Dear David,

When people are unhappy with the regime, they should be able to split off and form their own smaller state on their own land. Had they been able to do so in Guatemala and El-Salvador, then they wouldn't have been murdered. Apparently those two countries were also still too big. Why would even two people with no love between them be forced to live under each other's rule in the first place?

You say that Jonathan Pollard is a poor example because he had the option to remain in prison. As I know very little about the USA, I asked you and I'll ask again: would Jonathan be able to follow the Jewish law while in American prison? Would he for example be lighting Hanukkah candles these days if he stayed there? In any case, we know that Jonathan was in very poor health and nearly died in prison where he couldn't receive proper treatment, whereas now his health is significantly improving. According to Jewish law, in matters of life-and-death, staying alive takes precedence over observing the Sabbath, hence the choice to remain in prison was not really available to Pollard.

I know that in Israel, every prison has a section for observant Jews where they keep strict Jewish law and pray and study Torah the whole day. This is probably only possible in a Jewish state, just as probably only a Sikh state would allow even its prisoners to keep their ceremonial daggers (for security they could enclose the daggers in welded metal boxes so prisoners could not take them out).

You say: «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.»

Doesn't sound very enlightened to me: Suppose there's a village in Iran where none believes in Islam and all want to live by Western/scientific values and norms - would you tell them "sorry guys, you live in Iran and so you must remain, follow its Islamic laws and obey its supreme spiritual leader"?

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« On this occasion Prime Minister Turnbull and Foreign minster Bishop have both slammed Obama and Kerry for their betrayal of Israel. NO Australia does not support the USA … »
.

We are totally dependent on the ANZUS treaty for our security in this unstable world of conflict and super-power struggle. We cannot afford the luxury of not supporting the USA. That would be suicidal. Australia ranks 23rd among the world’s military powers in 2016. We are no match for our potential agresssors :

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

That seems to me to be the logic behind Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to follow the incoming president, Trump, rather than the outgoing president, Obama. I don’t see loyalty to Israel as a deciding factor.

If we don’t toe the line with Trump, he has made it crystal clear that he will not defend us. He declared on 27 April 2016 :

« America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration … Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden … The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves » :

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-foreign-policy-15960?page=show
.

That’s the sort of language that made Bishop and Turnbull snap to attention with their thumbs along the seams of their trousers, in my view.



.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You ask :

« As there were no demarcated permanent border lines in the 1949 armistice, at the demand of the Arabs, to which pre 1967 lines does the UN resolution refer ? »
.

The Resolution does not refer to “pre1967 border lines”. It refers to “Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” :

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2334(2016)

.

Trump thunders: "Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden … The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves"

LNP governments have attached Australia to every act of Yank colonial aggression from the rape of Vietnam onward and paid in blood and treasure to do so. Not one of these murder rampages has been for the defence of Australia. The military enemy we do confront is Indonesia and there's no way the Yanks would lend a hand (to us) in the event of an Indo attack. It is high time to review our military policy and tell the Yanks next time: "Yer on yer own, sport.

Maybe we'll have to wait for a patriotic non-LNP government to carry through such a review.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You apparently want a nation to be other than a nation. A citizen of any nation cannot freely decide to break a nation's laws whether in a group or singly. If a citizen considers a law to be unjust and the injustice is not trivial civil disobedience is called for. Thoreau wrote an essay on that subject after he was put in jail for his protest against paying taxes for the Mexican War and to support slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi followed that example. Gandhi protested against the Salt Tax in India and King protested against segregation. they were both put in prison as expected. Eventually their views prevailed, India became independent, and segregation was declared against the law in the US. In the case of Pollard his spying for a foreign power against his country was simply a traitorous act, and he should not have been let out of prison. In prison he could light Hannukah candles and get kosher meals. He could not get adequate medical treatment. His suffering was his fault and the fault of the Israeli government. If Israel had been a proper ally they would have informed the US when Pollard offered to spy for them. The US would have sacked Pollard, and he could have gone to Israel. Pollard chose to spy and should have accepted the penalties due to his criminal act. Jails are not always great places for medical treatment. His parole required breaking the Sabbath. To preserve his miserable life a little longer he accepted parole.

continued

continued

The US government allows some leeway to those whose religious principles conflict with civil law. The Amish believe that the community should provide for its members, and Amish who remain in their communities do not have to be involved in the Social Security system. Jehovah's Witnesses do not have to salute the flag as most school children do as JWs consider it an act of idolatry. Observant Jewish prisoners get kosher meals. Some Indian tribes are recognised as independent nations by the US government. Some have been able to set up casinos on their land and get an income thereby even though gambling may be illegal in the surrounding areas.

in cases like Iran and Saudi Arabia which have state religions and demand observance to those religions people do not have those options. Whether it is enlightened or not a nation generally requires obedience to its laws. Those who don't wish to obey its laws don't have many options. Prison, bribery or escape are some of them.

There are not many instances of peaceful splitting of a nation. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia show that it is possible in some cases.