Like many, I’ve been following the current events in the Middle East with significant concern.
I don’t know where this is all going. I just hope we can avoid a major war breaking out.
If you know less about the current situation than you’d like,
AMERICAN PAPIST HAS A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION WITH LINKS TO FURTHER RESOURCES.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I think that Pat Buchanan has written a poignant article on this situation.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116
A friend of mine is currently visiting family in Lebanon. He’s an American citizen, and says the Israelis are good about moving civilians out. He’s fortunate to be in a Christian area, so they won’t be bombed much. But apparantly the US government is making American citizens sign a contract that they will repay any evacuation charges. All the taxes we pay, and we have to put up with stuff like that?
http://lebaneselobby.org/News__index/news%202006/07%2018%2006%20Americans%20can't%20board%20a%20ship%20unless%20they've%20signed%20a%20contract%20agreeing%20to%20repay%20the%20US%20government.html
I’d have to agree wholeheartedly with Pat Buchanan.
I do not wholeheartedly agree with Pat Buchanen. His article presents a rather uninformed view of the situation, in my opinion. I believe that a person would have to be pretty blind to fail to see that Syria and Iran are behind the situation.
What is going on in the Middle East? An attempt to stir things up enough to draw America into a larger conflict against Iran and Syria. The propoganda war stalled with all the recent failures in Iraq.
have a bomber circle real low around the Kaaba. Keep circling. Give the Middle East 3 months to get it self straightened out. I think things would get in line pretty quick.
And, make sure everyone knows you arent bluffing…
American Papist is worth at least skimming daily.
PB always makes me think.
have a bomber circle real low around the Kaaba. Keep circling. Give the Middle East 3 months to get it self straightened out. I think things would get in line pretty quick.
WWJB – Who would Jesus bomb?
Sodom and Gommorah
RULE 3 VIOLATION.
Apparently “Trad” isn’t familiar with Rule 3. 🙁
Sorry, Trad, but I don’t think anyone will do more than skim your post.
I get it.
Hezbollah kidnaps two soldiers (is it a war or isn’t it)(and Israel seems to kidnap people all the time) SO….
Israel responds by bombing the heck out all of Lebanon including killing children, civilians, bombing airports, water ducts etc
and kills 200 people
THAT IS PROPORTIONALITY?
NOW, this is not because the Lebanese government did this, or Lebanese Christians (who are also being killed) BUT so they get mad at Hezbollah and kick out Hezbollah and guard the border that they have problems with because of Israel after Israel left
My goodness! It seems it’s always the kooks that post miles of idiocies in the comment boxes!
What is kooky about it? Engage the argument and not just use ad hominem logical fallacy(ies) to deny truth and reality?
I read the long post, it makes a lot of sense. You should all read it.
There are other good articles on
http://www.fisheaters.com
check out the part on
Catholic/Jewish relations
and
Judaizing of Catholicism
and history
“What is kooky about it? Engage the argument and not just use ad hominem logical fallacy(ies) to deny truth and reality?”
Nick is obviously a whacko who is out of his mind. j/k ; )
I say we exchange Pat Buchanan for the two Israeli soldiers.
🙂
The plot thickens…
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s Hizbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.
“We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year,” said Iranian Hizbollah’s spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli, speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qom.
“They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardise Israel and America’s interests. We are only waiting for the Supreme Leader’s green light to take action. If America wants to ignite World War Three … we welcome it,” he said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-07-18T180844Z_01_OLI848020_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-IRAN-HIZBOLLAH.xml&src=rss&
I’m waiting for Mr. Friend of Israel, once again the only holdout against sanity, to offer himself as a human shield to escort Americans safely out of Lebanon.
Israel did what the international community told them to do – pull out of Gaza, pull out of Lebanon. The international community promised peace if they did this. There was a little peace for a little while. But, radical Islam looks upon this type of “peace” as a sign of weakness, and it emboldens them. So while the peace-at-any-price crew, the appeasers, the Neville Chamberlains of the modern world, tell Israel to exercise restraint, the Jewish people continue to have the words “never again” imprinted on their consciousness.
Israel is responding propotionally – to everything that has happened to them for the last several decades. They are sick of being unable to go about their daily lives without the fear of being blown to pieces picking their children up from school or going to the restaraunt for dinner.
Also, I agree with Chris. Anyone who has taken a look through history will see that virtually every time a group decided to appease another or to give in to the demands of the other, that was not the end of it and it just ended up worse. In fact, that’s the case of what happened practically in every conflict between Catholics and Protestants following the reformation. The Protestants would attack, the Catholics would finally concede, then the Protestants would attack again and demand more.
How is it proportional for CHRISTIANS (Maronites, Latin Rite ROMAN Catholics, Melkites, Armenians, Assyrians, Greek (Arabic/Antiochien) Orthodox to be BOMBED, children DIE, have to leave their country and have their lives destroyed because SOME Lebanese in government do not want to or cannot attack or control Hezbollah??????????
Did these Christians kidnap these soldiers?
Did these Christians allow Hezbollah to operate??
Why again is Israel bombing Christian neighborhoods??????
Bush is disgusting in charging US CITIZENS to get out safely in a situation that Bush is doing nothing to help.
Ronald Reagan threatened to bomb the Israeli Army in Lebanon when they got out of hand and wanted to slaughter the PLO leadership.
The Israeli government had a policy of supporting HAMAS by funding and playing Machivellean games and their governing councils. Sheik Yassin was helped by the Israeli government because they wanted to destabilize the secular, communist influnced, and Christian influenced PLO and Yasser Arafat, the anti PLO (Fatah) and Arafat policies helped the Islamic fundamentalists which created the current problem
That makes sense Israel should kill US and international citizens to force Lebanon to get Hezbollah under control.
Our US citizens should die and be in a dangerous country and be forced to sign papers to reimburse our government for saving us in addition to our taxes, maybe we should spend our tax dollars on a North African school only for Jews or something–oh we did do that.
Bush is clueless.
You get charged for an ambulance ride, you get charged by the fire department, why is it disgusting and wrong for these Americans who placed themselves in a dangerous area to be charged for their evacuation. The U.S. did not put them there, if they don’t want to pay, then they can stay.
It’s probably wrong to get charged for an ambulance ride. That being said, so long as that is the moral standard of society, I agree that there is no reason why being charged for evacuation from Lebanon ought to be deemed disgusting and immoral.
This morning I read that Israel bombed a Lebanese military base south of Beiruit, killing eleven soldiers, and have thus far refused to give a reason for this attack.
So much for their bombing “principally highways used by Hezbollah”.
The Israeli attack is using vastly excessive force, and Mr. Bush should recognise this and do something about it.
Of course if Israel truly wants Hezbollah suppressed in southern Lebanon, attacking the infrastructure and forces of the pro-western Lebanonize government seems the wrong way to go about it. If on the other hand, the IDF are acting as agents of chaos their actions may appear brilliant.
You get charged for an ambulance ride, you get charged by the fire department, why is it disgusting and wrong for these Americans who placed themselves in a dangerous area to be charged for their evacuation.
Should we charge the victims of 9/11 for the costs of that day? After all, they didn’t have to go to work.
Lebanon wasn’t dangerous for the last couple of years until recently, people who are US Citizens have family there, SSPX sent priests there, Opus Dei is there–maybe we should martyr them all
There are Armenian CATHOLIC and Assyrian CATHOLIC seminaries in the Shouf mountains
WHY ARE THEY BOMBING CHRISTIAN VILLAGES AND NEIGHBORHOODS IN BEIRUT IF THEY ARE TRYING TO GET HEZBOLLAH?
WHY ARE CIVILIANS AND CHILDREN BEING KILLED?
Maybe we should charge Israel for all the help we give them if we charge for ambulance rides.
Maybe Israel should pay to evacuate our civilians.
If Al Queda attacked us maybe we should bomb Arab and Muslim women and children so they can get mad and make sure their governments stop Al Queda–is that the logic?
We need to stop Israel now in their demonic rage just like Reagan did in 82.
Isreal is attacking people that are not behind the Hezbolah. Their attacks are making innocent civilians suffer. That includes MAROTINE CATHOLICS. I wonder if the support of american catholics for Israel will go as far as to justify bombing little christians villages and killing children that has nothing to do with terrorism. Or to make they go sick without wather, eletricity and medicine. That’s immoral.
Why all the hatred toward Israel? Why is everyone so quick to jump on the victim here? Remember that Israel has been fighting its own War on Terror for 58 years now, and it will continue to fight as long as the Muslims continue to pursue their stated goal of eradicating the tiny state from the face of the earth. Lebanon is a staging ground for Hezbollah, who with the help of Syria and Iran, continue to attack Israel. And you call for Israel to restrain itself? Stop your rhetorical attacks on Israel for a few minutes to contemplate what the Holy Land would look like under the rule of the “radical” Muslims. What would become of those sites so holy to us Christians?
Why is everyone so quick to jump on the victim here?
How many innocent people can you slaughter and still lay claim to the title of victim?
“Why all the hatred toward Israel?”
Why all the hatred towards innocent christian being bombed on Lebanon?
“Why is everyone so quick to jump on the victim here?”
The innocent christians being bombed in Lebanon are what, terrorists? Or victims?
It seems that Hezbollah is intentionally attacking civilian targets and that Israel is intentionally attacking military targets.
I think we need to keep things in perspective. Being Catholic does not mean that we are neo-conservative, nor do we have to be pro-Israel!
In any case, if Israel is really bombing Lebanon AND Hezbollah, then what are the reasons behind it? Think about it. Why would they bomb the innocents? It doesn’t seem like a good way to make friends with the pro-West democratic Lebanonese…
Well, Dan, I can’t speak for everyone else, but I certainly don’t hate Israel. I do think, however, that the past and current conflicts are the fruit of a failed social engineering project by the west. Israel is a religious state founded for the purpose of giving jews from around the world a homeland. That’s fine. The only problem is that it displaced people who’s families have lived there for generations, all based upon their ethnicity/religion. This includes muslims and Christians. It’s analogous, in many ways, to what happened in Northern Ireland. And while I unabashedly condemn the violence being hurled at Israel, I can still understand the reasons behind it.
Very well, Michael, Delance, et al. What would you have Israel do? If you believe that Israel is truly targeting Lebanese Christian civilians (a point which I will not concede), what would your solution be to this current crisis? The targeting of civilians is by definition the tactic of the terrorist, and has long been the strategy of those who would destroy Israel (and the US, need I remind you). So what should Israel do to keep the Muslims from attacking it?
The newly-formed Lebanese government can’t do anything to stop Hezbollah because Hezbollah is supported by Syria, the country that, until recently, had complete control of Lebanon. Israel is blaming the lebanese for Hezbollah’s existence and is attacking Lebanon, when they would do much better to focus on Syria, the supporter of Hezbollah and Israel’s true enemy.
I think that there is a great lack of understanding here. Hizbollah does not have headquarters, or bases, or barracks, or anything like that. It has memebers dispersed throughout Lebanon living in average neighborhoods, with ad hoc bases set up in average neighborhoods. Israel is bombing these places because that is where Hizbollah is. In fact, Israel is even warning citizens beforehand to get out of certain areas before they bomb them.
“What would you have Israel do?”
Do you think they have the right to kill innocent catholics at will? That is the relevant question.
“If you believe that Israel is truly targeting Lebanese Christian civilians”
Let’s put this into perspective. I just saw on the news that 5 brazilians have already died on the Israeli bombings. Presumably, they are maronite Catholics. Four of them were on vacation, and a 62-year old owner of a furniture factory on Lebanon. Are they terrorists?
I see on the TV the interview of a guy who has a six-month old pregnant wife on Beirute. Is she a terrorist? Is the unborn a terrorist? Can Israel kill them, if that would help the war on terror? So they have carte blanche to muder civilians at will for as long as it might have a negative effect on the terrorists?
Israel should target terrorists. They are killing way too much civilians. The IDF is not a bunch of incompetent idiots, if they are killing civilians, they are targeting civilians.
“…they are targeting civilians.” The key word is “targeting”. Do you have evidence to support that statement?
The greater weight of the evidence would seem to suggest that they are targeting terrorists who have deliberately chosen to use civilians as human shields.
Should we charge the victims of 9/11 for the costs of that day? After all, they didn’t have to go to work.
No, those people didn’t run off to a dangerous place to live to go get a degree in probably the only school that would accept them. Those people were home and the Federal Government that is constant worrying about unconstitutional pokebelly programs (EPA/Medicare/Department of Education) forgot and failed at their primary constitutional duties, and that is the protection of its citizens.
The people who are being evactuated now, would have left eventually at their own expense, this crisis simply moved up the time frame. In other words, they were going to pay for it anyhow, so why should the fact that they find themselves in a situation such as this change that fact?
The fact that it is a crisis involving American citizens. We pay taxes for everything under the sun, but we can’t shell out a few hundred dollars to rescue American citizens from a war torn country? The government has no problem taking our money to rebuild Iraq. Maybe it can sell a few of its nuclear weapons, and then it’ll have enough money to ferry American citizens out of Lebanon.
By the way, are Americans not allowed to travel abroad now? Every country is “dangerous”. You can’t live your life on a theoretical danger.
Terrorism is terrorism. It feels the same no matter whom it lands on.
Israeli may or may not be targetting civilians. The evidence is that civilains not associated with terrorism are being killed.
Israel certainly does not care.
To force a government, or people in a nation to force a government, to stop Hezbollah by bombing a relatively (current) peaceful nation including water supply, airports, Christian neighborhoods (certainly not Palestinian or Hezbollah)does not seem moral nor effective.
Hezbollah may or may not be hiding among civilians but again the bombing of regular Lebanese Army bases, airports etc. is causing chaos. Children have died. Civilians have died. International people have died.
WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIAN SUFFERING????????????
Only Jewish victims of terrorism get to destroy everyone remotely associated with the terrorism.
ISRAEL SHOULD RESTRAIN ITSELF
That civilians are being killed is a statement that is true of every war ever fought. It is hardly unique to World War III.
“Israel certainly does not care.” Others might say that the Israelis have shown great restraint.
“…bombing…water supply, airports…” Attacking the infrastructure is a way of hindering the enemy, to make him less dangerous.
“…bombing…Christian neighborhoods (certainly not Palestinian or Hezbollah)…” Certainly?
“Hezbollah may or may not be hiding among civilians…” Do you really have any doubt about that? That’s what cowards do.
“Hezbollah may or may not be hiding among civilians…”
Wrong. Hezbollah is definitely – beyond dispute – hiding among civilians.
That civilians are being killed is a statement that is true of every war ever fought. It is hardly unique to World War III.
SO IS THIS A WAR??????
ISRAEL WANTS TO HAVE IT BOTH WAY, IT CAN FIGHT TERRORISM WITH EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES BUT IF ANYONE FIGHTS BACK IT IS NOT WAR AND IT IS IMMORAL
“Israel certainly does not care.” Others might say that the Israelis have shown great restraint
WHAT RESTRAINT????? LEBANON IS BEING DEVASTATED.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE DYING. PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THE COUNTRY WHO WERE INVOLVED IN BUSINESS FROM FRANCE, CANADA, BRAZIL, SWEDEN ETC.
“…bombing…water supply, airports…” Attacking the infrastructure is a way of hindering the enemy, to make him less dangerous.
LEBANON IS THE ENEMY????
CHRISTIANS ARE THE ENEMY???
CHILDREN ARE THE ENEMY????
BRAZILIANS AND AMERICANS ARE THE ENEMY???
THEY ARE DESTROYING A COUNTRY AND MAKING IT MORE DANGEROUS AND HURTING INNOCENTS
“…bombing…Christian neighborhoods (certainly not Palestinian or Hezbollah)…” Certainly?
MOST CHRISTIANS DO NOT LIKE PALESTINIANS IN THEIR COUNTRY, MANY FOUGHT HEZBOLLAH,
HEZBOLLAH ACTUALLY HAD A LOT OF RESTRAINT IN NOT MAKING ON REPRISALS OF THE CHRISTIAN MILITIAS USED BY THE ISRAELIS WHO WERE NOT LET IN ISRAEL
ISRAEL IS USED TO PROXYS LIKE DRUZE, BEDOUIN, NOT ALL ISRAELI JEWS AND THEY ARE FRONT LINES
SO WERE THE CHRISTIAN MILITIAS A HUMAN BUFFER
CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PRO-CHRISTIAN USED TO BE SOMEWHAT PRO-US AND PRO-ISRAEL
Hezbollah may or may not be hiding among civilians…” Do you really have any doubt about that? That’s what cowards do.
HEZBOLLAH IS HIDING BUT NOT AT THE AIRPORT, NOT IN BEIRUT PRIMARILY, NOT IN CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT IN REGULAR LEBANESE ARMY BASES, NOT IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOT IN BRAZILIANS, THIS IS NOT A CASE OF INSURGENTS HIDING IN A MOSQUE
ISRAEL NEEDS TO STOP BOMBING IMMEDIATELY
WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE
THEY NEED TO STOP THIS INVASION
IT IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL
There’s no need to shout.
There is a need to shout when you have relatives dying who are not terrorists and are not by Hezbollah. THEY ARE CHRISTIANS. CATHOLICS AT THAT. (Not Roman though) INNOCENT.
Israel is not warning civilians. Food is getting scarce. Water is getting scarce and not pure. Nobody is working. Commerce is affected.
WHY NOT BE LOYAL TO CATHOLICS AND NOT JUST ISRAEL.
Jews and Muslims stick together, we are letting our Middle Eastern Christians being led to the slaughter by bad American policy
RULE 3 VIOLATION
As French President Jacques Chirac said, the Israeli reaction seems dangerously out-of-proportion to the provocation. A few soldiers killed and captured and they are ready to “set Lebanon’s clock back 20 years” risking a regional or even a global conflagration.
The cruelty and severity of Israel’s response are totally unjustified and suggests to me that a bigger scenario is in the works. This is confirmed by the tepid international efforts to initiate a cease fire. I am not sure whether Iran or Israel will emerge as the big loser. But I suspect every move is orchestrated in advance.
Joseph Ehrlich (“Senderburl”) thinks the NWO is playing a double game with Israel, and that Haifa and Tel Aviv are going to be nuked by Iran. He believes Sharon refused to play according to this script and was removed, but the traitor Ehud Olmert will. He believes Israel has outlived its usefulness to the globalists, and they want control of Jerusalem and a new relationship with the Muslim world. He doesn’t think this will be an excuse to nuke Iran, which he says has immunity by virtue of its oil wealth.
Ehrlich’s scenario is as horrific as it is farfetched but it is consistent with reports that the Illuminati hate Israel. Erhlich says the trigger is an attack on Syria by Israel.
In any case, the new Israeli “unilateralism” assumes opponents have no right to resist, have no legitimate grievances and are “terrorists.” This is based on the canard that Israel has no one to negotiate with, which is nonsense. It is the attitude of an aggressor who has no intention of negotiating and relies entirely on force and intimidation. (Btw, the “terrorists” are the ones without the air force.)
The Israeli government seems to suspend the law of cause-and-effect. It ignores the connection between the Hizballah attack in the North and Israel’s overreaction to the capture of a soldier in Gaza. The Israelis shut off water and electricity in Gaza, imprisoned Hamas government members and missile-attacked government buildings killing civilians.
The Gaza capture in turn was a response to the killing of a family picnicking on a Gaza beach, and the continued targeting of Hamas leaders.
The Israeli unilateralist approach won’t lead to a solution. It will only increase worldwide animosity against Israel and her allies.
The Israeli government must recognize Palestinian grievances, accept a cease-fire and negotiate generously. This is the only way to quell the recent escalation and ensure permanent peace.
Many Israelis agree with me and feel as helpless about their government’s war policies as we do about ours. Polls suggest about one-third of Israelis are opposed to this action.
Israelis may soon learn how dangerous this overreaction really is.
A report in the Jerusalem Post today proves very revealing. It claims that, ‘Only weeks ago, an entire reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the one the IDF is planning in response to Wednesday morning’s Hizbollah attacks on IDF forces along the northern border.’[1]
The news is revealing because it was only a little over two weeks ago that Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian fighters. One needs to ask how the Israelis knew at, or even before, he was captured that it would be taking action against Hizbollah in Lebanon.
This revealing piece of news comes on top of an earlier revelation that the Israelis had planned the arrest of top Palestinian Hamas leaders some time well before Shalit was captured as Ha’aretz reported: “The detention of Hamas parliamentarians in the early hours of Thursday morning had been planned several weeks ago and received approval from Mazuz on Wednesday. The same day, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with the list of Hamas officials slated for detention.” [2]
This entire crisis has all the hallmarks and is beginning to unravel as a carefully orchestrated ploy to create a casus belli for Israel to attack and occupy the Gaza, neutralise Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Palestinians to deprive the Palestinians of any power to resist reoccupation of the Gaza, possibly on a permanent basis, and, at the same time, to neutralise Hizbollah in pursuit of regime change in Lebanon.
Since the Israelis are now also making noises about Syrian and even Iranian involvement in the Hizbollah actions against Israel that has prompted Israel’s attacks against Lebanon, there are indications that these noises are intended to foment US involvement in attacking Syria and Iran on Israels behalf.
If, indeed, this crisis has been orchestrated to deliberately provoke two Arab organisations to the north and south of Israel to attack Israel in an attempt to gain US involvement then the Israelis are playing an extremely dangerous game… unless, of course, the Israelis have already colluded with the US.
ENDNOTES
[1] Yaakov Katz, ‘Reservists called up for Lebanon strike’, Jerusalem Post, 12 July 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885978380&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 13 July 2006.
[2] Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, ‘AG refuses to OK use of Hamas officials as ‘bargaining chip’’, Ha’aretz, 30 June 2006. Available online: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732528.html Accessed 13 July 2006.
RULE 3 VIOLATION
RULE 3 VIOLATION
RULE 3 VIOLATION
RULE 3 VIOLATION
Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?
Quote:
In the desert of Iraq, right next to those “WMDs.”
RULE 3 VIOLATION
“In the desert of Iraq, right next to those ‘WMDs’.” You mean those 500 chemical weapons that were found a couple of weeks ago?
* I wouldn’t attach too much weight to the Jerusalem Post exit strategy stories. * First, I haven’t seen similar stories anywhere else. That suggests they have a single source who may or my not reflect the thinking of the government. * Second, the pattern of Israel’s air campaign — and shelling — suggests a much broader goal than a quick in and out. I think the facts on the ground speak louder than the anonymous source. * Third, most of the Sunni part of the Arab world seems just fine with the idea of Israel taking out Hezbollah — out of fear of Iran and a resurgent Shia. That is the sort of opportunity that the Israelis aren’t likely to waste. * Fourth, the Bush Administration is practically insouciant about the fighting. It obviously has zero interest in pulling Nasrallah out of the wringer, not to mention Assad. And it has a compelling interest in seeing both dead. Again, that presents Israel with an opportunity that it isn’t likely to waste. * Fifth, if you view the current situation as one front in a broader war between Iran and what is wryly referred to as the Civilized World, taking out Hezbollah can be viewed as the most obvious place to start rolling them back. * Sixth, the fact that Israel is asking its civilian population to suck it up and endure rocket attacks suggests it has it’s eye on a larger prize than just slapping Hezbollah around a bit. * Seventh, any outcome short of breaking Hezbollah’s back will be read in the region as a Hezbollah victory — and that is intolerable for Israel, the Sunnis, and the old Great Satan.
Paul Danish
The conspiracists sure seem to be committing a lot of Rule 3 Violations. But I still haven’t seen them show us any evidence that a duplicate key to the Ward Room ice box did exist.
Bill is a real uninformed fool. He routinely posts things and asks for evidence and when he gets them he attacks the poster. He lacks any knowledge or logic.
Too many neocon Catholics have been duped in this Middle East Bush dirty work for oil money and Zionism.
RULE 3 VIOLATION
Veritas: LOL! Thank you for such an intellectual post!
Just a note to folks who have been committing Rule 3 violations by posting large amounts of copied text in this thread: Stop it.
If you want to cite evidence or perspectives at greater length than a forum allows, that is why God created hyperlinks.
This is a forum for reasoned discussion. Tell people what you’re pointing them to and then offer a hyperlink.
Thankyew.
“The Israeli government must recognize Palestinian grievances, accept a cease-fire and negotiate generously. This is the only way to quell the recent escalation and ensure permanent peace.”
Finally, someone (French perspective? – seriously, that is the poster’s name) gave what he believes should be Israel’s next step. Of course there is no way this would work since we know that Hamas has no intention of living peacefully side by side with Israel. Nor does Hizbollah, Syria, Al-Qa’eda, Palestine, etc. Israel could declare a permanent ceasefire and unilaterally disarm, and the Muslims would wipe it out the very next day. Could some other Israel-hating reader please propose a real workable solution besides “Israel is killing Christians! Israel is killing babies! Israel is breaking into homes and stealing ‘Alias’ Season 1 DVDs!”? How about a real solution and a little less ranting?
Bill912 – Clear, concise and to the point, as usual. Brilliant.
Thanx, Dan E. Ditto to you. Heard a pithy comment from Bill O’Reilly: If tomorrow the terrorists lay down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow; if tomorrow the Israelis threw all their weapons into the Mediterranean, there would be another Holocaust.
W’s proof,
Bush didn’t say syria was behind the capture of Israeli soldiers, he said that syria, as the supporter of Hezbollah, has the power to tell them to end their aggression against Israel.
Israel helped create Hamas. Israel funded Hamas to destablize the PLO and negatively affect the popularity of Yasser Arafat.
A real solution in Lebanon is for Israel to unilaterally stop bombing Lebanon and killing civilians.
The posts with links and text are very good. Bill and Dan are definitely not from a Catholic perspective.
Thanx, Dan E. Ditto to you. Heard a pithy comment from Bill O’Reilly: If tomorrow the terrorists lay down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow; if tomorrow the Israelis threw all their weapons into the Mediterranean, there would be another Holocaust.
I was struck by that comment as well. I’m not keen on this decision by Israel, but when put in that context, I can really understand it. That doesn’t necessarily justify war, but that must be pretty scary to know your neighbors want to exterminate you from the face of the earth.
“A real solution in Lebanon is for Israel to unilaterally stop bombing Lebanon and killing civilians…”
And then Hezbollah will stop firing rockets into Israel and everyone will have a party, right?
As someone else asked, just what WOULD you allow Israel to do in it’s own defense?
Not to defend Muslims, as I am a fan of Don Juan of Austria, the bastard son of the Emporer, and I pray to Our Lady of Lepanto
BUT….Jews lived in relative peace and tolerance in Muslim lands for 1400 or so years including high positions in Ottoman society, Khazar Mongol Jews the ancestors of most Ashkenazis, Maimonodes was the physician to the Muslim potenate in Spain etc.
The idea that Muslims inherently want to exterminate Jews from the earth is not true.
They have had 1400 years to do it and some historians argue (I do not agree and it is more nuanced than that) Islam at least in certain time periods was more tolerant to Jews than the Christian West was. The Sephardic Jews (at least some)Ladinos are the descendants (some) of those who left Spain. There are many wealthy Jews in Turkey and before the Ayatollah Khomeni, there were many wealthy Jews in Iran.
Now, yes, do many Arabs not like Israel but without getting into that whole debate
Even Israeli military historians admit that they FORCED 900,000 Palestinians (not all Muslim either) from their homes and made them displaced persons, now all the arguments that it was war and to the victors belong the spoils (which can justify anything and is surprising in posts of people subscribing to Catholic Theology, Aquinas just war, and Natural Law doctrines rather than a positivist law system)and the arguments that the Arab nations should of absorbed those refugees
So, this is not a war about Jews per se but a specific piece of land and how the Jewish homeland (Harry Truman did not like Jews and thought they were self centered and selfish towards suffering of others specifically other Eastern Europeans who suffered at the hands of Nazis or communists but he under great protest from people close to him and FDR–including FDRs Secretary of State recognized Israel in 1948)–this is not an ancient probelm but a rather modern one
Israelis pioneered modern terrorism including airline hijacking NOT Palestinians or Muslims (unless you want to date it back to the Nasaranees/Ishmaelis–who allied themselves with Crusaders against Salahadin and the “orthodox” Muslim rulers and practiced assanination, poison, strangulation etc.)
Yitzak Shamir blew up the Lord Nelson hotel
the first civilian airliner to go down was over Syria by the Israelis
Sharon, who writes in his autobiography Warrior, that Jewish life is inherently better and different, that he killed in blood revenge Bedouin tribesman, and in military accounts he did massacres well before his allowing Sabra and Shatilla (which was Christian militias massacring Palestinians) the Israeli investigation found him culpable
The earlier posts about Israeli funding of Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism is interesting and important. Similiar to the US (rightfully so and I am a strong anti-communist) funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to defeat the Russian Soviet communist aethiests, it planted seeds for the Taliban and problems today. The funding of Hamas and the creation of Israeli village councils in the Israeli territories (including Sheikh Yassin) was meant to destablize the PLO.
