger of anti-Semitic hostility was a real one, the pious Jews were commanded by their rabbis either to spit so that the reason for doing so would be unknown, or to spit onto their chests, not actually on the cross or openly before the church." 

You can get the idea about the bigoted hate filled nonsense this "outstanding scholar" Shahak said. Chomsky complements this anti-Semitic self-hating Jew. But as I said, both Chomsky and Shahak have one thing in common, they're both self-hating Jews. Chomsky who is an American one and Shahak who is an Israeli one. 

Chomsky also justified attacks on synagogues. Chomsky was asked, "What about recent incidents in Europe and the Arab World? It would seem to involve rather acrobatic leaps of logic to say that these are not anti-Semitic. 

Chomsky used Israeli policy to justify these attacks. Chomsky said, "What's talked about in Europe is something quite different. In Europe, there's a large Muslim population, and much of it has been driven to fundamentalist Islam. They display hatred towards Jews that is a reflection of Israeli practices. I mean, if you carry out a brutal and vicious occupation for thirty-five years, subject the people to humiliation and degradation, break their bones and steal their land and resources, it has consequences. Sometimes the consequences can be quite ugly and among them is the burning of synagogues in France. Yes, it's anti-Semitism. But Israel insists on it. Remember, Israel does not call itself the state of its citizens. The high court in Israel declared over forty years ago that Israel is the sovereign state of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora. That means Israel is my sovereign state, but it's not the sovereign state of its Palestinian citizens. Well, if that's what you declare yourself to be, then you can hardly blame critics of Israeli policy for having negative attitudes towards Jews. After all, it's my sovereign state-why shouldn't they go after me? This is one of many respects in which insisting on a state that is fundamentally racist in its basic character and declares itself to be the state of Jews everywhere is harmful to Jews. So to call these manifestations, 'anti-Semitism' is misleading." 

We should be thankful to people like Paul Bogdanor for exposing the lies and distortions by Noam Chomsky. In this article, I showed more proof that Chomsky is anti-Semitic. Chomsky is one of those guys who disguises his anti-Semitism and other anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and when it comes to him defending Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson , he disguises that with "defending their freedom of speech. I have more about the Faurisson affair in my article I wrote before Proof of Noam Chomsky's anti-Semitism.

By Benyamin Solomon
I declared Dendoi to be my official youtube channel and account.

By Benyamin Solomon

This is a review and refutation of "The Everything book to the Middle east," on its claims on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 This article will refute Jacob M. Fuller's book, "The Everything Middle East Book'' regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

 This book underestimates the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. This book said:

Nevertheless, the Holocaust stole the lives of more than 5 million Jews and another 5 million non-Jewish civilians. [page 160]

Actually, the Holocaust "stole the lives" of six million Jews to be exact [if you exclude the farhud and other acts of violence by Hitler's allies in the Arab and Muslim world]. It's a well-known fact that the Nazis tried to annihilate the Jewish people. 

Nowhere mentioned in this book is the fact that both radical Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab nationalists collaborated with the Nazis and supported Hitler's holocaust. This book doesn't even mention Amin Al-Husseini who said to "kill the Jews wherever you find them," who helped organize the failed pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, which included the Farhud, which was a pogrom on Iraq Jews, who commanded two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions and who helped bring nazi anti-Semitism into the Muslim world.

The book said:

The next day, Arab armies made their own declaration of resistance, and the first Arab-Israeli war began. [page 161]

If when saying resistance, you mean a war of annihilation, I totally agree. The Arabs sought to annihilate this free democracy. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, described the Arab invasion as "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

The Arab states sought to annihilate the Jews in Israel. It was a Nazified genocidal invasion. It was a genocide on Israeli Jews. 

This book mentions Deir Yassin in the E Fact, but makes no mention of the Heborn massacre, which was organizationed by Hitler's favorite Arab friend Amin al-Husseini, the same guy who then-PA [Palestinian Authority] President Yasser Arafat called a "hero" in 2002. The E fact said:

 On April 9, 1948 (more than a month before the Arab-Israeli war began), future Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzaq Shamir led a group of armed Jewish radicals into the Palestinian village of Dayr Yassin. When the dust settled, the bodies of 245 Palestinian men, women and children were found, with many stuffed in walls and tied to automobiles. [page 161]

This book makes no mention of the Jews displaced by the Arab states after the 1948 war, the ones who were resettled in Israel. It accuses Israel of displacing over 1 million Palestinian people. This book said:

After being displaced by the State of Israel, over 1 million people continue to live as refugees in impoverished Arab ghettos. [page 163]

Oh yea, Jacob. And the Arab governments had nothing to do with the refugee issue. Israel decided, hey it's a nice day to displace Palestinians. The truth is different. 

Many Arab refugees fled the fighting. Some left at the request of Arab governments. In fact, in some cases, Israel actually tried to convince the Arab refugees to stay. The ones who fled before the 1948 war did it in their own. In fact, after the Deir Yasisn massacre, Arab reporters exaggerated the bloodshed committed by Jewish forces to get more Arabs against Israel. It got more Arabs to flee out of fear and that helped contribute to the refugee problem. 

I will neither confirm nor deny that Israel ever expelled any of the Palestinian refugees. But the point here is that Israel is not the main one who caused it. Israel certainly didn't expell 1 million Palestinians in the 1948 war. The Arab regimes played a far bigger role in creating the refugee problem than Israel. Let's not forget that the refugee problem is a result of war and aggression started by Arab terrorists and regimes, with the goal to destroy Israel and to kill off its Jewish majority. In fact, the Arab regimes and Palestinian terrorist groups used these Palestinian refugees as pawns in their war of terror on Israel. They want the refugees to stay in the camps as a propaganda war on Israel and as another attempt to be able to delegitimize Israel and destroy Israel. Salma Adbullah said:

  They [the Arab regimes] made all these trillions because of the Palestinian problem. The money that's supposed to go to the poor Palestinians, the refugees out of nowhere were asked to leave their land. You know, and I asked people, I wanted to be fair to everybody involved. I asked refugees who left and I asked people who lived in different countries, "Who asked you to leave your homes?" And they all say the Arab countries. They even offered us transportation. They would give them boats or whatever. They would go into the arab countries and say,"All you have to do is stay here 15 days." You hear the word 15 days repeated all the time. 15 days you're going to stay here. 15 days you're going to stay here. We're going to beat the Zionists and we're going to go back to your own country. 

Why didn't the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority resettle the refugees instead of keeping them in camps? Why couldn't the Palestinian Authority use the money they got from Israel and the west including the US to actually make Palestinian lives prosperous and use it to help the refugees? It's because they wanted to continue the terrorist war on Israel. They want to prop up the right of return among Palestinian refugees so they would demographically destroy Israel by having the right of return and also for a propaganda war on Israel. 

Before, the book states:

The only evidence most could provide was a simple skeleton key. Over the following years, the key became a common symbol for those who had lost everything to the new state. [page 162-163]

A symbol for a false dream that Israel will never allow to happen. The refugee problem can be solved without Israel. Why can't these Arab states, with billions of dollars, resettle the refugees? Many refugees were resettled without a right of return. The key is a symbol to stir up hatred toward Israel and have Palestinians rot in refugee camps until the right of return, which demographically destroys Israel, is implemented.

The book claims:

Throughout the 1950's, many displaced Palestinians decided they would rather die fighting than rot in filthy refugee camps. [page 163]

Yea, die fighting as in killing men, women and children. Not everyone in the Fedayeen [the group fighting Israel after the 1948 war] were Palestinian refugees. This group was dedicated to Israel's destruction and committed terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.

Imagine if Holocaust survivors carried out a daily campaign of terrorism against German civilians  because they're refugees and what Hitler did to them. People would condemn it. This is what that argument is like.  The book claims:

Despite their killings of Israeli soldiers, the Fedayeen attacks actually emboldened the Jewish newcomers, inspiring them to launch counterattacks into refugee camps, killing their share of Arab fighters and civilians. [page 163]

First off, these Israeli "soldiers" killed by the Fedayeen were not soldiers. They were innocent men, women and children who came to Israel. They were innocent men, women and children. They carried no weapons with them.  The Fedayeen didn't attack Israeli soldiers. They attacked Israeli civilians. Israel found she needed to defend herself and attacked the Fedayeen. See how that works Jacob.

The book said:

In the midst of these changing times,  Palestinians sought to regain their dignity and homeland by attacking Israel. [page 164]

A Palestinian homeland is one of the biggest hoaxes in history. This is a used as an excuse for propaganda reasons, when the reality is that the Palestinian terrorist struggle is trying to destroy Israel and in their genocide on Israeli Jews. The book claims:

During the mid-1960's, intense fighting erupted between Israeli and Syrian forces, bring instability to the Soviet-backed Syrian regime. To deal with this situation, Russians employed another of their patron states Egypt to defend Syria in the event of the Israeli invasion. [page 165]

Well, then maybe that poor Syrian regime [dictatorship] shouldn't have used the Golan Heights to launch all those attacks on innocent civilians in northern Israel. Again, Jacob leaves that out. He seeks to whitewash the genocidal terrorist war on Israel.  Aww, that poor Syrian regime. All they wanted to do was I don't know- destroy Israel and its people!

Jacob claims that Israel went on to attacking Jordan. The book said:

After learning this pact, Israel directed it's reprisals against Jordan. [page 165]

This book will have you believe that Israel just went around attacking Arab countries for the sheer heck of it. Yea, these poor innocent Arab countries. They never did a thing against Israel except for well, trying to destroy Israel and its people and sent terrorists to attack Israeli men, women and children.  Israel was attacking terrorists inside Jordan.

