Am I a anti-semitist?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Natan
1) The offer was made by King Faisal, not "the Palestinians," who at any rate had no agreed upon representative at the time.

You're correct. My mistake. Here are some specifics I found on the offer. Apparently both King Faisal of Syria and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament.

2) Many Zionists were quite interested in it

Why was it rejected then?

4) Arab nationalism was not just a response to Zionism.

I didn't say that it was. I said that it was encouraged by the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

[Natan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're correct. My mistake. Here are some specifics I found on the offer. Apparently both King Faisal of Syria and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament.

Part of the problem is that Faisal and Abdullah never had control of Palestine. Although many parts of Syria were considered to be within the boundaries of the ancient land of Israel, Zionists were never interested in them because it was the southern part which had the historic cities like Jerusalem and Safed. Faisal's reign was quite short, even in lesser Syria, his regime quickly being replaced by French occupation.

Why was it rejected then?

Who exactly rejected it?

I didn't say that it was. I said that it was encouraged by the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

Oh, my mistake. I was unsure what "this" in the second sentence reffered to.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
How did I know that?

You didn't.

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

You just hate reason. I am no bigot but you just hate.

Lie a lot too.

The only thing I hate is jerks like you.

Like I said lie a lot too. I am having a mostly reasonable discusion with everyone but one hot headed short tempered foul mouthed child of Grendal.

Try not to get your arm ripped of by a troll slayer.

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

You sure do like to lie.

Sorry Adolph, your not getting off that easy.

Well you lie just like he did. You rant much like he did but with less competence.

Unlike him you're easy. The eaiest troll I have ever come across. Except for one that I chased off in less than two hours. You are too foolish to lay off.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by 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.

We covered that allready. The christians became moslems. I don't think they had a lot of choice.

Usually when a conquest is made the original population remains. Not always of course. The Romans went out of their way to chase off the Jews after revolts. Apparently the Assyrians were hard on the locals earlier. Islam however was not about giving land to Arabs it was about conversion. Corpses don't convert well.

This is not to claim the Moslems were nice and gentle and peacefull. They weren't. When Moslems claim that Islam is a peacefull religion they are at best exceedingly ignorant. They often converted by sword and arrow even before the Turks showed up.

[Chris 62]

Since the bigot refuses to look into history, I will do it for him, with a caviat of net history, which is uneven at best.

Let's start with events leading up to the war of independance and the partition plan:

http://apolyton.net/forums/newreply....threadid=48587

You will notice where it provides self determination, which that idiot refuses to accept, and that it was the arab states that refused to allow self determination, they were operating under "might makes right" doctrone, and tried to force the jews out.

The partition plan grew from the Balfour declaration, so let's look at the actual declaration and an interpretation of the events leading up to it:

http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

The Balfour declaration:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Perhaps a concise timeline would help:

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

Anyone glancing the net could have found all the things I said, that YOU said were "unsupported".

Only a moron would think Israel had no right to exsist and would call them "guests" in their own land, as the time line shows.

I didn't think it was needed to show such basic history, only a fool would contest it.
You did contest it.

The "new historians" have been sited by some, but they have been exposed by this book:

http://www.danielpipes.org/reviews/199709g.shtml

Here's another timeline that indicates that the jews resisted the first arab conquest, that YOU said were "nomads".

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/palestine.html

Here is a great essay from an ARAB-American journalist, exposing the bull that YOU spew:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

More from this journalist:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

Here is some nice history of Israel in ancient times, the times YOU say they "stole" the land:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook06.html

Yet more history of this area:

http://www.historyteacher.net/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.htm

The fact is, when it comes to the middle-east, you don't know your ass-from you elbow, Ethelred.

Your just another too bit bigot, a pimple on the ass of society.

Go crawl back into your corner.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You just hate reason. I am no bigot but you just hate.

Your a piece of sh1t racist.

Lie a lot too.

Yes, you do.

Like I said lie a lot too. I am having a mostly reasonable discusion with everyone but one hot headed short tempered foul mouthed child of Grendal.

They try to reason with a nazi like you.
I see you for what you are.

Try not to get your arm ripped of by a troll slayer.

