Having made an accusation, I suppose I must support it.

You refuse, Mr Carroll, to take the point that the aggressive expansion which resulted in the present intransigent Israeli attitude [which, I repeat, I deplore ~~ don't make me reiterate yet again, please, my now 3ce-repeated post about even my sister & nephews...] was originally caused by the attempts by six [count them ~ 6] hostile states to prevent by overwhelmingly superior-in-numbers military force to overthrow entirely the State proclaimed on 8 May 1948 WITHIN THE BORDERS ESTABLISHED BY FREE VOTE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, of which five of those six states were members at the time; which destruction moreover remains explicit policy to this day within the majority of those states.

This refusal

-- coupled with constant untrue allegations of causeless Israeli massacres unrelated to these endeavours; together with deliberately and persistently reiterated use on your part of terms which, as has been pointed out to you time & again by others as well as me, are bound to be particularly offensive to all Jews for obvious reasons ~~ terms of baleful association like 'Nazi' & 'Holocaust' ~~ aimed at the Israeli people [not just their government]; and refusal to apologise for the offence thus inevitably caused to Jews in general and not just to the Israeli government (and please leave out your Manchester acquaintance: that old "some of my best friends" bromide has whiskers on it & is always a powerful counter-indicator of one of your persuasion) --

would, to my mind, indicate a strongly adverse interpretation to be placed on your obsessive anti-Israeli animadversions.

If, in short, these manifestations are not to be taken as antisemitic, then how do you think they should be regarded?