Israel is officially an apartheid state

What other Jewish nation besides Israel are you talking about?

I just mean generally creating nation-states as a form of segregation, including Israel.

Cite an example of a general creation.

How about the treaties of Utrecht and Westphalia? Many many others have followed those. Do you not understand the general historical trend of nationalism that I am referring to, or is it just too big a global-historical phenomenon for you to think generally about it as I do?

How about them? What do they have to do with Islam being the driving force behind the Palestinians hate for the Jews?

This thread is starting to go in circles. Maybe go back and review where it's been with all these topics, the various kinds of hate and fear, and the rise of nation-state segregation. Then, go back and review the history of how nationalism led to the unification of Germany, the treaty of Versailles, the rise of nazism, the holocaust, WWII, and the establishment of Israel as a nation in Palestine. Then we can go back to talking about the Israeli national escalation in the context of nationalism as a historical trend, and think about the future of continuing national segregation and/or desegregation and how, why, or why not.

My input was about Islam being the real motivation for the deadly political crisis. Israel can run their country anyway they want to.

I thought you finally admitted that not all Muslims are terrorists. What war of national separatism hasn't been due to deadly ideological conflicts? What's so special about Islam? Or, otherwise put, if all other cultures are so peaceful compared with Islam, why do they fight such bloody wars against each other?

Hasn't war always been a way of solving conflicts when all else fails? It is human nature and Islam exploits just that, and fuels it with hate, again by design. It it what the religion is intended to do. And do it relentlessly.

So what you're saying is that all the other wars to achieve national separatism were the unintentional result of peaceful negotiations breaking down, while Islam involves the intentional pursuit of war?

The way I see it, there have always been anti-separatist interests, i.e. because separatism results in competitive exploitation. So, when the Dutch separated from the Spanish or the US separated from the British, you ended up with the merchants gaining more concentrated economic power without having to serve a larger society that depended on them economically. Maybe these separations were justified because the parent empires were overburdening the rebels with economic responsibility for people who weren't doing enough for themselves, or maybe they were greedy and selfish, or maybe it was a combination.

If you look at the story of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, it says that the Pharaoh was too harsh on the slaves, raising their quotas of bricks, etc. Also in the US Declaration of Independence, it says that they would be more content to suffer strain than seek independence but they felt pushed beyond their limits. Could they have kept the peace and petitioned the parent society for reforms? Probably not or maybe, depending on all sorts of nuanced political factors that really can't be defined precisely enough to answer.

If people wanted to make peace between Judaism and Islam, they could but I suspect there are terrorist interests behind the conflicts that poke and prod for the sake of drumming up conflict. Why? To justify separatism and protectionism throughout the world. When I was young, I naively thought that if the right peace negotiator came along, the conflicts of the world are just waiting to be solved. They're not, and it's not because of Islam. If anything, Islam is being scapegoated for it but it is entirely possible for Islam to coexist with other religions.

Of course, for that to happen you can't have apostates because that is fundamental hypocrisy, and I'm sure that the culture of lies and hypocrisy is strong enough that it will continue to fear, attack, and demonize Islam for threatening it; but the question is what to do with the lying and hypocrisy if we're going to protect it from Islam? Do we let it rule the world or try to cure it?

How can it be taken any other way? Islam makes it very clear. Submission, conversion, or death.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Do you understand what I tried to explain about apostasy? If you claim to practice Judaism or Catholicism or whatever, and you are apostatic, then you are not a true believer in your self-proclaimed faith. In short, you are a liar and a fake.

So if you understand that Islam is just intolerant of fake believers, do you still consider that threatening or can you understand it? Are you arguing that people should be respected in claiming fake beliefs and lying and that Islam has no right to reject that?

In short, do you think part of freedom of religion is the freedom to participate insincerely in religion?

And in Islam you are also a dead one. Apostasy means death.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx

So basically you're taking the side of liars against Islam?

I am letting Islam speak for itself. Is Islam lying?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx

You're implying that Islam is worse than liars who expect protection from Islam. I am Christian, so I believe in turning the other cheek and forgiveness, but I certainly understand how choosing dishonesty over honesty can get you punished by people who don't share Christian values.

What should I do as a Christian? Forgive Muslims who kill sinners or condemn them in order to take sides with liars and protect the liars?

If I say condemn the Muslims and take sides with the liars, what would that make me?

How would I know? I am not a Christian, but I do know they have a relationship with their God, and if faithful act according to that faith, and without bloodshed.

Because I explained it. Christianity says to turn the other cheek and forgive sinners and enemies. Even if some Muslim invokes the Quran to kill a non-believer, Christians are not supposed to condemn the sinner. They are supposed to forgive it and hope to show others the light by forgiving and turning the other cheek.

Are you making the counter-argument that Muslims should be condemned for even believing in Islam, whether or not they actually kill as a result of their faith? What about Christians who forgive and turn the other cheek instead of condemning Muslims? Should they be condemned as well for forgiving sin?

One more time, there would not be Muslims without Islam. I talk about Islam. I have told you what Islam says. How much the individual Muslim believes or feels obligated to do is up to them.

I want to know what basis you have for judging Muslims and Islam. You are claiming authority without reference to any moral code or principles.