no, I'm not agnostic.
I do not support the right of any state to exist apart from the proletarian dictatorship to kick your huffing and puffing backside. And even that right is grounded on conquest. "As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life.” We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron."
You want to impute to me that I don't support the right of Israel to exist? Well, maybe not depending on how you feel on any which day, but there's no crime in denying the right of a secular state to exist, assuming Israel is truly a secular state and not an ethnic theocracy, in which case you are obligated to wrestle with the biblical argument! on the other hand you have dithered over from the river to the sea, even though as a self-proclaimed Zionist you are biblically obligated to support the land of Israel, to harken the return of the kingdom of David. As you have remained agnostic on this issue, it is plausible to say that you deny the right of Israel to exist.
I'm not a bible thumper, and thus, there is no contradiction in me being pro-Arab.
In fact, you are in the cuckold dilemma where you are the antisemite here, as you deny the permanent legal emancipation of Jewry in Europe and America, but you also deny the theological validity of Israel. 'Send them to the middle east' - Oliver Craner (2024.)
Typical anglo indecisiveness.