—
The PLO, while far from perfect was not Islamic fundamentalists. The PLO, while certainly with a terrorist wing, as did early Zionists, Irish Catholic IRA, and many other groups good and bad, right and wrong–the PLO had a deal with the CIA to not hit American US soil targets
If the PLO and other terrorists threw all their weapons away, there would not be peace, some of them, if not most, would be massacred and put in jail–perhaps justified, but the Bill O’Reily theory is not true
Yasser Arafat is not an Al-Queda mold “terrorist”, he was the genuinely liked and respected (even if wrong) leader of the Palestinians and he and the PLO (perhaps incorrectly) viewed their “terrorism” in the same way morally that early Jewish Zionist “terrorism” against Britain and other neighbors in the Middle East was used, for freedom, independence, nationhood
Many Jewish groups do not want and have passed local laws outlawing public Christmas ceremonies and have a theocratic state that does not allow public expressions of Christianity in the land that it was born in, and earlier poster mentions that it would be worse with radical Islam, and they may be correct, but the Vatican position was for Jerusalem to be an International City for all three Abrahamic faiths, and for some time pre the state of Israel even with Christians fighting (not blood) fighting over property rights (Copts v. Armenians, Latin Rite vs. Orthodox etc) there was tolerance and allowance for pilgrimage.
The indigenous Christians have a hard time not only from Muslim radicals (not from the PLO with many cultural Christians like George Habasch, Hanna Ashrawi and intermarriage like the last french speaking wife of Arafat)
The Noahide laws consider Christianity idolatory and idolatory can be punished by death
Some of the most intolerant people in the Middle East theoretically as well as practically are not just fundamentalist Muslims but Jews formerly from New York now living in outposts of what was Palestian land for almost 2000 years in attempt to justify theologically displacement of people considered subhuman (read Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg) and for a greater Judea and Samaria.
I have a priest friend (diocesan but with close ties to the Franciscans and faculties in Ukrainian Rite) who taught at the University of Bethlehem and told of killings that went unreported and a concerted policy and effort by Israel to force Christians to emigrate, and not allow education, ownership of property, promotion of business. A policy that with 800 or so years or at least 500 years of relative tolerance of different Muslim rulers, that there was Christians living together with Muslims and in the last 10 to 20 years it has gotten worse than any time in the last three generations memory and theoretically historically worse in the last 500 years.
The Christians have no weapons to throw down, and Israel does not want them there. Certainly not to own property, get an education, or to have public expressions of a non Jewish religion.
Go to a Eastern Rite Catholic or Orthodox Antiochean Church with Palestinians and ask them, don’t read the neo-con propoganda or repeat Bushisms or something read on the internet, yes you will hear criticisms of Islam-historically, philosophically and practically but you will also hear of Israeli oppression, and policies of dividing former neighbors and radicalizing the formerly urban, secular, Christian influenced Palestianian people into a creation of demographically young, Islamically fundamentalist, nihilistic population not reflecting what was or could of been.
Israel helped make it worse.
First, you should NOT allow Israel to kill non combatant innocent civilians to get back two soldiers.
Second, let them attack Hezbollah or apply pressure or negotiate or do assasinations or prisoner swaps, there are many things they can do.
But attacking a relatively peaceful compared to most of the 70s, 80s and 90s country that is relatively pro-Western, more pro-Israel than most, kicked out Syria, has some good wealth and business–to put them in disarray where you could have a return to tribal militias and fighting based on religious and tribal lines including Christian v. Christians, the drug trade, Syria, Israel, Muslim v. Muslim, Muslim v. Christian, US, France, family militias, etc–which could happen–Israel only cares about Israel–they have threatened to invade, nuke do whatever is necessary for them to survive and thrive-damn the world, Lebanon did not ask for this, and yes a bad portion of Lebanon, Palestinian and Shia Iran influenced is causing a problem, but killing civilians and putting the country in dissarray is not the answer
The current Israeli policy, with out backing and funding, will increase terrorism, hatred for them, and hatred for the US
It already has destabilized the region and there are 300 dead, thousands wounded, and tens if not hundreds of thousands dispalced, Billions of dollars damaged and lost
So if Lebanon had the power, should they attack back at Israel??
should the irrational Muslim Umma stick together and missle Israel
This is not getting better it is getting worse
import all catholics from the middle east into new jersey. then nuclear bomb the entire middle east.
problem solved. why not keep it simple?
“Bush is disgusting in charging US CITIZENS to get out safely in a situation that Bush is doing nothing to help.”
Its slightly more complicated than that, isn’t it? Congress passed a law that supposedly forces the State Department to charge for such evacuations. Why? Who knows. Stupid. But the law is the law, and the State department is bound to follow it even if they don’t like it.
You’d think you could get a decent discussion around here, but involve politics and soon many are babbling mindlessly.
“The State Department has been authorized to seek reimbursement for rescues since 1956, according to the department. On a number of occasions in the past — in Tehran after the Iranian revolution of 1979, in Iraq and Kuwait on the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in strife-torn Liberia in 1996 — Americans have been asked to fill out pledges, though the government often declined to collect.
But four years ago, Congress tightened the law on seeking repayments.
Pelosi bristled at that interpretation, saying it was “never Congress’ intent to prevent the U.S. government from evacuating our citizens from a very dangerous area.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized the administration for hiding behind congressional history, contending that Bush could waive the requirement whenever he wanted.”
Are TimJ and Bill-10 Catholics? Do they know about Aquinas and Just War?
Did they ever study history?
Do they care about the Catholics and other Christians who are being killed?
I never understood the irrational Catholic support of Israel, I know the Evangelicals, like Jimmy Akin was believe that Israel is helping bring about the Second Coming, and the Jews still are the chosen people of God, and this prophetic version of history and foreign policy
BUT Catholics do not buy into that (by official church teaching)
and it is interesting that with some Orthodox exceptions (who have explicit racist ideologies) the Jewish lobby (AIPAC) etc and the exception of some of the neo-cons—–most of the anti-Catholic, pro-abortion business lobby, homosexual lobby, Hollywood etc are JEWISH–that is not stereotype or anti-semitism
just look at the founders, board members, funders of Planned Parenthood, even Catholic convert Dr. Bernard Nathanson has admitted as much (convert from Judaism and founder of NARAL), the New York Times to an extent did a service in exposing priestly sex abuse in Catholics but what about the current crop of Rabbis in sex abuse or Episcopal summer camps, or public school teachers, or psychiatrists which is becoming a scandal–ALL ARE KEPT OFF FRONT PAGES
Israel going into Christian holy site, Israeli Army stealing and doing sacrilige, ASK THE PRIESTS IN THE HOLY LAND, don’t just give your neo-con opinions
It is good you care about Israel, maybe Tim and Bill should care about your spiritual brother CATHOLICS
Nuke the Middle East, that is really Christian
evil even if a joke
unless sarcastic like the Irish Bishops Modest Proposal
That’s absurd. When you bomb a power plant, you harm lots of innocent people. Will terrorists using rockets to attack Isreal be stopped with that? Of course not. All those christians killed on this bombing, with what right did Israel kill them?
The Crusades never finished.
In a long game there is overtime.
Israel is just as evil as the fanatic muslims.
Israel flouts international and sovereign laws like nothing. Plus they got the whole world in their hands. We don’t even notice it. They formed their own country out of nothing. And the muslims, they are physically more dangerous. They don’t fear death, and they have no problem giving it to. But the US is just as bad morally.
So unless the Pope or a religious order froms an army, we are not going to have a real victory.
Evil can’t fight Evil. Only the true Good can, and that is God. And God has been lost from the nations as a whole. The Vatican is the only country entirely faithful to God. And then, the Clergy isn’t saintly.
Conclusion: Pray because times are about to get tough. She said it at Fatima then, but it is ever-revalent now.
Vigilance and Prayer
Intuiting the horrors of this week alone was surely one of those times when Jesus’ nausea spiked the highest in Gethsemane.
Where is any arbitration / mediation? What happened to the “peace process”? We know, don’t we.
“What happened to the ‘peace process’? We know, don’t we.” We sure do; there never was one. Terrorists definition of “Ceasefire” is: “You cease, we fire.”
Actually that seems to be the Israeli definition, Lebanon was at peace, Israel attacks
Bill: WHAT ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS?
Bill, Bill, Bill
so uniformed, such bad posting
please go back and study more
you make yourself look foolish
This has truly become a very revealing, if unbelievable, set of postings. We have gone from condemnation of Israel to the moral equivalence of “Israel is just as evil as the fanatic muslims,” and “the US is just as bad morally.” Incredible!
A poster calling himself “Mossad” claimed that I am not “coming from a Catholic perspective.” All I have done is defend the right of Israel to exist and defend its existence. How is that not a Catholic view? If I have been un-Catholic, please provide the evidence. I would hope that I live my life always from a Catholic perspective, and while I strive to do so, I know I fail at times.
I do not believe a jew, no matter how pious, will achieve salvation without the grace of Jesus (John 14:6), and I believe we must pray for the conversion of the Jewish people. But I will not abandon Israel just because it is a Jewish nation. It is a democracy seeking to live in peace in a region in which democracy and peace are scarce.
Edward – good history lesson. Unfortunately, little of that is relevant today. The peace in which Muslims and Jews used to live is a thing of the past in the Middle East. Until the Muslim people accept the right of others to live and worship as non-Muslims, there will not be peace.
Dan E, You and I are small-minded. We are limited by mere reality. We are not privy to “Higher Truth”.
No not “Higher Truth” nothing esoeteric here
Just that CHRISTIANS IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAVE RIGHTS AND A PERSPECTIVE TOO
and
ISRAEL BOMBING LEBANON IS NOT MORAL
(Just overlay the facts with the Aquinas Just War Principles)
and dig a little deeper into the violent and terrorist nature of Israel, their funding of Hamas and creating other Islamic fundamentalism
Israel has destabilized the region time and time again and has not wanted moderate regimes with moderate Sunni or secular pan Arabism (like Baath) or the new Lebanese (with many Christians in government) or the PLO (with many Christians, secularists, communists in their governing body and the alternative has become radical, nihilistic fundamentalist Muslims
Read the Mearsheimer U of C and Harvard report on Israeli influence it is online and in Forein Policy review last month, also defended by Catholic Zgbinew Brezinski
Read the Talmud, the actual Babylonian Talmud that is read in Yeshivas all around the world
Just read it
It is a democracy seeking to live in peace in a region in which democracy and peace are scarce.
Whether or not it is a democracy is largely irrelevent. Whether it seeks peace is debatable. Israel is regional power that is seeking hegemony backed by the U.S. It has no moral compunction against causing death and suffering to the peoples around it, whom it apparently considers to be somewhat less than fully human. Muslims or Christians, who cares? They are all Arabs who need to be ethnically cleansed to make room for a greater Israel like God promised Abraham.
Israel is not a democracy it is a quasi Democracy at best and actually a racially and superior based theocracy or quasi theocracy. It based on a ethno-religious identity to the exclusion of others, which I don’t have a problem with per se, the idea of a nation in European history is based on people nation=people, but it tries to pretend and US sees it in some pluralistic multicultural lens. Israel is most like South Africa.
Is Israel better than Saudi Arabia (which it is a crime to have a Rosary in public) or Kuwait (which still has slavery on the books)
YES
But is it superior to Lebanon or Jordan–not necessarily.
It has hegemonic goals in the region, it took land by force, killed people, and displaced people, it did not commit the atrocities that took place in Sudan for example–but it also did not have the opportunity
Israel is not merely fighting for survival or fighting against terrorism
Homeschool your children.
OK, I get it. Israel is bad. Really bad. So I’ll ask again. What would you propose to bring peace to the region that wouldn’t result in the complete eradication of Israel? Or perhaps that is your solution (which wouldn’t be a surprise coming from some of the posters here).
Will new visitors please read #1 of DA RULZ. Thank you.
OK, I get it. Israel is bad. Really bad. So I’ll ask again. What would you propose to bring peace to the region that wouldn’t result in the complete eradication of Israel? Or perhaps that is your solution (which wouldn’t be a surprise coming from some of the posters here).
Not necessarily really bad, but certainly not really good. Judaism does not have a Just War tradition just the Old Testament vision. We should not be shocked that they do not care about proportionality or things like that. I don’t know who besides an idealist or someone who hopes to completely wipe out one side or the other believes peace is truly possible in the Mideast. True, even viewed on a Machiavellian level, Israel’s strategy seems self-defeating but as a sovereign nation they have a certain right to act against aggression. They should not be so comfortable in their expectation that the U.S. nation will blindly support every action, no matter how heinous.
Will someone please define “proportionality”?
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/justwar.htm
There may not be total peace, but there are more peaceful ways to do things without the total destruction of Israel
1. STOP BOMBING AND INVADING LEBANON
we can go from there
Bill,
what is NOT proportionality
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped and not killed does not EQUAL 400 dead thousands wounded, half a million displaced, billions in damage
2 people does not equal hundreds of people
proportional is just that
Now what don’t you understand?
Just like Israels nuclear option is not proportional, but kind of like Masada
I asked what proportionality is. Our anonymous poster stated what he thinks proportionality is not. I presume that means he is admitting that he does not know what proportionality is.
To those who are concerned about Christian suffering, I’d like to you read the following from Franciscan Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa, who works for the Franciscan Custody for the Holy Land, which governs church property:
“What do you mean by difficulties between Israel and the Vatican? We Christians in the Holy Land have other problems. Almost every day – I repeat, almost every day – our communities are harassed by the Islamic extremists in these regions. And if it’s not the members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, there are clashes with the ‘rubber wall’ of the Palestinian Authority, which does little or nothing to punish those responsible. On occasion, we have even discovered among our attackers the police agents of Mahmoud Abbas or the militants of Fatah, his political party, who are supposed to be defending us.”
If you truly are concerned about Christian suffering in the Middle East, then pray that Israel destroys Hezbollah. It’s the Muslim extremists, not the Israelis, who are this biggest thorns in the sides of Palestinian and Arab Christians.
If you don’t believe me, then read this:
http://www.aina.org/news/20051221105903.html
As far as Pat Buchanan goes, he is nothing but a toady for Arab and anti-Semitic interests. This is the same fellow who predicted massive casualites after the 1990-91 war which freed Kuwait from Iraqi conquest. This is the same fellow who predicted massive casualties after the 2003 Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Now, I’m not going to make light of American losses to battle and terror. But consider that those losses are less than after one day of action during D-Day and you get some perspective on the situation.
Buchanan has a well-deserved reputation of being anti-Semitic. William F. Buckley barred Buchanan from National Review for precisely that reason.
Buchanan also has argued that the United States had no business fighting Hitler. Seriously. I ask you, is this a man worth serious attention?
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of anti-Semitism within the Catholic Church. Buchanan is playing upon that — and, in the process, playing a lot of you for fools.
Excerpts from The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace
A statement by the United States Catholic Conference, November 1993.
The just-war tradition consists of a body of ethical reflection on the justifiable use of force. In the interest of overcoming injustice, reducing violence and preventing its expansion, the tradition aims at:
(a) clarifying when force may be used,
(b) limiting the resort to force and
(c) restraining damage done by military forces during war.
The just-war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.
In a disordered world, where peaceful resolution of conflicts sometimes fails, the just-war tradition provides an important moral framework for restraining and regulating the limited use of force by governments and international organizations. Since the just-war tradition is often misunderstood or selectively applied, we summarize its major components, which are drawn from traditional Catholic teaching.
First, whether lethal force may be used is governed by the following criteria:
Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force.
Second, the just-war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:
Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians;
Proportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property;
Right Intention: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.
During the last decade, there has been increasing focus on the moral questions raised by the just-war tradition and its application to specific uses of force. We welcome this renewed attention and hope our own efforts have contributed to this dialogue. We also recognize that the application of these principles requires the exercise of the virtue of prudence; people of good will may differ on specific conclusions. The just-war tradition is not a weapon to be used to justify a political conclusion or a set of mechanical criteria that automatically yields a simple answer, but a way of moral reasoning to discern the ethical limits of action. Policy-makers, advocates and opponents of the use of force need to be careful not to apply the tradition selectively, simply to justify their own positions. Likewise, any application of just-war principles depends on the availability of accurate information not easily obtained in the pressured political context in which such choices must be made.
The just-war tradition has attained growing influence on political deliberations on the use of force and in some forms of military training. Just-war norms helped shape public debate prior to the Gulf War. In addition, the military’s call for civilian leaders to define carefully objectives for the use of force is in keeping with the spirit of the tradition. At the same time, some contemporary strategies and practices seem to raise serious questions when seen in the light of strict just-war analysis.
For example, strategies calling for use of overwhelming and decisive force can raise issues of proportionality and discrimination. Strategies and tactics that lead to avoidable casualties are inconsistent with the underlying intention of the just-war tradition of limiting the destructiveness of armed conflict. Efforts to reduce the risk to a nation’s own forces must be limited by careful judgments of military necessity so as not to neglect the rights of civilians and armed adversaries.
In light of the preeminent place of air power in today’s military doctrine, more reflection is needed on how traditional ethical restraints should be applied to the use of air forces. For example, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, which afflicts ordinary citizens long after hostilities have ceased, can amount to making war on noncombatants rather than against opposing armies. Fifty years after Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ways must be found to apply standards of proportionality and noncombatant immunity in a meaningful way to air warfare.
Moral reflection on the use of force calls for a spirit of moderation rare in contemporary political culture. The increasing violence of our society, its growing insensitivity to the sacredness of life and the glorification of the technology of destruction in popular culture could inevitably impair our society’s ability to apply just-war criteria honestly and effectively in time of crisis.
In the absence of a commitment of respect for life and a culture of restraint, it will not be easy to apply the just-war tradition, not just as a set of ideas, but as a system of effective social constraints on the use of force. There is need for greater public understanding of just-war criteria and greater efforts to apply just-war restraints in political decision making and military planning, training and command systems and public debate.
Ten years after The Challenge of Peace, given the neglect of peaceable virtues and the destructiveness of today’s weaponry, serious questions still remain about whether modern war in all its savagery can meet the hard tests set by the just-war tradition. Important work needs to be done in refining, clarifying and applying the justwar tradition to the choices facing our decision makers in this still violent and dangerous world.
——————————————————————————–
* Excerpted verbatim from The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. pp. 5-7. The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace was published in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Bishops’ landmark pastoral letter The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response.
A warning for some of you complaining about Christian suffering, in case you want to go into a career robbing banks:
If you take a hostage and start shooting at the police from behind her, and the police kill her shooting at you — you, not the police, have committed murder.
Those who deliberately hide among civilians are to blame for their deaths.
And if the victims had been Hungarians?
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped and not killed
And the eight soldiers actually killed don’t count? Anyway, moot point.
“Proportionality” has nothing to the offense that starts the war. It has to do with the end of the war.
If pirates take ships and kill half a dozen people, the question is not whether you can get rid of them without killing more than half a dozen. It’s how many dead you expect them to cause. If, for instance, you reasonably expect them to kill another half a dozen people every three months, for at least a decade, you can reasonably wipe them out even if you, without targeting the innocent, expect that a hundred or so innocents will die because of it.
Those who deliberately hide among civilians are to blame for their deaths.
On the other hand, if the police in pursuing the suspect note that he has taken refuge in a neighborhood and decide simply to obliterate several blocks by dropping bombs on them from above in hopes of getting their man, the police are guilty of murder. Hint: That is not proportional.
Depends on whether he’s likely to strike again, how quickly, and with what casualities.
“Buchanan has a well-deserved reputation of being anti-Semitic…Buchanan also has argued that the United States had no business fighting Hitler.”
Joseph, can you provide some proof for this? I ask because this is a very serious allegation, as you know, similar to allegations made against Pius XII and now increasingly against Benedict. So, to avoid any calumny, please provide some proof.
Alois, read the following links (or copy them and paste them into the address field of your computer in your spare time):
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=223
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=225
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/3000/edition_id/52/format/html/displaystory.html
more to come…
Regarding Buchanan, there’s also this:
It has been revealed by ABC News that one Pat Buchanan’s top campaign aides has been a speaker at white supremacist and private militia gatherings. Larry Pratt, one of the Buchanan campaign’s co-chairmen, had spoken “at meetings organized by white supremacists and militia groups, among them the Aryan Nation.”
Elie Wiesel was told by Buchanan that President Reagan must not surrender to “Jewish pressure” against visiting Bitburg, a German cemetery where Nazi elite are buried. In a White House meeting with Jewish leaders, Buchanan reminded them that they were “Americans first,” as fellow staffer Ed Rollins later recounted to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. Buchanan repreatedly scrawled the phrase “succumbing to the pressure of the Jews” on his notepad during the meeting.
Buchanan has called Hitler a “man of great courage” who was possessed with “extraordinary gifts.”
On The McLaughlin Report of August 26, 1990, Buchanan said: “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East, the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.”
It was reported by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek [December 23, 1991] Buchanan criticized the U.S. government for expressing regret over its post-war protection of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie.
In a March 17, 1990, syndicated column, Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka. “Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody,” he wrote. According to Jacob Weisberg in his article “The Heresies of Pat Buchanan” [The New Republic, October 22, 1990], “Buchanan stands by his bizarre claim about the diesel engines but refuses to discuss it on the record. Suffice it to say that he embraces a bolder debunking claim than he is yet willing to endorse in print… Where did he get the anecdote (‘proving’ his assertion about the diesel)? ‘Somebody sent it to me.’ ” Buchanan’s source was almost certainly the July 1988 newsletter of the German American Information and Education Association — a known Holocaust denial group which quotes extensively from a story of schoolchildren who emerged unharmed after being exposed to diesel fumes while trapped in a train tunnel.
On March 2, 1992, at a campaign rally in Marietta, Georgia, when a Jewish protester called out, “Your anti-Semitism makes America last,” Buchanan shot back, “This rally is of Americans, for Americans and for the good ol’ USA, my friends.”
Buchanan refers to a “so-called Holocaust survivors syndrome” which he describes as involving “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics” [New York Post, March 17, 1990].
Buchanan repeatedly refers to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory” [McLaughlin Report, June 1990].
Hippolito and Co,
You cite your own website, or at least the DAVID HOROWITZ website that you are a writer for and your own articles. Horowitz is Jewish, and certainly a neocon and a Zionist.
The Assyrian link is interesting. And I agree, to wit: ( a small qoute from the link)
“other Christians feared for their own safety.
In Iraq, gangs of anonymous Muslim terrorists threaten to abduct or kill people whose families refuse to pay amounts ranging from $100,000 to $150,000 for Mafia-style protection. Families must beg for cash, sell their homes and belongings, leave the country or face death.
“It’s a really catastrophic problem right now,” Father Mekhail Nageeb, a Dominican priest, told Catholic News Service in November.
In one neighborhood in Mosul, Nageeb said, “There are more than 20 or 30 homes without people living in them,” because their Christian homeowners fled.
Muslim religious leaders support the extortion. Father Sabah Patto, a Chaldean Catholic, told Catholic News Service that some Muslim figures “are encouraging the Christians to leave their country and to leave their properties and everything, and nobody is buying from (the Christians).”
Nobody is buying, Patto continued, because Muslim leaders are saying that the abandoned properties “will become free for people.”
Nine days after the Church of England produced its report on terrorism, the London Times reported on Sept. 28 the apparent murder of the lay leaders of Iraq’s largest Anglican church. They were presumed dead after being attacked while returning from a conference in Jordan.”
I AGREE, but that is Iraq NOW under US control.
Iraq was bad but still BETTER for Christians under Saddam–but that is another issue.
Your own website and articles claim that the Latin (Roman Catholic) Rite Patriarch and Orthodox (not Roman or Uniate) Patriarch are anti-Semites, and in cahoots with terrorism and the PLO. This seems to contradict your sole Italian Franciscan (talk to other Franciscans in the US who have been over there or communicate with the University of Bethlehem)
Let me digress:
1. Hezbollah is bad
2. Saddam was/is bad
3. Radical Islam is bad
4. Inherently beyond the virulent strain of radical Islam, Islam has an inherent violence and adversarial history with the Christian West (732 Tours, Vienna, 1453 Fall of Constantinople etc)
HOWEVER, many posters above and I will point again
a point that seems to be ignored by the neocon author on the Horowitz website Joseph Hippolito, or Mary or Bill and others—
ISRAEL HELPED CREATE HAMAS
“However, various sources, among them United Press International [29], Le Canard enchaîné, Bill Baar and L’Humanité[30] have highlighted that Hamas’ early growth – before its official founding and the creation of the military branch – had been supported by the Mossad as a “counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)”. Furthermore, the French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné claimed that Shin Bet had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and Fatah, in an attempt to give “a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make the West believe that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims”, thus supporting the controversial thesis of a “clash of civilizations”. (cited from Wikipedia and there are cites and external links)
http://www.wikipedia.org–double check the facts of course (under Hamas)
Also from Al Jazeera (with cites)(although I am sure this source will be criticized):
“Hamas was funded directly and indirectly during the 1970s and 1980s by various states including Saudi Arabia. The political/charitable arm of Hamas was officially registered and recognized within Israel at this time: indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas’ early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement. Hamas abstained from politics throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, concentrating on social issues such as exposing corruption, administration of waqf (trusts) and organizing community projects. Towards the mid-80s, however, the movement was taken over by an armed faction led by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.”
Do a search on the Al-Jazeera site.
A real good article written by a Christian Arab who is a journalist in the US with family in South America (NOT a Muslim NOT pro Hezbollah or pro Hamas) check out
http://www.counterpunch.org-Ray Hanania: Sharon and Hamas
Even Jewish authors cite Jewish acts of terrorism.
the book The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians by Moshe Lieberman, he recounts some of the secret and not-so-secret Israeli incursions and clandestine activity. Here is a short list of them:
On July 2, 1946, 33-year old Menachem Begin organized the bombing of the King David Hotel in which 91 people died. The purpose of the attack was to convince the British to leave Palestine so that Israel could take over.
On April 9, 1948, Begin, with the Irgun assassination gang, led a massacre of 260 Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.
On Sept 17, 1948, 33 year old Yitzhak Shamir and his Stern Torpedo gang assassinated Swedish peace mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte.
On October 14, 1953, 25-year old Ariel Sharon ordered an attack on the Palestinian settlement, Qibya, destroying 42 homes and 60 civilians.
On July 14, 1954, the Israeli Army intelligence squad known then by the name of Modin, under Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, firebombed a civilian post office in Egypt.
In 1956, the Israeli army under David Ben-Gurion attacked the settlement Kafr Qasim and committed 47 cold-blooded murders.
In 1966, the same army under prime minister Levi Eshkol attacked the settlement village of Sammu and killed 18 people and wounded 100.
In 1967, just prior to the six-day war, the Israeli air force under Levi Eshkol, made an unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty killing 34 soldiers and wounding 170, destroying the ship’s radio towers and lifeboats in hopes that there would be no survivors.
In 1969, the same army bombed a civilian school building named Bahdr al Baker killing 75 and wounding 100 innocent children.
In March 1970, under Golda Meir, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon killing scores of innocent civilians.
On Sept. 8, 1972, the same army arbitrarily decided to bomb Syrian and Lebanese civilians killing hundreds of innocent people.
In 1974, the same army under Yitzhak Rabin attacked civilian aircraft and desecrated Christian shrines including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and stole the diamond crown of the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
From 1975 to 1980, the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, conducted a bloody campaign of murder against Palestinian scientists, journalists and other important people.
In October 1982, the same Mossad bombed the houses, offices and cars of three legitimately elected mayors of the West Bank cities, Nablus, Ramallah and Al Beireh.
In February 1989 Yitzhak Shamir bombed the Beka Valley killing 15 children and an unspecified number of their parents.
On April 14, 1989, the Israeli police and armed Jewish settlers attacked a disarmed Palestinian village, Nahalin, killing 8 and wounding 50.
Through March 6-16, 2002, the Israeli army killed over 200 Palestinians.
Not government sanctioned but does anyone remember BARUCH GOLDSTEIN (a descendant of Zalman the Hassidic Lubavicther lineage)
There are two sides to EVERY STORY including the ones above in the book by a Jewish author BUT that is the point that it is not as simple as Hippolito and others suggest.
The Israeli Military historian recognizes, as necessary but as a fact not known as well in the US, that almost 1 MILLION refugees were FORCED out of their homes many who had been in that land for MILLENIUMS. This to make way for the new Jewish state. NO COMPENSATION. HOMES CONFISCATED. FORCED MIGRATION.
I would invite Joseph Hippolito to go to Israel or Palestine, and/or to talk to Arab Christians in churches in the US, and YES they will criticize radical Islam, but pre 48 they coexisted at least those in the Holyland.
Israel helped create the radical Islamic element in the Palestinian people so Christians would not be used in International political pressure and so bought neocon authors can confuse their fellow Catholics like Hippolito. Israel does not want a separate lobby asking for CHRISTIAN sympathy, the Evangelicals already are so pro-Israel they have no rationale discussion BUT it is hard to deny that LEBANESE CHRISTIANS (who on the whole are not pro-Palestinian and are part of Christian parties and not Hezbollah) are unnecessarily suffering. Israel wants to demonize the Palestinian people as radical Muslims even though in decades past the PLO leadership and the people were educated, diverse, communist influenced (which is bad but not Hamas), Christian influenced, secular, urban, modern, and pro-Western. It has changed for the worst. Israel planted seeds and now we are all paying.
Horowitz is anti-catholic:
“The Vatican, which has an unsavory record in regard to the periodic slaughters of the Jews has thrown its moral weight (such as it is these days) onto the scales against the Jews.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665951/posts
So much for neocons, right.