The only troll lives in your rectum, loser.

You sure do like to lie.

Ha Ha Ha, you are such a loser.

Well you lie just like he did. You rant much like he did but with less competence.

Everybody is lieing, eh?

Unlike him you're easy. The eaiest troll I have ever come across. Except for one that I chased off in less than two hours. You are too foolish to lay off.

Ha ha ha, you think you are winning!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The people here are to polite to tell you what a d1ck you are, but I don't bother with that.

[Chris 62]

When you through finding someone to read you all that information, you can come back and tell me how I didn't substanciate anything.

Jack-ass.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Nathan, the discussion between Ethelred and myself was unresolved in my view because we did not agree on the reason for the 1920 riots in Jerusalem that resulted in the deaths of scores of Jews. He contended, I believe, that the reason for riots was because of the Balfour declaration and its current interpretation by the Jews that the document authorized the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. I instead cited the Army handbook for the proposition that the leaders of the Jewish resistance to riots, including Jabotinsky, began to argue after the riots that a Jewish state was necessary because coexistence with the Arabs in an Arab dominated state not possible.
Do you know the reason for the 1920 riots? You have a link to a discussion of those events?

There is one passage in the Army handbook that seems to support Ethelred's view:

From April 4 to 8, Arab rioters attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. Faysal’s ouster by the French in the summer of 1920 led to further rioting in Jaffa (contemporary Yafo) as a large number of Palestinian Arabs who had been with Faysal returned to Palestine to fight against the establishment of a Jewish nation

Ned

[CyberGnu]

chris, you really should start taking your medication again... Calm down.

[Chris 62]

Your right Cyber, I let that bigotted little pig get to me.

People like him saw 6 million jews to the gas chamber along with 5 million others.

You would think that after seeing so many stupid posts, you get used to it, but I never get used to racism.

[CyberGnu]

You are still not calm... i've read through ethelreds posts, and nothing he says supports your claim of him being a nazi. It is quite uncalled for.

[CyberGnu]

natan:
1) do you have anything supporting your claim? Sources dating from pre-1920, mind you, we're not debating the mindset AFTER the rift started.

2) ackording to the NYT, the killers shot pretty much indiscriminately into open windows and killed, amongst others, the girl.

[Natan]

Well, as I see it, Arabs were angry about the balfour declaration and some Zionists interperted it as authorizing the creation of a Jewish state, but I think the more important cause was the partition of Syria, which was causing riots against the French in their part of the Levant as well. Assigning causes for historical events is never easy though.

[CyberGnu]

Natan:
3) I really don't have the time to respond to all those points.. do you think you could pick out the three or four that you think are most important/fundamental and i'll respond to those?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
You are still not calm... i've read through ethelreds posts, and nothing he says supports your claim of him being a nazi. It is quite uncalled for.

You find it acceptable to say that Jews "stole their own land"?
That they stole it in antiquity as well?
That they have no right to self determination?
That they have no rights period?

That only scratches the surface.

Nazi is mild compared to that.

[CyberGnu]

Yes, I find that acceptable, and it has nothing to do with nazism. It is a question of whether a 2000 year old claim has any relevance whatsoever compared to the people currently inhabiting it, and also a question of the morality of making palestinian arabs the victims of the solution of a european problem.



BTW, what do you mean when you say 'right to selfdetermination'?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Since the bigot refuses to look into history, I will do it for him, with a caviat of net history, which is uneven at best.

Hi troll. Lieing again I see. I have been posting real history to back me up.

Let's start with events leading up to the war of independance and the partition plan:

Gee after two days of lies and hate and more lies about posting facts you never posted you are finaly going to post some evidence. Will wonders never cease?

Ah I see you think another thread is proof. How quaint. Oh dear the link goes to the reply box for this thread. How usefull.

You will notice where it provides self determination, which that idiot refuses to accept, and that it was the arab states that refused to allow self determination, they were operating under "might makes right" doctrone, and tried to force the jews out.

A reply box is not evidence Chris. A reply box is not exactly evidence of self determination.

