Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from.
The history of humanity doesn't point to any of the following as what human's do:
- But thankfully, there are still people who understand the lessons of the atrocities that Koestler spent a decade screaming about.
- People with the courage to face the truth, even if they don’t like what they see.
- People who refuse to accept that violence and hatred are their only options.
- People who are willing to fight against dehumanisation, nationalism, and cruelty whenever and wherever it appears.
In fact all history supports what Israel did and is doing.
Why does that matter?
Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should acknowledge the reality of how humanity works rather than focus either on your ideological view of how humanity is "supposed to" work or their ideologic view that Allah is God and the land from the river to the sea is theirs.
This is an ideological war. From my perspective, between the values of the West (which have gotten a little fuzzy lately) and the values of the Muslim world.
The west has taken in many Muslims who have left the Muslim world because of the Muslim violence. How many have the Muslim countries taken in?
Maybe, just maybe, we stick with the reality of the human condition versus your ideology or the various Muslim ideologies or even the various Jewish ideologies.
"Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from."
It comes from my very firm belief that a world where we would all agree that we should oppose the Nazis, say, is better than a world where we shrug our shoulders as Hitler kills millions of Jews.
No, this isn't an ideological war, at least not in the sense you see to mean it. It's a war against a coloniser and the people who were colonised. And all I'm arguing for at this point is that the coloniser abides by international law and stops killing innocent people in its pursuit of more land. This mindset is reflective of someone actually upholding the stated values of the West, not just paying lip service to them.
I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree with this or you're just doing an impression of someone who does for some reason, but I think this is too intrinsic to argue about. Either you believe in fairness and basic human decency across the board or you don't. If you don't that's your right. But I don't want to live in the world you're advocating.
I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist.
I understand that human condition creates situations like the Nazi's, Genghis Khan, Stalin, McCarthy, Trump, and the Muslim world (which colonized and converted more areas than Alexander the Great).
You do understand that if the Muslim world hadn't colonized the area you call Palestine in the 8th century, it would be predominately Jewish and Christian. You seem to arbitrarily think that the last 100 or 200 years is more significant than the last 2000 years or maybe 4000 years. I don't understand that logic.
The human condition is clear, might makes right. The Muslims had the might in the 8th century to colonize much of the world. The West had the might in the last 400 years to colonize much of the world. In the end, I prefer the West ideology over the Muslim ideology. You may think that makes me an Islamophobe. It doesn't.
As HAMAS clearly says, the Muslims don't fear death. The west loves life. I prefer the west perspective.
So in a discussion of Israel versus the Palestinians (e.g. radical Muslims), I overwhelmingly support Israel. As a gay man I can be myself in Israel. In almost every Muslim country including the Gaza and the Palestinian parts of the West bank, I would be imprisoned or in many cases put to death by Muslims. Not a society I endorse.
You're an idealist. You believe in irrelevant concepts like the UN and ICC. They are meaningless and have caused more problems from my perspective than they have solved. As for human decency. Human decency is not something that can be universally defined (e.g. the UN Human Rights charter which is in conflict with itself. It protects the right to religious belief both personally and in community). The Muslim world believes Sharia law is human decency. The West believes in Democracy (such as it is) as human decency. The Pope believes the Catholic Church defines human decency. I could go on.
I believe in the historical reality of the human condition. Likely genetically driven. That reality has produced humanity today. Babylon 5 did a great job of representing the struggle between the concept of decency and the concepts of the need to evolve through military struggle. Evolution does not care about human decency. It does align with military struggle.
What you don't understand when you make statements like "I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree" is that you are proving my point. The differences in our views is the human condition. I believe might makes right. You believe in some idealistic concept of we all just need to get along. That is the multiculturalism concept. Many people (including my Danish relatives) no longer believe in multiculturalism. Muslim culture and the West culture are incompatible. Just as Chinese culture (i.e. supporting an authoritarian government) is not compatible with the west culture.
The question for the west is whether we continue to believe that multiculturalism can work. I believe that answer is clear no!
"I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist."
Okay, great. So you recognise that there are times when it's necessary to act against injustice and/or evil. The question is, do you ever recognise that AHEAD of time? Because judging by the arguments you consistently make, I'm pretty positive you'd have been among the people in the early 1940s arguing that there was no need to stop Hitler or get involved with WWII. Or the people arguing against de-segregation.
"You're an idealist for wanting to end segregation," you'd have said. "There's no way people will accept an integrated society."
Or, "The African slaves lack the military and economic power to fight the slave trade. Might makes right!"
