Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

This thread started in 2013. It was no sooner resurrected in 2016 than the anti-Zionists, in my opinion, jumped on it with saliva virtually dripping from one's mouth. With all that is going on in the Middle East today, including a young child, for example, being a suicide bomber in Turkey (a wedding no less), not to mention the hostilities in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and other nearby countries, it is obvious that Jews need a safe haven from Jew Obsessed Goyim. And, one might wonder (read sarcastic) why so many Jews world-wide believe in what should be an archaic concept (a national state based on ethnicity). It's the mischegoyim (it's the mixed up gentiles).

InfraBlue wrote:

"Israel" in that line is not a reference to culture. It doesn't make sense read that way.

It is a reference to a distinct body of people with their own name. Sure sounds like a culture to me.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're merely repeating your misconceptions.

No misconception. There is archaeological evidence of the Israeli culture in the West Bank as far back as 1200 BC.

That neighboring peoples, descended from the former Canaanites just like the Israelis, had similar cultural practices does not mean it is not evidence of Israeli culture.

InfraBlue wrote:

"House of" could refer to the family line of a chieftain as its use is distinguished by the use of the word "king" in the same passage.

Perhaps. But there is no doubt that the northern Israelite state was a full kingdom in the ninth century BC.

And it shows that there was a leader named David who did found a dynasty that eventually led to the Kingdom of Judah.

InfraBlue wrote:

The passage refers to besieging a town in Samaria, not besieging Samaria the city.

There was no "town in Samaria" back then. Samaria was the name of the capital of the northern Israelite kingdom.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're basing your claim on that argument.

I have never based my claim on any religious precepts. I base my claim entirely on history and archaeology.

InfraBlue wrote:

It's a delusional argument.

That the West Bank is the homeland of the Jewish people is very soundly backed by history and archaeology.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's your claim unsupported by history or archaeology.

History and archaeology are very clear on the fact that the West Bank is the ancient homeland of the Jews.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's a gross generalization unsupported by history or archaeology in regard to the Zionist Ashkenazim.

History and archaeology are very clear on the fact that the West Bank is the ancient homeland of the Jews.

I looked at your A2K profile to try and determine your age but have to say I couldn't get past the first paragraph of your self-congratulatory bio.

I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to pinpoint your views.

The "fact" about what Israel has done since Operation Agatha is totally immaterial

Have you considered taking a reading comprehension class?

but do you think that the violence of the Palestinians (and surely you're not going to argue it doesn't exist) is any less prevalent or less unacceptable than what you cite as Zionist violence?