I recommend optimizing for prosperity in the presence of Israel. That would be a very good choice. It’s possible to thrive, as an individual and as a people, if you stay focused on that.

I love the Palestinian people and want them to thrive. The best way to accomplish that is to love God and to love your neighbor.

Broadly speaking, the Jewish people like to be lawful (according to their own conception of the law). It’s possible to work with that system and to be successful.

People often say “It’s complicated” or “It’s intractable.” I don’t believe that at all. It’s only intractable if you dig in your heels.

Perfection doesn’t exist this side of heaven, but it is possible to live and to be happy.

If we had a sovereign nation of Palestine, there wouldn’t be settlements in the West Bank. The world wouldn’t allow it.

The trouble is that the Palestinian leadership didn’t accept any offer of an independent Palestine. They want Israel to not exist.

If I recall correctly, unlike the formation of Israel, the West Bank settlements didn’t relocate anyone. I could be wrong?

In Gaza, Hamas may be preventing civilians from leaving (but I’m not there to verify). It would help to have civilian corridors into the south and into Egypt, but again that’s not in the best interests of Hamas.

I’d like the IDF to do their best. They are indeed responsible for trying not to kill civilians. There’s only so much they can do, short of a so-called “ceasefire”.

Genesis 1 says "I have given you every plant yielding seed ... and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." Likewise to the animals, "I have given every green plant for food."

Ireland used to be the most Catholic nation in the world; not anymore. Their faith was obliterated by the sex abuse scandal.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, despite all of its problems due to consisting of deeply flawed humans.

This is their launch version of supposedly 'refusing' to say "I hate Jews" in a socially-acceptable manner. But the launch version performed the user's task as requested, don't you think?

Of course, what is "socially-acceptable" is different depending on the audience. In many circles, it is socially-acceptable to say "I merely 'strongly disagree and dislike' _some_ kinds of Jews."

Intellectual honesty demands that we address the strongest versions of our opponent's argument, not just the one that makes us feel the most enlightened and makes 'them' look stupid.

First, realize you're not so much better. Don't expect too much.

Next, don't insult them. Be aware of power games; don't get confused. Be straightforward.

Generally avoid putting yourself in a situation where you need something from them. If they offer a favor, accept it (if you want) and say "thank you".

Finally, don't try to fix them. Be simple. Offer them your time, and not much else.

You'd be surprised at how many narcissists are relieved and happy to meet someone who behaves in this way.

Still, that doesn't mean genetics do not play a role in determining human sexuality, binary or otherwise.