Sorry, Teribus, but you are being way, way too kind to Keith. He does indeed begin with an extremely fixed point of view which he then fleshes out on the fly. He states that the work of all dead historians is not valid and that all modern historians are of a mind (which he can't possibly know: his only evidence for that is our stubborn refusal to play his silly games), and he agrees with them. I never hear you saying to any "adversary" here, " hmm, you may have a point..", but at least you have some claim to scholarship, which Keith patently does not. Also he does have a track record of shutting his mind to any alternative point of view: we've seen plenty of that behaviour on any thread to do with Israel/Palestine. By defending him, you're not only giving succour to a sucker but you're diminishing yourself into the bargain.