No country will tolerate the terrorism on and the genocidal attempts to annihilate that country. No country will put up with what Israel put up with since its birth. 

The book said:

In the midst of this, the Soviets sent bad intelligence to the Egyptians, warning them of a massive Israeli buildup on the Syrian border. With this information, Egyptian forces moved through the Sinai desert toward the Israeli border, reoccupying border positions held by the United Nations  since 1949. In addition, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi troops moved to Israel's borders to deflect possible strikes. Depending on whom you talk to, Israel's next move was either part of a calculated plan of expansion or a pre-emptive strike of desperation. Either way, on June 5, 1967, the Israeli air force made their first move, destroying most of Egypt's air force before they could leave the ground. [page 165-166]

Actually, first off the Egyptians and other Arab states did not go to Israel's borders to deflect an Israeli attack.  It wasn't any intelligence information told to the Egyptians that made them move close to Israel. They moved near their borders to prepare for a genocidal Nazified invasion of Israel, to destroy Israel and her Jewish majority once and for all. To know this, you just had to listen to what the Arab leaders said then. Listen to the radio and read the newspapers, see the political cartoons bragging about how they were going to destroy Israel and her Jewish majority once and for all. Jacob Fellure doesn't mention this because he whitewashes the Arab Nazi war on Israel. For good information on the Six-day war, go to http://sixdaywar.co.uk/ and http://www.sixdaywar.org/. 

Nowhere did the Arab leaders express concerns that Israel could attack them. 

''We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy," said the Syrian then president Dr. Nureddin al-Attasi to his troops. 

Egyptian-then President Gamal Abdel Nasser said in the speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions:

Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.

Nasser also said in his press conference:

We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.

Nowhere mentioned is the fact that UN peacekeepers were in Egypt near the border with Israel to keep the peace between the two countries after Israel left Egypt, thanks to pressure from the UN including the Soviet Union and the United States. A few months before the Six-day war, Egypt expelled all peacekeepers and closed Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. As I showed from above, Nasser made it clear that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel. He made it clear that he seeks Israel's destruction, Yet people like Jacob M. Fellure can't seem to get it. 

Cairo radio said:

The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel.

Then-president of Iraq Aref said:

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map.

Nasser also said:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations.

Ahmad Shukairy, then chairman of the PLO said:

Those who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive.

Yet guess what? Israeli then Prime minister Levi Eshkol said:

Israel wants to make it clear to the government of Egypt that it has no aggressive intentions whatsoever against any Arab state at all.

Israel also thought it could get Jordan out of the war with Israel because Jordan was pretty close to the west compared to Egypt and Syria. Levi Eshkol wrote to Jordan's king Hussein:

We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might.

The UN did not hold border positions near Israel since 1949. It was since 1956 after Israel wiped out the Fedayeen and left because of international pressure. Israel decided to have UN peacekeepers keep the peace there. 

Two years before the 1967 Six day war, Nasser said:

We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood

The book claims:

However, after the '67 war, Palestinian Arabs found their homeland occupied by a non-Arab government whose laws and language were unfamiliar. Because of this, Palestinians look to their unique heritage while resisting the expanding Zionist state. [page 167]

Hey, has it ever occurred to the anti-Israel propagandist that maybe this so-called evil expansionist Zionist state wants to simply live in peace and security and not have the Nazis in the Middle East constantly attack it. By the way, Palestinians found their "unique" heritage as another weapon against Israel. Former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat said:

Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.
When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.

These Palestinian terrorists fighting Israel want either a united Arab state on all of the Middle East including Israel and the territories or radical Islamists fighting to impose their fascist Nazi form of Islam on the world. Mickey Mouse on al Aqsa TV [Hamas] TV called for "world leadership under Islamic leadership.'' 

Faisial Husseini, Palestinian Authority Minister to Jerusalem Affairs, called himself a Pan-Arab nationalist when he was admitting that the Oslo accords was simply a Trojan horse to eventually eliminate Israel.

I agree with Jacob that the Palestinian identity is unique if "unique" means a complete hoax. 

Zuhair Muhsin, then military commander of the PLO and a member of the PLO executive council said:

There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.

Syrian-then dictator Hafez Assad said to PLO-then leader Yasser Arafat:

You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.

Even on resolution 242 [page 166], though the book does mention that it calls on the Arab states to recognize Israel's right to exist, it failed to mention that it calls on Israel to have secure borders. The book falsely claims that it calls on Israel to leave the territories such as the West Bank and Gaza. It doesn't. It calls for Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. Notice it excludes all and the. however, all claims is included for the part that calls for ''termination of all claims  or states of belligerency.''

It calls on the Arab states and Palestinian terrorists to recognize Israel's right to exist and cease terrorism. Israel accepted resolution 242, though the PLO didn't.  Syrian rejected it according to the book. Though some arab states did accept it, they twisted it's meaning to make it seem like they had no obligation to recognize Israel's right to exist or end its genocidal war with Israel and made it seem like it calls on Israel to give up all the territories captured in the Six-day war. US-then ambassador Arther Goldberg acknowledged that the elimination of all and the from the territories was on purpose.

Nowhere mentioned is the fact that Israel sought to give up the territories. Israel offered to give back Gaza, the Sinai and the Golan Heights while to temporarily hold on to the West Bank in exchange for peace, which means ending the war and terrorism on Israel and recognizing Israel's right to exist. 

However, the arab states delcared in Kharoum, "No peace, no negotiations. No recognition.''

Then-Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said,"We don't want these lands, we are just waiting for a phone call from King Hussein of Jordan, to give these lands to him in exchange of a peace treaty.''

The book claims:

Nevertheless, this document's [resolution 242] vague declarations did little to bring a lasting peace. Instead, finger-pointing and inaction left Israeli occupation forces in control of Egyptian, Syrian and Palestinian peoples, while Palestinian fighters continued their resistance efforts against Israel. [page 166-167]

Hmm, I wonder why Israel continued its occupation? Oo, pick me! Pick me!. It's, I don't know- because Israel had no peace partner. For Israel offered to trade land for peace. Yet the Arab states never negotiated with Israel because they don't want to recognize Israel's right to exist or end their Nazi war on Israel. Ding, ding ding! That's correct!

Israel leaving the territories reuslts in them being used as terrorist bases for their genocidal Nazi war on Israel until they achieve their aims, which is the destruction of both Israel and her Jewish majority.

These Palestinian fighters are continuing what Al-Husseini sought to do in the holy land, which is to eliminate Israel [before Israel was created, he sought to prevent the creation of a Jewish state] and kill Israel's Jewish majority.

On Israel's settlements, it claims that Israeli settlements are illegal. 

The book said:

Since their initial occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, some Isrraeli extremists began constructiong heavily fortified Jewish settlements in occupied Arab areas [page 168].

I, and everyone agrees that there are some extremists and rejectionists in Israeli settlements, who want to take over the territories, annex them as part of Israel and  expell its Arab population.  Israeli settlers come for different reasons and are not a monolith. Some don't mind a two-state solution if it brings real peace. David Meir Levi wrote in the pamphlet "Big Lies Demolishing the myths of the Propaganda war on Israel" that [I cut and pasted these quotes form http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501222/posts]:

There are five types of settlements: A. Agrarian settlements for military purposes manned mostly by soldiers; B. Settlements of Jews returning to sites occupied by Jews prior to 1948 (Hebron, Gush Etzion, Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem); C. Expanding suburbs of Israeli cities on or near the “Green Line;” D. Settlements unrelated to the previous three types; E. Illegal rogue settlements

 

A. Settlements for Military Purposes

Agrarian settlements manned by IDF soldiers were established soon after the war along what the IDF felt were crucial corridors of defense, especially along the Jordan river, near the “Green Line,” in the Golan Heights, and near Gaza. Because Egypt, Syria and Jordan remained belligerent states for decades after the war, and because the PLO was actively trying to develop bases for terrorism in the newly conquered territories, and because Israel had previously been invaded across these territories, these settlements were intended primarily to serve a strategic military defensive purpose.

The Alon plan, developed by General Yigal Alon shortly after the war, envisioned a series of these military-agrarian settlements (referred to as “nahal” in Hebrew) protecting strategic areas along the Jordan river (it is important to recall that the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was in a de iure state of war with Israel until 1994) and across parts of the West Bank where surveillance and the potential for rapid military deployment were deemed essential for security purposes.

In several cases, where Palestinian farmers utilized the Israeli court system to lodge complaints that the army was unnecessarily taking land without proper military purpose, the Israeli High Court of Justice decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The army site at Beth El (near Ramallah) is the best-known case, and probably one of the few cases in all of world history where the legal system of the victorious country decided in favor of the defeated, contrary to the security

related demands of the army. The IDF was forced to move its base about ten kilometers further west, to accommodate the land claims of the local Palestinians.

 

B. Settlements of Jews Returning To Their Pre-1948 Homes

Settlement of civilian Israelis in the West Bank began shortly after the 1967 war, with a small group of Orthodox Jews setting up a few households in the former Jewish section of Hebron, followed by a larger re-settling of Jews in the rapidly reconstructed Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem. Jews had lived in Hebron almost continuously since the days of Joshua, 3100 years ago, and were expelled only during the horrific Arab pogroms of 1929 in which hundreds were slaughtered. Jewish habitation in Jerusalem had a similar millennia-long history, with the 1948 war and the massacre of about half of the population of the Jewish Quarter terminating Jewish presence there.