Dang, I’m pro-Israel, but they are bombing and killing civilians, and I won’t stand for that. I wouldn’t stand for Catholics doing that, either. It’s wrong.
So Joe Hippolito works for an anti-Catholic. figures.
Here is what Democratic classic liberal President thought about Jews:
“The Jews have no sense of proportion, nor do they have any judgment on world affairs. The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as Displaced Persons, as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power – physical, financial or political – neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” (President Harry S. Truman, unpublished diary entry of July 21, 1947, Washington Post, July 11, 2003, cited by Michael A. Hoffman II).
Larry Pratt, one of the Buchanan campaign’s co-chairmen, had spoken “at meetings organized by white supremacists and militia groups, among them the Aryan Nation.”
This is propaganda that should not even be dignified by repeating it. Larry Pratt is the president of Gun Owners of America, a political action group advocating gun owners’ rights in Washington. The fact some white supremacists might have shown up to a gun rights rally does not mean that he personally holds those particular views. You should be reminded that detraction and calumny are serious sins.
To Bill: Proportional would be to identify the Hamas leadership, where EXACTLY the weapons are (they share our satellite intel, they have intel on the ground etc) and surgically take out Hezbollah. The strategy by their admission is to force Lebanon to better police their border, even though they are a small nation with problems forced upon them by Syria, Israel, and the Palestinian refugees. There was an Israeli proposal (mythically perhaps called the Kissinger plan) to make Lebanon the Palestinian state.
The Hippolito links blame the Christians and are not a very exact explanation of what is going on and the Mary Hungarian links are not either.
Bill seems confused on the Just War doctrine and proportionality. Helping define what it is is helpful to define what it is not because it provides upper limits and parameters.
Again, what it might be is to targer the Hezbollah leadership, to negotiate with Lebanon with economic sanctions (Lebanese are motivated by money)to tame or get rid of Hezbollah, or to strategically target the weapons with missle strikes. What seems completely unacceptable is to attack Lebanon as a whole and not just Hezbollah. What seems disproportional is to kill civilians and create a huge crisis that is bringing more problems and death for Israelis.
This is hurting the US worldwide and reinforces the image that the US is controlled by Israel at least considering foreign policy. The earlier post by the Bishops conference could be helpful to Bill to define what proportionality is. Certainly it is a principle and needs to be applied and it is prudential. BUT what it is not is important also. I would suggest Bill to read Aquinas to find out more about Catholic doctrine on just war and the Catechism and about civilian causalities. Bill seems confused but it is rather simple in this case.
Mary, the pirates analogy is interesting. Kill the pirates. Destroy the pirate ship.
BUT DON’T BOMB A SEPARATE COUNTRY WHERE SOME OF THE PIRATES LIVE.
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped = 400 Lebanese lives?
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped = 10,000 Lebanese wounded?
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped = 500,000 displaced people
2 Israeli soldiers kidnapped = Billions in actual infrastructure and economic damage
If the Israeli bombing affects the airports, water supply and the actual regular Lebanese Army how can they get Hezbollah under control????
This is creating a crisis in the government and could create the factionalism and chaos that once existed in Lebanon. The Lebanese have come a long way to have relative peace and stability.
The suicidal radical Muslims are loving this and they are killing more and it is becoming a spiral.
For the facts regarding Zionism listen to Benjamin Freedman, a Jew and former Zionist, speaking in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington DC.
Being a 45 year old recording, the sound quality isn’t great,but it is well worth listening to.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html
“Proportional would be to identify the Hamas leadership, where EXACTLY the weapons are (they share our satellite intel, they have intel on the ground etc) and surgically take out Hezbollah.”
How can one expect Israel to do this when the terrorists of Hizbollah dress like civilians and hide among civilians? And if the IDF does go into Lebanon and starts “surgically taking out Hezbollah” they will be criticized for invading. And when a Hizbollah terrorist dressed like a civilian is pulled out from an apartment building housing true civilians, expect the media and assorted Israel-haters to claim that Israel is attacking civilians! Isarel can’t win!
What is proportionality in war? Mary and Bill have been making good points. Here is my view. Kill all terrorists before they have a chance to kill another TARGETED civilian. If the proportion is 1075 dead terrorists to 2 dead Israeli soldiers, that sounds good to me.
The above posted by me.
So, Israel should just nuke southern Beruit and carpet bomb southern Lebanon in hopes of wiping out Hezbollah? Is that justified?
No Michael, obviously not. Israel is telling civilians to leave. They have been warned. The Lebanese are fully aware that Hizbollah has been hiding among the civilians in the south when they should have withdrawn years ago. Apparently only Israel kept its promise to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
But Michael, if you can think of a better way for Israel to defeat Hizbollah than I am all ears. Warning the civilians to leave and targeting Hizbollah terrorists and infrastructure seems like a reasonable approach to me.
It has been easy to conclude from reading this very long list of postings that there are many who would be happy to see Israel defeated. Once again, think of the consequences of that with regard to the Holy Land. Too much of that part of the world is NOT holy to the Muslims to leave it in their hands. Remember, Jesus was not crucified, was not buried in the tomb, and did not rise from the dead according to Islam. How important do you think the preservation of those sites would be to Hizbollah/Iran and Hamas?
“Bill seems confused.” That’s because Bill is not drinking the KoolAid.
It’s interesting that, instead of offering facts to refute my points, those who disagree criticize me for being a “neo-con” and for working for an “anti-Catholic neo-con” while displaying some of the most immature interpretations of “conspiracy” theories, along with offering some ignorant rhetoric by a former president that’s supposed to show how “dangerous” the Jews really are.
No wonder some of you buy Buchanan’s bilge.
As far as Israel “creating” Hamas is concerned, how credible a source is al-Jazeera, anyway? How credible a source is wikipedia, especially considering that it can be edited online by virtually anyone?
As far as past Israeli terrorist actions are concerned, why don’t you go to those who lost family and friends to Palestinian suicide bombers and talk to them about the past?
No Michael, obviously not.
Why is it obvious? We are only talking about a difference of degree. Once you accept the principle that it is okay to indiscriminately kill civilians who are unfortunate enough to be in the fire zone, why do numbers matter?
Apparently only Israel kept its promise to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
Actually the Syrian government kept its promise to withdraw as well. You might remember this happened relatively recently under international pressure spearheaded by the United States, leaving a brand new pro-Western regime in power. This was probably accomplished in anticipation of the current operation and upcoming invasion by Israel. The current Lebanese government was never given a chance.
To those of you who with to blame Israel for Lebanon’s problems, read the following from Fouad Ajami, a respected Arab commentator living in the U.S.:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008681
IMHO, I think that these posts are starting to go in circles.
America can only be free again when she stops being controlled by Israel.
Anyone who wants to learn the truth about Zionism, visit:
http://www.iamthewitness.com
“America can only be free again when she stops being controlled by Israel.”
Mary C, Please do not play with anything sharp.
Bill912: I’ve noticed that snide one liners are your stock in trade. They enable you to avoid adressing the subject.
Do you really believe the Israelis are you allies?
They are using you, for heaven’s sake. Good grief! They sank the USS Liberty and blamed it on the Egyptians in order to provoke The US to declare war on Egypt. WAKE UP!
Addrressing the subject? Conspiracy theories? You’re right; I don’t address conspiracy theories. I leave conspiracy theorists to their own version of reality.
To DanE:
Israel is killing civilians too. That is not justified. Period.
It is not 1000 terrorists to 2 Israeli soldiers.
Again, is this war or fighting terrorism?
Bill and Mary do not have good points, others have posted long detailed posts to cites that can be verified appeals to AQUINAS and NATURAL LAW and explanations of JUST WAR and PROPORTIONALITY as defined by the US Bishops conference. Bill and Mary respond with one liners.
I am opposed to radical Islam, if I lived back than I would of been with Charles Martel at Tours, with Don Juan of Austria at Lepanto, with the Croatian mercenaries at Vienna, and with the last of the Palogeous line at Constantinople.
I think the invasion of Afghanistan is completely justified. I also support Israel, planted a tree there, and have visited there.
BUT DAN, in terms of Islam not honoring Christian Holy sites, both theoretically and historically Islam has done a better job than Judaism.
READ THE BABYLONIAN JEWISH TALMUD, read it from the Jews, not an anti-semite crackpot website:
They believe Jesus was (as taught in the Talmud)
a) sorceror b) idolator c) blashpemer d) sexual deviant e) bastard.
Mary was a a) whore b) whore to a carpenter and other awful things.
That is how the Talmud officially describes Jesus and Mary.
Just go on Israeli religous websites to see how they want to get rid of Christians, and Christmas cannot be celebrated because it is idolatory not even as a separate religion because it inherently is idolatrous in violation of the Noachide laws.
Muslims have guarded the Holy Sepluchre for a millenium. There was coexistence until relatively recently post the Crusades.
Joe Hippo,
You write for DAVID HOROWITZ, some consider him anti-Catholic, he certainly could be considered controversial just as Pat Buchanan is. Horowitz is not favorable to Catholicism certainly and has not come down on the family values set side on internet porn in libraries or protections on Cable (a side issue) because of his libetarian leanings.
David Horowitz is CERTAINLY a so called NEO-CONSERVATIVE. He certainly is Jewish. He certainly is ZIONIST and a no retreat, no surrender, Israel first—just look at the website you work for. You are a contributor on the website, you write articles.
I do think it is funny you cite your own articles as if they are independent or something different. I don’t know if you get paid, I am sure you believe in what you believe in, but merely reveal and to the buyer beware.
You are wrong about Israel not creating Hamas, even if you criticize the sources. You may not be wrong as you do not deny that Israel has created Hamas and other Islamic extremist organizations you merely question the sources. There are many Jewish, Israeli and scholarly sources on the topic also.
In terms of Wikipedia, you are right anyone can edit, but there is nothing to the contrary and many pro-Israeli people also edit on Wikipedia.
Also Wikipedia has links to the other sources or cites, so you can read and see where the sources are and there are many. Al-Jazeera may not be objective and pro-Arab but it does not deny that at least occasionaly they report the truth and if they are bad than it hardly seems likely that if they are pro-Hamas that they would criticize it as not being secular and pro-Christian enough and claim it was a creation of Israel.
Hippo, but also Bill and Mary READ and research
(Bill and less so Mary are so ridiculously unintelligent (at least as derived from their writing) and have so little knowledge, analysis, information, and discernment about this situation)the creation of Hamas (and others)
VERY SIMPLY, Israel wanted to create a CULTURE WAR so the West (Christian) would not side with the Arab/Islamic world. Specifically, Israel did not want a secular and urban and educated Palestinian in Israel or expatriate to motivate anyone beyond the narrower Muslim world especially not Christians. Yasser Arafat (of which I view him as a corrupt man who accomplished little) was not a fundamentalist, was favorable to Christians, did not like Hamas nor Hezbollah, and was genuinely popular and the leader of Palestine. Israel was afraid of his popularity and sought to undermine him. This is well documented. Read also as a primer the old but very good FROM BEIRUT TO JERUSALEM by Thomas Freidman from the NYT (again Jewish, pro-Israel etc. not a NRA white Aryan nation stereotype you like to make people out to be)
ISRAEL FUNDED AND CREATED HAMAS—this is now kicking them and the whole world in the ass.
Just like Israel used to play games with Iraq and Iran as did we in supporting Saddam, and we supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets and we planted seeds for future problems.
Read the book by EDWARD SAID (who is a Christian by culture, agnostic and secularist and Palestinian) in his book COVERING ISLAM (among others) Orientalism is also good
his thesis is that with the rise of ZIONISIM you saw a rise of RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM
and the Islam of the Sunni moderate majority cultivated by the pre-1948 WASPy State Department (Read the ARABISTS by Kaplan) (American University of Beirut, Univeritys in Syria–Protestant US backed) and pan Arabist secular (socialist influenced) political parties like the BAATH parties in Iraq and Syria (created by Christians) or Naser in Egypt.
There is no nuance to the writing of Mary, Bill or Hippo. There is little sympathy for innocent civilians or Christians, and the priority is for Israelis including combatants. To realize that (the brutal) Hafez al Assad (late) and his son the “new” “Prez” Bashire al Assad are Alowites who are a heterdox Islamic sect with secret rituals who honor Jesus and Mary higher than Mohammad, do not reveal the tenents of their faith to outsiders, believe in reincarnation, and have historical and philosophical roots that are pre-Islamic in gnostic and Babylonian religion and thought. Sen Charles Percy of Illinois was close to Syria. Syria has a larger Christian population and more tolerance than most Middle Eastern nations including Israel in terms of economic advancement in society.
Just to realize that they are not fundamentalists, they (Hafez al Assad) killed 30,000 people IN ONE DAY in the city of HAMA because they were ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS opposed to his regime, the type of people (except they were Sunni) who would support Hezbollah (Shia) or Hamas or al-Queda (potentially) so Assad and the Alowites are a buffer against Islamic fundamentalism.
Similarly, Saddam Hussein was a secularist, certainly used Islamic rhetoric and symbols, but was never known as a devout or sincere man in religion, his party was founded by Christians, he was good to the Chaldean Catholics (much better than the surrounding countries), allowed women to drive and vote (vote for whatever it was worth, had jazz clubs and certainly did not have Mootawah (spelled phonetically) sex police and the like as Saudi or the others. Saddam was at war with the Shia who had ties with Iran, think the current borders were Western artificial creations by the British (they were) and wanted a unity spiritually and politically with Iran (you want to talk about disrupting the oil supply!!) That is why we supported Iraq with weapons and money–if you search the internet enough you can find some nice photos of Bush I with Saddam and complimenting him and Saddam and Don Rumsfield.
Hippolito is a neocon. Just look at the Horowitz website. Hippolito is very critical of almost all the Christian (Greek Orthodox and Catholic) clerics and certainly the leadership in Israel/Palestine but than says that it is only Hamas (Israel has encouraged Muslims fighting Christians to dry up International and specifically Christian support-and it has been working look at the ignorance of Bill and Mary, Hippo is on the payroll and perhaps there is something darker in his anti-Arab and anti-Christian psyche)
The situation in Lebanon is just so obviously bad. To justify Israeli behavior by saying they tell you before they are going to kill you is absurd. There will be 1000 dead CIVILIANS by this weekend. 10,000 at least wounded civilians WOUNDED. 1 million displaced persons. 1/3 children. There is NOTHING right, fair, or proportional about this. Hezbollah is evil but so is Israel. This is a moral and humanitarian crisis.
Bill912,
I have always appreciated your concise style.
Hope all is well!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Bill should read and write with some information and logic before posting.
Bill also should stop hurting Christians and making excuses for grave sin.
Bill
Innocencio is very good
some past criticisms of Hippo though
Israel appreciates you defending them
The Lebanese and Arab Christians who are in Heaven and purgatory because of being killed by radical Islamicists who Israel helped create or Israel pray for Bill
Inocencio, life is good here. Hope all is well with you. Going to strum my guitar and enjoy a beer now.
Not A Pat Fan and Anonymous: I hope you enjoy the KoolAid.
Kool Aid is better than the blood of innocent Christians on the neo-con altar of oil and Zionism
and I served in Desert Storm
you can strum on a guitar and have a beer
but many many people are suffering
from people who promote policies like you
we (the US) can stop this ridiculous barbarism in Lebanon
and we should of against Muslim thugs in Sudan
DanF – (nice name!)
“Israel is killing civilians too. That is not justified. Period.
It is not 1000 terrorists to 2 Israeli soldiers.
Again, is this war or fighting terrorism?”
Israel is killing civilians, granted. The US killed thousands of civilians in many wars. Civilians die in war. That’s a given. It’s very tragic. But the difference in this current conflict is clear. Hizbollah is targeting civilians; Israel is not. Hizbollah is hiding behind and among civilians; Israel is not.
Once again, I am not a fan of Judaism. I have not read, but I am aware of the anti-Christian passages in the Talmud. But I would much rather have a “radical” Jewish neighbor than a radical Muslim.
“In terms of Islam not honoring Christian Holy sites, both theoretically and historically Islam has done a better job than Judaism.”
I’m sorry, but you will not convince many people that the Muslims of TODAY’S Mid-East will do a better job at preserving Christianity’s holy sites than would Israel. We are not talking of the Muslims of 100 years ago. I’m sure you recognize the difference between your “historic Islam” which gave the world great scientific and cultural contributions, and the Muslim states of today, which really don’t have much to offer but oil, oppression, heresy and terror.
“…many people are suffering from people who promote policies like you.”
I know this is silly, but, heck, I’ve done silly things before. Here goes: What policies have I promoted?
Bill please get off the board again and come in and go to bed.
Bill you are embarassing yourself, stop posting, please for your own dignity.
Bill besides some self help reading please read some Aquinas maybe distilled like those IDIOTS books I do not know if there is an IDIOTS GUIDE TO AQUINAS, Adler (Mortimer) has an ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYONE which is good.
Before Bill posts again make sure he learns some
a) Logic b) Just War doctrine c) Proportionality and d) History of the Middle East. That is enough for now, more reading and less posting meaningless one liners.
….
Where did all these strange yelling people come from? And why are they only counting the soldiers that were killed recently, rather than the folks killed by the terrorists– who, by the way, are civies and were directly targeted?
Is it only evil if Israel accidently kills civies– who may or may not have been terrorists, since we can’t exactly look at their uniforms to find out– but not an issue for other folks to target civilians, announce they’re at war with the nation and then attack their military?
Oh. Maybe there are fewer than I thought. The posting style on a lot of the no-email ones is similar.
Why do I feel that I’ve just fed the trolls?
Bill: it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact; I’ve heard Lieutenant-Commander James Ennis, who was an officer on the USS Liberty, speak about what occurred.
It is so easy to dismiss as conspiracy theory that which one finds too disturbing to face.
Going to strum my guitar and enjoy a beer now.
Visions of Nero while Lebanon burns.
Sailorette,
You are making too much good sense. Get ready for A LOT of ranting and raving and senseless rhetoric from those who hate Israel and would like to see it demolished. Good luck!
Bill- Looks like you struck a nerve. Actually, many nerves a long time ago! Keep it up! Some how, those who would yell at you about learning Aquinas and the Just War theory would only apply those to Isarel and never mention how Hizbollah and Hamas couldn’t give a damn about any Just War theory, or what some ancient Catholic priest named Aquinas had to say.
There is no nuance to the writing of Mary, Bill or Hippo.
If you believed this, it would a noticable unnuanced view of nuance.
As you are complaining about the introduction of such nuances as whether civilians are directly targeted, and the distinction between the harm that has already been done and the harm — to innocent civilians, no less — that their attacks are trying to prevent, I must point out that even if you think nuance is an unqualified good (however contradictory that position is), nevertheless you are not entitled to call anything you think good nuance.
Thanks, Dan, but I’m done. I was trying to evoke a response from some of the posters to allow others a good look at their reasoning.
Please note that I am not referring to any of the posters of whom I asked serious questions in a respectful (I hope) manner. My intent with you was to understand your position and learn from it.
NOBODY on here is defending Hezbollah, Hamas, radical Islam, terrorism or targetting civilians.
I and others are against Hezbollah, Hamas, et. al./etc. That is a staw man argument.
What has NEVER been addressed here is that:
1. Israel helped nurture and create HAMAS in particular and more radical strains and organizations in Islam generally all the explanation is above. ISRAEL CREATED HAMAS.
Nobody has addressed this fact, Hippolito only wants to attack some of the sources.
2. I condemn (as does the Vatican) attacks by Hezbollah (or anyone else Al-Aqsa Martyers brigade, Hamas etc) on Israeli civilians. Blowing up people in civilian buses and pizza parlors is BAD. It is wrong.
It is wrong on both sides. Many more Palestinians have dies in this conflict than Israelis. The cycle of violence has not helped Israel.
3. Do I think that Hezbollah reads Aristotle, Averoees, Avicenna, Aquinas etc. NO I DON’T.
Israel clearly does not either. But Israel has more firepower, and we financially support them.
Again, there is no doubt that Hezbollah and Hamas have killed civilians but when you count it all up even over time, it does not add up and it is counting in Lebanon and it is increasing and it is bad and it is children and it is civilians and it is not getting the right people and it is not stopping violence against Israel (it is increasing it) and it is getting the world to hate Israel (no not all the world does, we and many others have supported Israel from the begginging)
4. Horowitz and others turn this into a culture war (and there is truth to some of that) but practically to say there is nothing good in Islam/Arab world and there is no negotiating or surrender does not work. That does not mean capitulation. I think we should condemn radical Islam for killing Christians and animists in Sudan, lack of tolerance in Saudi and Kuwait, more occasional killings in Pakistan. It is a problem. Israel is smarter and not as bad as Sudan but it is bad and should be condemned.
The bottom line for right now is that Israel needs to stop bombing and invading Lebanon as it is not targetted to Hezbollah, it is disproporionate, it is not stopping terrorism, and most importantly it is killing innocent life.
Bill has never had the intent to learn from other posters. He insults them. Dismisses them. He puts up one liners without cite or logical support. This thread is very interesting and has a lot of different opinions.
Mary, there are two I know, but I think the last Mary makes a distinction between
Hezbollah intentionally killing civilians
and Israel only responding and not intentionally killing civilians but only killing civilians as collateral damage of trying to kill terrorists.
1. I am not sure that is true. The IDF has top notch technology (that we pay for) and can be much more surgical. Just as the bombing of the US ship to try to blame the Egyptians, or Reagen needing to threaten to bomb the Israeli armed forces to back them off in Lebanon before, the Israeli state lies, hurts us, and kills civilians to create crisis and to try to force others to act on third parties.
2. Civilians are being killed directly not as collateral damage.
3. The civilians and children that are being killed as part of collateral damage could of been easily ascertained and possibly avoidable.
4. The Katuysha rockets and terrorism is increasing and will increase. Study the numbers of Palestinian on Israeli terrorist acts up until 2000. After Sharon went to the Temple Mount the number of terrorist incidents skyrocketted. The Muslim terrorists are wrong, but look as Rice said the root causes and the pure numbers, the mathematics, the statistics and when they happened.
5. There are a half a million displaced people FOR WHAT, so Israel can feel safe–to what cost?
So those half a million can hate Israel and some of those 1/3 of a half million who are children can grow up to be terrorists because they lost their homes and possibly families and now have resentment. HALF A MILLION. Remember this is many decades after Israel FORCED OUT 1 MILLION Palestinians from their homes that they had for generations and generations without compensation for Jews from Brooklyn to Lithuania. The moral guiding force in Israel is only what is good for Israel, only what is good for Jews, to hell with anyone else.
6. Christians should help all people, especially those who suffer, but we should also help Christians. Christians are being persecuted worldwide by communists in China, and many many Muslim regions, but also Israel and also Israeli policies that have increased Islamic fundamentalism and specifically created Hamas.
7. I think it should be repeated again, and again and again, and is factual and provable, from Israeli academic and news sources, and no one has even disproven it here besides Hippolito trying to criticize Wikipedia–ISRAEL CREATE HAMAS.
Israel has had policies of dividing Christian and Muslim Arabs and of creating Islamic fundamentalism to create a culture war and for political purposes. The Israeli goals are not for the benefit of the US and certainly not Christians.
Christians are unnecessarily being hurt in Lebanon, the root is not Hezbollah in this case, the root is the bombing of Lebanon by Israel. PERIOD. There are other issues that should be addressed including the legitimate security of Israel and the terrorist nature of Hezbollah but they will not be addressed by killing innocent Christians.
Read Lou Cannons biography on REAGAN and learn about Israel in Lebanon and how they treated us.
Does anyone remember or even know about the USS Liberty, think about it, and why it is NEVER discussed, Israeli UNPROKED attacked a US ship, and tried to kill EVERYONE on board to make it look like the evil Arabs did it. Think about the philosophy and the mentality. That is our ally??
2 books on the Mossad imply that the Israelis knew about the suicide bombing on the Marines in 82 and allowed it so we would turn on our policy.
Terrorism did not start with nor is the exclusive domain of Muslims nor Palestinians. 1 million people got pushed out of their homes, do you understand why there might be resentment?
On July 2, 1946, 33-year old Menachem Begin organized the bombing of the King David Hotel in which 91 people died. The purpose of the attack was to convince the British to leave Palestine so that Israel could take over.
On April 9, 1948, Begin, with the Irgun assassination gang, led a massacre of 260 Arab civilians at Deir Yassin.
On Sept 17, 1948, 33 year old Yitzhak Shamir and his Stern Torpedo gang assassinated Swedish peace mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte.
On October 14, 1953, 25-year old Ariel Sharon ordered an attack on the Palestinian settlement, Qibya, destroying 42 homes and 60 civilians.
On July 14, 1954, the Israeli Army intelligence squad known then by the name of Modin, under Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, firebombed a civilian post office in Egypt.
In 1956, the Israeli army under David Ben-Gurion attacked the settlement Kafr Qasim and committed 47 cold-blooded murders.
In 1966, the same army under prime minister Levi Eshkol attacked the settlement village of Sammu and killed 18 people and wounded 100.
In 1967, just prior to the six-day war, the Israeli air force under Levi Eshkol, made an unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty killing 34 soldiers and wounding 170, destroying the ship’s radio towers and lifeboats in hopes that there would be no survivors.
In 1969, the same army bombed a civilian school building named Bahdr al Baker killing 75 and wounding 100 innocent children.
In March 1970, under Golda Meir, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon killing scores of innocent civilians.
On Sept. 8, 1972, the same army arbitrarily decided to bomb Syrian and Lebanese civilians killing hundreds of innocent people.
In 1974, the same army under Yitzhak Rabin attacked civilian aircraft and desecrated Christian shrines including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and stole the diamond crown of the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
From 1975 to 1980, the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, conducted a bloody campaign of murder against Palestinian scientists, journalists and other important people. Even some of those involved in the Munich revenge attacks (justified) which violated international law and they were assasinations in other countries worried about if they got the right people, killed children and an Algerian waiter mistaken for someone else.
In October 1982, the same Mossad bombed the houses, offices and cars of three legitimately elected mayors of the West Bank cities, Nablus, Ramallah and Al Beireh.
In February 1989 Yitzhak Shamir bombed the Beka Valley killing 15 children and an unspecified number of their parents.
On April 14, 1989, the Israeli police and armed Jewish settlers attacked a disarmed Palestinian village, Nahalin, killing 8 and wounding 50.
Through March 6-16, 2002, the Israeli army killed over 200 Palestinians.
Not government sanctioned but does anyone remember BARUCH GOLDSTEIN (a descendant of Zalman the Hassidic Lubavicther lineage)
There are two sides to EVERY STORY including the ones above in the book by a Jewish author BUT that is the point that it is not as simple as Hippolito and others suggest.
People, please remember rule #3.
People keep throwing out this statement that ISRAEL CREATED HAMAS. Even if this were true, so what? Is your logic that since Israel created Hamas, it is ok for Hamas to kill Israeli citizens? Or that we should blame Israel for every Hamas terrorist attack? Would you blame the father for the sins of the son?
These attempts at moral equivalency, the “two sides to every story” meme, are pernicious and wrong.
Sorry to bring in Hitler, but there are those who try to justify his actions by saying that war reparations after WWI were too harsh and that Hitler was just trying to even the playing field the only way he knew how.
Similarly, trade sanctions against Japan are sometimes blamed for the Japanese aggression in that war.
Did these factors contribute to the conflict? Probably. Does that mean that the Axis Powers and the Allies were morally equivalent? No. Does the bombing of Dresden make Churchill equal to Hitler? No.
I know that Israel is not squeaky clean either, but I simply DO NOT BELIEVE those who say that Israel’s aim is to establish a “greater Israel” or to expand in an imperialistic way in the region.
If the Islamists (who’s goal, without a doubt, is to wipe Israel off the map) wanted peace, they could have it. If the Katyusha rockets and the suicide bombings would stop, Israeli incursions would stop also.
OF COURSE there is dirt on both sides, but I know which dog I support in this fight.
I don’t have to support either dog.
I support the children who are dying and the Christians being persecuted by Israel and the Muslims.
It is not a question of blaming the sons for the sins of the father (although that is Jewish law: G-D speaks and says “(I) am a jealous G-D visiting upon the iniquities of your fathers of the 3rd and 4th Generation” (The Essential Tetragramatton) (the law of Ezekiel)
BUT you are missing the point…..
Israel creating Hamas does not justify their killing people and doing terrorism, it points to, as Condi Rice says the ROOT CAUSE
so again don’t blame Lebanon or the Christian Palestinians for Hamas (or Hezbollah) when the Israelis should blame themselves and their policies.
I support Israel, the right to exist, and a recognition of the INTERNATIONAL danger of a virulent strain of Islamic fundamentalism.
To fight terrorism by destroying Lebanon, in an attempt to root out Hezbollah will increase the cycle of violence (I make this prediction now and up to know the deaths on both sides have INCREASED just as they did after the Temple Mount incident with our friend Ariel who has butchered people more than once including personally)
Who is going to protect or defend the Maronites, Melkites, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrians, Armenians etc in Lebanon who are not the dogs in this fight?
