Am I a anti-semitist?

[Kropotkin]

Not that my original subject has anything to do about this thread anymore but is it really necissary to keep up that childish behavior here Chris62? Enough is enough.

[Chris 62]

It's needed when you tell a guy facts for three pages, and his answer is "they stole the land" and "have no rights".

And I'll thank you to recall why I was forced to tell off that bigot.

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Ned


Al'Kimiya, Thanks for fixing that for me. But on language, do you agree that by 600 most Syrians spoke Greek?

As for Indo-Eurorpeans in the area, I found this very good "summary" link. Summary.

Ned

Well the Syrians haven't got much except the name from Assyria. Since Arab expansion didn't begin until Mohammed they couldn't have been Arab. Greek sounds plausible, at least for language. Maybe an amalgam of different "races".

[Kropotkin]

Maybe I'm kicking in open doors here but iirc the origins of the syrians is unknown or should I say undecided.

There's both people that call themselves syrians and assyrians (as they are supporters of the link to Assyria). There's no differences between these groups besides this, they can in theory even be brothers, sisters or father and son.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well actualy both of those are opinions not facts.

There are facts !

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your either a moron or an anti-semite, there is no third possibility.

Sure there is a third. You are an ill mannered ignorant lout. All evidence supports this.

This post alone makes it clear what a liar you are. You promised you were through responding to me.

Your not going to read your own posts anymore?

See above.

Why would I want to be like you?

I don't know. You just brought that one up yourself so you can answer it. I would suppose you might finally be noticing you are inept.

Anyone that reads what you say sees it.

Well since I haven't a darn thing that is anti-semetic they would have to invent just as you have.

Spew your hate elsewhere fool, your exposed here.

I haven't said one hatefull thing. Not even towards you. That was just pity.

Are these imaginary people, like your imaginary facts?

I supported myself. I note that you have yet to even try to support yourself.

Nobody could ever take that title from you.A group of monkees could post better then you.

Well then you must be lower than monkeys. Perhaps not even a primate.

More factually and logically as well, I might add.

Well you CAN add. Amazing. I thought you might only be able to count fingers.

Lets see some those dazzleing facts that can support you.

God, it's amazing how stupid you are
Were you born like this, or did someone bash your head at some point?

Its amazing you can even type. I have it now, you use voice recognition. That would explain how someone without a clue could even post on Apolyton at all.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha,
Showing, as usual, that you don't belong here.
Lefty is the worst speller by far.

The one does not follow the other.

People like you are an abomination.
The other folks here are to polite to tell you, but I don't waste time with fools like you.

You said that the last time. You have an amazing difficulty of even keeping your own word. The other folks around here might have noticed that I have supported myself. You have not.

Go crawl back under your rock, loser.

How devastating. A Maroon calling me a loser. I am so shattered I can't stand it.

Why there is even a possibilty that you might actually keep your word this time. Well that cheers me up. You may actually not reply like you promised the last time. Then what would I do for entertainment. Well I guess I can't have everything. Either way is good. Keep you word this time and I won't have you telling more lies about me. Don't keep it and I get more fun. Either way I come out ahead.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It's needed when you tell a guy facts for three pages, and his answer is "they stole the land" and "have no rights".

YOU have not given any facts. Others have. But some of the facts are in dispute and the conclusions from those facts are also in dispute.

And I'll thank you to recall why I was forced to tell off that bigot.

You didn't take you medicine this week.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Al'Kimiya, Thanks for fixing that for me. But on language, do you agree that by 600 most Syrians spoke Greek?

I cannot speak for Al'Kimiya, but I can assure you that by 600AD most Syrians did not speak Greek or some other European language.
Yes, the ruling elite and most people in the cities did speak Greek, BUT the people in the countryside -and far more people were living in the countryside than in the cities- did speak some SEMITIC language!

