The Balfour declaration (this is now your land) legitimised nothing!

The agreed signed sealed and witnessed, two state solution would have?

Except,( thieves demonstrate more honour) it has subsequently been used for outhouse duties! As ever more illegal settlements were built on annexed land, never ever included in the Balfour declaration!

Your spin is better than the now legendary whirling dervish.
Alan B.

Israel is constantly on the back foot, irrespective of the changing political dynamics. Is the resurrection of the Balfour agreement as an issue, more of the same “ back foot” response?

Israel is a religious state. The war against the Gentiles will continue; it is mandated by God. One rule for the Gentiles, another for the Hebrews. Read below!

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/09/01/why-does-israel-hate-gentiles/

Return in a thousand years, nothing has change.

In 1000 years there would be another D Singer with nonsense.

"Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was 'of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"
Chillingly - our news-grabbing academic selectively misquoted what Lord Balfour actually said:

" And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".
-
David is nuts.

Why don't we start wil the actual letter David?
You waffle on so much crap to bolster your bs stories.
Why don't you just a link to the actual letter in question.

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1743866_original.jpg

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.

"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"

Emphasis: How exactly were you going to create a Jewish state (National homeland for the Jews) whilst not doing anything to prejudice non- Jewish communities?

Isn't it really just a load of crap right from the start?

Lets take a better look at what happened regards the Balfour Declaration.
http://youtu.be/TJiIARWpiXw

Maybe we should look at Rothschild Zionism
http://youtu.be/VskFmitRpbo

Israels Fake History
http://youtu.be/YUoDVcx88Kg

And now lets remind ourselves of Naeim Gilardi's revelations.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html

Now you can improve your writing and do non-biased articles David Singer.
- No need to thank me, you're welcome.

Or,

The Balfour declaration was a promise by the British government during World War One, announcing support for establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Palestine was still a part of the Ottoman Empire at the time, with a minority Jewish population.
The 67-word document, in the form of a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to the prominent British Jewish figure, Lord Rothschild, dated November 2, 1917, read:

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.

The declaration has had a profound impact on theMiddle East and its people;

The British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine during World War One in which it fought the powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.

According to historian Jonathan Schneer, the British somehow "felt that the Jews held the key to winning the war and so they had to figure out how to bribe the Jews to support them."

James Renton of Edge Hill University elaborates on British motives: "We can boil it down to two elements of British self-interest at that time. Not an emotional interest in Zionism or a love of Jews and the Jewish plight and the desire for return of the Jews to the holy land, no... they wanted to mobilise the allies behind Britain and this idea of Jewish power in the world. They were all of the different policy elites in the war - believers in the notion that Jews who have tremendous influence in the corridors of power around the globe. If the British government appeared to support Zionism, they would win over World Jewry to their side, and all that entailed. The British were convinced that Zionism was really at the centre of the Jewish heart."

Cont

Cont

Whatever its basis, the relationship between the British Zionists and the government was established in late 1916 and continued to develop throughout 1917, leading to the Declaration in November. It was the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power.

"As a term, 'a national home' didn't exist", says Palestinian historian Basheer Nafi. "At that time, international law was well developed. They could have used 'self-governance' or 'independent state'. There was no such a term in international law as 'a national homeland'. What did 'a national home for the Jews in Palestine' mean?"

The term "national home" was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine.

The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage anti-semitism against Jews worldwide.

While the declaration called for political rights in Palestine for Jews, rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who comprised the vast majority of the local population, were limited to civil and religious rights.

"The Jews were described as a people with the right to self-determination while the Arabs were considered non-Jewish communities," explains French historian Philippe Prevost. "They didn't even mention the name of the Arabs. They were called non-Jewish. They only could enjoy civil and religious rights. They had no political rights."

But the Balfour Declaration set in motion a series of events that, over two decades, began to signal its deep flaws.

The British proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, but Arab dissent built up to the three-year Revolt between 1936 and 1939. It was a nationalist uprising against the British administration, demanding Arab independence and the end of Jewish immigration. 

Cont

Cont

In May 1939, the British government had begun to reconsider its position and published a policy document, known in the UK as a White Paper. It proposed abandoning the partition of Palestine into two states - and called instead for an independent Palestine in which Arabs and Jews would share government.

It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for five years and said that the Arab majority should determine future immigration levels. It also said that Balfour had not meant to create a Jewish state at the expense of the Arabs - any more than the McMahon-Hussein correspondence 24 years before had promised an Arab state to Sharif Hussein of Mecca.

