I mean they’re criticizing the idea by saying that is theoretically crafted with your personal opinion on the issue in mind.

Critiquing the epistemology of the individual crafting the idea, and how their reasoning for crafting a solution invalidates the aforementioned solution is very much a criticism of the idea itself.

They didn’t personally research you and attack your character. If you make the argument that they did, and that the shouldn’t do that, you remove peoples obligation to be epistemologically ethical.

If I were you I would have argued that a epistemological argument alone, especially one that doesn’t provide a counter-solution is a bad argument in the face of legitimate death and destruction. However it’s is your burden in the argument to defend why the idea of sandboxing a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a good idea.

You claiming that they’re attacking you as a person is less than 10% correct and isn’t the most logical route to defend your position

But that’s up to you

HOWEVER

On to the idea itself, on theoretical grounds it sounds possible that a country like that COULD exist. The idea though ignores the root cause of the problem... Religion. I have my quarrels with whether or not 2 countries can be sovereign on the same land. I definitely don’t buy that this would be possible between two groups that hate one another. Israel and Palestine both believe they have the religious right to the land and don’t believe the other side does.

Now with that being said would peace in the area be awesome? Yeah peace is pretty sweet, it’s all about how to achieve peace.

And I’m sure that I have a solution to teach that end, nor have I seen one. They made a joke about it in TBBT, but whoever solves the Israel-Palestine conflict IS going to get a Nobel peace prize.