"Aramaic superseded the various languages of the conquered countries and beginning with the 8th century BC it became the international language of the near east, as well as the official language of the Persian empire. The period of its greatest extension was from c. 4th century BC to the 7th century AD at which time it was supplanted by Arabic. Until the beginning of the Christian era there were no outstanding dialectal variations in the language called Common Aramaic. The language was then divided into West Aramaic and East Aramaic. The documents of Common Aramaic are various in kind. The inscriptions of principalities of Syria, such as the kings of Hama between Damascus and Aleppo and of the kings of Samal found in Zinjirli to the north of Aleppo, date from the 9th to the 8th century BC. The inscriptions of the Jewish colony of Elephantine (Aswan) in Egypt date from the 7th to the 4th century BC. The Aramaic sections of the Bible (parts of Ezra and Daniel) date from the 4th to the 2nd century BC.

The dialects of West Aramaic are: Judeo-Aramaic, Samaritan, Palestinian-Christian, Nabataean, Palmyrene and Western Neo-Aramaic. Judeo-Aramaic is the dialect of certain Aramaic works found among the Dead Sea scrolls; of the Palestinian Targums, i.e., the translations of the Bible into Aramaic; of the Palestinian Talmud compiled in the 5th century AD; and of some inscriptions. Samaritan is represented by the translation of the Pentateuch in the 4th century AD, and by some other prayers and religious works. Palestinian-Christian is the dialect of sections of a translation of the Old and New Testaments, and of some religious texts translated by the Christian Melkites of Palestine in the 8th and 9th centuries AD. Nabataean is the Aramaic dialect used by Arabs of Arabia Petraea and of Hauran to the east of Palestine, in the inscriptions found on the caravan roads through Sinai, northern Arabia, Transjordania dating from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD. Palmyrene is the dialect of the inscriptions of Palmyra, to the northeast of Damascus, dating mainly from the first three centuries AD. Western Aramaic is still spoken in the mountainous regions of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon in the villages of Ma‘lûla, and Bah‘a and Guba‘dîn.

East Aramaic includes Syriac, the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, Mandaic, and Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Syriac was the language of Edessa (modern Urfa), the centre of Christianity at the end of the 2nd century. Since the 5th century AD owing to theological differences, Syriac-speaking Christians have been divided into Nestorians or East Syrians under the Persian sphere of influence, and Jacobites or West Syrians under the Byzantine sphere. These two groups became linguistically distinguished by certain differences in pronunciation. The greatest period for Syriac literature was between the 3rd and 7th centuries. The Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, compiled in the 6th century, is another important dialect of the East Aramaic group."
(source: "Encyclopaedia Britannica", article on 'Semitic languages')

I guess this settles this point of discussion!

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Well actualy both of those are opinions not facts.

There are facts !

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred


YOU have not given any facts. Others have. But some of the facts are in dispute and the conclusions from those facts are also in dispute.

Your a bigot and a moron.

All I did was give you facts, you idiot.

All you did was deny it and say dumb sh!t.

In fact, you came up with the all time stupidest intrepretation of the mid east:

The Jews were "guests" who took over!

There is no other way to talk to you, you are a total ass-hole.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Either way I come out ahead.

The only thing you come come out ahead of is an ignorence contest.

Nobody else could come close, loser.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


There are facts !

Indeed there are facts. Those weren't among them.

Rights are based on either laws, force, or opinion. What you claimed was based on opinion as there are few international laws regarding the formation of nations and force speaks for itself.

Human rights are invented by humans. There is nothing outside us to give those rights. We must make them for ourselves. Since there is yet to be any real international law except the Law of the Sea we can't really point to any legal rights. We can however use principles that have been accepted by the UN as a starting point.

The basic principle in the UN regarding nationality is self determination. Well that didn't happen in the Middle East. The League of Nations and Great Britain just went in and forced things.

What happened to the Jews in WWII was a terrible tragedy and a great evil. This however does not justify creating a nation of mostly European Jews in the Middle East. In fact it had nothing to do with the idea of a Jewish state there. The basis of that idea long preceeded WWII. It seems mostly based on ancient historical claims that inherently deny rights to the people that were then living in the Middle East.

Chris is ranting that I called the founders of Israel thieves. I did no such thing. I said they AND the Brits AND the League of Nations AND anyone else that was involved chose to get rid of a problem by denying UN agreed upon rights to the then present inhabitants of the land.