Later, Jews resettled the villages of the Kfar Etzion area (aka Gush Etzion) southwest of Bethlehem. Since this area had been extensively settled and developed in the early part of the 20th century by Zionist pioneers, and mobs of Arab irregulars had massacred most of the Jews of these villages during the 1948 war, the return of Israelis to these sites created additional Type B settlements.

 

C: Settlements Expanding Suburbs of Israeli Cities On Or Near The “Green Line”

Unoccupied areas around Jerusalem and to the east of Kfar Saba and Netania (near Tel Aviv) and to the northeast of Petah Tiqvah were used as sites for major building projects that created low cost housing for the expanding populations of the Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv areas. In most cases, the land utilized for these projects was Jordanian ‘Crown Land’, land to which no individual could lay claim of private owner ship. In the absence of Jordan’s willingness to enter into peace nego tiations after the war, Israel’s expropriation of these unoccupied areas was legal in as much as Israel’s sovereignty, having been created via defensive actions against an aggressor nation (Jordan), was legal.

In cases where West Bank Arabs legally owned land that Israel wanted for these expansion projects, Israel bought the land at fair market prices. Land sale to Israel was fairly active throughout the decades after the Six-day war. So much so that when the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, Arafat declared that sale of land to Jews was a capital offense; and as a result, Palestinian families who had benefited from these sales were suddenly in mortal danger and some were forced to flee the West Bank.

The rapid growth in Jerusalem’s Jewish population after the war presented the Israeli government with both a problem and a solution of considerable political valence. Areas of dense Jewish settlement were developed in order to accommodate this growth, and these settlements were used to surround Jerusalem, such that the 1948-1967 phenom enon of a “Jerusalem Corridor” (where Jerusalem was surrounded on three-and-a-half sides by hostile Arab towns and villages with access to other Israeli areas restricted to only one narrow road) would not be re-created in the context of a future peace agreement with the Arabs. The outlying areas (French Hill, Ammunition Hill, Gilo, Ma’aleh Adumim, Har Homah, inter alia) were turned into hi-rise suburbs that expanded the city’s perimeter and accommodated the burgeoning population. Of these, only Gilo was built on privately owned land. A Christian family in Beit Jalla sold the hilltop site to the municipality of Jerusalem in 1974.

 

D: Settlements Unrelated to the Previous Three Types

Over time, religious and right wing political pressure supported the creation of settlements elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza. Under Prime Ministers Begin and Rabin, these settlements prolifer ated. Often they were founded near ancient Jewish holy sites, such as Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus (Biblical Shechem).

Arab spokespersons claim that these settlements, some of which were built well inside the West Bank or Gaza areas, stole land from Arab farmers. Israel claims that most land used for these developments was unoccupied and un-owned, thus qualifying as ‘Crown Land’ on which Israel had full legal right to build and develop. Where privately owned land was needed for settlement expansion, Israel claims to have purchased that land from its legal owners at fair market values.

There was considerable debate in the Israeli government and society at large as to whether allowing these Type D settlements to

be developed was productive in the context of Israel’s long-term goal of achieving peace. Ultimately, the government felt that creating “uvdot bashetah” (facts in the field - settlements that were there, liter ally in concrete, with buildings, populations, agrarian and industrial activities, connected by efficient infra-structure to the pre-1967 Israeli areas) would be useful as bagaining chips in future negotiations.

 

E: Illegal Rogue Settlements

Illegal Rogue Settlements were set up by break-away settlers, often contrary to IDF and/or government instructions, sometimes on privately owned Palestinian land. Palestinian complaints about such illegal land grabs have been adjudicated in the Israeli court system with decisions not infrequently in favor of the Palestinians. These settlements, whether on illegally taken land or not, are considered illegal by many in Israel. Some have been forcibly dismantled. This is a very emotional issue in Israel, with mostly orthodox Jews demanding that all Jews be allowed to settle anywhere in the Promised Land (especially anywhere in the region where Abraham lived: i.e., the West Bank from Shechem/Nablus to Hebron). Anti-settlement sentiment among Israelis (especially the non-religious) is spurred in large part by these rogue sites; and it is almost exclusively this type of settlement on the West Bank that Prime Minister Sharon has considered dismantling even before peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

This book also said:

As these areas were outside of Israel's internationally recognized borders (Green-line Israel), it was illeagal to build Israeli settlements on them.

While some Israeli settlements are on illegal areas, Israeli settlements themselves aren't illegal. David Meir Levi said:

Anti-settlement spokespersons (Arab, Israeli and other) have repeatedly branded the settlements as illegal in accordance with the 4th Geneva Convention and international law. However, even a superficial review of the relevant elements of international law dem onstrates that this interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a typical example of Orwellian “doublespeak”. It is precisely international law, the Geneva Convention, and relevant UN resolutions that define these settlements as legal.
According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the prohibition of exiling conquered populations and settling populations from the conqueror’s territory into conquered territories pertains to territory conquered in an offensive war. These sections of the Convention were written to deter future actions like those of the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WWII. Since Israel acquired sovereignty over the territories in a defensive war, it is highly questionable whether these prohibitions apply. The fact that the belligerent opponent (Jordan) remained at war (until 1994) meant that the conquered population was potentially hostile. Moreover, Israel never exiled any Arabs from anywhere in the territories (except in 1992 when it deported about 400 terrorists to south Lebanon in an attempt to stop terror activities).
On the contrary, because of Israel’s policies of ‘open bridges’ across the Jordan (although Jordan was still in a state of declared war with Israel), Arabs migrated into Israel in vast numbers, and the Arab population of the West Bank tripled, from about 650,000 in 1967 to more than 2,000,000 in 1994, with a commensurate increase in Arab settlements (some estimates suggest that as many as 260 new Arab villages or expansions of existing sites occurred during this time).
It is obvious therefore, that Israeli settlement activity not only did nothing to infringe on the well being of the indigenous population; rather, that activity actually created the beneficial economic environ ment into which hundreds of thousands of Arabs could integrate.

This book claims that the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt made no mention of the Palestinians. The book claims:

Although this peace agreement is a monumental achievement, it failed to deal to deal with the Palestinian territories, causing many Arabs to see Sadat as a sellout. [page 169]

WRONG! It called for autonomy for the Palestinians. Israel had no peace partner and had to deal with PLO terrorism. The PLO was still publicly dedicated to Israel's destruction and didn't pretend to recognize Israel's right to exist or pretend to denounce terrorism until 1988. Israel had no Palestinian peace partner. Many Arabs including the Arab states and Palestinian terrorist groups such as the PLO saw Sadat as a "sellout" because he recognized Israel's right to exist and agreed to give up the terrorist war on Israel. Israel gave up the Sinai to Egypt. 

When it gets to the first intifada, it is totally misleading the readers in a pro-intifada direction. It fails to mention that the first intifada wasn't just stoning Israeli soldiers, it also was attacks on Israeli civilians and Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel, which was basically many Palestinians wanting peaceful coexistence with Israel and opposing the terrorism.

The book said:

Like a master on the plantation , the Israeli government determained the fate of the Palestinians until one day the slaves revolted.

The book then goes on to describe the first intifada. It gives pro-intifada propaganda and then describes some of Israel's measures, which I will neither confirm or deny. Israel's respnse was harsh.

What's not mentioned is that the intifada was bloody not only to IDF soldiers. In fact, it was started after an Israeli shopper was stabbed to death when shopping. An Israeli truck accidently hit a Palestinian car. It was lies on Israel that really brought on the intifada.

It was a violent uprising started by the PLO and then taken over by Hamas. Mitchell G. Bard, in Jewish Virtual Library said:

False charges of Israeli atrocities and instigation from the mosques played an important role in starting the intifada. On December 6, 1987, an Israeli was stabbed to death while shopping in Gaza. One day later, four residents of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza were killed in a traffic accident. Rumors that the four had been killed by Israelis as a deliberate act of revenge began to spread among the Palestinians. Mass rioting broke out in Jabalya on the morning of December 9, in which a 17-year-old youth was killed by an Israeli soldier after throwing a Molotov cocktail at an army patrol. This soon sparked a wave of unrest that engulfed the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

This book fails to mention that it was started based on lies. This book presents the Palestinians as slaves, simply because Israel refuses to have their country terrorized by Nazi-like terrorists. In fact, Israel left the territories alone and later [after Oslo]  imposed the restrictions to gain security. Guess what, it works. It claims that the territories were "cut off economically from the rest of the world" and that "Palestinians were forced to become day laborers in Israel."

Guess what, it was in Israel where most Palestinians were being employed. Yes, I agree the territories are impoverished now. This book was talking about before Oslo when Israel controlled the territories, during the time of the first intifada. Also, if the intifada won, it would turn the territories into a terrorist base and give them a base to fight Israel.

Martin Gilbert's book "The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" [this is taken from the eighth edition published in 2005] actually shows on page 129 that life under Israeli rule improved. That book stated:

Despite their desire for independence and their dislike of the Israeli occupation, the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza benefited from the Social and economic policies of Israel.

Yea, Jacob, what slaves? That book has a chart of some on the right of the passage, with "before 1967" and "after 1989," showing that malaria was eliminated and that the number of school teachers increased. That chart shows that more villages were connected to water.

As pointed out in that book and shown in the chart, building a university in the West Bank was banned under Jordanian rule. Yet when Israel took over, not only was the ban lifted. But six universities were established.