But the White Paper faced opposition on several fronts and was dropped by a British government suddenly preoccupied with the Second World War.
A hundred years on, the declaration's effects still resonate across the Middle East. It still represents to Palestinians the moment an imperial powerpromised their land away to another people. They hold Balfour responsiblefor their expulsion, displacement and occupation.

How do you like those apples David? A bit more truth than your little rant eh!

//Now you can improve your writing and do non-biased articles David Singer.//

Ha! I'll believe that when I see it.

Remember there are some Jews, including the Orthodox Neturei Karta who oppose the existence of a Jewish state. Also many more who oppose excesses of Zionists in Israel and those in other countries = particularly the US and UK supporting it. They have largely covertly created much of the troubles in the Middle East. One aim has been To "Balkanise " or break up Syria and Iraq into seven small states. Then to encourage conflicts between them to minimise the likelihood of them threatening Israel and facilitate the long term Oded Yinon plan of a "Greater Israel" between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers on more stolen Arab land. Also helps having wars create a lot of refugees who leave the targeted areas.

Thanks to the Internet, nowadays there is wide and quick accessibility to news and views other than those that the Largely Zionist controlled Western Mainstream Media is inclined to disseminate. Trolling on behalf of the Zionist Settler State in Occupied Palestine by the likes of David Singer is much less effective than it used to be. Also, there has ben a lot of exposure of excesses of the Israeli "regime".

#nicknamenick

You are no better than that Manchester Uni lecturer Nick Thoburn -
misquoting again what was actually said by Lord Balfour:
"The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"
Do you and your ilk hate the Jews so much that you have to falsify what Balfour actually said?

#Armchair critic

It was the British Mandatory Authority that had to deal with riots by the Arabs in 1920 and 1921, the Hebron massacre in 1929 and the Arab uprising between 1936-1939.

Had the Arabs accepted the Balfour Declaration and not tried to stop Jews emigrating to Palestine - things would have been so different. 100 years of the same rejectionism has proved they have learned nothing. Neither have you.

#Geoff of Perth #Mox # toni lavis

You really need to get over what the world agreed on 100 years ago. Do you carry on about other international decisions that happened 100 or 50 or 25 years ago.

What happened - happened. Get on with life guys.

Now if you want to point out any statement of fact in my article which you claim to be misleading or wrong - please do not hesitate to do so and we can perhaps then discuss it in a rational and civilized manner.

#Alan B

You wrongly state:
" As ever more illegal settlements were built on annexed land, never ever included in the Balfour declaration!"

1. The land has not been annexed
2. The settlements are legal in international law under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. The Balfour Declaration was incorporated in the Mandate for Palestine - a unanimous decision made by all 51 member states of the League of Nations.
3. Judea and Samaria and Gaza was designated as part of the land in which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted. The area allotted to the Jews was 22% of the land in the Mandate for Palestine. The land allotted to the Arabs comprised the remaining 78%.

//You are no better than that Manchester Uni lecturer Nick Thoburn -
misquoting again what was actually said by Lord Balfour//

So according to you Balfour definitely said:

"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

Which when, on comparison with Nick's version of Balfour's words:

"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

.... turns out to be exactly the same, you accuse him of misrepresentation and anti-semitism?

This is why everybody is laughing at you, Dave.

You're about the best value on this site save our runner.

'You're about the best value on this site save our runner.'

thanks Toni just confirms to me how the God of Israel laughs at His puny adversaries.

Good grief, he's like one of Pavlov's dogs...

Mr Singer is about 80 years and it shows:
"I usually enjoy speaking with David Singer about “Palestine” and the UN Charter and other matters. I enjoy his articles.
David is a cousin whom I have admired for many years; both as a lawyer and as a “mensch”. His foray into same-sex marriage is disappointing. It is fundamentally wrong to take the comments by the Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG out of context and use them to the exact opposite effect as their original intent."
Justice Rothman responds to David Singer's SSM article » J-Wire
www.jwire.com.au › News

#nicknamenick; #toni lavis

You both seem to have trouble comprehending what Lord Balfour actually said - so I will repeat it once again:
"The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

Balfour was misquoted by Nick Thobun who said:
"Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was 'of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land'"

Why would Thobun - and you two apparently - want to go to such lengths to deliberately conceal that what Balfour said was:
1.The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.
2.Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes,
3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

Could your objective be to prevent anyone reading and understanding that "Zionism":
1.was not a dirty word,
2.was embraced by the four Great Powers,
3.was rooted in age long traditions
4.was unanimously endorsed by all 51 members of the League of Nations in conferring the Mandate for Palestine on Great Britain
5.was to take place in just 0.01% of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories - whilst Arab self-determination was to simultaneously take place in the remaining 99.99% as provided by the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the Mandate for Mesopotamia.