Jew can and do function in a number of nations. The claim made by some of the creators of Zionism that Jews are downtrodden because they are stateless simply ignores this fact. I understand the desire for a state based in Jerusalem but it simply ignores 1800 years of intervening history.

Now to repeat for those that are having a real hard time accpepting the idea that someone can think founding Israel was a big mistake without also being a bigot.

I have said many times that I am ONLY talking about the justification for and the founding of Israel. I am not saying that Israel should be wiped out. An anti-semite is a term that referst to people that hate Jews just because they are Jewish. Claiming that it includes people that think Israel was founded unjustly is a complete denial of the real meaning of the term. That is the sole reason I even posted on this thread. I knew what I said would touch of a firestorm of self-rightous indignation but that is normal when people have accepted unjust actions and want to justify them after the fact.

It is exceedingly difficult to achieve a just peace if no one is willing to admit to the truth. Once you can accept the truth it becomes much easier to move on. The problem in the Middle East is that neither side really wants the truth. It is inconvenient and in the case of the Palestinians they don't even have a clue as to the truth as so many of them are completely uneducated. Hate has replaced reason and hate breeds hate.

Someone must budge. How can the Palestinians do this from a position of weakness and ignorance? With Israel denying the truth its even more difficult as they are the educated and the powerfull in this.

[Chris 62]

Your so full of sh1t I'm surprised your eyes aern't brown.

Go seig heil somewhere else, loser.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your a bigot and a moron.

You are a liar and a buffoon. Not a funny one either.

All I did was give you facts, you idiot.

You have NEVER given a single fact on this thread. Others have you have not.

All you did was deny it and say dumb sh!t.

All I did was post facts and try reason. You seem incapable of either.

Can't keep your word either.

In fact, you came up with the all time stupidest intrepretation of the mid east:

The Jews were "guests" who took over!

Well its a valid interpretation of the events. They were invited and they did take over. Can you show otherwise?

There is no other way to talk to you, you are a total ass-hole.

Well there sure is no way that YOU comprehend to talk to me.

When are you going to keep your word?

I am very careful not to make stupid promises like the one you have made and violated twice. I never promise to ignore someone.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your so full of sh1t I'm surprised your eyes aern't brown.

Gosh that was so insightfull.

My eyes are brown with green.

Go seig heil somewhere else, loser.

That was brilliant. You can't support yourself so I must be a Nazi. Sad that anyone would be so appallingly hot headed and full of hate.

Do yourself a favor and keep your word for once. You are not doing yourself any good with these hate filled rants of yours.

[Natan]

The point was that no one was being killed at that time. You are using a future event to justify the action. I did not disagree with the rest of that part. There is a LOT of falacious reasoning going on here and was pointing one falacy in your arguement. You didn't need it to support immigration. You arguement was stronger logicaly without it.

It seems to me that if they avoided being killed by their action, it was good. Most long-term and important decisions, such as movign to another country, are made with the future in mind. German Jews feared for their safety, and their fears were justified by the course of events. But if you agree that the immigration was justified, the point is moot.

On anyone not English or maybe Irish.

Yes. People felt that the mass immigration of the previous century or so had gone a bit too far.

Well not as a state but it did function as an area.

You know, in that sense, mandatory Palestine still functions as an area. The Shouf, the Beka and Baalbek valleyes, Tripoli and the south were only annexed to Lebanon after world war one.

I didn't claim they mixed. Just that they managed to live with each other.

But they didn't. They lasted independently from 1943-1975, with a crisis or two in between and then had a nasty civil war which killed thousands of people.

Well since most of the Jews were imigrants perhaps they should have acted more like guests and less like invaders. Thats what setting up a Jewish state was very much like.

What, precisely, would you have liked them to do instead? The Arab states were quite intent on expelling them.

So far all you have done is shown that the Middle East was not a good choice to migrate to.

It sure beat dying, which was the alternative. It was the only place Jews could go after 1917, when most of them arrived.

What makes that different from the Palestinians then? They have never made peace. They are have been at war with Israel since 1948. They just didn't start fighting till later.

They would be analogous to Begin almost exactly if they didn't make it their policy to attack discos and movie theaters.

quote:
The Intifada would be a normal war if not for the intentional targetting of civillians. I'm not arguing that Palestinians can't kill Israeli soldiers.