Ephraim Karsh wrote:

Israel's restraint in this sphere -- which turned out to be desperately misguided -- is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.
In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world -- ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). [from Ephraim Karsh's article "What Occupation" in the Commentary and pasted by Aish.com, in the book "Israel:Life in the shadow of terror", it is titled "History of the territories"]

That article also said:

In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges.

The book said:

If only they could be free from Israel's clutches, they too might enjoy their lands and their prosperity. [page 171]

Yet, as you'll see the book fails to mention Arafat's corruption [it was published in 2004 and maybe before Arafat's death] and the increase of terrorism, which got the territories in poverty. The economy got worse after they were "free from Israel's clutches." Even many Palestinians themselves see Arafat and Fatah as corrupt.

The book said:

The passion of the intifada fighters awakened many Israelis to the injustices caused by their government. In addition, forty years of life under Israeli rule brought many Palestinians to realize the Jewish State was not going to go away. With each side wanting a normal life, compromises were made in which Israeli "doves,'' or peacemakers pushed for a withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, while Palestinian doves called for the recognition of Israel according to its pre-1967 borders. [page 171]

Notice that when Jacob talks about the Israeli doves, the doves is in quotation marks, but when talking about Palestinian doves, the doves is not in quotation marks. This is another example of the author's pro-Palestinian anti-Israel bias. The intifada was used by the media as anti-Israel propaganda. Israel was willing to trade land for peace, since day one. 

This book talks about the failed talks at Madrid and then the Oslo accords. The book said:

According to the principles of the Oslo accords, Israel and the PLO were to mutually recognize one another. Israel was to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the PLO was to take specific steps toward ensuring Israel's security. In the face of this monumental victory for moderates on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian hawks violently opposed the arrangement. For Israel's minority of extremists, any loss of territory was unacceptable. At the same time, same fanatical Palestinian groups viewed the recognition of Israel as cowardly submission to Zionism. [page 173]

Yes that is true. Yes, a minority of Israelis, all of whom extremists, did want to take over the territories. The Palestinians who reject Israel's right to exist, though they don't represent the whole Palestinian population, represent the leadership and the terrorist groups. 

This book makes the Hamas suicide bombings seem like they're a response to Baruch Goldstien's attacks on Palestinians who prayed in the mosque of Abraham in Hebron. The book states:

In the city of Hebron, on Feburary 25, 1994, an Israeli settler responded to Rabin's concessions by killing twenty-nine Palestinians as they prayed at the mosque of Abraham inside the tomb of the Patriarchs complex. The Islamic group Hamas answered the Hebron massacre with severla bombings, yet both Arafat and Raibn continued their march toward peace. [page 173]

Hamas would've committed their suicide bombings even if the Hebron massacre didn't happen. The first Hamas suicide bombing happened in 1993, before Oslo. This book doesn't even say that Hamas committed the suicide bombings to derail the "wonderful" Oslo "peace" process, but as a response to Goldsteins massacre at the Heborn mosque. Jacob, get this in your head. The suicide bombings were there to eliminate Israel. They were there to make life in Israel a living nightmare.  Arafat didn't continue his "march toward peace.'' When talking to his people, he called for violent jihad toward Israel. In 1996, Arafat said:

We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among us Arabs.

Arafat compared the Oslo accords to the Huddibayya accords between the Quraysh [Meccan] tribe and Muhammad, the founder of Islam. When strong enough, Muhammad and his Muslim forces conqured Mecca and defeated the Quraysh. Arafat collaborated with terorrist groups including Hamas.

 The book also said:

After Rabin's assassination, two large Palestinian suicide bombings rocket the nation, creating a drastic shift in Israeli public opinion. From the euphoria of Rabin's peace victories, the region spiraled into a pit of desperation and fear. More concerned with security than peace, the Israeli people elected the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu as their leader. Reluctantly, the new prime minister continued with the principles of the Oslo accords, allowing increased Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, Netanyahu showed his true colors by lifting the four year ban on settlement construction and refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat for scheduled talks. [page 174].

Yes, Netanyahu did continue the peace process. What "scheduled talks" did Netanyahu miss? It was already after 1995 when 42% of the west Bank and 90% of Gaza, were under Palestinian Authority rule, meaning that 98% of the Palestinian people were under Arafat's rule and were no longer living under Israeli "occupation." Whether Netanyahu continued with the settlements or not, they're not illegal. Oslo said nothing about the Israeli settlements.

On the Camp David summit, the book claims:

Despite periods of disagreements and several stalemates, Barak agreed to make concessions, which allowed final status negotiations to move forward. In July 2000, Israeli and Palestinian leaders met at Camp David, hoping to producea historic agreement, just as Israeli and Egyptian leaders did in 1979. As it turned out, the summit was fruitless. as neither side would compromise on having Jerusalem as its capital. 

Ahh, wrong! What happened was that Barak offered to give up 97% of the West Bank, give up three percent of Israel proper to compensate for the 3% of the West Bank Israel would retain,  give up all of Gaza and the non-Jewish quarters of East Jerusalem. Israel offered to hand over the Muslim holy sites on the temple mount to Arafat. Arafat was asked to recognize the sacred holy sites to Jews. But he denies that there ever was a Jewish temple. 

It was the most generous offer in Israeli history, the first time an Israeli Prime Minister ever offered to give up most of its historic capital that it won from a defensive war to a side that even violates its Oslo commitments and destroyed two Jewish holy sites, Joseph's tomb and the peace for Israel synagogue.

In 2001, even after Arafat's organized terrorist uprising known as the second intifada was in motion and with Israelis having to worry about being blown up by a suicide bomber at any minute, Barak offered to make the same generous offer, with Arafat rejecting it and continuing the terrorist uprising. 

The book claims:

By September 2000, after months of gridlock, Barak was showing signs of conciliation regarding the fate of Jerusalem. With tensions running high among frightened Israelis and frustrated Palestinians, this type of meaningful concessions could have ensured a lasting peace. Instead Barak's goodwill was undermined by the right-wing hawk, Ariel Sharon. [page 175]

Dang those Israeli right-wing hawks, supposedly ruining these "wonderful" "peace" processes when it is clearly the fault of the nazi Palestinian Authority. Anyway, it was doomed to failiure because Arafat was a crooked Nazi and one of the biggest terrorist scums the world can ask for. He always sought to eliminate Israel. Terrorism is his whole career. It was clearly not going to be peace when Arafat's organized terrorist uprising was in motion. 

The book claims:

In an attempt to show Palestinians who's boss, Sharon and a small group of his cronies paraded across the temple mount, known to Muslims as Harim Al-Sharif, ("Noble Sanctuary"). Not only was Sharon's act against his own Jewish religious regulation, it was also a slap in the face to the Palestinian people, and for that matter the entire Muslim world. As a result of Sharon's calculated actions, Palestinians erupted in protest and the second intifada was born. 

First off, the PA communications Minister Imad Faluji admitted that the second intifada was planned  by Arafat since Arafat returned from the 2000 Camp David summit, where a spointe dout before, Israel made its most generous offer ever. Imad Faluji said:

 Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US.

So it was really an organized terrorist uprising started by Arafat. Sharon didn't go into the temple mount to provoke the Palestinians or derail the "peace" process. When going in, he said that he wanted peace. Also, after Sharon was elected. Mitchell G. Bard states:

Sharon's views have also evolved over time. While he was once fiercely opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, as Prime Minister he has endorsed the idea, in opposition to members of his own party. Since taking office, Sharon has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Palestinians on condition only that they end the violence. He asked for only seven days of peace — a demand some found onerous despite the fact that the Palestinians had promised at Oslo eight years of peace — and later even dropped that demand. When he did, the Palestinians answered his gesture with the Passover massacre, the suicide bombing of a religious observance in a Netanya hotel in which 29 people were killed.

Sharon visited because he believed that Jews should be allowed in the temple mount. Whether it was against "Jewish regulation" is simply an opinion. 

The book claims that Palestinians used "minimal force in the force in the first intifada" and that they they were "throwing rocks instead of firing arms" [page 175]. In the first intifada, the Palestinians used more than rocks in the first intifada, like molotov cocktails and other lethal weapons, against suspected Palestinian collaborators, Jews in the territories and east Jerusalem and on iDF soldiers who were defending their country. In the second intfiad,a it was a terrorist uprising. Here again, the author mixes Israel's response for security with the terrorist uprising, making the cause seem like the result and vice versa and even exaggerated what Israel did. The book claimed that:

Although infuriated Palestinians had utilized the strategy of minimal force in the first intifada [by throwing rocks instead of firing guns], the second uprising was characterized by Palestinians who were so beyond exasperation that they were ready to kill themselves.  After more than thirty years of daily road closures, never-ending curfews, and time-consuming checkpoints, Palestinians longed for an unimpeded life. Decades of home demolitions, early morning arrests, torture sessions, random interrogations and "accidental deaths" had left people more than angry. Poverty, humiliation and pain, plus years of shattered dreams, produced mind-numbing hopelessness and unimaginable rage.  For many, suicide was seen as freedom, and the death of even one Israeli was viewed as a victory. [page 175-176]

I already refuted the part of the first intifada from that brief quotation in the book. But still, the curfews, checkpoints are there for security. checkpoints are there to stop terrorists from going into Israel. In some cases, it works. Curfews happen rarely, during times when Israelis are searching for terrorist activity. Anyway, the road blocks are there to protect Jews in the territories from being attacked [of course not all Palestinians would attack them but too many would and enough to endanger Jews in the territories].