Does your hatred of the Jews run so deep that you are prepared to swallow false propaganda such as that uttered by Thobun and the other four falsehoods I referred to in my article?

Even a modicum of intellectual honesty would do you two the world of difference

So you don't do court hearings David . The judges would get you for unprofessional conduct.
"3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".

Yes the Christians agreed on that. No Arab states were in L of Nations in 1922 were they , and Persia is Shia'a . The Poms put Pahlavi in power in 1921 and Iran is an Indo-European language state.

What logical defence do you have to deny your own words?

#nicknamenick

You are lacking in any intellectual honesty in raising a letter written by Justice Rothman on 29 September about one of my articles.

What you fail to tell OLO readers is that I made a detailed response on 1 October denying Justice Rothman's very serious allegation that I took the comments by the Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG out of context and used them to the exact opposite effect as their original intent.

What you also fail to tell OLO readers is that Justice Rothman failed to answer my response to his claim - prompting another request by me for him to respond on 5 October.

What you also fail to tell OLO readers is that Justice Rothman has still failed to respond to my answer rejecting his claim.

If your purpose is to somehow misleadingly and falsely suggest that I am engaging in the kind of conduct that I have accused Nick Thobun of - then your claim is totally rejected.

I have answered and categorically denied Justice Rothman's allegation. He has failed to respond. In those circumstances I can only assume that he has now accepted my explanation that I did not quote the Hon. Michael Kirby out of context.

Why did you not disclose the above sequence of events between Justice Rothman and myself - if not deliberately to deceive and mislead OLO readers?

David
i don't have a CCTV or hacking laboratory to read your private mail.

The events of 1922 are in this context:
1890 at Wounded Knee massacre the US killed about 300 peaceful Amerindians including women and children . At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.
In 1919 British machine gunners massacred about 360 people in India sitting at a political meeting in Amritsar . The House of Lords celebrated the killings and over 1000 injuries.

Arabs are lesser humans and need a final solution . Zionism is purer and a master race of Gott Mit Uns.

#nicknamenick

Not only do you not have a CCTV or hacking laboratory to read my private mail - you do not have a brain.

My response to Justice Rothman and his failure to respond are posted in the comments beneath his article.

Here is the link dummy:
http://www.jwire.com.au/justice-rothman-responds-to-david-singer-ssm-article/

You are truly pathetic.

An apology would be appropriate. Are you - man or woman - up to it?

#Geoff of Perth:

While we are on the issue of fraudsters.

What is more dangerous that a Jew-hater?

Answer: A plagiarist Jew-Hater.

Your 1000 word post over three comments on 7 November was lifted straight from an article in Al Jazzera with no acknowledgement. I am sure your falsely-claimed originality impressed your mates and fellow blow hards #nicknamenick, toni lavis,#mox and #armchair critic.

An apology for trying to pull the wool over OLO readers is also in order.

//You both seem to have trouble comprehending what Lord Balfour actually said - so I will repeat it once again//

No need, Dave. I quoted directly from your quote - i.e. CRTL+C & CRTL+V, so pretty hard to misquote - last time around.

Quoting one fewer sentence of Lord Balfour than you recommend isn't misquoting Lord Balfour. I't just using a different quotation from Lord Balfour. Who taught you English?

//Why would Thobun - and you two apparently - want to go to such lengths to deliberately conceal that what Balfour said was:
1.The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.
2.Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes,
3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. now inhabit that ancient land.//

Yeah, now you're changing the story. Up until now Lord Balfour's quote didn't involve numbered bullet points. Or sudden changes in grammatical tense.

So which quote is the real quote from Lord Balfour? A fun game for the whole family to play. Recommended age: under 60.

This one:

"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

Or this one:

"2.Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes 3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

Can you tell one which one is the real quote and which one is paraphrased? Fabulous points may await... and what do points mean?

David
As the site was quoted by me readers can easily see your 2 replies which seem irrelevant to the judge's problem with you..

He claims your error is this :
"Kirby argued that holding a survey or plebiscite was, itself, discriminatory; that Parliament should simply vote on the legislation".
You reply:
"I quoted Justice Kirby to support my view that the Board’s resolution was in error in claiming the survey was a plebiscite ".

On those facts you are not responding to him . You don't quote the resolution so you aren't responding to that . Maybe he doesn't reply because you are unable to comprehend.

Back in 1922 . No Arabs voted themselves to be worth less than Zionists. Silly Arabs .

No plagiarism Dave, just adding to the evidence. When did you become the Lord of the 'rules' on OLO for people posting, especially noting your dishonest writing about anything to do with Palestine etc. You really are a clown, do you know what this punctuation symbol is for " ?