All Israeli adults up to a certain age are soldiers. It comes with having a universal reserve system.

Not true, only about half of those eligible serve, and IIRC, women are not eligible for the reserve in most cases.

Intentional targeting of children is wrong. I have never tried to justify the actions of the PLO.

You were comparing them to the Irgun, and I pointed out an important difference between the two. Where did I say that you were trying to justify their actions?

I am not the one trying to justify terrorism. You are trying to justify the acts of Begin.

First person killed was a civilian. I don't call that taking special care.

Do you agree that it is okay to attack the other side's military HQ in a war? And do you agree that there is such a thing as guerilla warfare, distinct from terrorism?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
Yes. People felt that the mass immigration of the previous century or so had gone a bit too far.

Well it did put quite a stress on the country. Thats when most of my ancestors came here though.

But they didn't. They lasted independently from 1943-1975, with a crisis or two in between and then had a nasty civil war which killed thousands of people.

I did say up untill the Palestinian refugees wrecked the balance so you aren't saying anything different from that.

What, precisely, would you have liked them to do instead? The Arab states were quite intent on expelling them.

Why were the Arab states intent on that? Because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state. What I would have them do is something else instead of what they did.

It sure beat dying, which was the alternative. It was the only place Jews could go after 1917, when most of them arrived.

Again you mention the dying and 1917. Hitler didn't rise to power till the thirties.

They would be analogous to Begin almost exactly if they didn't make it their policy to attack discos and movie theaters.

King David Hotel was not just a military post.

Not true, only about half of those eligible serve, and IIRC, women are not eligible for the reserve in most cases.

The status of Israeli women in the army has changed over time. In the Six Day war they fought for instance.

As for the other I was under the impression that all citizens were obligated to enter the military except for sects that are anti-war. Thank you for clearing that up. I had it in my head that was more like Switzerland only with women as well as men.

You were comparing them to the Irgun, and I pointed out an important difference between the two. Where did I say that you were trying to justify their actions?

I didn't accuse you of it. Look again. I was making my position clear.

Considering how much my position has been created by others I feel the need to speak for myself on occasion. Please also note that is not directed at you but a general comment regarding the testy nature of this thread. Inherently testy but there has been a marked tendency to create positions for me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

Do you agree that it is okay to attack the other side's military HQ in a war? And do you agree that there is such a thing as guerilla warfare, distinct from terrorism?

Yes. However there was no war. Begin was not in a position to declare one. Saying he was is akin to saying the Red Army Brigade has the right to declare war.

I don't consider civil unrest and disorder the equivalent of war. Attack intended to stop negotiations are not the equivalent of war either and that was the intent of the King David attack considering that the Brits were on the side of a Jewish state.

[Ned]

Guys, let's shift focus just a bit -- to the East. There, in 1920, the Brits installed an Arab king, Faysal, as ruler over a land which we now call Iraq. However, included within that land was a separate Indo-European people known as the Kurds, who seem to have ever since struggled for their own separate state.

I understand that United States has reached the deal with Turkey to restore Kurd lands to Turkish sovereignty in exchange for their support in the coming war against Iraq.

I would presume that those here who supports Israel should think that both the British and now the American actions vis-a-vis the Kurds are wrong, and that we should instead support an independent Kurd state. However I might be wrong. I have no clue as to what the supporters of the Palestinians would believe on this issue except that an invasion of Iraq by United States and Turkey was to be opposed.

I suspect the Kurds, who long looked to the United States for support, now feel betrayed.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
I understand that United States has reached the deal with Turkey to restore Kurd lands to Turkish sovereignty in exchange for their support in the coming war against Iraq.

I don't understand this. The Turks ARE sovereign over Kurds in Turkey allready. Is this some sort of plan for the Turks to take the Kurdish lands in Iraq? The Turks have enough problems allready.

I suspect the Kurds, who long looked to the United States for support, now feel betrayed.

Ned

Well it sure will get Bush in trouble. Its a really bad idea to go around trying to rearange borders without a really darn good reason.