Read the papers today, Israel just killed more civilians and injured 150 who were in a bunker, all non combatants, no weapons found
and they can’t get anyone out of the rubble
because Israel is firing on the Red Cross
and won’t let ambulances in or out
so not only has Israel killed civilians but it won’t let them get saved or get medical care
including children
I think Hezbollah is BAD
I think Hezbollah should not be shooting rockets nor kidnapping soldiers
I hope the Israel government can surgically kill the leadership but carpet bombing the South, invading, not allowing ambulances, and creating a huge humanitarian crisis (130,000 Lebanese are going to Syria)
There is no sympathy here, or plan for Middle Eastern Christians.
Only that Israel is justified in responding so strongly. How bad Muslims are. How great Israel is. How there is no alternative. How civilian killings in Lebanon are justified because they are not intentional and necessary to root out terror.
The other item that can be learned, (to Dan particularly) about Israeli funding of Hamas and to encourage Islamicism (at the expense of communists, and Christian pan Arab nationalists) is that it created more terror and more problems.
By destablizing Lebanon it will create more terror and more instability not less. It is causing a bigger problem, this may be opinion and subjective but it is objective in terms of number of dead and correlation even if you disagree with causality. The correlation is when Israel has acted tougher the acts of terrorism increased in an Old Testament eye for an eye cycle of destruction.
Christians should stick together just like Jews and Muslims and unlike the inherent violence in the Koran or the unequal view of human life and anti-gentile racism of the Talmud, our sticking together should be guided by the Gospel and the teachings of the Church guided by ancients such as Aristotle and doctors such as Aquinas
JUST WAR
PROPORTIONALITY
JUSTICE TEMPERED WITH MERCY
HUMAN LIFE IS PARAMOUNT
ESPECIALLY INNOCENT LIFE AND CHILDREN
I just spoke this morning to a friend of mine of Lebanese descent. He has an aunt that lives in a Maronite Catholic village about 8 miles from the Israeli border. She is unable to flee because all the roads have been bombed out. She is forced to wait for her fate in her little town.
“because Israel is firing on the Red Cross
and won’t let ambulances in or out”
Source please.
These so-called ‘Jews’ are in no way descended from the Hebrew people of the Bible. They are the descendants of an Asiatic tribe called Khazars who occupied territory between the Black and Casparian Seas in the Russian Steppes.
Their king, or kagan, converted to Judaism in the 8th Century AD so the people converted also.
They adopted Talmudic, not Torah, Judaism with all that that implies.
They have stolen the land of Palestine and driven the Palestinian people from the land they had occupied for thousands of years, and have no right to be there.
These people are not even Semitic, though the Arabs are. It is therefore ironic that Zionist’s should tar their critics with the brush of anti-semitism, when they are the most anti-semitic people on the planet.
To Not A Pat Fan,
1. Read the book by EDWARD SAID (who is a Christian by culture, agnostic and secularist and Palestinian) in his book COVERING ISLAM (among others) Orientalism is also good
his thesis is that with the rise of ZIONISIM you saw a rise of RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM
Edward Said supported Arafat. The fact that he was Christian by culture is irreelvant. Many of the member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (another terrorist group)were Christian “by culture” who became Marxists.
For that matter, how relevant is it that anybody is Christian “by culture.” Hitler and Stalin were Christian “by culture.”
2. Those who think that either I or Horowitz are “anti-Catholic neo-cons” should read the following, an article about how the future Pope John XXIII, when he was a papal diplomat in Turkey, used his position to save thousands of European Jews:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14732
3. Hippolito is very critical of almost all the Christian (Greek Orthodox and Catholic) clerics and certainly the leadership in Israel/Palestine but than says that it is only Hamas…
I am critical of the Greek Orthodox and Catholic “leadership” in the Middle East because it is effectively in the hip pocket of Arab interests. Hell, these “leaders” can’t even help their own people who are being persecuted by Muslims, so what good are they?
I suggest you study a concept called “dhimmitude,” which is the submission of all non-Muslims (Christians and Jews) to the will of Muslim authorities. It’s something that these “leaders” practice far more frequently than their faith.
4. Saddam Hussein … was good to the Chaldean Catholics (much better than the surrounding countries), allowed women to drive and vote (vote for whatever it was worth, had jazz clubs and certainly did not have Mootawah (spelled phonetically) sex police and the like as Saudi or the others.
Why don’t you ask the Iraqi women who were raped at will by Saddam’s sons how “good” Saddam was? Why don’t you ask the relatives of those he had put into shredders how “good” Saddam was? Why don’t you ask the relatives of those he tortured how “good” Saddam was?
And you portray yourself as a devout Christian?
The British remember:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=22HZFYQ5O0AOZQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/07/22/wbomb22.xml
TODAY Chicago Tribune
you can find it at
http://www.chicagotribune.com
Israeli warplanes have since claimed roads, bridges and Beirut’s airport as legitimate targets because of their possible use by Hezbollah.
On Friday, Israeli missiles pounded targets along the main Beirut-Damascus highway and the ancient city of Baalbek as well as across southern Lebanon. Hezbollah militants lobbed rockets on the northern Israeli city of Haifa, wounding 19 people. A UN military post on the border was also hit by gunfire, but no one was injured.
In the southern city of Tyre, meanwhile, Lebanese soldiers buried 72 people killed in recent bombings in a mass grave just outside a barracks, The Associated Press reported. Volunteers put the bodies, many of them children, in wooden coffins and spray-painted the names of the dead on the lids.
In what appears to be the bloodiest single incident of the war so far, it was reported that 50 civilians died and 150 were injured in a strike Wednesday on a civil defense building in the village of Srifa where people had gathered for refuge from bombings.
Injured people are trapped in the rubble, but rescue teams have been unable to help, according to a Lebanese Red Cross spokesman. A Lebanese army convoy tried to reach the site Friday but was fired on and turned back, he said.
“This is the situation all over the south. There are bodies in the rubble, but the ambulances cannot move,” he said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-lebanon-israel,1,3785474.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
Chicago Tribune reports that
Red Crescent in Syria says migration of 200,000 refugees to Syria
UN says 700,00 displace person overall
mass graves being created
Dan Hippolito, will you at least criticize Israel for creating Hamas to destabilize the Edward Said types.
No one is saying that Edward Said was a true Christian in his heart and is heaven right now, God can determine that, what is obvious is that him being a Christian, even if born into and cultural–is that he is NOT a radical Muslim, he is not Muslim at all. His thesis and equation seems to be correct: the increase in Zionism has caused a subsequent increase in fundamentalist Islam
Read Orientalism
and Covering Islam
Hippolito does not even want to engage the Bishops of every rite and denomination who seem very clear that Israel is bad for them in the Holy Land and has a policy forcing their migration. Many of them have fought against radical Islam, a lot of radical Islam that has been created by Israel.
Dan F., if the Israelis really did create Hamas (as you claim) does that affect the fact that most Arab nations have wanted Israel destroyed since its inception (long before Hamas’ “creation”), and that Hezbollah (which was created by Khomeini’s Iran) wants the same thing?
Radical Islam was created by Israel?!?!? I guess you haven’t read the Koran because it contains the following verses:
The resurrection of the dead will not come until the Muslims will war with the Jews and the Muslims will kill them; … the trees and rocks will say, “O Muslim, O Abdullah, here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.
They [the Jews] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal.
In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends.
The most vehement of mankind in hostility [are] the Jews and the idolators.
Fight against such of those [Jews and Christians] … until they pay for the tribute readily, being brought low.
Allah fighteth against them [the Jews]. How perverse they are!
These verses were written centuries before Muslims had any substantial political power, let alone before Israel’s existance!
As far as Christian leaders in the Middle East are concerned, if they’re so effective in fighting radical Islam, then why do Palestinian Christians fear the PA more than Israel?
“As far as Christian leaders in the Middle East are concerned, if they’re so effective in fighting radical Islam, then why do Palestinian Christians fear the PA more than Israel?”
Joe the on the payroll neocon Hippo
Do you speak for these Palestinian Christians now?
Who said they are effective? They are victims
Yes, there are many bad things in the Koran
Have you ever read the Talmud???
Read it
Israel has been promoting the more extreme elements of Islam rather than the moderate Islamicists, or the Christian or secular or even communist Arabists and now it is kicking them in the ass, the secular Christians and communists were better than these nihilistic Muslim fundamentalists they have now
Israel was created/recognized in 1948, and yes many people do not and did not recognize him, although Harry Truman did in 48 and many other countries do to,yes some Arab nations don’t but part of the reason (which I do not agree with) is that Israel killed Swedish diplomats, killed Arab civilian non combatants, blew up British hotels (at the start before Khomeni and Hezbollah), and forced 900,000 Arab Palestinians Christian and Muslim, women and children, non combatants from their homes and their belongings without compensation (there was compensation in the former Yugoslavia) they became refugees from where they lived for centuries and centuries and in some case millenia–maybe that is the reason some people did not recognize them in the Arab world because they created a nation where other people used to live
I am glad to see that you admit that Israel helped create Hamas.
Did DanE (or is it F)see the cites from the Chicago Tribune (I think it is in other papers too AP?) that Israel is not allowing Red Cross and Red Crescent rescue workers and people are dying slow painful deaths in rubble because they are firing on ambulances?
The bottom line is this:
1. Lebanon and Hezbollah are not one in the same. Attacking Lebanon is too broad and is not an attack just on Hezbollah.
2. Lebanon is not encouraging Hezbollah, they are the most pro-Western, pro-US relatively peaceful capitalistic country in the region.
3. Many Lebanese Christians (particularly and especially the Maronites) do not even consider themselves Arab but Phoenicians and look down upon Arabs are mad at Palestinians for coming in their country (after they were forced out of Israel) and helped Israel during the occupation in Israeli funded Christian militias as well as (the Christians certainly also played both sides) but Michel Aoun as well as from time to time individual militias sided with Israel certainly against Palestinians (PLO) and Syria. Remember Sharon himself did not kill at Sabra and Shatilla but it was the Christian militias who killed the Palestinians. I spoke to one family over the phone today and they hate Hezbollah, right now they hate Israel more. You can blame Hezbollah all you want but the direct cause, even if there is a root cause for the direct cause, or you can say it is a reaction, but the direct cause is ISRAEL.
4. The rocket attacks have not stopped but are increasing. The bombings into Lebanon are creating more killings and a spiral into more violence.
5. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
a) Thousands of civilians are dying. They do not need to die and it can be stopped. This is not a war per se and the bombings are not necessary.
b) Tens of thousands are injured.
c) Billions of dollars of airports, water supply, roads, bridges, shelters are being destroyed unnecessarily that will need to be rebuilt.
d) 1 million refugees have been created. This is not proportionate nor surgical.
ALL of this suffering has been created by Israeli bombing.
Israel had and has many options against Hezbollah:
1. To target Hezbollah leaders for assanination which they do routinely with others.
2. Attack Syria or negotiate with Syria to reduce the source of the rockets.
3. Bomb more targetted areas, and not the actual airport, Lebanese regular Army–how are they supposed to regulate their area with a weakened military
Remember the bombings of the PLO created a weaker PLO which did not have a grip on the streets for violence and made them lose the election–something worse emerged
4. US can use leverage and negotiate in/with Syria, Lebanon, Iran
Bombing Lebanon violates International Law principles (although that is not my belief in International Law per se)and is not a good mechanism for rooting out Hezbollah, it certainly is like throwing out the baby with the bath water or killing an ant hill with an atom bomb
Israelis are suffering but so are Palestinians and so are Lebanese
so would Lebanon be justified in striking back by bombing Israel to stop the bombings on civilians?
It is an endless spiral and cycle
Both Islam and Judaism have a more eye for an eye and tribal and war formal theoretical theology and mentality
There is little room for justice and mercy, forgiveness and non temporal alternatives that hopefully at least theoretically Christianity provides
Pray for all people who suffer, Christian, Jews, Muslims, Druze, and anyone and everyone else
But I especially pray for my brother Christians who are uniquely innocent in this particular conflict and are being killed and pushed out of their homes in Lebanon
This is a terrible International Humanitarian and Moral Crisis created by Israel, Hezbollah may be the reason that Israel created it and it may be understandable but it is not justified
ISRAEL NEEDS TO STOP THE BRUTAL BOMBINGS ON INNOCENT CIVILIANS NOW
THIS CAN BE AVOIDED
Israel Attacks its Christian “Friends” in Lebanon
Kurt Nimmo | July 20, 2006
It should be obvious by now that the Israelis not only have it out for Nasrallah and Hezbollah but all Lebanese, including their “friends,” the Christian Maronite Lebanese.
“Israeli warplanes targeted for the first time a Christian area [the Ashrafiyah neighborhood] of eastern Beirut on Wednesday morning,” reports Adnkronos International.
“During the night the Israeli air and naval forces also targeted another prevalently Christian area, the southern suburb of Hadeth. The junction that takes to the closed Semaan tunnel was struck and a fire broke out in a shrine with a votive cross on top. The areas of Shweifat and Choueifat were targeted in the south-eastern suburbs,” adds Spero News.
“Lebanese believe that not a single inch of their country is beyond the whir of Israeli warplanes, the hiss of a falling bomb or the devastating explosion when one hits,” explains the Mercury News.
Meanwhile, the Brits are taking issue with the Israelis, not for bombing Lebanon per se but rather because “right-wing Israelis” are celebrating killing British.
“The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine,” reports the Times Online. “They have erected a plaque [in tribute to the terrorist group Irgun] outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack…. The controversy over the plaque and the two-day celebration of the bombing, sponsored by Irgun veterans and the right-wing Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, goes to the heart of the debate over the use of political violence in the Middle East. Yesterday Mr. Netanyahu argued in a speech celebrating the attack that the Irgun were governed by morals, unlike fighters from groups such as Hamas.”
In other words, terrorism is moral when it is unleashed by Zionists. Likewise, we are told ad nauseam by the pro-Israel corporate media, Israel’s mass murder campaign in Lebanon is moral because it is “self defense,” never mind that the babies and grandmothers slaughtered never lifted a hand against Israel. Obviously, it is a punishable offense to be born Arab. The fact one is a Christian does not serve as a hall pass.
While the Brits whine about “right-wing” (in a word, fascist) Israelis killing their colonial officers and celebrating it, few talk about the crimes perpetuated against the Lebanese.
In 1982, during “Operation Peace for Galilee” (as in the tombstone epitaph, rest in peace), Lebanon was not only a killing ground, it was also systematically looted. “Twenty thousand Palestinians and Lebanese died, 25,000 were wounded and 400,000 were made homeless during the first months of the 1982 Israeli invasion. The tonnages dropped on Beirut alone surpassed those of the atomic bomb which devastated Hiroshima. Schools and hospitals were particularly targeted,” writes Ralph Schoenman (The Hidden History of Zionism).
Virtually all rolling stock and heavy equipment from Lebanese factories were looted and taken to Israel. Even the lathes and smaller machine tools from the U.N.R.W.A. vocational training centers were pillaged.
The citrus and olive production of Lebanon south of Beirut was destroyed. The Lebanese economy, whose exports had competed with Israel’s, became moribund. The south of Lebanon became an Israeli market even as the headwaters of the Litani River, like the Jordan River before it, were diverted by the Israelis.
The author of this book experienced the bombing and siege of West Beirut in 1982, lived with Palestinians in the ruins of Ain El Helweh during Israeli occupation and witnessed the devastation in the Palestinian camps of Rashidya, El Bas, Burj al lamali, Mieh Mieh, Burj al Burajneh, Sabra and Shatila, as well as the destruction of the Lebanese towns and villages throughout the south.
The accounts of Israeli enactment of the massacre of Sabra and Shatila have been substantiated by this author, who was present in the camps on the final day of slaughter. He and Mya Shone photographed Israeli tanks and soldiers in Sabra and Shatila and spoke to the survivors over a period of four days.
Israel is currently revisiting these horrors on Lebanon as I write. Lebanon, an example of a modern and multi-ethnic Arab society that works, must be destroyed, as the Arabs, according to the vile ideology of “right-wing” Israelis such as Binyamin Netanyahu, must never be allowed to prosper.
Moreover, Lebanon serves as the template for the larger Zionist plan to balkanize the neighborhood. “Lebanon was the model, prepared for its role by the Israelis for thirty years, as the Sharett diaries revealed. It is the expansionist compulsion set forth by Herzl and Ben Gurion even as it is the logical extension of the Sharett diaries. The dissolution of Lebanon was proposed in 1919, planned in 1936, launched in 1954 and realized in 1982,” Schoenman continues, and then quotes the late Israel Shahak:
Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The subsequent dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas, as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short-term target.
“Each Arab state is examined with a view to assessing how it may be disassembled. Wherever minority religious groupings are present in the army, [Oded Yinon] sees opportunity,” Schoenman explains.
Yinon’s plan for Arab and Muslim balkanization, drafted at the precise time Israel was bombarding Lebanon in 1982, was “shared by many people in power” in Israel, according to its author.
“But the article clearly doesn’t represent any official Israeli view. Instead, it’s an example of the contentious internal debate about Israeli policy that goes on daily in the Hebrew press. Moreover, the Arab reaction to the article may indicate more about Arab fears than the article itself does about Israeli intentions,” opined a dismissive Wall Street Journal on December 8, 1982. “Still, given the current fragile situation in the Middle East, in which some Lebanese leaders are accusing Israel of encouraging religious strife between Lebanon’s Christian and Druse Moslem sects, Mr. Yinon’s article makes interesting reading.”
“Every Arab state … especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later,” writes Khalil Nakhleh in the publisher’s note of Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. “This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme,” as revealed by Livia Rokach.
In her book, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, Rokach argues that the “inter-Lebanese conflict,” invented by Ben Gurion “from scratch,” was “attributed, shamelessly, to Israeli security needs,” a cynical effort to exploit “terror and aggression to provoke or create the appearance of an Arab threat to Israel’s existence” in order to force the “partition and subordination of that country to Israel.” According to Rokach, “a detailed blueprint… was elaborated by Israel more than fifteen years before the Palestinian presence became a political factor in Lebanon,” that is well before Israel used Palestinian “terrorism” (resistance to occupation and brutality) as an excuse to decimate its neighbor in 1982.
Now the excuse is Hezbollah. Lebanese PM “Siniora told Milan-based newspaper Corriere della Sera that the Shi’ite militia has been doing the bidding of Syria and Iran, and that it can only be disarmed with the help of the international community and once a cease-fire has been achieved in the current Middle East fighting,” reports Haaretz. “It’s not a mystery that Hezbollah answers to the political agendas of Tehran and Damascus,” Siniora was quoted as saying by Corriere. “The entire world must help us disarm Hezbollah. But first we need to reach a cease-fire.”
Of course, attempting to disarm Hezbollah—that is to say set the resistance organization up to be slaughtered by Israel—will result in yet another Lebanese civil war, as Shi’ites will once again turn against Christians, with international “peacekeepers” caught in the middle, and this will further reduce the country, as long planned.
Finally, the corporate media, working feverishly to blame Hezbollah for Israel’s provocations, admits Hezbollah is a military force to be reckoned with.
“Hezbollah’s ability to use relatively advanced weapons in the last week of fighting against Israel, as well as the variety of its armaments, has surprised U.S. military experts, current and former officials involved in Middle East policy said,” writes the Los Angeles Times, making sure to blame the next target on the neocon hit list. “The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are involved, said Hezbollah fighters, once viewed as a ragtag group of guerrillas, appear to have received training by Iran in sophisticated missile technologies. Some of the training may have taken place in Iran, they said…. Israeli intelligence officials said assistance, including basic weapons and supplies, continues to flow from Iran. One Israeli intelligence official said there was new evidence that Iran had stepped up arms shipments through Camp Zabadani, a longtime base that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard maintains in Syria, near the Lebanese border.”
In other words, in order to take out Hezbollah, according to these Israeli “analysts,” Syria and Iran must be attacked. Of course, even if Israel or the United States attack Syria and Iran, this will not end the resistance in Lebanon.
“The Israelis believe they have had some effect, but Hezbollah remains in this fight,” Jon B. Alterman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a Bush neocon, told the LA Times. “They can sustain this for quite some time,” thus providing the criminal and genocidal state of Israel all the reason more to attack the innocent and defenseless, including their erstwhile “friends,” the Maronite Christians of Lebanon.
don’t you know that this story is “rabidly” and “notoriously antisemitic”? It sounds like a whole bunch of “canards” strung together as in a “classic anti-semitic conspiracy theory” spewed by some Hitler! Even though you’ve been told to “Never forget!”, you seem to have forgotten the major point: No Jewish person ever did anything wrong ever (well, except maybe Ira Einhorn), and to say otherwise is to be a Nazi and to want to kill all Jews or something. Jewish people are always innocent and suffering. Always. Anything they might do to others is simple self-defense. Always. Just turn on NBC News! Yes, “collateral damage” is a sad fact of life, but what are the alternatives? Should Israel just sit there with its 4th largest army in the world and all those F-14s and nukes and chemical and biological weapons and billions and billions of Yankee dollars and allow kids to throw rocks at them?
Further, I will have you know — and you can ask any rabbi or any Southern Baptist with a Scofield Bible — we must “bless Israel” (this means Israel-the-country and AIPAC, BTW, which didn’t exist til a few years ago and, boy, do I feel bad for the Christians who couldn’t bless them for almost 2000 years). We must do anything its leaders say at any time or God will curse us to within inches of our lives. Quite frankly, I am shocked and ashamed at the gross insensitivity displayed here toward the most intelligent, creative people the world has ever known (this intelligence and creativity that they have in abundance compared to all other people, including, therefore, “Black” people, are what explains the disproportionate power and wealth they possess as a group. Any other explanation is racist! I know that seems to be self-contradictory, but there is an alternate logic at work when dealing with these matters, a logic perhaps you are just too stupidly goyisher to figure out! Just grant that it is so and move on, friend!). Criticize the French, the Arabs, the Muslims, Islam, the Christians, Christianity, the Catholics, the Irish, the Mexicans, the Canadians, Communism, Capitalism, “Blacks,” “Whites,” the weather — but, by God, if you dare talk about post-Temple Judaism as anything but marvy, or if you dare to criticize Israel — even when they are killing innocent Christians and Muslims (or bulldozing their homes, or stopping them at checkpoints, or anything else they might do) — well, then you’ve gone way, way too far. How can you post such an article? What, are you some kind of fascist? Are you a Hitler-loving Nazi? Do you want to put Jewish people into camps? Do you often sing Deutschland Uber Alles? I bet you deny the Holocaust, too! Do you belong to the KKK? Do you have a tin-foil hat? Are you a nutter? A whacko? A fruitcake? Why all the hate? Don’t hate! Stop the hate! Watch the public service announcements and peace out, man! Racism is so ugly! What would Dershowitz say?
Gas Dropped By Israelis In So. Lebanon Sickens Civilians
Wayne Madsen Report | July 21, 2006
WMR reported that the Israeli military was using poison gas on villages in south Lebanon. According to a former U.S. weapons expert who served in Iraq, the artillery shell in a photo taken in Lebanon (below) is a chemical weapon delivery device. It is being handled by an Israeli Defense Force soldier and Hebrew lettering can be clearly seen on the armored vehicle.
Another chemical weapons shell of the same type can be seen lying on the ground to the right. It is not known what type of chemical is in the chemical canister, however, gas dropped by the Israelis in villages in southern Lebanon has resulted in severe vomiting among the civilian population.
Media commentators have scoffed that Israel, with its relatively unique history, would ever use chemical weapons or poison gas in any war. It is precisely because of that perception that they are using such weapons. The deniability factor prevents the media from taking seriously the credible reports of banned weapons being used by the Israelis.
Israel using chemical delivery weapons in Lebanon. Fuse and chemical canister can be clearly seen in photo of Israel Defense Force personnel in Lebanon. Drawing of chemical weapon is from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
ON CAPITOL HILL
Specter falsely accuses church to knock Bush
In stem-cell debate said medieval pope held back science 300 years
——————————————————————————–
Posted: July 22, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
——————————————————————————–
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. Arlen Specter at town hall meeting (Photo: Williamsport Sun-Gazette)
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., made a false accusation against the Catholic Church during debate on the Senate floor over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, according to Catholic News Service.
Arguing President Bush’s opposition to the federal funding on moral grounds could seriously set back scientific discovery, Specter said: “Pope Boniface VII (sic) banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s. This stopped the practice for over 300 years and greatly slowed the accumulation of education regarding human anatomy.”
Specter not only misidentified the pope, the Catholic news site asserts, but most historical sources indicate no pontiff in history was responsible for the type of ban cited by Specter.
Boniface VII, CNS explained, was an antipope who held the papacy during three separate periods in the late 900s. Boniface VIII served from 1294 to 1303.
The news service said some sources cite the possible cause for confusion in “De Sepulturis,” a papal bull issued in 1300.
“Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously cooking them in order that the bones being separated from the flesh may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very fact excommunicated,” says one translation of the document.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says the “only possible explanation of the misunderstanding that the bull forbade dissection is that someone read only the first part of the title and considered that … one of the methods of preparing bodies for study in anatomy was by boiling them in order to be able to remove the flesh from them easily, (and) that this decree forbade such practices thereafter.”
According to German author Heinrich Haesar, in his 1845 textbook “The History of Medicine,” dissection of cadavers continued without hindrance during the Middle Ages in European universities, run under the direction of church leaders.
Guy de Chauliac, considered the father of modern surgery, was the personal surgeon to three popes in the 14th century and a promoter of dissection in anatomical studies.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says “this fact alone would seem to decide definitely that there was no papal regulation, real or supposed, forbidding the practice of human dissection at this time.”
In his Senate speech, Specter said one of the victims of the papal ban was Spaniard Michael Servetus, who “used cadaver dissection to study blood circulation” in the 1500s and was “tried and imprisoned by the Catholic Church.”
Servetus, however, encountered trouble with Catholic officials not for his medicine but for his theological questioning of the Trinity, infant baptism and original sin, according to the Servetus International Society, founded to promote his legacy.
Neocons Resurrect Plans
For Regional War In The Middle East
In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (all later senior officials in the Bush administration) had a plan for how to destroy Hezbollah: Invade Iraq. They wrote a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for “a clean break” with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace.
The problem could be solved “if Israel seized the strategic initiative along it northern borders by engaging Hizballah (sic), Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.” The key, they said, was to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” They called for “reestablishing the principle of preemption.” They promised that the successes of these wars could be used to launch campaigns against Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, reshaping “the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly.”
Now, with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, with Bush losing control of world events, and with the threats to national security growing worse, no one could possibly still believe this plan, could they? Think again.
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, is still pushing this radical vision. He now uses the excuse of Hezbollah terrorist attacks — what he calls “Iran’s Proxy War” — to push the United States deeper into a regional war against Iran and Syria:
We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
Perle has already weighed in in a June 25 Washington Post editorial decrying Bush’s “ignominious retreat” on Iran. He, too, wants war. Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press this Sunday said we were already in World War III and that the US needed to take direct action against North Korea and Iran. Less well known pundits have flooded cable news and talk radio this weekend beating the war drums. Meanwhile, David Wurmser is ensconced in Vice-President Cheney’s office, and his neoconservative colleague Elliot Abrams (the convicted Iran-Contra felon who urged war with Iraq in a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton) directs Middle East policy on the National Security Council staff.
The neoconservatives are now hoping to use the Israeli-Lebanon conflict as the trigger to launch a U.S. war against Syria, Iran or both. These profoundly dangerous policies have to be exposed and stopped before they do even more harm to U.S. national security then they already have.
– Joseph Cirincione
(For more, see “Origins of Regime Change in Iraq“)
my thoughts are this is doubly tragic, because it’s the third or fourth time that Israel does this. I mean, it’s just extraordinary that a people as enlightened and with such a difficult history as the Jewish and Israeli people would actually now be the perpetrators of this kind of savagery over and over again, and each time they do it they reap a much worse counter-reaction.
You know, they started this in the late ’60s, when there was a couple Fatah guerrillas in South Lebanon. They bombed Beirut Airport in 1968 for the first time. Then what they got back was a much bigger Lebanese resistance, a leftist nationalist resistance, with the PLO. Then they went into Lebanon in the ’70s, and then in ’80 they occupied South Lebanon, and they reaped in return for that Hezbollah. And they went into Hezbollah in 1996. They tried to wipe them out from the south, and what they have now is a much stronger Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, with missiles that are hitting Haifa and Safed and other Israeli towns.
So I think there’s a kind of an irrationality to Zionism that we’re seeing today, or at least to the Israeli political leadership, that just don’t seem to get it, that when you repress somebody and you brutalize them, what you get is not acquiescence and subservience. What you get is defiance and resistance. And I think this is a lesson that most military powers have learned. Certainly the Americans learned it in Vietnam. They’re learning in Iraq. The Russians learned it in Afghanistan. And the Israelis seem unable or unwilling to learn these lessons in Lebanon.
Israel’s rationale certainly sounds logical from an Israeli point of view. Anybody — one of the few things I agree with George Bush on on the world is that, yes, everybody has a right and a duty to defend themselves — there’s no question about that — which is precisely what Hezbollah is trying to do. They’re trying to get back their prisoners in Israel and the bits of land that are still occupied by Israel.