The partition plan grew from the Balfour declaration, so let's look at the actual declaration and an interpretation of the events leading up to it:

The Balfour declaration had no justification. It was a high handed act by a notorious colonial power.

http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

I
The Balfour declaration:

The Balfour Declaration has allready been posted here once. I read it twice in the last two days plus several times since the Six Day War. It still is nothing but British duplicity and colonialism.

Perhaps a concise timeline would help:

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

Anyone glancing the net could have found all the things I said, that YOU said were "unsupported".

You saying it doesn't make it true. I supported myself.

There is nothing in that timeline that shows any sign that anyone was allowed self determination. Lots of stuff after 1948 however and only TWO items before 1948. I made it clear I am talking about the founding of Israel which was in 48. Any event after that is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about.

Not suprising you would fail to post something so useless.

Only a moron would think Israel had no right to exsist and would call them "guests" in their own land, as the time line shows.

The timeline shows no such thing. It only has TWO event prior to 1948. It was not Jewish land in 1917. How dense are you anyway?

I didn't think it was needed to show such basic history, only a fool would contest it.
You did contest it.

I never contested it. Almost nothing there is at all relevent to what I have been talking about.

Perhaps you need to learn how to count.

1917 comes before the founding of Israel. Thats relevant.

1936-39 comes before the founding of Israel. That too is relevant.

1948 IS the founding of Israel and that is what I have been discussing.

EVERYTHING after that is completely outside the discussion that I and others have engaged in.

The "new historians" have been sited by some, but they have been exposed by this book:

http://www.danielpipes.org/reviews/199709g.shtml

Nothing on that page has a thing to do with what I have said. You are incredibly obdurate in your efforts to avoid this fact.

Here's another timeline that indicates that the jews resisted the first arab conquest, that YOU said were "nomads".


http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/palestine.html

Lets see a pro Israeli site that even has Joshua. Did you know that there is no evidence to support the conquests of Joshua. Jericho wasn't even inhabited at the time Joshua is supposed to have existed. I personly think the time is off on that though. But even if we move Joshua back three hundred years Jericho is still a weak poorly defended town with walls of rubble.

I don't know what the heck you are talking about in this intance. I doubt you do either. Perhaps if you actualy posted the remark I made with a bit of context so I could tell what you are ranting about this time it would help. You seem to have mixed together different things and added your own delusions to make a toxic mess.

Timelines that show territory changing hands constantly are not going to support you position. Assuming you actually have a postion outside of a well known lake in Denmark, oh child of Grendel.

Here is a great essay from an ARAB-American journalist, exposing the bull that YOU spew:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

More from this journalist:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

You are such a putz. Thats the same link twice.

It exposes nothing that I have said. He does make a claim that the Jews have 5000 year birth right. Carefully ignoring the fact that the European Jews that founded Israel had been out of the Middle East for 1800 years. Also ignoring the lack of evidence for any signs of a Jewish state prior to Joshua. Assuming Joshua existed.

Not one word about that deals with what I have said. You are hopeless.

Here is some nice history of Israel in ancient times, the times YOU say they "stole" the land:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook06.html

Actually the Bible says it. Only it doesn't say stole. What do you think a conquest is. A gift?

Even that site labels parts as myth.

I see I made a mistake when accepted the claim that you are a historian. You don't know much do you?

Yet more history of this area:

http://www.historyteacher.net/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.htm

How about you give some sort of indication of just what you think is undercutting me there. I am not going to search out the details for you. Especially for you. Maybe I will guess for someone else but not YOU. You have been exceedingly hatefull and you lie a lot.

The fact is, when it comes to the middle-east, you don't know your ass-from you elbow, Ethelred.

Maybe but you sure haven't showed it.

Your just another too bit bigot, a pimple on the ass of society.

Go crawl back into your corner.

Go swim in your lake child of Grendal.

[Chris 62]

See what I mean?

The ass-monkey ignores history!

You are a nazi jerk.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your a piece of sh1t racist.

How astute. Excuse me, I meant how stupid can you be.

Yes, you do.

You are in elementary school then. I apoligize for defending myself from attacks by a six year old.

They try to reason with a nazi like you.
I see you for what you are.

Your delusions are massive. Take your medication.

The only troll lives in your rectum, loser.