Carving new nations out of present states is balkinzation. What it really does is increase the power of large integrated states. I would expect this aspect of it make a lot people really paranoid.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I did say up untill the Palestinian refugees wrecked the balance so you aren't saying anything different from that.

So what you're saying is that it worked very well for five years. Somehow, I don't think that shows anything. And in fact, if the Palestinian refugees "wrecked the balance," I think that's proof that multi-ethnic states can be dangerous.

Why were the Arab states intent on that? Because the Jews wanted to create a Jewish state.

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

What I would have them do is something else instead of what they did.

That's not very specific or helpful.

Again you mention the dying and 1917. Hitler didn't rise to power till the thirties.

Those who didn't leave in the twenties or thirties mostly died in the Holocaust. Saying that they shouldn't have left is saying that they should have taken a worse than 1 in 2 chance of survival.

King David Hotel was not just a military post.

Right, and that's why the Irgun issued a warning before hand. But I think the British do have to bear some responsibility for placing their HQ there; you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

I didn't accuse you of it. Look again. I was making my position clear.

You said something to the effect of "how is this different from the PLO" three pages back.

Considering how much my position has been created by others I feel the need to speak for myself on occasion. Please also note that is not directed at you but a general comment regarding the testy nature of this thread. Inherently testy but there has been a marked tendency to create positions for me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

Yeah, that would annoy me quite a bit were I in your place. I hope I haven't contributed to much to it.

Yes. However there was no war. Begin was not in a position to declare one. Saying he was is akin to saying the Red Army Brigade has the right to declare war.

I don't consider civil unrest and disorder the equivalent of war. Attack intended to stop negotiations are not the equivalent of war either and that was the intent of the King David attack considering that the Brits were on the side of a Jewish state.

The Brits were not on the side of a Jewish state until monthes after the attack when they voted for UN resolution 181; before that they were running the area as a colony and were actually forbidding Jewish immigration. The goal of the Irgun attack was not to stop negotiations but to prevent the British from using the documents they had seized in an earlier raid on the Hagana (Ben-Gurion's group's) HQ to arrest every Irgun and Hagana operative in the country. That's why the Irgun issued a warning, they wanted to blow up the documents, not the people.

[CyberGnu]

natan:

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

for someone who has read so much israeli history, I'm surprised you missed that one. Until 1918 (+- 2 years or so, don't remember exactly right now), jews were enoucraged to come live in palestine by the arabs. They had grand visions of a democratic state where everyone was equal, and most importantly, not under the rulership of an imperialist power. The turning point came when it became apparent that the jews didn't intend to share...

you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

So you have finally conceeded that palestinian attacks on settlements are OK?

[Natan]

1) Both sides were at first interested in a bi-national state because they thought it would help them throw of European rule. But as Arabs and Jews developed distinct nationalisms, interest in a bi-national state faded to the point that no one was even proposing it in 1948.

2) Most settlements do not have army bases on them.

3) Maybe you'd like to continue your previous debate at http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/s...&postid=889855 ?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
So what you're saying is that it worked very well for five years. Somehow, I don't think that shows anything. And in fact, if the Palestinian refugees "wrecked the balance," I think that's proof that multi-ethnic states can be dangerous.

I said NOTHING about five years.

I think it's because the Jews wanted to create a non-Arab state. I don't think a bi-national state was ever considered by the Arab states.

It wasn't considered by the founders of Israel either.

That's not very specific or helpful.

Its really hard to help things that happened in the past. I see no value to creating a solution that is inherently moot.

Those who didn't leave in the twenties or thirties mostly died in the Holocaust. Saying that they shouldn't have left is saying that they should have taken a worse than 1 in 2 chance of survival.

You are obsessed with evading the obvious by bring up what were at the time unforseeable events. In the twenties no one new the future. Does this get through yet? Hitler had not one thing to do with Jews going to the Middle East in the twenties.

Right, and that's why the Irgun issued a warning before hand. But I think the British do have to bear some responsibility for placing their HQ there; you can't complain if someone hits the mixed civillian/military installation you set up.

Again a warning does not justify the actions. I certainly could complain if I was a Brit. They had every right to call it a terrorist act.