But the way that the Israelis are trying to defend themselves is actually making themselves more vulnerable. It’s enhancing the political resistance to Israel. It is enhancing the political movements all around the Middle East that are the Islamist movements mostly, like Muslim Brothers, Hezbollah, Hamas. These guys are winning elections all over the place. They’re critical of the U.S. They’re critical of Israel. They’re critical of moderate Arab regimes. They’re close to Iran. What Israel is doing is counterproductive to such an extreme degree that it’s really perplexing how such an enlightened people as the Israelis, who have achieved so much in so many other fields, can be so blind to this issue.
This is a political problem that needs a political solution. There is no military solution to a political problem. And this is a war. Hezbollah and Israel have been doing this for many years. Israel has tried this before, has done it. They’ve occupied. They’ve had free-fire zones, blue lines, red lines, green lines, surrogate armies, no-fly zones, occupation zones. They have tried every trick in the book two or three times. They bombed Beirut Airport now three times in the last 25 years. What more do they have in their arsenal that they haven’t used?
And what is fascinating, what they should learn as quickly as possible, is that every time they try to generate security through either punitive military attacks or controlling other peoples’ lands in South Lebanon, this only inspires Hezbollah and Hamas now to get missiles and rockets that can have longer range. So all Hezbollah does now is fire these over the Israelis. And you’ve had three groups now in the Arab world in the last 15-20 years who have developed rockets to fire over any kind of zones to hit Israel: Iraq, Hezbollah and Hamas. At some point, you’d think the Israeli leaders or people would wake up and see what is the reality and find an alternative political, diplomatic, peaceful, negotiated and legitimate resolution to this conflict, which I think is the only way out now
One of the important dimensions of the phenomenon that we’re witnessing, which is the rise of these Islamist political, social and military groups and resistance groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is that they are increasing in their credibility and popularity all over the region, mainly because of what they do, but also because they are a strong antidote to the lack of effectiveness and the declining legitimacy of many of the existing Arab regimes and governments and political elites. So what you’re seeing very clearly all over the region is Arab governments who are criticizing Hezbollah, but Arab societies and political culture, mainstream political culture, and certainly the man and woman on the street, who are increasingly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
A lot of people are critical of Hezbollah, to be fair, because they’re saying, well, look, you know, Hezbollah brought about this massive Israeli overreaction and has destroyed Lebanon and is really causing incredible pain to people. So there are criticisms of Hezbollah that are strong and sincere, but the support of Hezbollah, I think, is much, much more significant, and it’s not only about this particular incident in the south.
I think Hezbollah, Hamas and these groups represent an organic natural reaction that has brewed and percolated and now is materializing after 15-20 years, a reaction of societies in the Arab world that has been extremely disappointed by the autocracy and corruption and ineffectiveness of their own Arab regimes, by the brutality and occupation of Israel, and by the rather racist and then now neocolonial and imperial in the military policies — whatever you want to call them — of the United States. They’re the reliance on using military force, giving Israel the green light to do whatever it wants; that those three issues — the Israeli policies, the American policies and Arab governments — all three have really weighed heavily on Arab societies and normal average decent people, and this is the reaction that we’re seeing.
People are not going to live in a vacuum, and they’re not going to be humiliated and degraded. And they’re going to look for alternatives. And the alternative now that seems to be sweeping this region is the Islamist movements, including the ones doing serious military resistance to Israel. And if you look at Hezbollah, Hezbollah is doing something now which no Arab government in the last 50 years has been able to do, which is to fight a war against Israel, be heavily attacked and keep fighting back, hit Israeli cities with rockets, send one-third of the Israeli populations into shelters for two or three days in a row, and traumatize an entire Israeli population, just as Israel has traumatized Palestinian and Lebanese populations for many, many years. So there is something very significant here politically in terms of what’s going on.
And again, I say this with great sort of sorrow, because it’s not something that we should be proud of or happy about. But it does represent a political shift in the balance of power and the balance of terror, and hopefully it will cause both sides, including when they wake up in the White House, to recognize that only a diplomatic negotiated solution is going to resolve these issues.
CNN just flashed that the Holy City, Nazareth is under attack with two children dead so far? What on earth are they fighting there for? Is that a big Hezbolla hide-out? Did anyone else see the U.N. tanks all over?
Mr. Akin, are all these no-email cut’n’paste thingies from the same IP address?
TimJ– nicely put. If I may– “Me, too; what he said.”
*looks confused* Um…. Naz… Hezbollah attacked the city. Not Israel. Why would Hezbollah attack themselves? (not that I’m expecting a lot of logic from the guys, but wiping themselves out is too much to hope for)
Well said Vox. I’m glad there are still some people around who are not brainwashed by the Zionist media.
Does anybody else get the impression that Neoconspy/CatholicDefender is back using a bunch of different names and/or no name?
Who’s the conspiracy theorist now, Bill.
LOL
“At some point, you’d think the Israeli leaders or people would wake up and see what is the reality and find an alternative political, diplomatic, peaceful, negotiated and legitimate resolution to this conflict, which I think is the only way out now”
This would assume there were somebody on the opposing side who was interested in diplomacy, peace and a legitimate resolution with Israel.
Bill, please come back to the board after some reading and reflection.
Dan E, spend some time with your cousin Dan F.
Mary C (not the other Mary) you have truth that is very heavy
Joseph Hippolito is hired help, he gets paid to be a fifth column to Catholics and promote neocon and Zionism.
The sad part about Bill, is he doesn’t even realize it.
Dan E is generally struggling.
So many Catholic so called conservatives are on the neocon payroll or they have bought into the lies or are just stupid and brainwashed.
This phenonmenon is pretty much regulated to the US.
So many Catholic so called conservatives are on the neocon payroll or they have bought into the lies or are just stupid and brainwashed.
Like the Catholic Church has not had to face enough fifth columnists: communists, homosexuals. Now they have neocons who are trying to coopt conservative Catholicism into the Christian-Zionist, fundamentalist camp. And its all in service of a political agenda that is fundamentally un and anti-Catholic.
1. Lebanon and Hezbollah are not one in the same. Attacking Lebanon is too broad and is not an attack just on Hezbollah.
Letting Hezbollah attack Israel from its borders means that Lebanon is to blame. A sovereign nation is responsible for all attacks on other nations from its borders. Goes with sovereignity. If they do not stop them, Israel is entitled to.
And as Hezbollah is deliberately attacking civilians from with Lebanon now. . .
By destablizing Lebanon it will create more terror and more instability not less.
And what wouldn’t?
It is blatantly clear by this point that concessions also encourage more terror and more instability.
As I’ve said before, all this criticism about me being a “fifth columnist” being paid to support “neocon and Zionism” (brilliant English usage) really shows that the people making these accusations don’t want to face several facts:
1. Arab Muslims have wanted to destroy Israel ever since its founding in 1948.
2. Palestinians and Muslims have refused several concessions by Israel (evacuating Gaza, returning the Golan Heights to Syria, even granting Arafat 90-95 percent of the land he wanted in 2000, thanks to Israeli PM Barak and Pres. Clinton) for peace.
3. Hezbollah has responded to Israeli attacks not by attacking Israeli military installations but by attacking civilians in Haifa and Nazareth, among other places. None of these critics have mentioned this fact.
4. Hezbollah is an organization founded and funded by Iranian radicals who not only want to destroy Israel but also attack Western interests throughout the Arab world.
I can only say that the people who are criticizing me and Bill 912 (whom I support, BTW, despite our previous disagreements on other issues) by issuing personal attacks are either wholly ignorant or anti-Jewish.
…are either wholly ignorant or anti-Jewish.
BOOM! There it is. Why not just use the more standard term, anti-semite.
You could have accused them of being Nazis; Godwin’s law would be invoked; and we could all go home.
Anti Jewish if they do not agree with you. That is absurd. It is insulting. It hurts debate on this issue.
“By destablizing Lebanon it will create more terror and more instability not less.
And what wouldn’t?
It is blatantly clear by this point that concessions also encourage more terror and more instability.”
WHAT WOULDN’T MARY IS ATTACKING LEBANON SO BRUTALLY EVERYTIME THAT ISRAEL HAS DONE THIS IT HAS CREATED MORE PROBLEMS FOR THEM
It is very offensive that people who support Christians in the Middle East are considered anti-Jewish.
“Does anybody else get the impression that Neoconspy/CatholicDefender is back using a bunch of different names and/or no name?”
Sounds that way to me. He/she/it mangles logic and the English language in precisely the same way.
Sorry, that was me.
The mangled English and logic is from Hippolito, Tim J, Bill, MaryC who seem to have no sympathy on civilians, Christians or anyone except Israel.
It is incredible that so many Catholics have bought in or have been bought off by the so called neo-conservative neo-imperialist pro-Zionist anti-Catholic “movement”. It is very sad.
WHAT WOULDN’T MARY IS ATTACKING LEBANON SO BRUTALLY
Note that this person is claiming that attacking Lebanon so brutally wouldn’t create more instability in the area. . .
*sigh*
Probably Commas, but I am not sure.
what wouldn’t, Mary, is attacking Lebanon so brutally (?)
No?
Israel should not be attacking Lebanon in the manner they are doing it.
They are killing many innocent children unnecessarily.
The illogic is that Israel is allowed to do whatever they want or supposedly need at the expense of everyone else.
Please reflect on having some sympathy on Christians in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon and alternatives for/in/to Israel in protecting borders and guaranteeing security.
The Kissinger Plan was to make Lebanon the Palestinian State. Lebanon which is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state which works better than most (and has money not based on oil) cannot exist for Israel.
Everytime Israel has invaded, and the harder they have become, it has backfired on them. The correlation is clear if not the causality.
Every Arab state … especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later,” writes Khalil Nakhleh in the publisher’s note of Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. “This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme,” as revealed by Livia Rokach.
In her book, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, Rokach argues that the “inter-Lebanese conflict,” invented by Ben Gurion “from scratch,” was “attributed, shamelessly, to Israeli security needs,” a cynical effort to exploit “terror and aggression to provoke or create the appearance of an Arab threat to Israel’s existence” in order to force the “partition and subordination of that country to Israel.” According to Rokach, “a detailed blueprint… was elaborated by Israel more than fifteen years before the Palestinian presence became a political factor in Lebanon,” that is well before Israel used Palestinian “terrorism” (resistance to occupation and brutality) as an excuse to decimate its neighbor in 1982.
Hippolito is anti almost every single major priest and biship (Catholic or Orthodox or Oriental Christian) in the Middle East from Iraq, to Palestine to Lebanon just look at his website. He is filled with HATE, and no solution except to do whatever Israel wants and to kill all the Arabs. Horowitz could be considered anti-Catholic, just look at their website.
Some repeat of previous post: (not in totality):
1. I am Happy that Zarwqawi is dead. Happy may not be the right word but it is good that he is dead and I have positive emotions.
2. The brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was and is a bad man and did bad things.
3. War is long and complicated and people die.
4. Islamic terrorism is a real threat to us (the United States of America) and the world.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that:
1. We should of invaded Iraq. We probably shouldn’t have. BUT I do agree that we can’t leave now.
2. The Iraq War is going well. It is not.
3. The Iraq occupation is not well planned, nor well run. This is former military people, Army, Marines, a number of even generals and General Zinni to be specific.
4. The US instigated UN embargo(started by George Hebert Walker Bush) killed (even if indirectly) millions of people.
5. The current US invasion of Iraq and current occupational (we literally call it the occupational authority) have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, perhaps justified, perhaps not, perhaps part of war, but to be desensitized to that is not spiritually healthy and not part of the Culture of Life.
6. Comments such as Nuke them, or destroy Fallujah are not part of the Culture of life and do demonstrate an ethnocentrism and attitude that is not recognizibly Christian.
7. There is a clear link between Iraq and terrorism although perhaps not as clear of link between Al-Queda and terrorism. There is evidence that our policies pushed previous ideological enemies to a unity. It is unclear shy so many people on this blogsite either don’t know, don’t care, or don’t want to know that Al-Queda was oppossed to Saddam, that Saddam while using Islamic symbols was a pro-Western secularist (not an Islamicist) who fought Sunni extremists and Shia. (by far the most pro-Western in policy at least throughout the 80’s with numerous documented meetings, compliments, money and arms from the Reagan administration, Bush HW, and Donald Rumsfield) The invasion in Iraq arguably took away from the invasion of Afghanistan, increased terrorist breeding ground and propaganda, and maybe did not make us safer (many worldwide terrorist attacks in the South Pacific, Turkey, London and Spain happened even if none after 9-11 on US soil per se but certainly our Western and other allies and citizens) It was not necessary to invade Iraq to fight terrorism.
8. There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The so called WMDs. It is not implausible that George W Bush was manipulated or manipulated intelligence data to justify the end goal of the invasion. There are plenty of ex-CIA and intelligence (Naval etc) that indicate that the WMD thing was not taken as seriously as Bush thought and that the strategic value of invading Iraq for geographic security (oil stability etc) as well as the Global War on Terror. This is not being judgmental after the fact or sitting in my or a Lazyboy chair (I have seen combat, did the person who wrote that comment?)
9. To argue that Middle Eastern Christians are not worse off by any measure is not a fact, in Iraq and elswhere because of the rise (a relatively new phenomena)of Islamic fundamentalism as well as more strident Zionism and an apathy on behalf of the United States and lack of strength from the Vatican and France, is laughable. Iraq, now, is far worse for Christians than under Saddam.
The problem with some of the posters are:
1. They equate Orthodox or even conservative Catholicism with political conservativism.
2. There is a quasi Americanist heresy (which I am sympathetic too)that dogmatizes US interests as inherently moral or per se right. This may or may not be the case although it may be most or some of the time or should be or I may want it to be.
3. There is a lack of equality or equity, consciously or subconsciously on death of people who are not from the US and ultimately people who are not white (I think the reason we did not discuss Sudan earlier or did not do much if anything) It is easy to dismiss the suffering of others. The dignity of the individual who is darker, poorer, or even uncivilized is not always recognized.
4. A lack of care of suffering or death generally.
5. There is a jingoistic pro-Americanism that justifiably at first does not want to criticize Bush or US foreign policy.
6. There is an influence including in US conservative Catholic circles of neo-conservative Chickenhawks, who want to invade everywhere, without a plan, many times arguably and allegedly putting Israeli interests first–not my view but an intersting one put forward by accurate predictors of the first Iraq war from the Univesity of Chicago and Harvard, I think it is more big oil interests (who have promoted and funded terrorism far more than Saddam ever did)
These neo-cons view soldiers as toy soldiers and the deaths through high tech bombings and our own weapons of mass destruction of 100s of thousands of people, the destruction of infrastructure necessary for the health and safety of people, and daily chaos and strife as necessary for some vague geo-political end.
The oil producing rich despotic decadent nations and the big waspy corporations raping the US taxpayer through no bid contracts in Iraq are running this game, and many good Catholic conservatives buy into it by trying to do good and defending their country, at least with words.
“No more war, in God’s name!”
Ah, a key of the Kingdom. Never, ever used, but it’s there.
We should call for an IMMEDIATE ceasefire by Israel and work for a permament ceasefire or breakup/disarm of Hezbollah but that only can be done by, not bombing civilians in Lebanon, but by playing hardball with Iran and Syria–which can be done and has been done before on other issues. Syria is not an Islamic fundamentalist state and has actually fought Islamic fundamentalists. Iran certainly is Islamic fundamentalist but is also Persian and Shia at odds with Al-Qaeda (at least at times) and not in the pan Arabist agenda (different ethnic group and language). The working paper by Mearsheimer (Catholic by the way)from the University of Chicago and his cohort from Harvard (that has been criticized and can be found online and is in different magazines) states that Israel does not want us to deal directly with Iran but Iran wants to deal with us. Catholic foreign policy expert Zigbinew Brezinski (he was very anti-communist under Reagan and Carter) agrees. This is not an anti-semitic plot or people who want to give and cave in to radical Islam or want to destroy Israel, but people who want some balance and debate on these issues and want to make the US priorities not subservient or controlled by Israel.
Anonymous: you are confusing me with the other Mary. I have been consistantly ctitical of Israel.
typo alert: that should read *critical of Israel*
There is a Mary and a Mary C. I forget which one is which. One is a pro Israel neocon brainwashed Zionist. The other is not pro-Israel. They post completely different in style and substance.
“One is a pro Israel neocon brainwashed Zionist.”
Boy, there’s somebody I’d like to be like! Can’t you just feel the love!
What, you mean that you want to be a pro Israel neocon brainwashed Zionist? Well, it seems you have plenty of company on this blog.
4. A lack of care of suffering or death generally.
“They would repair, as though it were nought, the injury to the daughter of my people: “Peace, peace!” they say, though there is no peace. They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD.”
“For the very reason that they led my people astray, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there was no peace, and that, as one built a wall, they would cover it with whitewash, say then to the whitewashers: I will bring down a flooding rain; hailstones shall fall, and a stormwind shall break out. And when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked: Where is the whitewash you spread on?”
“One is a pro Israel neocon brainwashed Zionist.”
Boy, there’s somebody I’d like to be like! Can’t you just feel the love!
Now, Anonymous, remember: “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.”
I was referring, sarcastically, to the idiot who posted that, not to you, Mary.
I am confused as which Mary is which.
“You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”
How much more for the innocent bystanders caught in the fire zones?
Thanks, JA.
I had almost forgotten how many of my co-religionists are uninformed anti-semites. I guess the occassional reminder is neccessary.
I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: .
Even when your enemy is a pro Israel neocon brainwashed Zionist.
Even when your enemy is an Israeli.
How much more for the innocent bystanders caught in the fire zones?
Using innocent bystanders as something to bash your enemies is not loving behavior — not even to the bystanders, who are not means to your end.
Franklin Jennings,
This is offensive to call people anti-semites who want to defend Arab and other Middle Eastern Christians or who are critical of Israel or the current brutal actions of Israel.
I served in Iraq I and was in the Marines.
I have visited Israel. I am pro-Israel and recognize their right to exist and thrive and have helped them do so.
My wife is a Christian (Greek Orthodox) Palestinian Arab, I am Catholic, although I have attended an Antiochean Church with her and she my church with me. She also has many relatives in Lebanon who are Christians. They report that there is bombing in Christian neighborhoods and villages, the death count is much higher than is reported in the media, and the destruction is unbelieveable and it has paralyzed economic life let alone social and cultural life.
I, my wife, my family all oppose the evil of Hezbollah. And yes I am equating the evil of Hezbollah with the evil of killing innocent children by Israel and creating an international humanitarian crisis with 1 million refugees.
I am NOT anti-semetic and find it highly offensive.
I do not agree with Iraq from a military point of view. I condemn what Israel is doing in Lebanon as barbaric.
I am not uniformed at all and am not an anti-semite. I find the hate filled writings of Joseph Hippolito anti-Arab and anti-Christian.
David Horowitz is anti-Catholic.
The entire world, and not just the radical Muslim world, or anti-semites, or French but EVERYONE, including the Vatican, and every European nation including our allies think that we are being controlled by Israel and we are insensitive to the suffering of innocent people specifically Arabs and other ethnic Lebanese and foreign nationals. We destroy our credibility and in the long run are hurting our war on terror and in the long run are hurting Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
UN warned Israel and they attacked anyway
remember the USS Liberty
For the edifying spectacle of Israeli children signing bombs to be fired at Israel’s ‘enemies’
go to:
http://www.iamthewitness.com
Israel and Hezbollah are both using weapons banned by the Geneva conventions and weapons the US does not use.
The reason I hold Israel to a higher standard is that we pay for their weapons and support them in everything they do. Hezboolah is bad guys.
Israel should not follow suit.
Israel has WMDs and Nukes and the propensity and philosophy to use them. Israel helped the racist state of South Africa to proliferate.
Israel is using phosp on civilians
I have to say, I see people back and forth on these issues from reading this.
“Should we charge the victims of 9/11 for the costs of that day? After all, they didn’t have to go to work.”
I saw it happen cause I was living outside NYC on the Jersey side. Nothing like what Israel is doing. A few days ago on Yahoo’s pics they have with there little news stories, showed Israeli school children drawing pictures and messages on artillery shells and missles. I don’t know about anyone else but my personal feelings are that these aren’t the type of people that are trying to rid Lebanon of terrorism, in fact with that type of sick additude your only feeding into it. When I looked in todays news articles on Yahoo, there was pics of a 3 yr. old girl being buried in lebanon and a 5 yr. old and 8 month old in a morgue. These are human beings that did nothing wrong and will never get to experience some of the things I or whomever is reading this have. I understand terrorists bomb Israel all the time. But if you don’t give peace processes a chance to go through nothing will get better. Them kidnapping two people should not be grounds for holding up a peace process. The U.S. policy is not to negotiate with terrorists. Accept the losses and move on. Seal off the border and open it back up when it gets quiet. I was in the U.S.M.C. and am headed back into the U.S. Army now, and frankly I think this is outrageous.
The most disgusting thing the Israelis did was to stop the Red Cross and Red Crescent and Syrian Red Cross from driving on roads and letting people, civilians, children, elderly die slow painful deaths in rubble buried in buildings because the Israeli Army was bombing and shooting at them. No ambulances. No rescue workers. No saving lives.
The Israels have no counterbalance or check because we have given them a blank check.
“The most disgusting thing the Israelis did was to stop the Red Cross and Red Crescent and Syrian Red Cross from driving on roads…”
They didn’t. But, hey, don’t let me confuse you with facts.
Bill, please for your own sake and the dignity of your progeny, stop posting.
There are news stories on this some of them posted above, and the Israelis admit some of this.
One news report describes 150 people buried in rubble, buried alive, 50 dead, and that ambulances could not get to them because they were being shot at. Israel later said they would try to let humainitarian aid through.
Bill you are so uniformed, lack any analytical skills, and only resort to one line conclusions that you think are zingers (and unlike your counter posters you provide no links, cites, books, experiences, articles etc.)
Why shouldn’t Catholic Christians stick together like Jews or Muslims?????
Why shouldn’t we strike back at least publicity wise and through diplomatic channels.
If Hezbollah sent some missles to civilian centers, and captured 2 soldiers during war–
THAT DOES MEAN THAT HUNDREDS OF CHRISTIANS SHOULD DIE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HEZBOLLAH OR THOUSANDS SHOULD BE WOUNDED OR BILLIONS OF THEIR PROPERTY SHOULD BE DESTROYED OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN REFUGEES ELDERLY AND CHILDREN SHOULD BE WITHOUT HOMES OR JOBS GOING TO SYRIA, JORDAN, CYPRUS, FRANCE, SWITZERLAND, CANDADA AND THE US AFFECTING HEALTH AND MONEY
Google Israeli press reports, yes including some of the biased Israeli peace people
but the invasion of Lebanon has been planned for 2 years, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers (allegedly for a swap of prisoners) was a pretense.
Read more about the 1982 invasion from pro-Israeli and pro-US sources that really reveal a lot including the Israeli planned massacre of the entire PLO including women and children.
We finally found WMDS and use in Israel
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17106
Chemical weapons, burns, strange
used by the Israelis on civilians
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17106
July 25, 2006
Syria Emerges Front and Center
by Patrick J. Buchanan
“War wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing … in war there are no winners, but all are losers.” So said Neville Chamberlain on the eve of the war he had sought desperately to avoid, but which his own blunders would bring about.
Chamberlain was mistaken. War ended Nazi Germany, though the cost was high: the Holocaust, the collapse of the British Empire, the Stalinization of 11 nations of Eastern Europe, 50 million dead, and half a century of Cold War.
As this is written, Condi Rice has arrived in the Middle East, and the two-week Israeli-Hezbollah war, an artillery exchange by World War II standards, seems to be winding down. While final returns are a ways off, the first returns find few winners, except perhaps for Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.
Nasrallah ignited the war in the north with an attack that resulted in eight dead Israeli soldiers and two captured. He evaded a bunker-buster attack in south Beirut; he still holds his two captured Israelis; and Hezbollah has withstood two weeks of bombing and shelling by Israel, and fired back more than a thousand Katyushas into Israel and longer-range rockets into Haifa.
While Iran’s Ahmadinejad talks the talk about wiping Israel off the map, Nasrallah walks the walk. Among Arabs and Muslims for whom Israel is the great hate object, Nasrallah surely stands as tall today as any leader since Egypt’s Nasser. Had the Israelis killed him in that recent air strike, Israel might today claim a victory in the war.
But it is hard to see what Israel has won. The shock-and-awe devastation of Lebanon – smashed runways, power plants, roads, bridges, apartments, oil refineries, gasoline stations, and buses – may have awed Israel’s enemies, but it shocked her friends. It is a puzzle why Israel, provoked by Hezbollah, attacked a democratic Lebanon whose government had not committed the act of aggression but had, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, condemned it.
And the war has exposed a deep wariness on the part of Israel to send her army back into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, whose cross-border raid was a challenge to the Israelis to “come and get us.”
Lebanon is the great loser. Tens of thousands of Westerners who had helped bring Lebanon back from the ruins of the 1970s and 1980s have fled. The Cedar Revolution that produced a democracy has been destroyed. With the death toll mounting, thousands wounded, and between 600,000 and 750,000 homeless or refugees, Lebanon has been set back 20 years.
There exists a danger that unless aid is gotten into Lebanon and the refugees are permitted to return to their homes, instead of being the showcase of Bush’s democracy project in the Arab world, Lebanon could become another failed state.
Tehran, too, has suffered a loss of prestige. As patrons of Hezbollah, they are today seen in the Middle East as being complicit in an act of stupidity that has brought ruin on an Arab nation. And Iran’s failure to aid her Shia allies in battle with Israel exposes them as something less than heroic Islamic warriors of Tehran’s propaganda.
Indeed, the perceived impotence of Iran to aid Hezbollah, while Bush was giving Israel a free hand in Lebanon, may force Iran to show it yet has power to damage U.S. interests. Public denunciations of Israel by the U.S.-backed, Shia-dominated regime in Baghdad may be an indicator of where Iran intends to exact payback.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad seems to be the lone beneficiary of the war, if there are any. Though an accused enabler of Hezbollah, Syria is emerging as the only party that can ensure that rockets from Tehran do not reach Hezbollah through the Bekaa Valley.
If at the time of truce Hezbollah’s Katyusha arsenal has been depleted, and the Lebanese army and a NATO force are to be moved into the border region with Israel, Syria’s cooperation in blocking Iran’s resupply of Hezbollah is essential. Realizing this, Condi Rice has indicated a willingness to talk with Damascus. The question will then become: What is Syria’s price for cooperation?
The answer is apparent. Syria has long sought a reopening of negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights, and a resolution of the Palestinian question by a return to land for peace.
Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, however, abandoned that road in favor of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and unwanted parts of the West Bank, and annexation of all the rest, including all of Jerusalem and her distant suburbs. If Israel refuses to discuss the Golan with Syria, or to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, it is hard to see any negotiated end to this Middle East crisis.
With its devastation of Lebanon, its blockade of the West Bank and Gaza, and its determination to destroy the Palestinian Authority, Israel is creating failed states on three borders. How this serves Israel’s or America’s interests is difficult to see.
Why can’t Christians unite and suppport other Christians especially if they are children, elderly and non combatants.
Why do some Christians value the state of Israel over other Christians?
Besides Sudan, the tragedy of Lebanon (over 1 million refugees) is the greatest persecution of Christians right now, Christians have more economic progress in Syria than Israel, they are not being wholesale pushed out (except in Iraq now) and it something WE (the United States of America) can do something about.
The tragedy in Lebanon can be stopped by US and Christian lives (and all lives) can be saved.
Christians are people too and not just Jews.
It happens every time. Israel is forced into a defensive war, and winds up defending itself against canards of aggression and excessive force. Around the water cooler and on talk radio, Israel’s supporters are put on the spot: Why are so many Lebanese civilians being killed? Why the destruction of so much infrastructure? Can’t Israel show some restraint?
At times like this, every Jew becomes an ambassador for Israel. Even if you don’t agree with everything Israel does, we must defend Israel’s right to self-defense.
So let’s sort out fact from fiction — for the sake of Israel, and for ourselves.
Myth: Israel is attacking and killing hundreds of Lebanese civilians.
Fact: The death of any innocent civilian is tragic and Israel regrets the loss of life.
Why are civilians dying? Because Hezbollah is hiding among civilians, using villages, mosques and even private homes to store and manufacture weapons caches that include 12,000 missiles.
This creates a conundrum for the Israeli military, where Hezbollah wins either way: If the IDF shies away from attacking because of the proximity of civilians, Hezbollah’s terror infrastructure remains in place. And if the IDF attacks, no matter how carefully, there will be collateral damage — triggering condemnation in the media, and emboldening Hezbollah to operate from civilian areas.
Even the UN’s humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, said: “Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending… among women and children. I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this.”
Ynet News reports that Hezbollah is trying to maximize Lebanese civilian deaths, presumably for its own propaganda purposes: Roadblocks have been set up outside some villages to prevent residents from leaving.
Meanwhile, in order to minimize civilian casualties, Israel has dropped warning leaflets in Lebanon, advising residents to protect their own safety by “avoiding all places frequented by Hizbullah.”
When was the last time that Arab terrorists alerted Israeli civilians of an impending strike?
So let’s be clear who bears responsibility for the deaths of Lebanese civilians. As Alan Dershowitz writes:
A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets.
Myth: Israel is needlessly targeting Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure.