#Toni Lavis

No amount of squirming, worming, twisting or turning by you can alter the fact that this is what Lord Balfour actually said:
"The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

#nicknamenick

No amount of squirming, worming, twisting or turning can alter the fact that you sought to besmirch my reputation by referring to a letter published by Justice Rothman without pointing out that I had replied in detail to his allegations and he had failed to respond.

An apology by you is certainly warranted and is still demanded.

#Geoff of Perth:

No plagiarism? Cutting and pasting about 1000 words (even down to some spacing errors) and falsely passing them off as your opinion when they represented the opinion of someone else?

I certainly am aware of what the punctuation symbol " means.

Why did you not use that symbol in your plagiarised three comments posted on 7 November and acknowledge the source of those comments?

Why are you still refusing to apologise for your blatant plagiarism and deceptive and misleading conduct?

David
You will be very happy here:
Aged Care 88 Nursing Homes Bondi Junction | Aged Care Facilities ...
https://www.villages.com.au/aged-care/nsw/bondi-junction
Find over 88 aged care facilities and nursing homes in Bondi Junction area, NSW.

//No amount of squirming, worming, twisting or turning by you can alter the fact that this is what Lord Balfour actually said:
"The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"//

Which means that he necessarily said:

"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

Your argument is the same as trying to argue that Churchill never said "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" because that's an excerpt from a longer speech.

It's bollocks, and the more you dig your heels in about it the bigger a fool you make of yourself. But please do continue, because it is very amusing for the rest of us.

#nicknamenick

Ad hominem attacks on myself are the surest sign that you have no arguments to answer my claims that you deliberately misled OLO readers and besmirched my character by referring to Justice Rothman's letter without mentioning that I had responded to it in detail and that he had failed to reply.

The fact that you still refuse to apologise for your disgraceful conduct has not changed.

Once again - I would ask that you apologise.

#Toni Lavis

Yes - Balfour indeed said:
"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

That however is not what Manchester academic Nick Thobun reportedly claimed Lord Balfour said:
"Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was 'of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land'

Balfour's stated reasons for reaching his conclusion appear to have been deliberately excised by Thobun.

That is what led me to state in my article:
"Nick appears to have been engaging in deliberate spin.

Nick should be looking for another job outside academia if this is the standard of his intellectual expertise."

Do you agree Thobun was justified in quoting Balfour as he did?

Just a "yes" or "no" this time around will suffice.

David ,
You asked the judge what did he mean . How is that "replying in detail"? Your responses did nothing to clear your name because you didn't detail anything and still don't . J-Wire published it so ask them about defaming you. Once again , David , the site I quoted contains your replies for anyone to read so what am I concealing from anyone?

#nicknamenick

You state:
"David , the site I quoted contains your replies for anyone to read so what am I concealing from anyone?"

That is exactly what you concealed - when making this false and misleading remark:
"i don't have a CCTV or hacking laboratory to read your private mail."

I will not be diverted from seeking an apology from you for
deliberately misleading OLO readers and besmirching my character by referring to Justice Rothman's letter without mentioning that I had responded to it in detail and that he had failed to reply.

I am still waiting for your apology.

You are wrong in fact , in Law and in logic . You detract from the State of Israel by your wrong-headed contentions . I've repeated myself and it's boring .

Thanks you guys for demolishing David Singer's racist blatherings so thoroughly. Saves me the trouble, and I must say you've made a much better job of it than I ever have.

#nicknamenick

You state:
"You are wrong in fact , in Law and in logic. You detract from the State of Israel by your wrong-headed contentions"

Care to try and justify these specious allegations with some facts?

Guess you stay awake at night thinking up inane responses such as this. Are you sleep-deprived as a result?

Still waiting for your apology.

#Emperor

You are persona non grata - along with your plagiarist friend Geoff.
Maybe you are one and the same person. No one can really know.

Accusing me of "racist blatherings" with no facts to back up your defamatory anonymous assertion is shameful and cowardly.

I understand there is nothing in my article you can criticise so you choose to make this vague disgraceful and unsubstantiated claim. It won't wash.

//Do you agree Thobun was justified in quoting Balfour as he did?

Just a "yes" or "no" this time around will suffice.//

Yes, I agree he was justified in quoting Balfour as he did.

You make this far too easy... maybe time to hang up the old crack pipe, eh Dave?

See, now that's defamatory... implying that you smoke crack.

Pointing out that you're full of shite is merely fair comment, and stating the obvious to boot.