House demolitions is another anti-terorrist tactic by demolitioning homes and smuggling that hold weapons for terrorists and occasionally, they would also demolish the homes of terrorists. The IDF code of conduct and purity of arms forbids torture. The IDF code of conduct said that "Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested."

Also, the purity of arms said:

The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property.

IDF soldiers who do torture Palestinians are arrested. The letter by Mr.Yechezkel Lein  from the Israeli ministry of justice says:

29.Military Courts also pertain an uncompromising position in regard to violence 
offences committed by soldiers towards Palestinian detainees, as can be inferred 
from the following examples: 
29.1. Cen/274/06 – A soldier was convicted of an offence of abuse for beating a 
handcuffed Palestinian detainee. Further to his demotion back to private, the 
soldier was sentenced to seven months of imprisonment, out of which four 
months were to be served in prison and the rest by a suspended 
imprisonment for two years, provided he would not commit any further 
offence involving threat or violence. The military court stated in its decision 
that: 
"It is unnecessary to heap words as to the gravity of the act in 
which the defendant was convicted. The Military Court of Appeals 
expressed its opinion in the recent years about acts of this kind, the 
severe and serious fault attached to them and the severe harm to the 
IDF's reputation and the purity of its lines. Indeed, the defendant 
deserves an aggravated penalty for his acts which hold an element
The Department for International Agreements and International Litigation 
of harm to a helpless person, even if the person was regarded 
according to the defendant's point of view, as a terrorist and one 
who carried out shooting attacks against our forces. When the 
terrorist was arrested, handcuffed and could not react 
anymore, there is a grave prohibition to harming him in any 
manner and the fact that no injury or damage was caused to 
him can not reduce significantly the moral fault of the act". 
(highlight not in the origin). 
29.2. Cen/472/05 – A soldier was convicted of an offence of abuse and a related 
offence of improper behavior for beating a handcuffed Palestinian detainee. 
The indictment was submitted against the soldier who already served a 
sentence of 28 days of imprisonment and had been suspended from serving 
as a combat soldier, following his conviction in a disciplinary court. As the 
military court was not satisfied with this punishment, it convicted the 
defendant as previously mentioned and sentenced him for an additional 
sentence of 45 days of imprisonment and 5 months of suspended 
imprisonment for two years if committing an offence concerning abuse, 
assault or act of violence against other person, thus in total, the soldier was 
sentenced to two and a half months of imprisonment. As well as demoted to 
private. One of the judges pointed out in his judgment that "the behavior of 
the defendant imposes disgrace on him, tarnishes his unit, damages the 
combat ethics of the IDF and reflects upon the image of the IDF on the 
whole and the image of its soldiers". 
29.3. Cen/471/05 – A soldier was convicted of an offence of abuse and an offence 
of dishonorable behavior due to the beating of Palestinian detainees who 
were under his custody. The soldier was sentenced to a punishment of four 
months of imprisonment, three of which in prison and the rest by suspended 
imprisonment if committing an offence of abuse or violence against another 
person in a period of three years. In addition, the soldier was demoted back 
to private. 

Ye Israel does interrogate suspected terorrists about terrorism. 

The book admits that Sharon showed "uncharacteristic moderation by acknowledging the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories" and that he spoke "of a future Palestinian state." That's correct. Yet the book says:

For Palestinians living under the thumb of Israel, words are cheap, and only tangible freedom will give them relief. At the same time, fearful Israeli citizens desire a secure nation without the threat of terrorism, and only the cessation of Palestinian attacks will suffice. [page 177]

The book admits that "most Israelis and Palestinians have grown extremely cynical" [page 177]. This book is giving moral equivolence between both sides. If the Palestinians have a leaderhsip that fights the terorrists on their side and recognizies Israel's right to exist, then the Palestinians will have their state. But that's not the case. The conflict is about Israel's survial as a secure Jewish state. Yes, most Palestinians may not want to live under Israeli rule. It doesn't mention that the Palestinian Authority is worse. Daniel Pipes said:

 For all their rhetoric about Israel's "vicious" and "brutal" occupation, Palestinian Arabs - including their leaders - sometimes let down their guard and acknowledge how they prefer Israel to the Palestinian Authority.

Pipes gives some cases. On the E-fact section on page 174 in "Isn't the Israeli-Palestinian conflict about religion", it acknowledges that most Israelis want security, but states that "the vast majority of Muslim and Christian Palestinians  desire basic freedoms and human rights, unavailable to them under Israeli occupation." The E-fact also says that the conflict is about "a struggle for Israeli security and Palestinian liberation," ignoring the fact that the conflict was there decades before Israel won the West Bank and Gaza, that the Palestinians didn't seek to have a Palestinian state on those territories when it was under Jordan and Egypt and that these genocidal terrorists are using a Palestinian state as an excuse to make their Nazi-like struggle seem legitimate. It even ignores the fact that Israel is willing to have a Palestinian state in exchange for peace and security. In page 287 of this book, it again tries to draw the moral equivalence. It states that Israeli Jews discriminate against Palestinian Christians and Muslims because of religious beliefs, while most Israelis consider the occupation as an issue of security while some Palestinian Muslims consider it a religious battle, most want to end "the Israeli government's humiliating grip on their lives." 

This book fails to mention that Palestinian Christians are worse off under the PA and Islamists than they are under Israel. Many Palestinian Christians are forced to hide their identity just to talk about the persecution under the PA and Islamists without risking their lives. A Bethlehem community Christian leader said this, while hiding his identity in order to keep his safety:

All this talk about Israel driving Christians out and causing pain is nonsense. You want to know what is at play here, just come throughout the year and see the intimidation from the Muslims. They have burned down our stores, built mosques in front of our churches, stole our real estate and took away our rights. Women have been raped and abducted. So don't tell me about Israel. It's the Muslims.

There is plenty of documentation of persecution of Palestinian Christians in the Palestinian areas. Justus Weiner, a human rights attorney, has done extensive research on the plight of Palestinian Christians and found actual documentation of persecution of them by Islamists. Ahmad el-Akwal, for example, converted from Islam to Christianity. He was repeatedly arrested and tortured by the PA and then killed by Islamists including those from Hamas. He even wrote a whole mongraph, here.

The book also said:

Though Washington supported Iraq during its long war with Iran, Saddam's stockpile of weaponry, as well as his extreme anti-Israel statements, prompted the United States to rethink its alliance with Baghdad.

Yes, it's true that America supported Saddam's Iraq because it considered it the lesser of two evils to the Iranian regime, which seeks to spread their backwards form of Islam all over the world, exports international terrorism [Saddam also supported terrorists, but let that pass], and took American workers as hostages. plus now, Iran is developing nuclear weapons to use them on America and Israel as well as when it's useful in exporting Islamism. MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] does not deter the Iranian regime from using nuclear weapons. Anyway, the US supported Saddam's Iraq and did not stop because of his "stockpile of weaponry" and not because of his "extreme anti-Israel statements." What made the US stop supporting Iraq [only one percent of his material support such as weapons came from America] was Saddam's terrorist invasion of Kuwait.

Anyway, I exposed the distortions of this book. It seems like an interesting book to anybody who wants to know the background of the Middle East. That's why this refutation is needed. This book spews anti-Israel propaganda and makes the Nazified terrorist struggle against Israel seem legitimate. It whitewashes the Arab war against Israel. Sometimes, this book draws a moral equivalence, trying to make both Israel and the palestinian terrorist struggle have legitimate aims, despite the fact that no ones [not even the arab inhabitants or the Palestiniant erorrists] called on Egypt and Jordan to give up the Wes tBank and Gaza for an Arab Palestinian state. Israel is the only one willing to do it, just in exchange for peace and security. As article 24 of the PLO charter said:

 This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

As shown, a Palestinian state is simply useful in orchestrating a successful propaganda war against Israel. as shown above, this book blames Israel entirely for the refugee problem and leaves out not only the Arab role in causing it but also the fact that they're being used by Israel's Nazi enemies, both for propaganda means and to use the right of return to demographically destroy Israel. The Arab nazi war machine benefits from Palestinian refugees rotting in refugee camps, to throw more dirt at Israel.

This book fails to show these facts. Everyone who buys this book should be skeptical when reading about the Arab-Israeli conflict in this book. For those who buy this book for a basic understanding of the Middle East, this is a good article to read in order to see that this book's analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict is flawed. After all, the world should know that an attack on Israel is an attack on me.

By NCRI [National Council of Resistance of Iran] Thursday, 09 April 2009

NCRI – A report by Iranian regime’s official news agency exposed the connections of an infamous Iranian regime’s agent with Mouwaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraqi National Security Advisor, on aggression against members of the Iranian opposition, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), residing in Camp Ashraf, Iraq.

On Sunday, IRNA, the state-run news agency quoted Massoud Khodabandeh saying, “Mr. al-Rubaie told me that claims by Monafeqin [the term used by the Iranian regime and its agent to refer to PMOI] on the treatment of Ashraf Camp residents are lies and their protest is only because they want to stay in this hideout by all means possible.”

Khodabandeh said that I have personally seen the arrest warrants of PMOI members "that al-Rubaie holds…they include many ring leaders of the Monafeqin,”  the report added.

On Monday, in a press release, Khodabandeh’s wife, Ann Singleton Khodabandeh, described the inhuman measures against Camp Ashraf that include preventing doctors  from entering into the Camp as “al-Rubaie's plan for the difficult task of dismantling” the PMOI and praised it as “enlightened, humanitarian approach which could become a blueprint for tackling similar organizations worldwide.”