I see you are developing a rapier-like wit.

Ha Ha Ha, you are such a loser.

Hmmm perhaps I was mistaken.

Everybody is lieing, eh?

No mostly its you.

Ha ha ha, you think you are winning!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am pretty sure there is no winner in a pissing match. But I don't lose them.

The people here are to polite to tell you what a d1ck you are, but I don't bother with that.

You don't bother thinking.

[Chris 62]

Your long rambling bullsh1t just increases the phoniness of you.



What a d1ck!

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred


How astute. Excuse me, I meant how stupid can you be.

Obviously, nowhere close to you.

You are in elementary school then. I apoligize for defending myself from attacks by a six year old.

Man, you are stupid.

Your delusions are massive. Take your medication.

Ohh, you seem to have said that before.

I see you are developing a rapier-like wit.

Forrest Gump could out-debate you.

Hmmm perhaps I was mistaken.

About a great many things.

No mostly its you.

Ha ha ha ha

You are such a fool, bigot.

I am pretty sure there is no winner in a pissing match. But I don't lose them.

Wrong again, fool.
But I'm sure you will just deny it continuosly.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence to back your "assertions".

Ass-hole.

You don't bother thinking.

How many people did you get to help you post this?

You just don't get it.

I see through you.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your right Cyber, I let that bigotted little pig get to me.

People like him saw 6 million jews to the gas chamber along with 5 million others.

The total killed in genocidal acts was aproxamatly 15 million.

No one know just how many. For instance the count for the Romani varies between 400,000 and 1.5 million.

You would think that after seeing so many stupid posts, you get used to it, but I never get used to racism.

I have no tolerance for racism. Not much for hate filled liars either.

[CyberGnu]

Look, chris, I know sept11 shook you up, but seriously. Calm down. Behave.

And if you are actually interested in a debate, you should try to post something else but insults...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred
The total killed in genocidal acts was aproxamatly 15 million.

Your "facts" again?

I won't mention your spelling, I find such pettiness pedantic.
Much like you.

No one know just how many. For instance the count for the Romani varies between 400,000 and 1.5 million.

Tis true, nobody knows.

I have no tolerance for racism. Not much for hate filled liars either.

You must really hate yourself, then.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
See what I mean?

The ass-monkey ignores history!

I am waiting for you show what of that showed me wrong. Smileys do not costitute doing that.

You are a nazi jerk.

You are hopless. And you would have improve considerably to qualify as a jerk.

If you EVER want to actually discuss this try being specific. Try saying what in a timeline is relevant. Try showing what historical event was supposed to show some sort of error. Anyone can post links without saying what is relevant. Anyone competant can show what it is that is relevant. I guess that leaves you out.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Look, chris, I know sept11 shook you up, but seriously. Calm down. Behave.

I find it appaling that your suppost this facist.
You truly believe Jews have no rights?
If so, your as bad as that loser.

For an educated man with a phd, it's scandalous for you to take such a stance.

It means turning your back on logic and reason, and embracing race hatred and madness.

This has nothing to do with 9/11, if it did, I wouldn't support a Palestinain homeland, which I fervently do, free of any outside agency.

The difference is, I won't see it built on the corpses of Jews.

And if you are actually interested in a debate, you should try to post something else but insults...

Go back and read the whole thread.
I provided quite a bit of information, and then added to it.

Our Nazi comrade has yet to do that in the slightest.

I find your lack of objectivity disquieting, to say the least.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am waiting for you show what of that showed me wrong. Smileys do not costitute doing that.

You said Jews have no right to their own land, the information clearly puts the lie to this.
You said that the Arabs didn't "invade", where nomads.
Clearly false.
You said that self determination was denied the arabs, this was clearly not the case, the truth is, and if you read the links, this is spelled out, that is was the Arab side which dismissed the self determination proposal out of hand, demanding it all.
You said that the Jews were guests...guests in their own homeland, with no right to exsist as a nation!
You said that the Jews aern't a nation, when clearly they are.
You said the bible says the jews stole, STOLE their homeland!

You are hopless. And you would have improve considerably to qualify as a jerk.

I find that this statement discribes you perfectly.

