Bazz, it must have been someone else, not I, who suggested the USA should or could reverse a UN resolution. The US stood aside from vetoing the resolution so for once the UN was able to express the world revulsion for racist Israel.

And ttbn, it is not druggie ignorance to note that Israel is not a nation. It's Palestinian territory held by force and no more a nation than Rhodesia was when it was held by the British (and even Britain came to reject its "nation" pretension and label it treason in the end).

It is not Palestinian terrority, Julian: it is disputed territory. Palestinians have no homeland, and Palestine does not exist. So-called Palestinians a no more than a bunch of stateless trouble-makers who were kicked out of Syria. Some long dead idiot came up with a name for them and called a plot of dirt "Palestine". They don't own it, and they have no more right to it than does Israel, which, however, has the strength and knowhow to occupy the land to protect itself from these raving Islamic nutters and murderers. If ever there was a people needing to be wiped out in the name of world peace for democracy, it is your "Palestinians". My scoring: 100% for democratic Israel. 0% for Islamists wanting to destroy democracy, including that of many Arab/Muslim Israelis who enjoy the full benefits of Israeli democracy. Do I have a single scintilla of 'compassion' for your Palestinians? No! I side with people like me. You can side with people who would slit your throat in a flash, if you wish; but you cannot expect to be thought of as natural human being. The idea of people whose forebears have fought and died for democracy siding with Islamist scum is total anamatha to me. But,perhaps you are not one of those people.

Julian, it was a crack about Julius Caesar but I don't remember the context.
Anyway not to worry, do you believe that Jerusalem has always been
Islamic and never Jewish ?
Do you believe there was never a Jewish nation living in that area ?
That the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Immans ?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I will have to be satisfied that we are so far apart in our views that we cannot have a useful dialogue. I think that any religion is just bathwater and does not contain a baby. I think the union of religion and nationalism is more toxic than nationalism by itself, and there should be no Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist states. Self-determination or a nation formed on some religious, ethnic or racial paradigm makes those who live within such a state but not within the paradigm second-class citizens. I think Jonathan Pollard is scum who should only have left prison in a coffin. We disagree profoundly.

Dear David,

To have different views is normal, nothing wrong about it: I for example believe that science is just bathwater and does not contain a baby, but this is not the issue at hand.

The question is whether we are willing to RESPECT others who have totally different views or whether we try to force our own paradigm over them.

Given a group of people who value science and exclusively own a contiguous plot of land - perhaps a suburban block or a large farm and suppose they want to live independently based on their scientific principles, then I fully support their independence regardless whether that plot of land happens to be in what is now Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Australia or America. I think they would be wasting their time, but I would bleed to allow them to have what they want.

But would you similarly support a group of people who value religion instead?

We agree that nationalism is evil, yet you consider religion an aggravating factor, claiming that nations based on religion (note that I never brought ethnicity or race into this discussion) are even worse because they are more likely to create second-class citizens. I, however, identify the size of the state as the main aggravating factor. My point is that the smaller the nation, the less area it takes, the less likely it is to include people who disagree with the prevailing paradigm. Even in case of disagreement, people can simply move to the next street or to the next valley. Mega-states such as the USA, China, Russia and Australia, spanning a whole continent, are bound to oppress more of their inhabitants who fundamentally disagree with their paradigm: and for those oppressed, it is so impractical to migrate to a more agreeable place, or to form their own.

Our personal opinion about the acts of Jonathan Pollard is besides the issue: the point I was making was that if they can force one Jew to break the Sabbath, no matter what their reason is, then what prevents them from doing the same to others?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Another area of disagreement between us that you mentioned in your post is your contention that small states are less oppressive than large states. The rulers of Guatemala and El Salvador, the small states in central America, murdered many of their citizens. They were terrorist states as oppressive as the terrorist megastates.

Jonathan Pollard applied for and accepted parole with the restrictions of that status. He could have refused parole and kept the Sabbath in prison. Like choosing to spy for a foreign power against his country he is a criminal who made his choices.

I find it unacceptable for a group either on scientific or religious grounds to set up an enclave in their country where they would no longer be subject to its laws.