In October 2007, The British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom headed by Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, following a comprehensive study of Iranian regime’s agents in Britain, published a document which revealed that Ann Singleton and Massoud Khodabandeh worked for the Iranian regimes’ Ministry of Intelligence .

“In witness statements provided to British Court by members of the British Committee for Iran Freedom, MPs and Peers set out the ways in which the regime and its Ministry of Intelligence operate in Britain,” the report said.

The report also exposed the details of numerous websites used by the Iranian regime to spread misinformation against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran including the website that is run by Khodabandeh and his wife.

On January 28, 2009, in a television interview, Khodabandeh introduced himself as an advisor to the Iraqi government on “terrorism.”

Benyamin Solomon's note :The NCRI as founded in 1981 as the parliament in exile. It is opposed to the radical Islamist regime in Iran. It seeks democratic change in Iran. The main group of the NCRI is the MEK, which was founded as an opposition group to the Shah and which now opposes the Shah and the current Iranian regime.

By Benyamin Solomon
  For the comments on Alex Constantine's slanderous post against me, Technoid commented that:
Notice the "my guess" part. This blooger doesn't know crap about my life. True, I didn't publish books yet. But one of my blog posts talks about the book I'm working on. Everything Tehnoid says about me is true about him/her. I've never seen an article, much less a book published by this user. At least, I punlish articles on Triond. This user claims that I'm "a prolific writer on right wing blogs, of which anyone can create." But I also published articles, first for the Conservative Voice, and then for Triond. This user's google blog is called "Musings of Curmudgeon." This user tells Alex to "stop letting him bait you." But did this user not know that I didn't hear about Alex Constantine until I looked at his post that falsely accuses me of calling liberals Nazis, based on an article [the Conservative Voice deleted its article, but the text of my article is here ] that didn't call leftists Nazis, but showed the Nazi-like nature of radical Islam, as well as debunking the claim that then-President Bush was a Nazi? Does this user not know that Alex is slandering me with all these false claims? Alex falsely claims that I'm Fascist, a Nazi, genocidal, a pedophole or any of these slanderous claims. It's Alex who is "baiting" me. So in other words, Technoid's criticism of Alex is not because of his slanderous claims, but him supposedly letting me "bait" him. Technoid  falsely claims that I "try to come off as some sort of journalist." But technoid should know that I spend a lot of my time researching, particularly on radical Islam. I bet you that I spend much more of my time researching than Technoid. So I'm more of a journalist than this blogger. I'm not an investigative journalist. But I am an expert on the threats toward the free world including America and Israel, as well as an expert on the threat from radical Islam and on the nature of radical Islam.
Technoid should look at himself/herself before looking at other people. My message to Technoid is two words: Wake up.

By Benyamin Solomon

This post is dedicated to the Alex Constantine wackos who promote ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

I read a post by Alex Constantine who claims that his wikipedia entry has been vandalized. I think that his Wikipedia entry is too supportive of him since it claims that he is an investigative journalist. Alex believes that his opponents including all those who love our great nation America are fascists and claims that he researches Fascism. Dear Alex, let me say this. I think your "research" on Fascism is crap. His "research" slandered me and charged me with calling liberals Nazis and with calling the political left a "front for Nazis." As "proof" he cited my article, "Who are the real Nazis." Yet any sane person who read it will know that in that article I did not call liberals Nazis nor did I call the political left a "front for nazis." In fact, I never made those claims. Alex Constantine calls me a Fascist and a Nazi, starting with that same post where he throws in a bunch of stupid insults. I am a strong anti-Nazi and an anti-Fascist. Alex Constantine falsely charged me with being genocidal, yet there's no evidence to back it up. No amount of research can provide even a little spec of evidence that those charges are true, plus I already debunked them. 

Alex Constantine complains that:

In fact, I research fascism, which is inherently conspiratorial (fitting example). Every day that passes confirms that I am not a "theorist." And since I'm diligent about fact-checking, I cannot be attacked for getting something wrong. So the bad guys, usually fascists, get personal and invent facts to subvert my efforts. This is expected and is as consequential as a spitball - as time goes on my work is, as I say, confirmed by emergent events and news reports.

      

Alex doesn't "research" Fascism. If this crazy nutcase bothered to "fact check" he'd know that I oppose Fascism. In Alex's world, we're the bad guys because we expose the truth about Alex Constantine. Because we don't "admit" to Alex's slanderous lies like his claims that we're Fascists and Nazis, essentially for standing for America, then we're the bad guys. Alex, the people who refute you are not Fascists, not Nazis and not any slanderous lie you claim they are. I strongly oppose Fascism, in fact I never said a word in favor of Fascism, and yet I'm refuting Alex Constantine. Alex claims that his claims are backed "by emergent events and news reports." There is no event nor any good news report where I called liberals Nazis. There isn't a spec of evidence that I did. I disagree with the political left including liberals. But I don't consider them Nazis. In fact, I never even heard of Alex Constantine until I saw that post of him claiming that I called liberals Nazis and that I called the left a "front for Nazis." That's the first time I heard of Alex Constantine. So it's really the other way around. I'm the real researcher. It's Alex whose trying to subvert my efforts at exposing the facts with his slanderous charges against me, none of which have a spec of evidence behind it. Many of the things Alex accuses us of being, he is himself [I'm not calling Alex a Fascist, Nazi nor Genocidal]. 

Alex claims that:

The defamatory lies will diminish with the screams of America's victims. They always have. And fascism will fall, probably in my lifetime. Too bad for my detractors, like poor Benyamin, who relies on malicious lies when he can't win an honest argument ... a favorite but increasingly ineffective tactic of the far-right.

These so-called lies that "Fascists" like me are spewing "will diminish with the scream of America's victims" who are unnamed. That's the world that Alex Constantine wants us to believe. By the way Alex, I don't rely on malicious lies, but on actual facts for my writings. Malicious lies is not a "favorite tactic" "of the far-right." 

The one who really is spewing lies is Alex Constantine, not us. 

Alex Constantine claims that:

My Wikipedia entry has been maliciously rewritten - most likely by "Benjamin Solomon," the "Super-Zionist" wingnut who claims that liberals are in bed with communist "totalitarians" and give aid and comfort to bin Laden. If not Benyamin, some other "conservative" with a grudge. For the record, I've never "spent time in institutions" or "taken LSD." (I did make a self-deprecating joke once about about taking LSD to "explain" why I couldn't remember a name, and someone told someone else ... It was taken seriously, reported on the Internet by goons, joyously repeated by trolls. In fact I've always been outspoken in opposition - at this blog and elsewhere - to LSD.) And I've never "written letters to many journals including LA Weekly," etc.

cluding LA Weekly," etc. The entry is bastardized. No reason to get riled about it, but ...

n

Alex claims that I "give aid and confort to Bin Ladin." That is a very slanderous claim by Alex Constantine. A centeral theme in my works is my fierce opposition to the radical Islamic movement. Bin Ladin is one of the leaders of that movement. In fact, my political career is dedicated to fighting the threat of radical Islam. Me giving "aid and confort to Bin Ladin" will surely sound ridiculous to anybody who read my articles that condemns radical Islam or even heard me say a word about the threat from Islamism. I fiercely oppose Bin Ladin. What I said about Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin has been nothing but presenting them as bloodthirsty terrorists who seek to impose their backward interpretation of Islam on the world. Bin Ladin is a radical Islamic killer, who made a Fatwa calling for the killing of all Americans. The fatwa says:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

Osama Bin Ladin said:

I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.  

I oppose radical Islam and am all for fighting against Al Qaeda and its leader Bin Ladin. I support America and its goal of spreading freedom and democracy. I support democracy and freedom, as I repeatedly stated. As part of my "aid and confort to Bin Laden" I stated that:

Should America bomb Al Quada bases and do its best to prevent an Islamist takeover of Pakistan? Yes. 

Why would I, a patriotic freedom-loving democracy-supporting American "give aid and comfort" to a radical Islamic terrorist leader like Bin Laden? My political career, as I said, is dedicated to fighting the threat of radical Islam. I seek to educate people on that threat. Bin Ladin is among that threat. So yes, I condemn Bin Laden. I don't know where the "diligent about fact checking" Alex Constantine got the claim that I "give aid and comfort to Bin Laden". But it must be part of his slanderous campaign against me. Part of my problem with the Syrian opposition group the National Salvation Front [NSF] was that the main group of it [until recently] was the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood which has ties to Al Qaeda and which collaborated with Al Qaeda in setting up a radical Islamic terrorist network in Hamburg, Germany [that article in the last hyperlink was written by me and cut and pasted by the heroic Reform Party of Syria].

Alex Constantine's hyperlink to calling me a "super Zionist" is not to my Israel-insider profile, where I said that, but to an anti-Israel propaganda article by the leading Pallywood propagandists Ali Abunimah, who leads the Pallywood pro-terrorist group Electronic Intifada [EI], which published an article idolizing George Habash, the founder and first leader of the PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], and which seeks to impose anti-Israel control on wikipedia. That article published by EI attacks the NY Times for correctly calling Habash a "terrorist technician", even though that article admits that Habash's group the PFLP was responsible for airplane hijackings. Habash was a terrorist leader who, like the rest of the PFLP, fought to destroy Israel and impose Communist tyranny on the Middle East. Habash vowed to "teach the US a lesson," called America "our enemy" and stated that:

If [it] is the only way to destroy Israel, Zionism and Arab reaction, then we want WWIII to come. 