Fact: Prior to the fighting, Lebanon was recovering from a long, destructive civil war. Last year’s “Cedar Revolution” against Syrian occupation gave the world high hopes for the possibility of a new Lebanon. Tourism was on the rise, business was improving, and national infrastructure was being rebuilt.
Hezbollah has now used this infrastructure to support its own violent agenda. For years, weapons shipments passed through the capitol’s international airport, across the Beirut-Damascus highway, and through various coastal ports. That’s why Israel has been forced to bomb the transportation network, to hinder the arrival of arms from Syria/Iran, and to stop Hezbollah from moving the kidnapped Israelis out of the country.
Other Israeli strikes have targeted telephone links used by Hezbollah to communicate, Hezbollah offices, banks that handle their money, and TV transmitters from which Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station is broadcast.
In fact, Israel is carefully selecting targets, in order to minimize damage. Writes David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute:
[Israel] has fought this war on its northern border as humanely as it can. Flip the switch in Beirut and the lights come on; open the taps, and the water flows. Essential services have been spared. The runways at Beirut Airport have been bombed to stop reinforcements to Hezbollah, but the control towers and the newly built terminal have been spared because Lebanon will need them later.
Myth: Israel’s military response is “disproportionate and excessive.”
Fact: We need to define our terms: Israel’s response may be “disproportionate,” but it is not “excessive.”
In war, you don’t measure response by what the enemy has done in the past, but rather how to stop their threats to attack you in the future. Hezbollah is threatening to send missiles into Tel Aviv, and there is the looming threat of Iran supplying Hezbollah with nuclear weapons. This is a serious security threat that must be eliminated.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen exploded the myth of “excessive force”:
For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy’s back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide… It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights.
Hezbollah boasts 12,000 missiles — not for defense, but to destroy Israel. Why would the world not allow Israel to defend itself? Because it is more comfortable to live with the illusion of peace, to hope that this will pass and things will somehow work out. But Israel cannot afford to ignore the reality of the threat.
It is true that the fighting has produced more Lebanese casualties than Israeli casualties. But if Israel were to tell its citizens not to hide in bomb shelters, so that the thousands of rockets launched from Lebanon would kill many more Israelis, would the world’s journalists and government leaders then smugly agree that Israel’s effort to stop Hezbollah is indeed “proportionate”?
Myth: Hezbollah has a justified grievance and is being provoked by Israel.
Fact: Charles Krauthammer said it best:
What’s the grievance here? Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the United Nations to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon’s southern border and retreated behind it. This “blue line” was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.
In the meanwhile, Hezbollah has created a mini-state inside of Lebanon — with territory, weapons and soldiers. Over the past six years, Hezbollah has launched dozens of attacks across the internationally-recognized border on both civilian and military targets within Israel.
The current crisis began on July 12, when Hezbollah launched rockets at Israeli towns and cities in an unprovoked attack, and then crossed the border killing eight Israeli soldiers engaged in routine patrol and kidnapping two more.
Hezbollah “claims” that it is fighting over Shebaa Farms, a small tract of land where the borders of Israel, Lebanon and Syria converge. The UN maintains that Shebaa Farms was captured from Syria in 1967, and is subject only to Israeli-Syrian agreement.
Shebaa Farms is a thin smokescreen. Hizbullah’s goal is the total destruction of Israel, plain and simple. (Read the Hizbullah charter, and Hezbollah’s goals in their own words.)
Even Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have now chastised Hezbollah for its “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.”
Myth: Lebanon bears no responsibility for the actions of Hezbollah.
Fact: According to UN Security Council Resolution 1559, it is the responsibility of the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah and to assert Lebanese sovereignty in southern Lebanon.
The Lebanese government has completely failed in this regard, standing by while Hezbollah has assembled weapons stockpiles and entrenched itself in Lebanese towns.
Further, Lebanon cannot claim disassociation: Hezbollah is actually part of the Lebanese coalition government, holding two seats in the cabinet!
The irony of all this is that most of the world — including the Lebanese population — hopes that Israel will succeed in doing the job that the Lebanese army has not: liberating southern Lebanon from Hezbollah rule, and giving it back to the Lebanese.
Let’s all do our part to promote the facts, and to help Israel win its battles on all fronts.
anon who posted from anis.com, please read and follow Jimmy’s da rulz and do not post lengthly comments.
I’m not criticizing the content of the comment with this. I havn’t even read it because I don’t have the time.
No serious criticism is ever made of Jews or Zionism. The dialogue, for instance, is strangely “silent” about the unrelenting Israeli war against the Christians of Palestine. In 1948, 18-20 percent of Palestinians were Christian. That figure is down to about 2 percent today. The Christian population of Bethlehem, once 95 percent, has dwindled to about 15 percent. Even worse, the “separation fence” now under construction cuts through many places that are holy to all Christians.
20% to 2%
aish.com will have to do better than quote the ‘Washington Post’, Zionist controlled like all the main-stream media, to be convincing.
Alan Dershowitz? Charles Krauthammer? Rabid Zionists both.
MaryC,
“Zionist controlled”???
Sorry, I don’t mean to be judgmental, but the language you use makes you sound like a “rabid” anti-Semite. You may not be, but you sound like it and like you are about as out of touch with reality as Hamas.
I am not an apologist for Israel but that kind of negative use of the word Zionist and the old “news papers that report things I don’t like are terribly biased” line don’t work well on me at least.
Just trying to be helpful here, not hurtful.
Isn’t Washington Post the Monnie Paper?
Alan Dershowitz is intelligent.
Krauthammer is generally conservative.
Alan Dershowitz is very Catholic.
Krauthammer hated Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. He is no friend of Catholics.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2431
J.R. –
“Mary C” is in reality a well-known anti-semite and has been posting under a number of aliases in this thread.
This is extremely bad.
“Everyone remaining in southern Lebanon will be regarded as a terrorist, Israel’s justice minister said yesterday as the military prepared to employ ‘huge firepower’ from the air in its campaign to crush Hizbollah.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml
Anyone who cannot get out, whether the elderly, the women, or the children will be either burned, gassed, or bombed in the genocidal campaign that is coming.
Pat Buchanan mentioned Israel negotiating the return of the Golan Heights (and other land) along with the “right of return” in order to achieve peace.
Two problems with that;
For one thing, it involves the return of land NOW, for the promise of peace LATER. Those who have vowed to destroy Israel are saying “Hand over these strategic positions and we promise not to use them to bombard your cities. Trust us!”.
The other problem is that the “right of return”, in practical terms, means suicide for Israel. There is dispute about why the refugees left in the first place. Conventional wisdom says they were driven out by Israel, but they were actually encouraged to leave by Arab leaders in the region, who promised that the war to destroy Israel would be brief and that they would return shortly to a new Arab territory.
Are we to believe that all these returning refugees will promise to respect and obey the Israeli government?
In sheer strategic terms, why should Israel consider for a moment either of these proposals?
Firstly, let me assure you that I am not anti- semite or anti any other group.
However, I believe modern Israel is a kleptocracy, as the country was stolen from the Palestinians by people who have no historical claim to it.
Don’t believe me? Then go to http://www.iamthewitness.com and listen to Benjamin Freedman’s speech. You don’t have scroll down very far as it’s in a prominent place on the home page. The speech is 45 years old so the sound quality isn’t great. He explains how Zionists were the cause of America entering WW1 and how they sold Germany down the banks.
Here, also is a quote from Theodor Herzl’s diary,who founded the Zionist movement in 1897:
“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews…become worse…this will assist in realization of our plans…I have an excellent idea…I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth…The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends.”
For one thing, it involves the return of land NOW, for the promise of peace LATER. Those who have vowed to destroy Israel are saying “Hand over these strategic positions and we promise not to use them to bombard your cities. Trust us!”.
Here is your real problem. Despite the collective fear Israelis seem to have that they are constantly within a whisker of being driven into the sea or wiped out to the last man, woman, and child, they are THE power in the region militarily. This latest episode only proves it again where they have in a matter of weeks bombed southern Lebanon out of several decades of progress and have had to endure a few inaccurate rocket attacks in response. Now, they lost a squad of men in an ambush and have resolved to depopulate southern Lebanon with military might. Who is the underdog and who gains sympathy by the day? – Hezbollah.
Acting on paranoid fantasies that have no danger of being realized only serves to radicalize the entire middle east. A few weeks ago Hezbollah was marginalized in the Arab world; now they are everybodys’ heroes. By not acknowledging that there is a middle that can be appealed to, Israel makes everyone an extremist and peace becomes that much less likely.
I think Pat meant that Alan Dershowitz is anti-Catholic. Dershowitz and most the Jewish intellectuals and neo-cons are not pro-Catholic.
34 more children dead but it is necessary to stop Hezbollah.
The USS Liberty: Case Closed
Michael B. Oren
——————————————————————————–
Early in the afternoon of June 8, 1967, Israeli jets and missile boats opened fire on the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship operating off the coast of Gaza. Struck by rockets, cannons and torpedoes, the vessel suffered extensive damage and over 200 casualties. Israeli forces were then engaged in the fourth day of what would soon be called the Six Day War, which would result in a devastating defeat for the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
At first overshadowed by Israel’s stunning victory, the attack on the Liberty was destined to become a recurring source of tension between Israel and the United States. Although Israel apologized for the attack and paid compensation to its victims, many American officials rejected Israel’s claim that the Liberty incident had been an honest mistake. Rather, they blamed Israel for what was at best inexcusable negligence, or at worst the premeditated murder of American servicemen. Such charges persisted in the face of successive inquiries by a broad range of American agencies and Congressional committees, as well as a full Israeli court of inquiry, all of which found no proof whatsoever that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship. On the contrary, the evidence produced by these investigations lent further support to Israel’s claim that its decision to attack was, given the circumstances, a reasonable error.
These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a “cover-up,” adding that he “cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity.”1 Paul C. Warnke, then Under Secretary of the Navy, has written that
I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units…. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests…. 2
Similarly, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk has called the attack “outrageous,” adding in a 1990 radio interview that “the Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go- ahead for these attacks….”3 David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo, puts it more bluntly: “I don’t think that there’s any doubt that it was deliberate…. [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history.”4 And George Ball, then Under Secretary of State, has called the American government’s response to the assault an “elaborate charade…. American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens.”5
Support for these charges can be found in a wide range of publications on the Liberty incident. Assault on the Liberty, a 1979 memoir by former Liberty officer Jim Ennes, Jr., describes the attack as intentional and malicious, and argues that the truth has been obscured by a massive cover-up conducted by Israel and its advocates abroad. This allegation has been repeated in Richard Deacon’s The Israeli Secret Service (1977), in John Ranelagh’s The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1986), and in Andrew and Leslie Cockburn’s Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israel Covert Relationship (1991). The cover-up theory is also central to Stephen Green’s Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (1984), one of the best-selling of all anti-Israel polemics. Nor is the charge of Israeli premeditation confined to books aimed at a popular audience. It also features prominently in academic works such as The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History by historian John E. Borne (1993), as well as Donald Neff’s Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (1984), considered by many scholars a standard text on the Six Day War.6 Indeed, so powerful is the trend towards acceptance of Israeli guilt for having planned the attack that a 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence was able to carry the assertion of Reverdy S. Fishel that “all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately….”7
The claim that Israel’s attack on the Liberty was premeditated has also appeared persistently in the press. In 1992, nationally syndicated columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak dedicated a column, “Twenty-Five Years of Cover-Up,”8 to this charge. Similar accusations have been aired on television programs such as ABC’s 20/20 and Geraldo Rivera’s Now It Can Be Told.9 The claim is particularly widespread on the Internet, where a search for the “USS Liberty” yields dozens of sites, from those of Arab propagandists (Birzeit.edu, Salam.org, Palestine Forever) and anti-Semitic hate mongers (The Tangled Web, Jew Watch) to the award-winning USS Liberty Homepage, posted by Ennes and other veterans. But while the tenor of these pages may differ – the veterans abjure any anti-Semitism, stressing that several of their crewmates were Jewish – their conclusions are indistinguishable: Israel wantonly attacked the Liberty with the intention of killing every man on board, and then thwarted attempts to investigate the crime.10
Refuting this accusation was difficult if not impossible in the past, when the official records on the Liberty were designated top-secret and closed to the general public. With the recent declassification of these documents in the United States and Israel, however, researchers have gained access to a wealth of primary sources – Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and U.S. military records, Israeli diplomatic correspondence, and memoranda from both the State Department and the White House. With the aid of these materials, the attack on the Liberty can now be reconstructed virtually minute-by-minute and with remarkable detail. The picture that emerges is not one of crime at all, nor even of criminal negligence, but of a string of failed communications, human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides – the kind of tragic, senseless mistake that is all too common in the thick of war.
The USS Liberty was cruising from Norfolk, Virginia to Abidjan on the Ivory Coast when, in mid-May 1967, crisis erupted in the Middle East. Without warning, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser sent thousands of troops into the Sinai desert, ousted the UN peacekeeping forces stationed there and then closed the Straits of Tiran – the critical waterway leading to Israel’s southern port of Eilat – to Israeli shipping.
In weighing its response, the Israeli government consulted with President Lyndon Johnson, who, though preoccupied with the Vietnam War, was sympathetic to Israel’s plight. The President proposed to challenge the Tiran blockade with an international maritime convoy and on May 24, in preparation for this plan, he ordered the U.S. Sixth Fleet to advance into the eastern Mediterranean. Aware of the danger of becoming embroiled in an Arab-Israeli war, however, Washington cautioned the fleet to remain, until further notice, “outside an arc whose radius is 240 miles from Port Said,” on the Egyptian coast.11
At this time, the Liberty was formally under the command of the Sixth Fleet, although in practice its orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, operating under the aegis of the National Security Agency (NSA). Code-named “Rockstar,” the 455-foot “Auxiliary General Technical Research Ship (agtr),” as it was euphemistically called, was in fact a signals intelligence vessel (sigint) equipped with cutting-edge listening and decoding devices. Among its 294-man crew were several dozen members of the Naval Security Group, who worked below the starboard deck in an area strictly off-limits even to the Liberty’s skipper, Cmdr. William L. McGonagle. The ship sported large antennas and radar discs, but apart from four .50-caliber machine-gun mounts, it had no visible armaments. The markings “GTR-5” were freshly painted on its bow, and from its mast flew a standard, navy-issue American flag.
As the Sixth Fleet steamed toward the eastern Mediterranean, the Liberty headed for Rota, Spain. There, in addition to supplies, it took on three Marine Corps Arabic translators, augmenting the three NSA Russian-language experts already on board. Then, on May 30, McGonagle received new instructions to sail “at best speed” to a point just half a mile outside Egyptian and Israeli territorial waters, which extended twelve and six nautical miles, respectively, from the coast. The order, originating with the JCS, superseded a request by the U.S. Naval Command in Europe (cinceur) to hold the Liberty in Rota “until directed otherwise.” Neither cinceur nor McGonagle was aware of the Liberty’s objective, later described by the Defense Department as “assuring communications between U.S. government posts… and assisting in… the evacuation of American citizens.” Though the exact nature of its mission remains classified, the Liberty was most likely sent to track the movements of Egyptian troops and their Soviet advisors in Sinai – hence the need for Arabic and Russian translators.12
Johnson’s idea of a convoy aimed at breaking the blockade came to nothing, and Nasser’s troops remained mobilized in the Sinai. Syrian and Jordanian forces were also poised to attack. On the morning of June 5, with diplomatic options exhausted, the Israeli government went to war.13 The IDF launched lightning air and ground strikes against Egypt, quickly gaining the initiative, and repulsed attacks from Syria and Jordan. Yet the Israelis remained highly concerned about threats to their coastline, along which most of the country’s major industrial and population centers were situated. The Egyptian navy outnumbered Israel’s by more than five to one in warships and, in a crisis, could call on the support of some seventy Soviet vessels in the vicinity.14 The failure of the Israeli navy’s attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel’s fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel’s request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that “if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet.”16
Before dawn on June 8, three days into the war, the Liberty finally reached its destination, barely within international waters north of the Sinai coast. Plying at a speed of five knots between Port Said and Gaza, the Liberty entered a lane rarely used by commercial freighters, which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. Anxious about his proximity to the fighting, McGonagle asked the Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, for permission to pull back from the shore, or else to be provided with a destroyer escort. Martin rejected these requests, noting that the Liberty “is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation.”
Unbeknownst to both Martin and McGonagle, however, the JCS had repeatedly cabled the Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed, however, by the navy’s overloaded, overly complex communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS’ orders would not be received by the Liberty until the following day, June 9, by which time they would no longer be relevant.17
At 5:55 a.m. on June 8, Cmdr. Uri Meretz, a naval observer aboard an Israel Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance plane, noted what he believed to be an American supply vessel, designated GTR-5, seventy miles west of the Gaza coast. At Israeli naval headquarters in Haifa, staff officers fixed the location of the ship with a red marker, indicating “unidentified,” on their control board. Research in Jane’s Fighting Ships, however, established the vessel’s identity as “the electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the United States, the Liberty.” The marker was changed to green, for “neutral.” Another sighting of the ship – “gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships” – was made by an Israeli fighter aircraft at 9:00 a.m., twenty miles north of El-Arish, on the Sinai coast, which had fallen to Israeli forces the day before.18 Neither of these reports made mention of the 5-by-8-foot American flag which, according to the ship’s crewmen, was flying from the Liberty’s starboard halyard.
The crew would also testify later that six IAF aircraft subsequently flew over the ship, giving them ample opportunity to identify its nationality. Israel Air Force reports, however, make no further mention of the Liberty.19 There may indeed have been additional Israeli overflights, but the IAF pilots were not looking for the Liberty. Their target was Egyptian submarines, which had been spotted off the coast. At 11:00 a.m., while the hunt for Egyptian submarines was on, the officer on duty at Israel’s naval headquarters, Capt. Avraham Lunz, concluded his shift. In accordance with procedures, he removed the Liberty’s green marker on the grounds that it was already five hours old and no longer accurate.20
Then, at 11:24, a terrific explosion rocked the shores of El-Arish. The blast was clearly heard by the men on the Liberty’s bridge, who had been navigating according to the town’s tallest minaret, and who also noted a thick pall of smoke wafting toward them. In El-Arish itself, Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore. Though the explosion probably resulted from an ammunition dump fire, that fact was unknown at the time, and both Egyptian and Israeli sources had reported shelling of the area by Egyptian warships the previous day. There was therefore good reason to conclude that the Egyptian navy had trained its guns on Sinai.21
Minutes after the explosion, the Liberty reached the eastern limit of its patrol and turned 238 degrees back in the direction of Port Said. Meanwhile, reports of a naval bombardment on El-Arish continued to reach IDF General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv. Rabin took them seriously, concerned that the shelling was a prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank advancing Israeli troops. He reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the war area, but also advised caution: Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby. Since no fighter planes were available, the navy was asked to intercede, with the assumption that air cover would be provided later. More than half an hour passed without any response from naval headquarters in Haifa. The General Staff finally issued a rebuke: “The coast is being shelled and you – the navy – have done nothing.”22 Capt. Izzy Rahav, who had replaced Lunz in the operations room, needed no more prodding. He dispatched three torpedo boats of the 914th squadron, code-named “Pagoda,” to find the enemy vessel responsible for the bombardment and destroy it. The time was 12:05 p.m.
At 1:41 p.m., Ensign Aharon Yifrah, combat information officer aboard the flagship of these torpedo boats, T-204, informed its captain, Cmdr. Moshe Oren,23 that an unidentified ship had been sighted northeast of El-Arish at a range of 22 miles. The ship was sailing toward Egypt at a speed, Yifrah estimated, of 30 knots.
Yifrah’s assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots. Moreover, the Israelis had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessel in the area sailing at over 20 knots, a speed which, at that time, could only be attained by fighting ships. This information, when added to the ship’s direction, indicated that the target was an enemy destroyer fleeing toward port after having shelled El-Arish.
The torpedo boats gave chase, but even at their maximum speed of 36 knots, they did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Rahav therefore alerted the air force, and two Mirage III fighters were diverted from the Suez Canal, northeast to the sea. When they arrived, the vessel they saw was “gray with two guns in the forecastle, a mast and funnel.” Making two passes at 3,000 feet, formation commander Capt. Spector (IDF records do not provide pilots’ first names) reckoned that the ship was a “Z” or Hunt-class destroyer without the deck markings (a white cross on a red background) of the Israeli navy. Spector then spoke with air force commander Gen. Motti Hod, who asked him repeatedly whether he could see a flag. The answer was “Negative.” Nor were there any distinguishing marks other than some “black letters” painted on the hull.
IAF Intelligence Chief Col. Yeshayahu Bareket also claimed to have contacted American Naval Attaché Castle at this point in an attempt to ascertain whether the suspect ship was the Liberty, but the latter professed no knowledge of the Liberty’s schedule – a claim later denied by Castle but, strangely, confirmed by McGonagle.24 One fact is clear, however: After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack.
The first salvos caught the Liberty’s crew in “stand-down” mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle. Radio operators on board found most of their frequencies inoperable and barely managed to send an SOS to the Sixth Fleet. The Mirages made three strafing runs and were then joined by two additional aircraft, Israeli Super-Mysteres returning from the Mitla Pass with a payload of napalm. After fourteen minutes of action, the pilots reported having made good hits – over eight hundred holes would later be counted in the hull. The entire superstructure of the ship, from the main deck to the bridge, was aflame.
Throughout these sorties, no one aboard the Liberty suspected that the planes were Israeli. Indeed, rumors spread that the attackers were Egyptian MiGs. After the first strike, the visibility that had enabled crewmen to identify IAF reconnaissance craft earlier in the day was lost to the smoke of battle. One of the Israeli pilots, curious as to why the vessel had not returned fire, made a final pass at ninety feet. “I see no flag,” he told headquarters. “But there are markings on the hull – Charlie-Tango-Romeo-five.”25
While Egyptian naval ships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. The fact that the ship had Western markings led Rabin to fear that it was Soviet, and he immediately called off the jets. Two IAF Hornet helicopters were sent to look for survivors – Spector had reported seeing men overboard – while the torpedo boat squadron was ordered to hold its fire pending further attempts at identification. Though that order was recorded in the torpedo boat’s log, Oren claimed he never received it.26 It was now 2:20 in the afternoon; twenty-four minutes would pass before the squadron made contact with the Liberty.
During that interval, the ship’s original flag, having been shredded during the attack, was replaced by a larger (7-by-13-foot) holiday ensign. As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. “Help is on the way,” replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes – F-104s armed with nuclear weapons. Before they reached their objective, however, the jets were recalled by Vice-Adm. Martin. If Rabin feared that the ship was Russian, Martin suspected that its attackers were Russian, and without authorization from the highest level, he did not want to risk starting a nuclear war.27
Meanwhile, the Israeli torpedo boats came within range. The Liberty was shrouded in smoke, but even so, Oren could see that it could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled El-Arish. Rather, he believed, it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced that destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach. At 6,000 meters, Oren’s T-204 flagship paused and signaled “AA” – “identify yourself.” Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply in kind, AA, with a hand-held Aldis lamp.28 Oren remembered receiving a similar response from the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim al-Awwal, captured by the Israeli navy in the 1956 war, and was sure that he now faced an enemy ship. Consulting his naval intelligence manual, he concluded that the vessel in front of him – its deck line, midship bridge and smokestack – resembled the Egyptian freighter El-Quseir. The officers of the other two boats reached the same conclusion independently, and followed Oren into battle formation.29
Any lingering doubts were soon dispelled as the Israeli boats came under sudden fire from the Liberty. Unaware of McGonagle’s order not to shoot at the approaching boats, a sailor had opened up with one of the Brownings. Another machine gun also fired, apparently on its own, triggered by exploding ammunition. Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire. Rahav finally approved. 30
Of the five torpedoes fired at the Liberty only one found its mark, a direct hit on the starboard side, killing twenty-five, almost all of them from the intelligence section. The Israeli craft closed in, their cannons and machine guns raking the Liberty’s hull and, according to the crew’s testimony, its life rafts as well. One of those rafts, picked up by T-203, was found to bear U.S. Navy markings – the first indication that Oren had that the ship might be American. His suspicions mounted when while circling the badly listing ship, Oren confronted the designation GTR-5. But still no flag was spotted, and it would take another half an hour, until 3:30 p.m., to establish the vessel’s identity.31
“I must admit I had mixed feelings about the news – profound regret at having attacked our friends and a tremendous sense of relief [that the boat was not Soviet],” Rabin later recalled.32 News of the ship’s American nationality had arrived during an emergency meeting of the General Staff to discuss possible Soviet reprisals. An apology was immediately sent to Castle, and none too soon, as eight conventionally armed warplanes had been launched from the USS Saratoga and sanctioned to “use whatever force required to defend the Liberty.”
As the American jets returned to their carrier, the two Israeli Hornets reached the Liberty and offered assistance. Oren, shouting through a bullhorn, also tried to communicate with the ship. But McGonagle refused to respond. Realizing, finally, that his assailants had been Israeli, he flagged the torpedo boats away and gestured provocatively at the Hornets. Even Castle himself, arriving just before dusk in another Israeli chopper, was denied permission to land. By 5:05 p.m., the Israelis had broken off contact, and the Liberty, navigating virtually without systems, with 34 dead and 171 wounded aboard, staggered out to sea. 33
The center of the crisis then shifted from the Mediterranean to Washington. It was only at 9:50 a.m. eastern time – nearly two hours after the first shots were fired34 – that the White House received word from the JCS that the Liberty, “located 60-100 miles north of Egypt,” had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved. To forestall further escalation, he hotlined the Kremlin with news of the attack and of the dispatch of jets from the Saratoga.
But then the Israelis informed the Americans of the “mistaken action,” and Johnson, like Rabin before him, breathed a sigh of relief.35 While “strong dismay” was conveyed to Ambassador Harman, so too were the Administration’s thanks for the speed of Israel’s notification. Apologies soon came in from Prime Minister Levi Eshkol (“Please accept my profound condolences and convey my sympathy to all the bereaved families”) and Foreign Minister Abba Eban (“I am deeply mortified and grieved by the tragic accident involving the lives and safety of Americans”), as well as from the Israeli chargé d’affaires in Washington, Efraim Evron, a personal friend of Johnson’s (“I grieve with you over the lives that were lost, and share in the sorrow of the parents, wives and children of the men who died in this cruel twist of fate”). Within forty-eight hours, the Israeli government offered to compensate the victims and their families.36
At first, Israeli expressions of regret and offers of restitution seemed to satisfy the Administration, whose initial reaction was to downplay the incident. Of particular concern was the danger that the Liberty’s presence in the area might reinforce Nasser’s charge that the Sixth Fleet had aided Israel in the war – what Washington called “The Big Lie.”37 These reservations soon faded, however, as senior officials began to ask pointed questions: Why did the Israelis attack a neutral ship on the high seas, without the slightest provocation? How had they failed to see the Liberty’s flag or the freshly painted markings on its hull? How could they confuse the Liberty with the El-Quseir, a far slower, smaller boat, with no distinctive antennas? And finally, how could a ship sailing at 5 knots, whose maximum speed was 18, be gauged at 30?
“Beyond comprehension,” fumed Secretary of State Dean Rusk. “We cannot accept such a situation.” Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board chief Clark Clifford, known for his pro-Israeli views, reported to Johnson that the attack was “inexcusable… a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli government should be held completely responsible.” While no official could explain what motivation Israel might have had for assaulting an American vessel, neither did the facts seem to square. Either the Israelis had exhibited rank incompetence – in the midst of a victory that was nothing short of brilliant – or they had struck the Liberty on purpose. Indeed, many in the Administration had already concluded that the attack was intentional and that Israel’s explanations were entirely disingenuous. Increasingly, the charge of negligence gave way to one of cold-blooded murder.38
The Israelis moved to dispel these accusations with two preliminary reports on the incident. These admitted the IDF’s culpability in erroneously reporting a naval barrage on El-Arish, miscalculating the Liberty’s speed, and confusing the ship with the El-Quseir. Yet both studies insisted that the attack was an “innocent mistake,” with no malice or gross negligence involved.39
“This makes no goddamned sense at all,” remarked Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow when presented with these findings on June 10. The attack, wrote Rusk, was “quite literally incomprehensible… an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.” Further umbrage was taken at the Israeli reports’ suggestion that the Liberty had no business being where it was, had failed to inform Israel of its presence, and had failed to use all means (semaphores, flares, flags) to identify itself to the torpedo boats. The United States now demanded that Israel not only pay compensation but admit wrongdoing and court-martial those responsible for the attack “in accordance with international law.”40
Israel rebuffed these demands, but at the same time it launched a third and even more comprehensive investigation. Headed by military jurist Col. Yeshayahu Yerushalmi, the commission delved into the question of the control-board markers, the pilots’ testimonies and the orders given to the torpedo boats. Yet, while critical of the same intelligence failures noted in the earlier reports, as well as the awkward command relationship between the air force and the navy, Yerushalmi’s findings were identical to those of his predecessors. “For all my regret that our forces were involved in an incident with a vessel belonging to a friendly state,” he wrote, “I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify a court- martial.”41
The top-secret Yerushalmi report was conveyed to the Americans, who rejected it with the same mix of incredulity and indignation that had marked their responses to the previous reports. But the United States was holding its own investigations into the affair, beginning with the Navy Court of Inquiry held in Malta shortly after the attack. The hearings revealed basic contradictions in the testimonies of McGonagle and other officers regarding the length and sequence of the attack, and raised the possibility that, due to light winds, the flag might well not have been visible to Israeli pilots. Furthermore, Rear-Adm. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., the presiding officer, found no evidence that the attack was in any way intentional, calling it “a case of mistaken identity.” Subsequent closed-door inquiries were conducted by the CIA, the NSA, the JCS, as well as by both houses of Congress. All reached the same conclusion: That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more.