It's only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it seems obvious to you that the Nazis had to be stopped and that those people were wrong.
So again, how is it that you are making your distinction? Is it really as self-centred as how accepting they are of gay people? Do people raised in cultures you disagree with not deserve to live? Is that it?
And yes, very obviously, I consider events that happened within a human lifetime to be more important than events that took place 800 or 2000 years ago. What exactly is confusing or arbitrary about that? Israel is 76 years old. There are many people alive today older than the state of Israel who remember being forced from their homes. Obviously that matters more than who did what 800 years ago.
I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.
The Palestinians I've known were Christians. I visited the Vatican with one of them. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and became friends with some of them. I didn't care for the way they treat women but they were often nice enough to me, a man.
One of my trainees came in the shop behind me and poked me in the head with a gun and said, Dave, I'm going to kill you. I disarmed him without touching him up but I was the only American in the shop with six Saudis so I didn't shove the gun up his ass, I put it in a safe.
The next day Prince Turkey summoned me to his office after word went around that one of the Saudies tried to kill his trainer. It was his low IQ idea of a joke. He asked me how I wanted Ali punished. I told him that I didn't. He seemed relieved, I think he would have if I asked.
My Korean Taekwondo instructor was teaching rich and well placed children, including little Prince Turkey and requested that I go and teach some classes. The kids were a big slack and he suggested that I bring my daughters, red/black poom belt holders that were more skilled than me. Not fond out being shown up by girls they shaped you and we had some good classes.
My older daughter, just entering puberty was gazelle-like and was to do a flying over a row of chairs board break in a demonstration for the father Prince Turkey. They brought in someone from Riyad who could jump over a longer row of chairs.
When all is said and done, my experiences with people from the middle east have been mostly cordial and friendly. The exception being my kill the last Jew trainee that I developed a friendship with. He gave me his recipe for a fruit punch that included their frisbee bread (yeast) with the words, don't leave the bread over two days or it will be too strong for your children. How do you say this is my wine recipe without saying it's my wine recipe. ;0)
At any rate, people bring in religion to attract allies, but I think it is more about the bloody land grab. Leaving out religion and ethnicity grotesque overkill and settler activity is obviously a bad thing.
Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from.
The history of humanity doesn't point to any of the following as what human's do:
- But thankfully, there are still people who understand the lessons of the atrocities that Koestler spent a decade screaming about.
- People with the courage to face the truth, even if they don’t like what they see.
- People who refuse to accept that violence and hatred are their only options.
- People who are willing to fight against dehumanisation, nationalism, and cruelty whenever and wherever it appears.
In fact all history supports what Israel did and is doing.
Why does that matter?
Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should acknowledge the reality of how humanity works rather than focus either on your ideological view of how humanity is "supposed to" work or their ideologic view that Allah is God and the land from the river to the sea is theirs.
This is an ideological war. From my perspective, between the values of the West (which have gotten a little fuzzy lately) and the values of the Muslim world.
The west has taken in many Muslims who have left the Muslim world because of the Muslim violence. How many have the Muslim countries taken in?
Maybe, just maybe, we stick with the reality of the human condition versus your ideology or the various Muslim ideologies or even the various Jewish ideologies.
"Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from."
It comes from my very firm belief that a world where we would all agree that we should oppose the Nazis, say, is better than a world where we shrug our shoulders as Hitler kills millions of Jews.
No, this isn't an ideological war, at least not in the sense you see to mean it. It's a war against a coloniser and the people who were colonised. And all I'm arguing for at this point is that the coloniser abides by international law and stops killing innocent people in its pursuit of more land. This mindset is reflective of someone actually upholding the stated values of the West, not just paying lip service to them.
I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree with this or you're just doing an impression of someone who does for some reason, but I think this is too intrinsic to argue about. Either you believe in fairness and basic human decency across the board or you don't. If you don't that's your right. But I don't want to live in the world you're advocating.
I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist.
I understand that human condition creates situations like the Nazi's, Genghis Khan, Stalin, McCarthy, Trump, and the Muslim world (which colonized and converted more areas than Alexander the Great).
You do understand that if the Muslim world hadn't colonized the area you call Palestine in the 8th century, it would be predominately Jewish and Christian. You seem to arbitrarily think that the last 100 or 200 years is more significant than the last 2000 years or maybe 4000 years. I don't understand that logic.
The human condition is clear, might makes right. The Muslims had the might in the 8th century to colonize much of the world. The West had the might in the last 400 years to colonize much of the world. In the end, I prefer the West ideology over the Muslim ideology. You may think that makes me an Islamophobe. It doesn't.