You said something to the effect of "how is this different from the PLO" three pages back.

You are mixing things up. I repeat I was not accusing you of justifying anything there.

Yeah, that would annoy me quite a bit were I in your place. I hope I haven't contributed to much to it.

Not that I have noticed. There is a difference between a misunderstanding and just plain inventing.

The Brits were not on the side of a Jewish state until monthes after the attack when they voted for UN resolution 181; before that they were running the area as a colony and were actually forbidding Jewish immigration.

Well that is one way to put it. Another is that the Brits had got cold feet due to the fighting and decided leaving and more immigration right then was a bad idea.

It doesn't help that the Brits were pretty much bankrupt at the time from WWII and they were in the process of giving up India.

The goal of the Irgun attack was not to stop negotiations but to prevent the British from using the documents they had seized in an earlier raid on the Hagana (Ben-Gurion's group's) HQ to arrest every Irgun and Hagana operative in the country. That's why the Irgun issued a warning, they wanted to blow up the documents, not the people.

Well I don't see anything there that changes it from terrorism.

[CyberGnu]

1) you are basically saying the same thing as me, but you won't admit the cause.

2) they ARE army bases... but OK, for the sake of argument, you have nothjing against palestinans attacking the heavily fortified settlement in hebron, for example?

3) sure. i'll try to get some time later.

[Natan]

1) No; you're claiming that the Arabs would have been happy to have a bi-national state if only the Jews would have agreed. I think that's quite false.

2) If they attack an army base, that's fine. Of course, if they decide to shoot a girl hiding under her bed simply because there happens to be an army base nearby, that's not okay. But if they attack the army base with mortars or with firearms and a stray bullet hits a child, that's an accident, not a murder.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Natan
1) No; you're claiming that the Arabs would have been happy to have a bi-national state if only the Jews would have agreed. I think that's quite false.

The Zionist movement took place during the time that the Ottoman Empire was breaking up. This encouraged Arabs to espouse nationalism for lands that the Turks formally dominated. At the time, the Palestinians believed themselves to be part of Syria, and because the Turks had objected to Jewish settlement, the Palestinians were willing to consider Jewish immigration as an expression of Syrian nationalism. The Zionists were not interested in the offer.

What is wrong with this statement?

[Natan]

1) The offer was made by King Faisal, not "the Palestinians," who at any rate had no agreed upon representative at the time.
2) Many Zionists were quite interested in it
3) The Turks had allowed Jewish immigration for a number of years
4) Arab nationalism was not just a response to Zionism. In fact, it was always stronger outside Israel/Palestine than within. Were Zionism the cause of Arab nationalism, Palestinians would be the staunchest of Arab nationalists (in fact they resent other Arabs for what they see as abandonment of the Palestinian cause), while nations further away from the area, like Iraq and Libya, would have little interest in Arab nationalism. But that it is not so.

[Ned]

I just saw a report on CNN concerning the election struggle in France. The report stated that the growing support for Le Pen was centered on French reaction to the immigration of large number of Arabs into the country. The left in turn has embraced the Arab immigrants causes, including support for the Palestinians. The report also stated that the primary source for the current wave of anti-Semetic violence were the immigrant Arabs. The report noted that the French right has long been strongly anti-Semetic, but with the growing support by the left of Palestinian causes, there's no one left in France to stem the tide of anti-Semitism.

Ned

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Gosh that was so insightfull.

My eyes are brown with green.

How did I know that?

That was brilliant. You can't support yourself so I must be a Nazi. Sad that anyone would be so appallingly hot headed and full of hate.

I hate a man like you more then any other.
A bigot that hides and pretends to be reasonable.

Do yourself a favor and keep your word for once. You are not doing yourself any good with these hate filled rants of yours.

The only thing I hate is jerks like you.

All jews are theives, eh?
All jews have no rights, eh?

Sorry Adolph, your not getting off that easy.

[whosurdaddy]

I just wanted to add that Muslims conquered Palestine BY FORCE from the majority Christian population that ruled the area under the Eastern Roman Empire. So they aren’t the original inhabitants either. So all this nonsense about who was here first and that the Muslim Palestinians were in Palestine first is complete nonsense. That is all