Yet suspicions of Israel’s duplicity in the incident, even among high officials, lingered. As Rusk asserted many years later in his memoirs, “I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day.”42
The American and Israeli investigative reports go a long way toward disproving the charge that the Israelis maliciously opened fire on a ship they knew to be American. In the three decades prior to their declassification, however, numerous theories were posited to explain why Israel, engaged in war and internationally isolated, would willingly attack its only superpower ally. Now, with the aid of the recently released documents, it is possible to determine whether any of these hypotheses had a basis in fact. Among the more far-fetched theories that have been suggested is the possibility that the Liberty was attacked because it had learned of the Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs; or that it had picked up Israeli attempts to draw Jordan into the war so that Jerusalem might be brought under Israeli control.43 But no document, American or Israeli, contains any reference to prisoner executions; neither are they mentioned in any Arabic source that has come to light to date.44 By the same token, the Jordanian attack on Israel on June 5 and the fall of Jerusalem to Israeli forces on June 7 took place well before the Liberty’s arrival off the Gaza coast, and none of the documents now available in any way link the Liberty incident on June 8 to these events.
Far more serious has been the claim that the Israelis attacked the Liberty because it had been eavesdropping on Israel’s plans for capturing the Golan Heights. Thus Adm. Thomas Moorer, writing in the July-August 1997 issue of The Link magazine, has speculated that
Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson’s known opposition to such a move…. And I believe [Israeli Defense Minister] Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information – the USS Liberty.45
Historian Donald Neff takes the supposition a step further, presenting it as fact:
If the ship could listen in on Israeli military communications, as it could, then the United States could discover Israel’s plans to attack Syria. Foreknowledge of the attack might bring an ultimatum from the United States, an ultimatum that could not be ignored because Israel desperately still needed Washington’s support both in the United Nations and to fend off any threats from the Soviet Union. Without the United States, the Soviet Union might directly intervene if Israel took on its last, comparatively unscathed, client, Syria.
Indeed, Neff goes so far as to posit that Israel actually delayed its attack on Syria until after the Liberty was neutralized.46
The theory that the attack on the Liberty was motivated by a desire to conceal the impending Israeli attack on the Golan Heights is not, then, confined to the extremist fringe, but has made headway in important political and academic circles. In the past, refuting it was dependent largely on appeals to common sense, such as that made by Ernest Castle, the former U.S. naval attaché, in an interview with British television:
Let us presume the Israeli high command was… fearful that the United States would learn of what was an evident Israeli plan to take the Golan, or any other plan on the part of the Israelis. Would they say, “my golly, that will irritate the United States, our great friend. We’d better not… let that happen – so let’s sink their ship instead”?47
Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes – submarines could have done the job – nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance.
But it is no longer necessary to decide the argument on the basis of common sense alone. Like the other claims for Israel’s alleged motive in attacking the Liberty, the one linking the assault to the Golan Heights campaign cannot withstand the scrutiny of the newly declassified documents. These confirm that Israel made no attempt to hide its preparations for an offensive against Syria, and that the United States government, relying on regular diplomatic channels, remained fully apprised of them. Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria’s bombardment of Israeli villages “in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim.” That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that “I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack [on the Golan] does take place or has already done so,” and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that “there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow.”48
Similarly, the United States National Archives contain no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington’s already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and of Israel’s intentions there. The Israeli records, for their part, reveal no fear whatsoever of American opposition to punishing Syria, but only of possible Soviet military intervention. (It was this fear that led Israel to delay its decision to capture the Golan until the morning of June 9.) Nor do they suggest that there was any danger of an American ultimatum. On the contrary, from his conversations with presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy and other administration officials, Foreign Minister Abba Eban understood that “official Washington would not be too aggrieved if Syria suffered some painful effects from the war that it had started….”49
Once again, there is no indication in the archives that the Israelis were troubled by the Liberty, much less considered it worthy of attack. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone in the Israeli government, or the IDF Chief of Staff, knew of the ship’s presence at all.50
The USS Liberty was decommissioned in 1968 and later sold for scrap. That same year, William McGonagle received the Congressional Medal of Honor for gallantry displayed during the attack, and Israel paid over $6 million in restitution to the families of those wounded and killed. An additional $6 million in damages was paid under a 1980 agreement in which Israel and the United States consented “not to address the issue or motive or reopen the case for any reason.”51 But the case remained open nonetheless. While the controversy surrounding similar incidents would subside – the Iraqi missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987 and the downing of an Iranian jetliner by the USS Vincennes in 1988 come to mind – the bitterness over the Liberty incident endured. The release of hitherto classified papers on the incident, however, now enables us to dispel spurious theories about the incident, and to conclude that Israel’s assault upon the USS Liberty was a tragic error, and nothing more. In light of the new documents, it is now possible to reconstruct the chain of mishaps on the part of both sides that led to the unintended Israeli attack.
The incident began with the ill-conceived decision to send the Liberty to the crisis-torn Middle East, a mere half-mile beyond Egyptian waters, in an area not used by commercial shipping and which Nasser had declared off-limits to neutral vessels. The Americans did not accede to Chief of Staff Rabin’s request for the identification of all U.S. ships in the area or Ambassador Harman’s request for a strategic liaison between Israel and the Sixth Fleet. The Liberty’s dispatchers, meanwhile, overrode naval orders to keep the ship in Spain, and then failed to inform the U.S. attaché in Tel Aviv of its presence near the war zone. These mistakes were compounded by the navy’s communications system, which delayed by as much as two days orders to the Liberty to withdraw 100 miles from the coast.52 Even after it was hit, the Americans had difficulty locating the Liberty, the JCS placing it at “60-100 miles north of Egypt.” If neither Castle, nor cinceur, nor even the President of the United States could know where the Liberty was, it seems unreasonable to expect that the Israelis, in the thick of battle, should have been able to locate it.
The Israelis, too, committed their own share of fateful errors, as the Yerushalmi report points out: The erroneous reports of bombardment at El-Arish, the failure to replace the Liberty’s marker on the board after it had been cleared, the over-eagerness of naval commanders, and worst of all, Ensign Yifrah’s miscalculation of the ship’s speed. Though Yerushalmi’s report suggested reasons for these errors – inflexible naval procedures, the inaccuracy of speed-measuring devices – one is still left with a sense of poor organization and sloppy execution. Moreover, there were breakdowns in communications between the Israeli navy and air force stemming from inadequate command structure and the immense pressures of a multi-front war. To these factors must be added Israel’s general sensitivity about its coastal defenses, and the exhaustion of its pilots after four days of uninterrupted combat. Yet none of these amount to the kind of gross negligence of which the Israelis have been accused.
And then there were “bad breaks” that are unfortunately commonplace in war: The U.S. planes that were called back because of their nuclear payload (their mere presence might have warded off the torpedo boats); the Liberty’s inability to signal the approaching Israeli boats, and the machine gunner who fired on them; and the smoke that hid the identities of both the attackers and the attacked.
All of these elements combined to create a tragic “friendly fire” incident of the kind that claimed the lives of at least fifty Israeli soldiers in the Six Day War, and caused 5,373 American casualties in Vietnam in 1967 alone.53 Obviously, these findings can do little to lessen the suffering of those American servicemen who were wounded in the incident, nor can they be expected to offer comfort to the families of the dead. But they should at least permit us to bring to a close what has for a generation remained one of the most painful chapters in the history of America’s relationship with the State of Israel.
Michael B. Oren is a Senior Fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of Azure.
Notes
The author wishes to thank Mihal Tzur, Director of the Israel Defense Forces Archive, and Judge A. Jay Cristol for their assistance in researching this article.
1. Thomas H. Moorer’s foreword to James M. Ennes, Jr., Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship (New York: Ivy, 1979), p. ix.
2. Cited in USS Liberty Internet site (www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty/liberty.htm).
3. Wisconsin Public Radio station wlfm interview of Dean Rusk by Tom Clark, February 1999, cited in USS Liberty Internet site.
4. Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library (hereafter “LBJ”), Oral History of David G. Nes, p. 31.
5. Cited in USS Liberty Internet site.
6. Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (Brattleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1984).
7. Reverdy S. Fishel, “The Attack on the Liberty: An ‘Accident’?” in International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 8, no. 3, 1995.
8. June 1992. See also Evans and Novak’s “Remembering the Liberty,” in The Washington Post, November 6, 1991; “The Liberty Quotes,” in The Washington Post, November 11, 1991; Mark Genrich, editorial page column, The Phoenix Gazette, June 5, 1996.
9. ABC’s 20/20, May 21, 1987, and NBC’s The Story Behind the Story, January 27, 1992, cited in A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 145-148. Cristol, a federal judge in Miami, is the leading expert on the Liberty incident, having devoted years to its study.
10. Anyone in doubt about the nature of the USS Liberty Internet site can follow its links to any number of rabidly anti-Israel sites, among them Palestinian Geocities and Paul Findley’s Council for the National Interest.
11. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 18, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Military Actions – Straits of Tiran, May 24, 1967.
12. LBJ, Box 1-10, The USS Liberty: Department of Defense Press Release, June 8, 1967; Box 19: CINCUSNAVEUR Order, May 30, 1967; Box 18, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Military Actions – Straits of Tiran, May 25, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967.
13. For a discussion of Israel’s considerations in going to war, see Michael B. Oren, “Did Israel Want the Six Day War?” Azure 7, Spring 1999, pp. 47-86.
14. United States National Archives, Middle East Crisis Files, 1967, Record Group 59 (hereafter “USNA”), USUN, Box 6: CINSTRIKE to AIG, June 2, 1967. Ben-Gurion Archive, Diary, Entry for May 26, 1967. See also Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 25-26.
15. British Public Record Office, FCO17/498, Israel – Political Affairs: Tel Aviv to Foreign Office, June 5, 1967. See also Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs (Berkeley: University of California, 1996), pp. 100, 110; Hirsh Goodman and Ze’ev Schiff, “The Attack on the Liberty,” The Atlantic Monthly, September 1984, p. 81.
16. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 20: United States Policy and Diplomacy in the Middle East Crisis, May 15-June 10, 1967, pp. 87-88.
17. LBJ, National Security File, History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967; Department of Defense: USS Liberty Incident, June 15, 1967. usna, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967.
18. Israel Defense Forces Archive, 2104/92/47: “Attack on the Liberty,” IDF Historical Department, Research and Instruction Branch, June 1982 (hereafter “IDF, Attack on the Liberty”). The Israeli fighter pilot originally thought that the ship had fired at him, and Israeli destroyers were ordered to find it. The orders were rescinded, however, following further debriefing of the pilot.
19. Israel State Archives (hereafter “ISA”), 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident; IDF Preliminary Inquiry File 1/67 Col. Y. Yerushalmi (hereafter “ISA, The Yerushalmi Report”). Report by Carl F. Salans, Department of State Legal Advisor, September 21, 1967, to the Under Secretary of State. (Document available on the USS Liberty site.)
20. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. The Liberty was also sailing near ‘Point Boaz,’ the location at which Israeli aircraft entered and exited Sinai – another reason for the heavy air traffic that morning. See IDF, Attack on the Liberty, p. 39, note 14.
21. Muhammad Fawzi, The Three Years War (Cairo: Dar al-Mustaqbal al-Arabi, 1980), p. 149 [Arabic]; Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 30.
22. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. See also Rabin, Memoirs, pp. 108-109.
23. No relation to the author.
24. Interview with Gen. (ret.) Mordechai Hod, March 9, 1999. Ehud Yanay, No Margin for Error: The Making of the Israeli Air Force (New York: Pantheon, 1993), p. 257. Castle’s denial and McGonagle’s confirmation of Bareket’s claim both appear on the USS Liberty site.
25. The Israeli pilot mistook the “G” on the Liberty’s hull for a “C.” IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report.
26. Rabin, Memoirs, p. 108. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report.
27. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967. See also Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 55.
28. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. USNA, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967.
29. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report.
30. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report.
31. IDF, Attack on the Liberty. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report.
32. Rabin, Memoirs, p. 109.
33. USNA, Box 16: “Liberty Hit by Torpedo,” June 8, 1967; “Inventory of Submarines,” June 8, 1967; W. Rostow to the President, June 8, 1967; Box 15: DOS to CINSTRIKE, June 9, 1967. LBJ, Country Files, Box 1-10, The National Military Command Center: Memorandum for the Record of Preliminary Information – USS Liberty Struck by Torpedo, June 8, 1967; Box 104/107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 9, 1967; History of the Middle East Crisis, Box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967.
34. The United States had gone over to daylight savings time, while Israel had not, and the result was a six-hour time difference between Washington and Israel.
35. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Rostow to the President, June 8, 1967; Note to the President, June 8, 1967; Message to Kosygin, June 8, 1967. See also Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 301-303; Dean Rusk, As I Saw It (New York: Penguin, 1990), p. 388.
36. usna, Box 16: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Eshkol to Johnson; Memos to the President (W. Rostow), Box 17: Barbour to Department of State, June 8, 1967. ISA, 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident: Harman to Foreign Ministry, June 10, 1967; Eban to Johnson, June 9, 1967; Evron to Johnson, June 8, 1967.
37. Upon learning of the attack, the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv, Walworth Barbour, warned the State Department that “its [the Liberty’s] proximity to the scene of the conflict could feed Arab suspicions of U.S.-Israeli collusion.” Similarly, Ambassador-Designate Richard H. Nolte in Egypt wrote, “We had better get our story on the torpedoing of USS Liberty out fast and it had better be good.” See LBJ, National Security File, Box 20: United States Policy and Diplomacy in the Middle East Crisis, May 15-June 10, 1967, pp. 143-144; Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Cairo to Department, June 9, 1967.
38. ISA, 4079/26 Foreign Ministry Files, The Liberty Incident, Harman to Foreign Ministry. LBJ, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. See also Clark Clifford (with Richard Holbrooke), Counsel to the President (New York: Random House, 1991), pp. 446-447; Phil G. Goulding, Confirm or Deny: Informing the People on National Security (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), pp. 123-130; Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 93-94.
39. ISA, 4079/26 The Liberty Incident: Bitan to Harman, June 18, 1967.
40. ISA, 4079/26 The Liberty Incident: Bitan to Harman, June 18, 1967; Evron to Eban (Rostow quote), June 19, 1967. LBJ, National Security File, Country Files, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Rusk to Harman, June 10, 1967.
41. ISA, The Yerushalmi Report. LBJ, National Security File, Country Files, Box 104/107: Middle East Crisis: Diplomatic Activity in Connection with the USS Liberty Incident, June 14, 1967. Though none of the Israeli officers involved in the incident stood trial, Capt. Rahav, who dispatched the torpedo boats and called on the air force to attack the Liberty, was forced to resign his commission. See Shlomo Erell, Facing the Sea: The Story of a Fighting Sailor and Commander (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 1998). [Hebrew]
42. USNA, Chairman Wheeler Files, Box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967. LBJ, National Security File, Special Committee, Box 1-10: Why the USS Liberty Was Where It Was. Cristol, Liberty Incident, pp. 86-105. Rusk, As I Saw It, p. 388.
43. See, for example, Anthony Pearson, Conspiracy of Silence: The Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty (London: Quartet Books, 1978).
44. Though Arab archives remain closed, the Six Day (or June) War has yielded numerous memoirs by the civilian and military leaders of Egypt and Jordan. Examples can be found in Mahmud Riad, Mahmud Riad’s Memoirs (Beirut: Al-Muasasah al-‘Arabiyya Lil’Dirasat al-Nashr, 1987), vol. 2 [Arabic]; Muhammad Hassanayn Heikal, 1967: The Explosion (Cairo: Markaz al-Ahram, 1990) [Arabic]; Abdel-Latif Al-Baghdadi, Memoirs (Cairo: al-Maktab al-Misri al-Hadith, 1977) [Arabic]; Abdel Muhsin Kamil Murtagi, Major-General Murtagi Attests to the Truth (Cairo: Dar al-Watan al-Arabi, 1976). [Arabic]
45. The Link, July-August 1997.
46. Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem, p. 253. Further exposition of the theory appears in Richard K. Smith, “The Violation of the Liberty,” in the Institute for Naval Proceedings, June 1978.
47. Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, cited in Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 204.
48. LBJ, National Security File, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Jerusalem to the Secretary of State, June 8, 1967; Barbour to Department, June 8, 1967; Joint Embassy Memorandum, June 8, 1967.
49. Abba Eban, Personal Witness: Israel Through My Eyes (New York: Putnam, 1992), p. 423. On Israeli decisionmaking on the Golan, see Hanoch Bartov, Dado: 48 Years and 20 Days (Tel Aviv: Ma’ariv, 1978), pp. 100-102 [Hebrew]; Eitan Haber, Today War Will Break Out (Tel Aviv: Yedi’ot Aharonot, 1987), pp. 244-246 [Hebrew]; Zerah Verhaftig, Fifty Years and One (Jerusalem: Yad Shapira, 1998), pp. 190-191 [Hebrew]; Rabin, Memoirs, pp. 113-116.
50. It is ironic, perhaps, that the force of this logic was upheld not only by Israelis but also by Arab writers who, sticking to the “Big Lie,” alleged that the Liberty had been directing IAF strikes in Sinai and was only inadvertently attacked. Suleiman Mathhar, Annals of the June War Issue: Transcript of the Testimony before the Revolutionary Historical Commission (Cairo: Kitab al-Huriyya, 1990), pp. 86-88 [Arabic]; Muhammad El-Farra, Years of No Decision (London: KPI, 1987), pp. 58-68; Riad, Memoirs, p. 312; Heikal, The Explosion, pp. 731-732; Fawzi, The Three Years War, pp. 135-136. The claim also featured prominently in Egyptian radio broadcasts; see BBC World Service, Daily Report, Middle East, Africa and Western Europe B 8, June 16, 1967.
51. Details of the Israeli compensation payments can be found in U.S. Department of State Bulletin, vol. lviii, no. 1512, June 17, 1968, and vol. lx, no. 1562, June 2, 1969, and U.S. Department of State Daily News Briefing, DPC 2451,
December 18, 1980.
52. Congressman John Rhodes, a member of the House Appropriations Committee which investigated the Navy’s communications network in 1971, called the events surrounding the Liberty incident a “comedy of errors,” and then added: “Here we are, with the most sophisticated communications system ever known to mankind, and maybe it is so sophisticated we do not know how to operate it.” John J. Rhodes, Committee Hearing Report, p. 394, cited in Cristol, Liberty Incident, p. 98.
53. Friendly Fire Casualty Statistics on Southeast Asia, by Month at the American War Library Internet site.
*Michael B. Oren is a Senior Fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of Azure*
A completely impartial source then.
Personally, I prefer to believe the testimony of the sailors were who present on board the ship when it was attacked rather than the self-serving meanderings of some Israeli academic. Especially as you fail to identify yourself.
BTW, the ‘critic of Israel = anti- semitic’ label is so hackneyed, that people are beginning to yawn and switch off when they here it.
Sorry, ‘hear it’
But Mary why would Israel attack a US ship??
also in a book on the Mossad some years back there was an allegation that the Mossad did not warn us about the bombing of the Marine barracks
the whole Middle East thing is confusing but for some reason I want to be sympathetic to the Israelis but the Lebanon thing is disturbing
Anon:
the reason is obvious. They intended to blame it on the Egyptians and provoke the US into declaring war on Egypt. LBJ was on the verge of ordering an attack on Egypt when word reached him that the Israelis were responsible.
Israel is no stranger to false flag operations, there was the Levon affair in the 1950’s
I keep hearing that the Hezbollah are responsible for the 60 children who died from the Israeli missle in that town.
That supposedly Hezbollah sent a missle from nearby that building where the children were.
BUT it is not logical. Israel made a CHOICE to send the missle. They clearly did not know exactly where the missle came from or allowed people to leave or even cared about where it was going to hit. Israel sent the missle and it landed on and killed 60 children. Non combatants. Not members of Hezbollah. Not hiding missles. Israel did this.
NOW, people say the root cause is that this is an appopriate cause of Israel trying to root out terror. So Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers, there are missle attacks in civilian areas in Israel and Israel responds by devastating an entire country killing estimates from 400 to 10,000, wounding estimates from 1000 to 100,000 and refugees of estimates from 200,000 to over 1 million. This is not proportional, equitable, justified or anything else. Hezbollah did not send the missle into the 60 children. Israel can say they did not intend but that is wordsmith and sophistry. Hezbollah may be hiding in with civilians but not in with these 60 children and not in Chrisitan neighborhoods and not in Lebanese Army barracks and not at the airport. Israel is trying to disrupt this country and doing a good job. Israel does not care that innocent civilians or children die, read their philosophy and their own words.
The Christians are getting hit by both sides including the radical fundamentalist Muslims.
But we actually pay for Israel to do this. Christians in Israel/Palestine used to be about 1/4 of the population, 1 in 4, 25%, NOW THEY ARE LESS THAN 1% since 1948. Israel has eliminated them through making their lives miserable, taking land, no educational or economic opportunities.
MaryC is an anti-Semite. So is Michael.
They are probably posting these numerous postings under different names. There are many good Catholics but such a strong strain of anti-Semitism which is evident again with Mel Gibson revealing his real self and his hidden thoughts. If that reflects those who worship at the Latin mass, it reflects an altar of hate.
The solution is very simple. If Hezbollah gave up all their missles, no Lebanese children would be dead today. If Israel gave up all their missles they would all be dead today. Israel has a legitimate right to defense and stopping terrorism just like the US did in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which were god things. I can only hope the US invades Syria and Iran and we solve this problem of Islamic terror permanently.
The victims of all of this on all sides regardless of root causes should be on the prayer intention list.
“if that reflects those who worship at the Latin mass, it reflects an altar of hate”
Mel Gibson didn’t ‘create’ the Latin Mass, and any sins of Mel Gibson’s are the sins of Mel Gibson and not the fault of the liturgy.
Don’t forget about the Christian victims of genocide by Muslims in the Sudan.
Despite the collective fear Israelis seem to have that they are constantly within a whisker of being driven into the sea or wiped out to the last man, woman, and child, they are THE power in the region militarily.
And being THE power means that they are to submit to being driven into the sea?
Israel made a CHOICE to send the missle. They clearly did not know exactly where the missle came from or allowed people to leave or even cared about where it was going to hit.
Non sequitor.
When people are shooting into your country it is not only your right but your duty to do your best to defend yourself.
If you have any evidence that the Israelis had no reason to believe that they were not shooting at the source of the attack, put it forth.
There is a clear difference between defending yourself and destroying Lebanon.
There is a clear difference between defending yourself and creating 750,000 refugees. (But Israel by their own military historians created 900,000 refugees in 48 with no compensation-despite compensation being part of Holocaust legal suits, and “voluntary” settlements in the former Yugoslavia and other places of dispute among nations and ethnic groups)
There is a difference between defending yourself and killing 60 children. Again, repeat 60 children.
This is government terrorism by Israel and invasion, at least when Baruch Goldstein committed mass murder against Palestinians he was supposedly acting without government authority.
Lebanon has not committed any acts of violence against Israel. Lebanon did not go to war against Israel. Lebanon is the most pro-Western, pro-US, pro-Israel, diverse, middle class, secular, and Christian influenced (used to be 50% Christian) nation in the Middle East.
Their sin to have their nation destroyed and almost 1 million refugees is that they did not clamp down on Hezbollah as strong or fast as Israel wanted even though they had brought peace to their own country, less problems for Israel, and a growing economy–that has all ended.
An Israeli missle killed the children not a Hezbollah missle. The reason for the Israeli missle is Hezbollah terrorism, so now do we go back to the reason for Hezbollah terrorism which is that Israel promoted a lie (the Golda Meir qoute “A land without a people, a people without a land) Remember that the Palestinians (perhaps not as a nation as we know it) lived in relative peace and harmony since the time of the Crusades with Jews, Christians and Muslims (Ottomans, British, etc)lived in the land known as Israel for hundreds upon hundreds of years with deeds going back over a thousand years than suddenly there is a Jewish state that tells them to leave and/or be second class citizens. Also, the Israeli government was having an occupation and a race (ethno-religious) identity with a similiar model to South Africa under Apartheid (a view many Jews hold). Israel created a nation where other people lived and at the expense of other people. SHOULD WE GO TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF WHY HEZBOLLAH EVEN EXISTS.
So under the logic of Mary (not MaryC)that
1. Israel sends missle because
2. Hezbollah is doing terrorism
but she stops at
3. Hezbollah is doing terrorism because
4. Israel created a state violently from people who already there (remember that Crown Heights Jews become settlers while Arabs Christian and Muslims whose families can be traced to the 12th century and have deeds from the 15th and 16th century lost their property and sometimes lives)
Why isn’t that seen as the root cause?
The Jewish claim to Israel is based on two (2) items:
1. the secular (primarily) Zionist claims to a homeland because Jews are so different and persecuted that they need a separate nation
(Why not Assyrians? for example) (or Gypsies, or American Indians or any or many other groups)
That the persecution of Jews is unique (there are peoples that are now extinct and other groups that have far less wealth or influence Aleuts, so called Eskimos, Aborignies)(Other European groups also lost more people like 7 million Ukrainians killed by Stalin or millions of Catholic Irish killed by Cromwell down until relatively recently by direct killing and man imposed famine)
Zionism is a secular and socialist creation that used terrorism (Yitzak Shamir and the Stein Torpedo Gang killing Scandanavian diplomats trying to get peace or British officials or Arab civilians)–for this generation of Americans it seems like an assumed that Israel always existed and there is no knowledge of history from 70 AD onwards.
2. The religious claim that the Holy Land is Judea and Samaria with Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital and this is ordained by G-d and that this is still H-s chosen people, the apple of G-d’s eye (both the people and the nation) and G-d protects them and gives them protection and military victory. All of this land is sacred and any joint holy sites (Tombs of Rachel, tombs of the patriarchs and most importantly the Temple Mounty the Dome on the Rock where Muslims believe that Mohhamad ascended into heaven and received visions and also the Temple of Solomon) are exclusively Jewish.
The Arabs are the sons of Ishmael. The Christians (Roman/gentile world) are the descendants of Esau.
The Evangelical Christian right (primarily in the US) believe that this is still true (but not from the Jewish perspective) and that the building of the Temple, and the post 48 Jewish Nation are biblical prophecies necessary for the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ (which Muslims also believe that Jesus will be present at the judge at the 2nd coming but that he is not God)and part of prophecies in Daniel and Revelations (primarily)
That all nations will turn against Israel (and we as Christian nation stand by the apple of God’s eye) and for you Catholics, Rome is the whore of Babylon and in some sects and interpretations the Pope (anyone it really does not matter) is the anti-Christ that will help bring about the reign of the one world government and the anti-Christ. (Simplified version)
The history of the region did not start in 48. History cannot be erased from 70AD to 1948.
Both the Old and New Testaments (which I believe are Divine revelation) should not be exclusively used to have foreign policy. Arabs are human beings. Christians are ignored from this equation.
The fact (do a google search) that Israel created Hamas and supported Islamic fundamentalism is a fact of history (go to the Israeli press and academic sources) The reasons were to create a culture war and decrease Western support and to destabilize Arafat and his Christian and Communist nationalistic supporters. The problem is that the Israeli replacement was worse for them and the world. This is the nuance that Mary does not want to look at or the disturbing facts that the hate filled anti Catholic website of David Horowitz and his mouthpiece Joseph Hippolito fail to address.
Christians (Catholic and Orthodox)comprised somewhere between 16 to 22% of pre-1948 “Israel”. They are now approximately 2%.
Jordan and Syria and certainly Lebanon afford more religious tolerance and ability to advance in education and the economy much more than Israel. Israel does not want Christians as citizens and has proven that with policy and actions. These Christians, some were PLO supporters and some did “terrorism” against Israel (they might consider it war or liberation), but they are not part of Hezbollah or Hamas–and as Joseph Hippolito notes–they are victims of the Israeli created Hamas and their nihilistic young suicide bombers that were to replace the PLO to somehow benefit Israel.
Lebanon was doing so well, and moving in the right direction. It is such a tragedy to happen and it was unnecessary.
The attacks on Lebanon have objectively NOT helped Israel:
1. Hezbollah is stronger now than ever.
2. Hezbollah has killed more Israelis.
3. The entire world community including our allies in Iraq (besides us) have turned on Israel (and no this does not always happen)and it is very dangerous for Israel.
4. Lebanon can emerge as a more chaotic place where Hezbolla and Syria could emerge more powerful rather than the moderate Sunni merchant class, or the Maronite wealthy ruling class, or the opportunistic heterodox Druze (whose cousins are the front lines in the Israeli Army not tough Jews or Crown Heights New Yorkers but Bedouin Arabs disjointed from the other part of their “Umma”, and the Druze Islamic sect that has Islamic externals but actually predates Islam (Plato’s transmigration of souls being one belief)
Lebanon was fragile and had a system that worked well. Christians, who did not like Hezbollah, now do not like Israel. They were not hiding Hezbollah and many of the places bombed were not terrorists hiding in civilian areas. The country is destroyed and unless the US and others do something about it, a more dangerous situation can emerge.