No matter how many times told the same thing, by how many people, you refuse to accept the truth.

If you EVER want to actually discuss this try being specific.

I tried this with you, you ignored it.

Try saying what in a timeline is relevant.

It cleearly shows that :
a) you have no concept of this natuion or this area
b) That a number of things you said simply aern't so, such as "the jews STOLE" there homeland, an abominable statement, among the most racist I have ever heard.

Try showing what historical event was supposed to show some sort of error.

I have, time and agin.

Anyone can post links without saying what is relevant.

You are insane.
There can be no other explination for you.
How many times must you be told the same thing?

Anyone competant can show what it is that is relevant.

This was done time and agin.

I guess that leaves you out.

Kicking me out of your Klan?

Thank god.

It is clear your a racist, but I begin to believe that you don't even realize you are, making you even more frightening.

[Ned]

I find the text of the letter between Faisal and Weizmann to be quite fascinating. It does look like the outbreak in violence in Palestine was directly connected to France's effort to dethrone Faisal from his newly created Kingship in Damascus.

The document Faisal refers to is not on Chris's site.

Ned

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann
3 January, 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:


Articles:

Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen
Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein


Reservation by the Emir Feisal
If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
You said Jews have no right to their own land, the information clearly puts the lie to this.
You said that the Arabs didn't "invade", where nomads.
Clearly false.

Hey you got one thing right ouit three. The lies you just told are clearly false. I didn't say those things.

You said that self determination was denied the arabs, this was clearly not the case, the truth is, and if you read the links, this is spelled out, that is was the Arab side which dismissed the self determination proposal out of hand, demanding it all.

I don't see where there is vote going on there Chris. Do you have a clue what self determination is? You don't seem to. I don't see where there was a vote for the establishment of Israel either.

No vote equals no self determination.

You said that the Jews were guests...guests in their own homeland, with no right to exsist as a nation!

They were guests. It wasn't their homeland. They hadn't been there for 1800 years. It was someone else home.

You said that the Jews aern't a nation, when clearly they are.

No they aren't. There is a NOW a state called Israel. The Iriquois were a nation. They had a government and the local organizations collaberated with each other (when they weren't fighting with each other).

You said the bible says the jews stole, STOLE their homeland!

I said the Bible doesn't use the word but that the actions were that of theft by conquest. Its pretty clear in the Bible. Perhaps you should actually look at before you proclaim what is and is not in it. Start with Deuteronomy but don't eat first as its nasty, mean, and savage.

I find that this statement discribes you perfectly.

Your delusions are you problem. Please keep them to yourself.

No matter how many times told the same thing, by how many people, you refuse to accept the truth.

You mean I refuse to accept what you say. Without evidence I am not accepting anything.

I tried this with you, you ignored it.

You ranted like a Adolf Hitler.

It cleearly shows that :
a) you have no concept of this natuion or this area

How? It didn't show it from what I can see. Be specific.

b) That a number of things you said simply aern't so, such as "the jews STOLE" there homeland, an abominable statement, among the most racist I have ever heard.

Telling the truth is not racist.

I have, time and agin.You are insane.

You have ranted and lied and called me names time and again. On one single occasion you posted some links. Nothing in them contradicted me unless it was hidden. That is why you must be specific.

There can be no other explination for you.
How many times must you be told the same thing?

You can tell me I am Nazi an infinite number of times. It won't make it so.

This was done time and agin.

It was done on a couple of minor points. Nothing that would change my conclusion as there was nothing that showed self determination or a Jewish right to a modern state in the Middle East.

Posting the same error time and again won't change things.

Kicking me out of your Klan?

Thats clan. The KKK doesn't like Catholics or Agnostics so that leaves me out even if I was psychotic enough to join.

However you would fit right in. You certainly have the hate filled part down pat.

It is clear your a racist, but I begin to believe that you don't even realize you are, making you even more frightening.

It is clear you have a great deal of hate anyway.

[Ned]

I thought you may want to take a look at this 1948 article. It seems to suggest that a good portion of the 1948 war was a scheme by Britain to displace U.S. influence with the Saudi's.

Ned

http://www.varchive.org/obs/480430.htm