The racist writes: "Accusing me of 'racist blatherings' with no facts to back up your defamatory anonymous assertion is shameful and cowardly."

Just read this thread again from the beginning for the mountain of factual evidence of racist blatherings. Any defence of the racist "state" of Israel is racist blathering by definition [1].

Note also the blatant racism in the claims that that an ethnic strain marks those within it as a "nation". Thus Celts are according to this a "nation", but only an obscene racist would claim so on behalf of a smallish number of Celts.

I don't know or want to know who Geoff of Perth is. He and I both live in Perth but so do a million or so others.

[1] See "Law of Return" which specifies in great detail who has the right genetic ancestry to become an Übermensch. A bit like the Nazi 'laws' defining precisely who is and who isn't a Jew. Total anathema to anyone who is not a racist.

Well David, I should have indicated with more “ that all I was doing was posting an opinion of others, my mistake, I will be sure next time to be clearer on the facts I indicate, my apologies.

It still does not change the facts as I indicated.
Geoff

#Toni

Wow it took a lot to get you to finally admit that you agree that Thoburn was justified in quoting Balfour as he did.

I do not agree.

I take the view that it is intellectually dishonest, deceptive and misleading to have used half a sentence out of context instead of quoting the full sentence - which was:
"And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

I have had on many occasions objected to this tactic by pro-Palestinian propagandists,

Telling half a story is wrong in my opinion.

You have a different view.

So be it

#Geoff

Thank you for your apology.

What you consider to be facts is only a lot of fiction.

I do not intend to correct the propounder of those false facts.

#Emperor

You are just a waste of time

//I do not agree.//

O.....kay

You asked me if I agreed, Dave. Remember?

//Do you agree Thobun was justified in quoting Balfour as he did?//

Agree: (verb) have the same opinion about something; concur.

But now you try to tell me that you never held that opinion in the first place? Dave, buddy... it's logically impossible for me to have agreed with you on something you never believed yourself... that's absurd.

So now that we've waded through the mire of your senility (again)... since you don't think whatshisface was justified in quoting Balfour in the manner that he did, your question should have been:

\\Do you agree that Thobun was not justified in quoting Balfour as he did?\\

Which is an entirely different question, and one that I frankly can't be buggered answering right now. If only you weren't so senile/crack-addled, these discussions would run so much smoother...

#Toni

You now state ever so "politely"
"So now that we've waded through the mire of your senility (again)... since you don't think whatshisface was justified in quoting Balfour in the manner that he did, your question should have been:

\\Do you agree that Thobun was not justified in quoting Balfour as he did?\\

Which is an entirely different question, and one that I frankly can't be buggered answering right now. If only you weren't so senile/crack-addled, these discussions would run so much smoother..."

Why don't you just answer "yes' or "no" to your own question - just one word - instead of writing another 30 or so words of hate-filled venom.

Why can't you be buggered answering "Yes" or "No" to your own question - but have the time to post ad hominem attacks calling me "senile" and "crack addled".

I can assure you that you are doing your reputation and credit no good carrying on in this fashion.

Just answer "Yes" or "No" to your own question please.

I direct the resident Zionist racist's attention to my footnote to an earlier post:

[1] See "Law of Return" which specifies in great detail who has the right genetic ancestry to become an Übermensch.

Read it with the shame that befits all racists. Here it is - the full self-admission in fine detail by Israel itself of its racist core.

Denial by our resident Zionist Über-racist is, in his own words, a waste of time.

Here's the shameful reference which I omitted from my post:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-law-of-return/

//Why don't you just answer "yes' or "no" to your own question - just one word - instead of writing another 30 or so words of hate-filled venom.//

Wouldn't be as much fun.

//I can assure you that you are doing your reputation and credit//

My reputation and credit? Exactly who do you imagine is reading this crap, Dave? The landed gentry and titled nobility?

Ain't nobody here but us chickens.

Reputation and credit of Balfour ? Most nations opposed his policy in Boer war.

"In 1901 a fifteen-page pamphlet reported on concentration camps operated by British Command in Boer war, and Lloyd George then openly accused the government of "a policy of extermination" directed against the Boer population. In June, 1901, Liberal party leader Campbell-Bannerman took up the assault and answered the rhetorical "When is a war not a war?" with "When it is carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa," referring to those same camps and the policies that created them."
Balfour was Treasurer.

" Transvaal gold mines needed labour and recruited workers from China. Arthur Balfour gave approval in 1904, and had overall responsibility for the scheme . The so-called ‘coolies’ were to be indentured on a three-year contract, paid less than the blacks, and quarantined from the local population. "

The racial contempt for 700,000 Arabs is Mr Balfour's own work.