Habash and the PFLP [the PFLP was and is a PLO faction] helped the PLO bring in international terrorism to the scene, trained other Communist terrorists [the rest of the PLO also trained Communist terrorists] and supported the PLO in seeking to turn Jordan and Lebanon into a terrorist base to fight Israel. 

Ali Abunimah wrote a book called "one Country," which calls for destroying Israel by turning the holy land into a "binational state" and supports the right of return, which demographically destroys Israel. Abunimah also spews Hamas propaganda and puts a human face to Hamas. He cries for Hamas whenever the US, EU or Israel condemns this radical Islamic terrorist group, as seen from the article he written that's cut and pasted right on the link that's the hyperlink when he puts super Zionist in quotation marks. 

Yes, I'm a "super-Zionist." Zionism is a liberation movement for the Jewish people that reestablished Israel, one of the only democracies in the Middle East. The Jewish settlers rebuilt the holy land. Before the Jewish settlers came, Mark Twain came and said that it was the prince of all the dismal places. I'm an American Jew. As a Jew, I support Zionism, which rescued persecuted Jews and gave them a homeland, which is a free democracy in the land of tyranny. 

I'd like to point out to Alex Constantine that how can I give "aid and comfort" to bin Ladin if I'm a "super-Zionist?" Bin Laden is a radical Islamic terrorist who seeks to destroy Israel, and is also allied to Hamas and whose terrorist group Al Qaeda has the same roots as that terrorist group. Abdullah Azzam from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood founded the radical Islamic Mujahideen, which was the radical Islamic resistance to the Soviet Union's illegal occupation of Afghanistan. Azzam was the mentor of Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda and the Taliban came from the Mujahideen. Hamas is the Palestinian faction of the Muslim Brotherhood. Article two of the Hamas charter states that they're part of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Al Qaeda is one of the terrorist groups that fires rockets into Israel. So if I'm a "super-Zionist," then how can I "give aid and comfort to Bin Laden?" 

Alex says that I'm a super-Zionist like it's a bad thing to be one, when it actually isn't. Yes, I'm a super-Zionist and proud of it.

 As seen here, Alex calls me stupid insults like "wingnut." 

Alex claims that I claim that liberals are in bed with totalitarian Communists. Not every single liberal is. In bed can be too strong, as I didn't use the actual phrase. Some liberals do idolize totalitarian Communists, like when they wear Che Guevara T-shirts. Che Guevara was a totalitarian Communist, who got into a fight with with a rebel while defending the Soviet invasion of Hungary [Humberto Fontova, author of the book "Exposing the real Che Guevara and the useful idiots who idolize him, interviewed the rebel's brother, and page 46 of that book shows what he told Mr. Fontova]. Che did seek to spread totalitarian Communism wherever he can, and Cuba is the model of the society Che fought for, a totalitarian society where Communism controls every aspect of the individual life and here anybody the Communist regime doesn't like in Cuba is killed and/or arrested and tortured. Some liberals do idolize totalitarian Communists like the Sandinistas and other Latin American totalitarian Communists. Che was just an example. Pretty much no liberal would support Stalin or the Pol Pot, since their crimes are already well-known to the world. But when it comes to Che, many liberals have a weird way of showing their "condemnation" of totalitarian Communists. Wearing a shirt idolizing a totalitarian Communist [Che Guevara] is not condemnation of totalitarian Communists. If I wear a shirt idolizing Adolf Eichmann, then that wouldn't be me condemning the Nazis. Everyone would point that out. That's what it's like when someone wears a Che Guevara T-shirt in relation to condemning totalitarian Communism. 

I didn't touch Alex Constantine's wikipedia bio, except for I did unsuccessfully try to edit it so it no longer calls Alex Constantine an investigative journalist. Other than that, I did not touch his wikipedia bio. I didn't say that he takes LSD. I didn't say that he wrote letters to journals including the LA Weekly nor did I say that he spent time in institutions. That part was not written by me at all. I view Alex Constantine's wikipedia entry as pro-Alex Constantine bias, like in calling him an investigative journalist. His name is in the investigative journalist section. I did not write Alex Constantine's wikipedia bio. Alex claims that:

For years I have reported facts that I knew to be true, and did it as objectively as possible. There are bottom-feeders out there who have criminal objectives and would prefer that you-all perceive me as a "conspiracy theorist."  

Yea Alex, I see how having your name in the list of investigative journalists makes your wikipedia bio "vandalized." Alex Constantine is a conspiracy theorist. He believes that 9/11 is an inside job as seen here when he says:

Anyone blaming 9/11 on "Islamo-Fascists" is an agent of the Bush administration, willingly or unconsciously, and should be challenged.

If that's not a conspiracy theorist, than I don't know what is. 

Conclusion

Alex Constantine tries to portray himself as something he is not. Whoever doesn't believe Alex Constantine's wacky conspiracy theorists, loves America, opposes Uncle Sam's totalitarian enemies, or challenges Alex Constantine is a Fascist, Nazi or any other slanderous name Alex gives you in the world of Alex Constantine. Alex wants to portray himself as an investigative journalist and as someone who "researches" Fascism. He's really a conspiracy theorist wacky propagandist, who is even too much of a kook even to more sensible leftists. Alex is not just a liberal, he's a wacky conspiracy theorist. He's not someone who I just have disagreements with, but someone who makes slanderous lies against America, me and us Conservatives. 

note from Benyamin Solomon:This is the full text of Who are the real Nazis, another article [like all other articles published by the Conservative Voice] removed by the Conservative Voice, as it merges with Townhall. This article was published in 2008 while George W. Bush was still president.

By Benyamin Solomon

The political left has portrayed President Bush as a Nazi and drew up false parallels between America under President Bush and Germany under Adolf Hitler. They cite what he said about Iraq including the claim that Saddam had WMDs, which turned out to be false. Back then, there really seemed to be a lot of evidence coming out that he did have WMDs.

First off, Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors, his defectors claimed that Saddam had WMDs and American intelligence and the intelligence of many nations also claimed that. After the US invaded Iraq, they couldn't find WMDs. Some people also claim that Saddam hid WMDs in Syria. Saddam was bluffing to the world, to scare them away. However, it turned out to be suicidal. It led to Saddam's removal.  ??The liberals evoke Nazi Germany to further vilify President Bush. Is the world facing a Nazi-like threat? Yes. But the real Nazis come from the Middle East. They're radical Islamists who are fighting for a global Islamic caliphate. Hitler had many allies in the Middle East, who were the radical Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab nationalists such as the free Officers and the Baath party. Saddam joined the Baath party. His uncle was a member. He was the one who brought Saddam into politics. The History Channel documentary Saddam and the Third Reich actually documents how the Arab nationalists supported Hitler, and based on facts, brought out parallels between Saddam's Iraq and Nazi Germany. Amin Al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader, also collaborated with Hitler. Hitler's genocide on the Jewish people was a major reason why he found allies in the Middle East along with the fact that he fought Britain and America. Al-Husseini said to "kill the Jews wherever you find them." Hitler told Husseini to not tell anyone about his plan to wipe out the Jewish people. Husseini supported Hitler's holocaust and also wanted to wipe out the Jewish people. Husseini recruited and commanded two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions. Even though Nazism is almost dead in Germany, it is still powerful in the Middle East and in the Muslim community. I agree that not all Arabs or Muslims are Nazis. Many Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are not Nazis. I agree about those facts. However, all radical Islamists are Nazis. The Iranian government is a Nazi like government. As I know, President Bush isn't promoting any Nazi-like ideology. But the radical Islamists are. Hitler considered Aryans to be superior to all other races. The radical Islamists consider Muslims to be superior to everyone. Hitler's propaganda, which became widespread after his takeover of Germany, was anti-Semitic. Jews were one of the groups Nazis blamed for Germany's defeat in WWI. Yet, you see the radical Islamists teaching the same kind of hatred. Like Nazi Germany, they threatened the world.  When Hitler was a threat, the world was asleep. They're asleep while radical Islamists are threatening us [the western world]. While President Bush is portrayed as a Nazi and as the worst man as possible, liberals whitewash radical Islamists including the apocalyptic regime in Iran, which sponsors demonstrations that says "Death to Israel" and death to America.  If you point out the Nazi-like ideology in radical Islam, then, according to the political correct nonsense [the left created and dominates political correctness], you're a racist, a bigot and an Islamophobe. They're starting to believe that even terms like radical Islam or Islamic Fundamentalist to too bigoted. Yet the liberals are okay with the term white supremacists for the KKK, the Nazis or for the neo-Nazis white supremacists. Liberals claim that Iran's is simply reacting to our rhetoric. Israel, the US and the west is reacting to the Iranian threat. Iran supports Al Quada, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as the insurgents in Iraq, who are destabilizing their country, killing American soldiers, American civilians and Iraqi civilians in cold-blood.   ??Iran's goal is to make the whole world a shiite caliphate. Once the apocalyptic regime gets WMDs, they'll use them on at least Israel and America. 

The radical Islamists are persecuting and attacking non-Muslims. Palestinian Christians have to hide their identity to talk about the persecution by radical Islam and the Palestinian Authority in order to not risk their lives. As a result, there is a mass-emigration of Palestinian Christians.  The radicals Islamists, like the Nazis, are a threat to the world. There is no parallel between President Bush or the Nazis. I'm not saying I agree with all of Bush's policies. But I examined who the real Nazis are. 

By the Reform Party of Syria

President Obama's broad scheme for foreign policy has been something of a puzzle, short on specifics and long on talk about forging alliances, extending hands and "engaging."

In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening, Obama offered a further hint--repeating the gist of the argument with which, as one of his first acts in office, he ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay: "Living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger."