As HAMAS clearly says, the Muslims don't fear death. The west loves life. I prefer the west perspective.
So in a discussion of Israel versus the Palestinians (e.g. radical Muslims), I overwhelmingly support Israel. As a gay man I can be myself in Israel. In almost every Muslim country including the Gaza and the Palestinian parts of the West bank, I would be imprisoned or in many cases put to death by Muslims. Not a society I endorse.
You're an idealist. You believe in irrelevant concepts like the UN and ICC. They are meaningless and have caused more problems from my perspective than they have solved. As for human decency. Human decency is not something that can be universally defined (e.g. the UN Human Rights charter which is in conflict with itself. It protects the right to religious belief both personally and in community). The Muslim world believes Sharia law is human decency. The West believes in Democracy (such as it is) as human decency. The Pope believes the Catholic Church defines human decency. I could go on.
I believe in the historical reality of the human condition. Likely genetically driven. That reality has produced humanity today. Babylon 5 did a great job of representing the struggle between the concept of decency and the concepts of the need to evolve through military struggle. Evolution does not care about human decency. It does align with military struggle.
What you don't understand when you make statements like "I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree" is that you are proving my point. The differences in our views is the human condition. I believe might makes right. You believe in some idealistic concept of we all just need to get along. That is the multiculturalism concept. Many people (including my Danish relatives) no longer believe in multiculturalism. Muslim culture and the West culture are incompatible. Just as Chinese culture (i.e. supporting an authoritarian government) is not compatible with the west culture.
The question for the west is whether we continue to believe that multiculturalism can work. I believe that answer is clear no!
"I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist."
Okay, great. So you recognise that there are times when it's necessary to act against injustice and/or evil. The question is, do you ever recognise that AHEAD of time? Because judging by the arguments you consistently make, I'm pretty positive you'd have been among the people in the early 1940s arguing that there was no need to stop Hitler or get involved with WWII. Or the people arguing against de-segregation.
"You're an idealist for wanting to end segregation," you'd have said. "There's no way people will accept an integrated society."
Or, "The African slaves lack the military and economic power to fight the slave trade. Might makes right!"
It's only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it seems obvious to you that the Nazis had to be stopped and that those people were wrong.
So again, how is it that you are making your distinction? Is it really as self-centred as how accepting they are of gay people? Do people raised in cultures you disagree with not deserve to live? Is that it?
And yes, very obviously, I consider events that happened within a human lifetime to be more important than events that took place 800 or 2000 years ago. What exactly is confusing or arbitrary about that? Israel is 76 years old. There are many people alive today older than the state of Israel who remember being forced from their homes. Obviously that matters more than who did what 800 years ago.
I'm community/state focused at this point.
I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
Its interesting how you debate.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?
This quote encapsulates the human condition.
"Its interesting how you debate."
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.
The Palestinians I've known were Christians. I visited the Vatican with one of them. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and became friends with some of them. I didn't care for the way they treat women but they were often nice enough to me, a man.
One of my trainees came in the shop behind me and poked me in the head with a gun and said, Dave, I'm going to kill you. I disarmed him without touching him up but I was the only American in the shop with six Saudis so I didn't shove the gun up his ass, I put it in a safe.
The next day Prince Turkey summoned me to his office after word went around that one of the Saudies tried to kill his trainer. It was his low IQ idea of a joke. He asked me how I wanted Ali punished. I told him that I didn't. He seemed relieved, I think he would have if I asked.
My Korean Taekwondo instructor was teaching rich and well placed children, including little Prince Turkey and requested that I go and teach some classes. The kids were a big slack and he suggested that I bring my daughters, red/black poom belt holders that were more skilled than me. Not fond out being shown up by girls they shaped you and we had some good classes.
My older daughter, just entering puberty was gazelle-like and was to do a flying over a row of chairs board break in a demonstration for the father Prince Turkey. They brought in someone from Riyad who could jump over a longer row of chairs.
When all is said and done, my experiences with people from the middle east have been mostly cordial and friendly. The exception being my kill the last Jew trainee that I developed a friendship with. He gave me his recipe for a fruit punch that included their frisbee bread (yeast) with the words, don't leave the bread over two days or it will be too strong for your children. How do you say this is my wine recipe without saying it's my wine recipe. ;0)
At any rate, people bring in religion to attract allies, but I think it is more about the bloody land grab. Leaving out religion and ethnicity grotesque overkill and settler activity is obviously a bad thing.