How much of Support for Israel is based on Biblical Mythology?

This is the point that I am making. You can find any list of things that Israel has done that are clearly wrong by the values of any modern democracy.

This includes bulldozing the houses of the families of criminals and breaking the Geneva convention on refugees.

You can see any number of lists from unbiased sources of what Israel has done wrong.

The problem is that any criticism of Israel is labeled as "antisemitism" by Israel and its religious critics.

Whether Israel tried to offer the Palestinians a reasonable state is a matter of opinion.

As I understand it, there are three big issues.

1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovreign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.

It doesn't sound like you are open to a two-sided discussion about whether Israel has met these conditions. A two-sided discussion would mean that you would look at both sides with an open mind and consider the Palestinian point of view as well as the Israeli one.

As long as you keep saying "Israel is always right" and the "Palestinians are always wrong", then you can't have an open mind about this.

I am impressed that you have stated unequivocably that Palestinians have the same human rights that Israelis have. That is a step in the right direction... and not everyone on your side of the debate would be willing to state this.

1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovreign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.

This is the point that I am making. You can find any list of things that Israel has done that are clearly wrong by the values of any modern democracy. This includes bulldozing the houses of the families of criminals and breaking the Geneva convention on refugees.

You can see any number of lists from unbiased sources of what Israel has done wrong. The problem is that any criticism of Israel is labeled as "antisemitism" by Israel and its religious critics.

Of course Palistinians have done bad things too (as is often the case in war both sides do atrocities), and the Palestinian leadership has been atrocious.

Whether Israel tried to offer the Palestinians a reasonable state is a matter of opinion. As I understand it, there are three big issues.

1) Whether the state being offered will truly be sovereign.
2) Whether the state being offered is economically viable and contiguous.
3) Whether there is a fair compromise on the "right of return" (which is the right os Palestinians but will need to be forfeited in any realistic settlement) and the status of Jerusalem.

It doesn't sound like you are open to a two-sided discussion about whether Israel has met these conditions. A two-sided discussion would mean that you would look at both sides with an open mind and consider the Palestinian point of view as well as the Israeli one.

As long as you keep saying "Israel is always right" and the "Palestinians are always wrong", then you can't have an open mind about this.

I am impressed that you have stated unequivocally that Palestinians have the same human rights that Israelis have. That is a step in the right direction... and not everyone on your side of the debate would be willing to state this.

It wasn't God that gave Israel to the Jews, it was the United Nations.

I do want to question you about your Area A plan. I just looked at the map, Area A would have three problems.

1) It would be completely surrounded by Israel on all sides.
2) It consists of several unconnected areas (it isn't contiguous).
3) It has very little arable farmland, no ports and no access to water.

I want to understand this plan. Could you answer a few questions?

- Would people living in Area A be able to travel freely to other countries without Israeli permission or control?

- Would businesses in Area able to conduct business freely, including international trade, without Israeli control?

- Would people (e.g. you and I) be able to travel into Area A without Israeli permission?

- Assuming the lack of arable land? What would the people in Area A eat?

- Given the lack of water resources, would they be have enough water to drink, run businesses and maybe grow food with?

- Did you see the movie "Escape from New York"?

I disagree with the narrative that Israel has offered a fair compromise. There was exactly one Israeli leader who tried to offer a fair compromise to end the Israel/Palestine conflict.. They shot him.

This is one of the times when a political assassination was wildly successful, the chance for peace died with Yitzhak Rabin. Israel has not even attempted since.

Your solution is to set up death camps where Palestinians would starve to death with no chance of physical survival (let alone meaningful existance).

Your outrageous denials of Israel's past peace offers helped to destroy the peace process. Shame!

It would be my pleasure though to deprive the Palestinians of meaningful existence.

No need for the drama Oralloy.

I am not denying that Israel made peace offers. I am saying that they weren't sufficient compromises to bring realistic peace.

There are two sides to this story. The Palestinian side has been very clear and very articulate as to why the Israeli peace offers weren't realistic or fair.

There is no shame in disagreeing with you Oralloy (as much as you think there is).

I would ask that you at least get my points correctly.

I don't know if you see how this makes my point exactly (or if you care).

Some of them are peaceful. Many of them want nothing more than a meaningful existence.

The more you express your opinion that Palestinians don't deserve a meaningful existance, the easier it will be for people to change their minds about the Israeli side.

Again, I appreciate your honesty. Many people with opinions like yours try to hide them.

Finn, I would like my conversation with you to be separate from my conversation with Oralloy. I feel that I can find more common ground with you than I can with Oralloy. Hopefully you can respond to my posts with that in mind.

If Finn wants to associate himself with you he has every right. My suspicion is that he won't want to be associated with the opinions you are expressing. I will respect his decision either way.
Same goes with McGentrix.

I am most interested in having a discussion with Finn.