So far, there's not much reason to feel safer. If anything, the world seems to be getting less safe, at speed. On Wednesday, just hours after Obama delivered his speech, Iran began its first test-run of the nuclear reactor built with Russian help at Bushehr.

Barring forcible intervention of some kind, it's highly likely Iran will fire up this reactor in earnest later this year--and start cranking out, on an industrial scale, spent fuel that can be processed into plutonium for nuclear bombs. That's in addition to Iran's uranium enrichment, another route along which Iran, according to U.N. officials, has now traveled far enough to have the makings of a bomb.

The Bushehr test run follows a month, post-Inauguration, in which Iran has launched a satellite, underscoring its interest in long-range missile capability. North Korea in short order announced its aim to soon do the same. Russia has been flexing its muscles in its continuing bid to reassert hegemony in what Moscow considers the "near abroad."

Pakistan released from house arrest the godfather of its nuclear program and chief broker-dealer of its proliferation networks, A.Q. Khan. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report confirming the finding last year of unexplained "uranium particles" at the site of Syria's secret nuclear reactor.

Syria has just replied by denying the reactor's existence, but telling diplomats that the site now hosts a missile launching facility. On a related note, rockets hit Israel again this week, out of both Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-infested Lebanon.

So what are the values with which Obama plans to address this landscape?

Are they the values now on display in U.S. policy toward Gaza, run by the terrorist group Hamas? There, despite overwhelming evidence of the Iranian-backed terror nest that Gaza has become, the U.S. seems less interested in ending the terrorist reign of Hamas than in bankrolling its territorial base.

Reports earlier this week, citing an unnamed U.S. official, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to attend a funding conference in Cairo next week where she will pledge $900 million in U.S. aid for Gaza. At a Tuesday press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that while details, including the exact amount, are still being worked out, a whopping pledge is indeed in the offing: "It'll be, you know, several hundred million."

Or does Obama have in mind the values articulated by Clinton when she sidelined human rights during her visit last week to China? There, our prematurely jaded new Secretary told reporters that America and China already know each other's stands on human rights, so needn't bother with ritual recitations; and in any event, such issues as human rights "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and security crises."

Will we be living by the values implied in the Obama administration's decision to "engage" in preparations for the United Nations Durban II conference scheduled this April in Geneva. This conference, convened in the name of fighting "racism," is actually an exercise in censorship and condemnation directed at the free world, starting with Israel.

Durban II is a pet project of the despotic lobbying bloc that controls the 192-member UN General Assembly, which is led most of the time by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC (headquartered in Saudi Arabia), which overlaps with the 130-member Group of 77 (currently chaired by Sudan). The Durban II conference preparations were captured from the start by such nations as Libya, Iran and Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC).

The Durban II conference is already configured to savage Israel and endorse a global gag-order on free speech about Islam. It is styled as a "review" of the U.N.'s 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa. That played out as such a bacchanal of bigotry that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.S. delegation to walk out.

Under President Bush, America declined to legitimize Durban II by taking part in the plans. Obama this month reversed that decision and sent a delegation to a planning session in Geneva. Now is the moment that the U.S. might usefully mount a boycott and invite other decent governments to join. Instead, Obama's administration has been coy--which suggests he's going to lend a U.S. stamp of legitimacy to the sordid doings of Durban II.

And then there are the values implicitly endorsed by Obama's new Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. He's been talking about Iran's reach into Afghanistan not as part of the problem, but as part of the solution. Despite allegations, some by NATO officials, that Iran has been helping Taliban "extremists"--as Obama labels the terror-dedicated Taliban--

Holbrooke opined recently on an Afghan TV station that Iran (yes, the same Iran run by the totalitarian mullahs who applaud Palestinian suicide-bombers, jail and torture dissident bloggers, and execute children and homosexuals) has a "legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan's neighbors."

Or will America be living the values suggested by Obama's plan to appoint as head of the National Intelligence Council, crafting the influential National Intelligence Estimates, Charles "Chas" Freeman, sharp critic of democratic Israel and head of a Washington think-tank endowed by the King of Unfree Saudi Arabia. Freeman is also a critic of China's 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising, in which Chinese demonstrators built their own Statue of Liberty--or, as they called it, Goddess of Democracy.

Writing in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Gabriel Schoenfeld quotes a 2006 posting on a confidential Internet site, in which Freeman offered his view of "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities"--which apparently was not the decision by China's despots to order in China's own army to shoot China's own people--but "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

For that matter, will America be engaging abroad on the terms of the values displayed by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, who from his high national pulpit recently denounced America as "a nation of cowards"--with no public rebuke from Obama.

Holder was speaking about race in a speech to a domestic audience. But is anyone in the Obama administration paying attention to how such talk might feed the aggressive ambitions of America's enemies abroad? For that matter, in appointing Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, despite the tax-cheat scandal, has Obama considered what kind of signal that sends not only to Americans but beyond our shores, regarding the value placed by the current White House on integrity in financial dealings?

What are we to make of the values involved in Obama's signing, with fanfare, an order to shut down Guantanamo Bay, our holding tank for alleged terrorists--while holding out olive branches to assorted despotisms that specialize in consigning democratic dissidents to some of the world's worst dungeons?

If the world is one, and Obama is a citizen, how do we reconcile the showmanship over Guantanamo with the sidelining of issues that lead to the doors of Syria's horrific Tadmor Prison, Iran's Evin Prison, Libya's Abu Salim or the labor and death camps of North Korea?

On two fronts, Obama has displayed sharp concern for "values" over realpolitik--or whatever we might call the above mix. Guantanamo, as just mentioned, and Darfur, on which Obama and Vice President Biden recently held an evening pow-wow in the White House with actor George Clooney.

These are not equivalent issues. What they do have in common, however, is that, unlike the dissidents of Iran and Syria, the vanished dissenters of North Korea, the smothered voices of democracy in China, they are favorite causes of the American media and Hollywood.

Obama has been described, at least in his speech delivery, as Reaganesque. But had Ronald Reagan lived by such values, it's a good bet he never would have delivered the mortal blows he did to the Soviet Union and its satrapies, summed up in his 1987 demand in West Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Instead, we might have heard something like "We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not always lived up to our best intentions"… Oh, wait! We did hear that, not so long ago. That was Obama, speaking last July, in Berlin.

It is one thing to tear down a wall that imprisons people within a tyranny. It is another to tear down distinctions between democratic and despotic governments, ignoring profound differences of principle in the hope that appeasing and engaging, with maybe some cash thrown in, will bring peace.

In Obama's defense, it might be said that no government is entirely consistent in such matters. The world is too complex for that. Reagan stood up to the Soviets but flinched when Iran-backed Hezbollah bombed the marine barracks in Beirut.

George W. Bush talked big about democracy, and wrestled it through to where it stands a chance in Iraq, but otherwise tilted heavily in his second term toward engagement--negotiating with North Korea, hosting Syria at Annapolis, attending the Beijing Olympics and largely turning over the urgent matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions to the feckless care of the European Union and the UN. If America's values are freedom, democracy, individual liberty and justice for all, then every presidency has come freighted with some big exceptions.

But by lights of American values, the Obama presidency at its outset is charting a course in which such exceptions look more like the rule. To the great benefit of both the wider world and its own people, America has stood and prospered for a long time as a beacon of freedom. Is the future as bright with America transforming itself into a beacon of "engagement"?

Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.com.

note from the heroic Benyamin Solomon:The brief biography of Claudia Rosett and the title of this article are from the Reform Party of Syria, obviously in the same page as the text of this article. The Reform Party of Syria is a group of courageous freedom fighters fighting for Middle East peace and supports America's goal of spreading democracy into the Middle East. The Reform Party of Syria is the main democratic opposition group to the Fascist Assad regime. This article gives a good analysis on Obama's stupid Chamberlain policy of "engagement" of America's totalitarian enemies like Iran and Syria. Obama's stupid policies will alienate much of our allies while strengthening our enemies. When it comes to incompetent presidents who make the most stupid Foreign policies, Obama will at least rank just behind America's most incompetent President Jimmy Carter, who now believes all this Hamas BS when it comes to Israel and Gaza. To view this article, go to http://reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2724:obama-the-appeaser&catid=76:hot-topic&Itemid=205. This article was written by Claudi Rosett and originally published in Forbes magazine. However, the Reform Party of Syria cut and pasted this article onto their website. 

By Zari Namdr

"I just dont get it.. When I saw Colonel powell showed his strong support for Obama I WAS SHAKEN.I Could not believe ,Mr. Waren Buffett was so strongly glued to Obama.I just like to Know what is Reza pahlavi and Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi are busy doing?MR. Zahedi was from the Pahlavi regime to the United States of America . And the only son in-law of king Pahlavi.

I, as an X Iranian wonder How on Earth,Islam is conquering the globe.And how Iran is manipulating the east and the west .My dear patriots:When I see Obama,I ,As an X muslim Iranian, I see no difference between Ayatolah Khomeini and Barak Hossein Obama. We still have time .We must not let Obama step into the White House. Just remember Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion.

A big thank you to Mr.Pipes. Zari Namdar.

Benyamin Solomon's note: This comment appeared as a "reader comment" [it's what the comments for Daniel Pipe's articles are called on his website, where the comment was posted] for Daniel Pipe's article "Obama divided, Muslims win." It can be seen at http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/143033. The title of this post is not Zri Namdar's title of his comment. His title for the comment is "From an X Iranian." The title of this post is what I personally titled it.