5. Hezbollah is getting Arab/Muslim sympathy and credibility even from non-Shia sources.
6. The entire world, including those also at war with radical Islam, view us (the US) as completely controlled by Israel. We seem completely ignorant of history, nuance, and in the case of Islam–common sense. Israel could of never killed 60 children in one day without US allowing it. Anywhere else and this would of been condemned. This is not in the best interest of the US and creates further hate against us and further terrorism world wide.
A couple of comments:
First, I find it absolutely repulsive that anyone would exort us to care more about Christian deaths than everyone else’s. It also seems ironic. As Christians, we’re secure in the promise of salvation. We could be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow and it would be more of a tragedy for those people who weren’t Christians, no?
Right now, I’m worried about my friend’s daughter who she hasn’t heard from in two days. She’s Muslim. I don’t value her life any less than those of my Catholic friends.
Second, this startles me:
“Bush is disgusting in charging US CITIZENS to get out safely in a situation that Bush is doing nothing to help.”
Perhaps it is just my locale (Metro Detroit) that makes me think that my government doesn’t owe me a free get-out-of-wherever pass. We regularly see peole who have had to pay for rescues on the Great Lakes because the cost exceeded the budgets of their Canadian and American rescuers. It’s not like they MEANT to put themselves in deadly situations, either. It’s not Bush’s policy. It’s been that way for a long time, actually. Ask people who were stranded in Toronto during the big blackout two years ago.
Our local papers (the News and the Freep) are focused on the plight of Lebanese-Americans since Metro Detroit is home to most of them. The outrage is overwhelming, but I admit it is shocking to me that so many seemed to have no contigency plan. My friend Fatima, thank God, had returned from her vacation before the bombings began. But she made the remark that traveller’s insurance doesn’t cover such things. She KNOWS. The older generation of Arab-Americans still have a healthy fear of even travelling to CANADA without preparing for a dire emergency. They don’t trust our government or anyone else’s to help them. Or maybe it’s just that us younger generation has gotten so used to flying everywhere without trouble that we never expect to find ourselves in any danger.
I don’t think there is a problem of Christians worried more about other Christians “more” than other people.
While Christians are not an “ethnic” group like Jews nor even a sense of Nation (transliterated umma from Arabic)
–Christians still can stick together and try to help one another out in a unique way (it happens all the time in Christian subgroups and in the micro.
One determining factor of Christians was hospitality of/to/for other Christians in the early Church including letting people stay over, meals, hiding, travel etc.
The same could be applied here in Lebanon.
The Jews are certainly sticking together and trying to protect their own so much that perhaps justifiably they are killing Lebanese civilians including elderly, women and children.
The Muslims are certainly sticking together and in Lebanon and Palestinian Authority territory offered social services, welfare, and meals.
Christians also can stick together, make sure they have rights in civil society (in keeping with Lumen Gentium) and form International Lobby(ies) in the US (the most powerful nation) and not just the Vatican diplomatic force to make sure Christians are not persecuted and disapearing in places like the Sudan, Israel, China (whether by killing or forced migration)
or have no rights in places like Saudi Arabia.
So as a Catholic (Roman)I have sympathy, perhaps more and that is not bad, for the Filipino maid who is raped in Saudi Arabia or cannot pray the Rosary in Kuwai and as a Catholic I want to stand with her at least in prayer and also in lobbying my governmetn to recognize the human rights abuses in the Gulf States against workers.
Just as Jews can bring the plight of Russian Jews and change immigration laws, I can do the same for Catholics who are persecuted anywhere in the world.
Trade is a factor, and so is human rights and the US policy towards China, who persecutes Catholics.
In this case Lebanon, I do not feel extorted by earlier calls for Christian unity. Nobody is speaking for the Lebanese Christians (besides maybe the Vatican which is not heard in US Secular media). AIPAC, FOX News, Pat Robertson all speak for Israel and defend their attacks.
The Arab League, the Muslim clerics, Syria and others defend the Muslims.
NO ONE IS DEFENDING ARAB OR ASSYRIAN OR ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS. THEY ARE THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE.
As a Catholic Christian I want the world to know that the Holy Land will have no more Christians indigenous to that area in the next generation due to Israeli policy and Jewish exclusion.
I want the world to know that Sudanese Christians (and Animists/Pagans) are being killed by the “lighter skinned” Muslims and made into slaves in an awful part of human history.
I WANT TO HELP MY FELLOW CHRISTIANS. THAT IS GOOD.
What is interesting in the Israeli defense of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is that Dean Rusk, and pro-Israeli Clark Clifford, and Joints Chief of Staff, and the officers on the boat ALL believed that it was an intentional attack and either were first hand or had access to all the intelligence mentioned.
The Jewish (by self definition) article defending Israel does not answer the questions and raises even more.
It is disturbing and seems plausible that Israel attacked the USS Liberty to blame the Egyptians and instigate war (it is not like they are beyond that) and the time and extent of the attacks (they could not figure out it was American for 1 hour???) despite markings, and many other evidence, all the diplomatic talk is typical and amazing that it is used in defense in a case like this, that is why they are diplomats they even lie to be polite, stop war and cover things up.
The most disturbing thing is the officers on board, the people in charge on our side, not anti-semites who distance themselves from that type of thinking, believe that Israel not only intentionally attacked but wanted to kill everyone on board.
Careing for Christians in particular is very biblical. Remember Paul’s mission to help the holy ones (Christians) in Jerusalem? Or what Jesus said about giving even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is a disciple?
Yes, all human life is sacred and in a certain sence equally so. Yet just as it is right for us to care more about a natural family member more than a stranger, even more is it right to care for a brother or sister in Christ than one of the unbaptized. It has to do with relationships, not the intrinsic value of the human being.
If you havn’t heared, apparently even this temporary cease-fire has fallen through. Let’s continue to pray for peace in the Middle-East, and especially for the well-being of the innocent people who are in danger.
Larry:
I assure you all my postings are my own posted under my own name only.
Question: Did criticizing the Soviet Union make one ant-Russian? or condemning the Sicilian Mafia mean you are anti-Italian?
By the way, as I have demonstrated above, 90% of Jews are not even semitic so the anti-semitic slur is a non-starter.
Christians should help each other in a different and unique way than others. It is in the Gospel.
What Israel and to a lesser extent Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon is a tragedy. Israel is the direct cause of the current destruction of this great nation. Hezbollah may have instigated Israel, but the Israeli response is not justified, good, right, fair, nor proportional. It has exponentionally multiplied death and destruction from their direct actions whatever their subjective perceived reason,intent or justification. I keep on reading that if someone robs a bank and takes a hostage that if the hostage dies that the bank robber and not the police are at fault. However, Israel is not the police, Hezbollah is not a bank robber, the analogy is flawed, and usually the police don’t riddle the bank robber with bullets killing both bank robber and hostage. The analogy may only deal with culpability but to me the issue is that hundreds of children are being killed directly by missles and bombs sent from Israel that seem indiscriminate. Israel may be issuing orders to leave Southern Lebanon but by destroying roads and continuing bombings make it impossible to do so. With over 1 million refugees leaving into other countries including Syria, obviously they are availing themselves of this opportunity.
I hope that new young terrorists aren’t being created by the children who see this death at the hand of Israel and becoming refugees in a conflict they don’t understand.
The analogy may only deal with culpability but to me the issue is that hundreds of children are being killed directly by missles and bombs sent from Israel that seem indiscriminate.
What credentials do you have to make such a judgment, and where are you getting the information to make it?
There is a clear difference between defending yourself and destroying Lebanon.
There is a clear difference between defending yourself and creating 750,000 refugees.
No, there isn’t. You can not say, in the abstract, that destroying a nation and creating a number of refugees is not necessary to defense.
Lebanon has not committed any acts of violence against Israel. Lebanon did not go to war against Israel.
Lebanon is responsible for all acts of violence commited against other nations from within its borders. A householder who lets others shoot from his house has no grounds for complaint if his house gets destroyed, and people in it shot, if it is necessary to stop the killers.
“By the way, as I have demonstrated above, 90% of Jews are not even semitic so the anti-semitic slur is a non-starter.”
OH, well, that’s different!
Holy Cow!! Iced tea up my nose on that one!
Okay, MaryC, does it make you feel better to be “anti-Jew” rather than “anti-semitic”?
Mary C-
If you are in fact NOT “Catholic Defender/Catholic Theologian/NeoconSpy”, then I apologize for confusing the two of you.
Perhaps all Jew haters simply sound alike.
I wonder how many fine upstanding Catholics would weep if the Jewish people were finally annihilated by the peace loving Arab Muslims? I wonder how many would rejoice?
News for all of you so ready to make Israel the sacrifical lamb…Jews too are human. They possess the same human dignity and the same right to self defense as the rest of us, although I suspect that some of you do not hold to that right.
I have just one question: do any of you honestly believe that if the State of Israel were to renounce all military action in its own defense, the peaceful Arab Muslim populations surrounding it would let the nation of Israel or the Jewish population of Israel survive longer than 48 hours?
The Jewish people do not owe it to anybody to commit national or racial suicide, not even to make the rest of us feel like we’re upholding some nebulous standard of “justice.” As for the current actions being “disproportional,” an honest look at the difficulty the Israelis have faced in dislodging Hizbullah fighters demonstrates only one thing: that Hizbullah had extensive fortifications, stores, and infrastructure in place for the purpose of mounting a long and continually intensifying guerrilla war against the Jewish state. If Israel had waited another year, their enemies would probably have struck first. And they would have slaughtered as many Jewish “civilians” as possible.
Instead of continually putting our collective heads in the sand, maybe we Catholics should seriously consider that after the peaceful Arab Muslims overran the Christian Middle East, Western Christendom fought for over 500 years against Muslim invaders. Our Eastern brethren were not as fortunate as we. Maybe we should consider that Muslim aggression currently scars the lives of countless non-Muslims in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Balkans, several of the former Soviet states, and other locations.
Maybe our beliefs in the West have changed vis a vis how best to resolve differences. The Arab Muslims’ beliefs have not: they still believe in jihad (warfare against unbelievers), they still believe in the subjugation of non-Islamic peoples and either forcible conversion or dhimmitude (except for the Jews, of course, who should be slaughtered), and they still believe that following such a path is their god’s will.
No one (at least not in the West) condones the killing of innocents, whether intentional or unintentional, but it is wrong and inaccurate to allege that Israeli forces are purposely targeting civilians. Israeli forces ARE purposely targeting Hizbullah fighters in civilian areas, because that’s where Hizbullah chooses to live and operate.
Finally, as to the “outrage” of the international community…if the international community had done its job to begin with, i.e. prevented Hizbullah from fortifying bases of operation in the south of Lebanon and prevented or at least ATTEMPTED to prevent Hizbullah attacks on Israel, this war would never have happened. If you’re looking for someone to blame…blame the rest of us.
By the Good Lord’s intercession, may there be an immediate cease fire with security for all involved, an end to hatred, healing for those who have suffered, and mercy on the souls of those who have died. Amen.
Which of these statements did not emanate from the Kingdom:
Shall we go and kill those who are against You, Lord? No.
If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Thou shalt not kill.
Go ahead, you fit the criteria–kill someone for God today!
Mary (not MaryC),
It is a fact that the children who are dying are dying from Israeli missles not missles from Hezbollah. Do a google search on Israeli newspapers to determine where the missles are coming from and the proximity to known terrorists and the indiscriminate use of force.
Melvin, that there is a virulent strain in Islam (or perhaps inherently or philosophically in Islam) but that does not mean in co-existence and it does not justify Israel in Lebanon which is the question at hand. The other issue which has not been addressed is that the US attack in Iraq and the Israel funding of Hamas helped create a more fundamentalist Islamic force at the expense of more secular Baathist, pan-Arabists, Christians, and communist nationalists.
Mary also says that creating 750,000 refugees is justified and that Lebanon is responsible for Hezbollah. We (the US) are not responsible as a people and government for a lot that goes on in our borders good and bad. 750,000 refugees and growing does not seem good, proportional, just, or a way to create peace and stability in the region.
Back to Melvin, the Israelis created their nation, perhaps justifiably, on other people’s land by force. This included terrorism and killing of British, Norwegians etc and civilians.
It included the forced migration of almost 1 million people. Perhaps this is right or justified, but to act like this is just an issue of Israel wanting peace and being a victim, that is not an accurate read on history.
Islam has definitely been bad for Christianity on many levels since Mohammad went from Medina to Mecca. But the fact is that Christians in Syria, Jordan and certainly Lebanon have more rights, and educational and economic opportunity.
Whatever the exact numbers are, Israel before 1948 was approximately 20% Christian (indigenous there for 2000 years) and now it is less than 2%. That is because of Israeli policy. The numbers speak for themselves.
There is little logic or real response in Mary besides justifying whatever Israel does as necessary to combat terrorism.
Melvin makes a perhaps correct but cynical point with no alternative or solution except that Muslims are inherently violent and bad.
The issue here is SHOULD ISRAEL BE DESTROYING LEBANON? I answer NO
Actually, the U.N. created Israel, although there was Jewish terrorism beforehand (Haganah, etc…) just as there was Arab terrorism and complicity against the Jews with the Nazis during WWII…led by the Mufti of Jerusalem. And there was always a Jewish presence in the area now called Israel and Palestine.
As to the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, it is often intentionally overlooked that at the same time as the creation of the State of Israel there was also the creation of a Palestinian homeland. At the urging of Arab governments, Arab populations living in the areas assigned to Israel evacuated the territory for the specific purpose of allowing the Arab governments a free fire zone. Israel asked them to stay. After the war, many were not allowed to return. I personally do not find that an unjust decision.
Christians fare far worse in many Islamic societies than in Israel. And while we’re talking about the forcing out of long standing populations, let’s also not forget the forced eviction of hundreds of thousand of Jews from Arab countries.
As to the “disproportional” response…my comments stand.
Instead of arguing whether Israel’s actions square with the Just War doctrine they don’t even believe in, maybe most of us would do better to put more time and energy into praying for the violence to end, for those endangered by it, for the souls of the dead, and to do penance for our personal sins that do much to create a world of war and suffering.
I’m not saying any discussion of the morality of Israel’s actions is wrong, I’m just saying a different primary focus might be better for those of us who are not diplomats or Israeli officials.
“At the urging of Arab governments, Arab populations living in the areas assigned to Israel evacuated the territory for the specific purpose of allowing the Arab governments a free fire zone. Israel asked them to stay. After the war, many were not allowed to return. I personally do not find that an unjust decision. ”
Israel never asked them to stay, their own military historians, stated it was necessary and the Israeli military forced the refugee status of 900,000. Even in the former Yugoslavia there was compensation on different sides of those who left homes etc. Israel wanted them out.
Christians in Israel are less than 2% of the population.
Syria is 10 to 20 and growing because of Iraqi and now Lebanese migration.
Jordan is 10 and used to be higher.
Lebanon is about at least 25% and used to be 50%.
Iraq used to be 20% and was at least 10% under Saddam.
It is our supposed allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that have NO Christian population or rights. Those that actually funded Al-Qaeda (Syria and Iraq actually fought against pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Iranian fundamentslists)
Again, Israel is less than 2% Christian and shrinking. This is Israeli policy.
Melvin wrote:
News for all of you so ready to make Israel the sacrifical lamb…Jews too are human. They possess the same human dignity and the same right to self defense as the rest of us, although I suspect that some of you do not hold to that right.
Much of post-modern western civilisation denies the essential humanity of “blobs of fetal tissue”. It is altogether fitting that they should also deny the essential humanity of those to whom the Koran refers as “dogs and monkeys” .
Just think how much different hunting season would be if the ducks could just shoot back at the hunters.
FWIW, why do all these bold courageous Jihadists and Baathists insist on building their
defence installations” in the midst of noncombatant and civilian populations?
Tim J. I thought you were an intelligent person. It seems I may be wrong. Please point out anything in any of my posts that shows that I am a Jew-hater.
Tim J I just saw your previous post. I was merely stating the fact that as most Jews aren’t even Semitic, the word ‘anti-semitic’ is a mis-nomer. Though it could be applied those who seem to want to kill as many Arabs as possible, because they are Semitic.
Jihadists and Baathists are different people and different ideologies. They only have allied themselves relatively recently against the US in Iraq.
What does Jimmy Akin think about all this?
What about the theology of Christians making a public stand against injustice (or is that ethics?) and Christians helping other Christians uniquely?
What does Mel Gibson think? That is a good question.
It is a fact that the children who are dying are dying from Israeli missles not missles from Hezbollah.
There are serious questions about that.
There are reports that the building’s collapse occured hours after the attack, and may have stemmed from something else — such as munitions stored in the building.
MaryC is an anti-Semite. So is Michael.
They are probably posting these numerous postings under different names.
You, sir, are lying filth.
Israel has a legitimate right to defense and stopping terrorism just like the US did in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which were god things.
I even affirmed Israel’s right to defend herself on this blog. I only condemned her lack of proportionality in her defense.
I can only hope the US invades Syria and Iran and we solve this problem of Islamic terror permanently.
Of course you do. If you are Israeli, it is understandable that you would prefer another more powerful nation to do your dirty work for you. If you are American, why don’t you go yourself or are you more comfortable sending others to kill and be killed for your pet causes? And here is a giant clue, smashing the governments or Syria and Iran will only cause the problem of Islamic terror to get worse, not better. Try reading up on 4th generation warfare.
While not espousing any other poster’s views on the subject, I wish to remind people that opposing Israel, even strenuously opposing Israel and wishing for it’s disolusion (which I do not) does not make a person and anti-Semite. At most they are anti-State of Israel.
I lean (especially after this latest war) more agaist the State of Israel than in favor of it, but I greatly respect traditional Judaism. I also would never be racist about it since I am 1/8 Jewish and my father and grandfather would have been killed in the Holocaust if they had lived then and there (being 1/4 and 1/2 Jewish respectively). Also the parents of my great-grandmother were driven from Russia by the Pogroms. I am in fact very proud of my Jewish ancestry, which makes it all the more painful to see the “Jewish state” be so violent, sometimes seemingly beyond all proportionality and with virtually no apologies. This disaproval does not make me any more anti-Semitic than opposing Cuba makes me anti-Hispanic or opposing nasty African dictatorships makes me anti-black.
Even if most Jews indentify with and will try to justify the actions of the State of Israel, there are some who do not plus these facts are not intrinsic qualities of Judaism or Jewish ethnicity, so they do not make opposers of Israel anti-Semitic.
This disaproval does not make me any more anti-Semitic than opposing Cuba makes me anti-Hispanic or opposing nasty African dictatorships makes me anti-black. JR said
The difference is that there are many Black African nations AND there are other “Hispanic” nations besides Cuba. There is only one Jewish Nation which is Israel–just a distinction.
I thought of that distinction but did not write it since I did not think it relavent. If there were several Jewish nations or only one black African or “hispanic” (you are probably right in useing quotation marks) state that would not change the principle. How about this: I am not anti-Turkish because I disagree with many of the policies of Turkey.
“Please point out anything in any of my posts that shows that I am a Jew-hater.”
Well, this might be a start…
“These so-called ‘Jews’ are in no way descended from the Hebrew people of the Bible.”
Okay, maybe you don’t hate Jews… you just think that there is a secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, and you are apparently more than willing to believe any charge made against them by anyone.
I do think that there is a Jewish “conspiracy” (not meant in a bad way), and read the U of C/Harvard white paper by Prof. Mearsheimmer on AIPAC/Israel/US Foreign policy–that Israel has an undue influence, that is unproportionate of population and US interests.
Israel is not looking out for our (US) interests but merely or at least primarily their(s).
Iran is bad but that does not mean we should not have relations nor conversely that we should invade. We need to take a leadership role and not let the tail wag the dog.
On Lebanon, we (The USA) should of stopped this a long time ago. Israel acts the way they do because they think that we will back them up.
Sorry, that was me.
Dear anonymous mind reader
I am merely pointing out what is researched historical fact. It is well documented in Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’, Koestler being himself Jewish.
That being the case. How can you claim that they have any historical right to drive the Palestinian people from their homes and steal their country? It is simply an issue of justice not hate.
BTW. Are you aware that many Torah Jews are opposed to the State of Israel?
Here is an interesting statement that relates to points made earlier:
The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as ‘innocents’ of the enemy.”
All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians,” the statement said. (Efrat Weiss)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283720,00.html
I do not buy that the Jews are not significantly decended from the original Jews, though just a glance at some of them, like these red haired blue eyed Jews, is enough to prove to me that their bloodline is not “pure” Jewish.
In any case the OT shows that converts to Judaism are to be considered just as Jewish as the rest so ethnicity does not really matter from the religious point of view. I thought that from the Catholic position though the Jews lost any special claim to Palestine with the coming of Jesus and the fulfillment of what the “promised land” symbolized.
In any case I do not believe in people having a right to land that was unjustly taken from your ancestors. Imagine what the American Indians or the Sami in Scandanavia or the Ainu in Japan would have the right to do then. You have a right to live in the country you were born in not that of your great-great-grandfather. For this reason I believe the Jews had no right to invade Palestine, and the Palestinians are losing the last remnants of their right to get their land back.
Michael’s quotes are quite disturbing and I hope (without tremendous confidence) that they reflect an extreme minority view in Israel. Still, one can understand the Israeli position by reading the Old Testiment and imagining how you might act and believe if you were a Jew who based all your beliefs on that and thought Jesus was a dirty word. I think we should be glad they are not taking it still more literally and imposing the “ban” on the Palestinians. I greatly hope, with more confidence this time, that this restraint derrives from their consciences and/or some Christian influence and/or memory of the Holocaust, not mere fear of losing US support.
Sorry, I posted anonymously by accident and then my “Sorry, that was me” got tacked on several posts later.
So, for the record… I do not believe there is any secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.
Mary C, I have yet to see a nutty conspiracy theory that was not “well documented”.
I wholly reject the assertion that modern Jews living in Palestine are not really Jewish.
Tim:
Why do you assume thatitis a nutty conspiracy theory? is it because it conflicts with your world view?
It is a fact that the majority Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the ancient Hebrews but are the descndants of an Asiatic tribe called Khazars. OTOH, the Sephardi Jews, who are only about 10% of world Jewry are genuinely Semitic, as are the Arabs.
I don’t say the Ashkenazi aren’t Jews, but they are Jews by virtue of the Khazar tribes conversion to Judaism in the 8th Century AD. Therefore it is hard to justify their takeover of Palestine.
MaryC
Do you have documentation for this claim about Ashkenazi Jews? In particular large scale mDNA tests, since this is the only kind of evidence I know of that would prove anything.
As I pointed out above, even if you are right and (and modern Jews look even less central Asian than Semitic to me) that would not change their religious right to the Holy Land from their position.
From my position, I don’t think they were justified in any case, though we are transitioning into the era where it is now indeed their homeland from which no one has a right to drive them.
I might point out that as far as I know there is a constant presence of Jews in places like Italy from biblical times onward, so even if you are right about the Khazars converting and contributing massively to the ancestry of modern Jews there would still be ancient Jewish ancestry among European Jews.
J R
“The Thirteenth Tribe” by Arthur Koestler is available on-line. Don’t take my word for it; do the research yourself.
I still don’t see how you can justify taking over somebody else’s country merely because it is the country in which the religion you follow was born.
By that standard, Christians would also be entitled to take root in Palestine en masse.
There could be ancient Jewish blood in any of us.
Indeed Josephus claimed that the Celts were descended from the dispersed tribe of Dan.
So, Mary C, would you agree with Iranian President Ahmadinejad that the solution lies in the elimination of the “Zionist” regime?
1. I served in the Marines in Desert Storm (I).
2. I am Republican and voted for Bush.
3. I am Catholic and try to be good about it actually kind of a convert (not complete as did not need baptism.
4. I work in Real Estate in FL and the Midwest with related insurance issues.
5. I have been to Israel.
6. I am not an anti-semite.
Some things I think:
1. Hezbollah is bad.
2. Hamas is bad.
3. Attacks on civilians against/in Israel is bad.
4. There is a historical and inherent issue with Islam against the so called Christian West.
5. In current history there is a serious virulent strain of radical Islam that is causing terrorism not only against Jews and Christians but against Hindus, aethestic Chinese, slavic former communists.
However, in terms of Lebanon:
1. These current attacks by Israel are not just, fair nor proportionate.
2. The creation of Israel is not ideal, even if necessary, and that they did displace people and used violence.
3. Lebanon is not responsible for the Hezbollah attacks at least not to the extent their nation should be made shatters.
4. Middle Eastern Christians are being treated terribly by Israel, yes also by Muslims, but that does not diminish Israel.
5. Israel does not seem to care about anyone elses interests including ours. We should stop these bombings and invasion.
I wish to remind people that opposing Israel, even strenuously opposing Israel and wishing for it’s disolusion (which I do not) does not make a person and anti-Semite. At most they are anti-State of Israel.
Depends on their reasons.
So Mary, what should they/we do with all the Palestinians????
I am tired of the Israel does no long
1. These current attacks by Israel are not just, fair nor proportionate.
“proportionate”, I remind you, means in due proportion to the evils they are trying to prevent. Given they are fighting foes whose declared purpose is the destruction of Israel and who show every sign of doing harm until Judgment Day — what would you consider a proportionate response?
And what are your credentials for making such a military judgment?
Lebanon is not responsible for the Hezbollah attacks at least not to the extent their nation should be made shatters.
Lebanon is responsible for all armed attacks made on other countries from their borders.
For the people passionate about Christians, from fellow Christians:
Hezbollah is Using Christian Villages to Shield its Military Operations in Violation of International Law, Says CSI
I can’t say whether the current attacks are proportional or not, as the situation on the ground with Hizbollah is hard to discern.
If they are dug in and protecting hordes of weapons, then the response might approach proportionality. On all sides, people seem much too ready to read intentions into every perceived action. So, if an Israeli shell kills innocent bystanders, it is either a tragic accident or a war crime, depending on who you are talking to.
Everyone has their own template.
It is possible that Israel is using the old mob tactic of taking a ten-fold revenge on every aggression. This would be extremely unwise (as well as immoral), because if your enemy lives by the same code (which seems likely) the situation can, predictably enough, only get worse.
On the other hand, proportionality cannot be understood simplistically to mean a one-to-one matchup in casualties. If my house is attacked by a gang – say of eight people – and they kill one of my children in the melee, does that mean that I am only allowed to shoot one of them back? Can I not fight back until they are no longer a threat?
I will defend Israel’s right to exist and to (reasonably) defend itself. I reject the idea that Israel is the REAL “bad actor” in the region, and that the Arab countries only desire justice.
That mob justice is called the Old Testament, Old Tesatement justice
Mary your post is from a Protestant Rev from a Washington DC number
WHO ON THIS BOARD IS DEFENDING HEZBOLLAH????
NO ONE
But the attacks on Lebanon are strengthening Hezbollah and weakening Christians–what don’t you understand about that
MaryC,
About what I call the religious claim of the Jews on the Holy Land, that comes from the many times God promised to them the land of Canan, or more broadly the land between the Euphrades and the Nile. By their own religious principles they would have a claim on that land even if they were primarily or entirely decended from converts. Of course I do not believe that religious right to the land exists anymore, but they do. Today I would say they should be evaluated like any other nation in their position would. My position would be they did not have the right to force any Palestinians from their homes but now the Palestinians have no right, or at the very least are loosing any right, to drive the Israelis from what are now their homes. The possible exception there would be the Israeli settlements within Palestinian territory. Still, it would have to be legitimate military action not private terrorism that is used, and I strongly feel that non-violent means should be used instead or even just reluctant acceptance of the settlements for the time being.
Mary,
Lebanon is responsible for all armed attacks made on other countries from their borders.
I absolutely reject that kind of logic. The government of Lebanon has no control over southern Lebanon, which is controled by Hezbolla, which in turn is supported by Iran and Syria. [Northern] Lebanon was just freed from Syrian occupation (which I suspect is the real reason Israel is attacking now, with the soldiers as a pretense or at most a secondary reason) and has what at least was a democratically elected, Western supported government popular amongst both Christians and Sunnis. Imagin if you were the Presedent of Lebanon in that situation. Would you right away remove all people associated with Hezbolla from government (probably unconstitutional) and then start a war with Hezbolla? That would mean another civil war in a country that suffered for decades in another civil war. A newspaper artical I read said there would likely be a schism in the Lebanese military too, with Shites joining Hezbolla and Sunnis and Christians fighting for the legitimate government. You would then have another massive bloody religious civil war.
It is true that the news has reported that the President of Lebanon suggested Hezbolla is justified in fighting back against Israel because of these attacks, though he has also said (I heard this from him in a news clip) that he opposes Hezbolla and wants it defeated. I do not say that the government of Lebanon or the people of northern Lebanon are perfect or have done all they should to stop Hezbolla, but to hold them responsible for anything Hezbolla does is nonsense.
Ezekiel,
That mob justice is called the Old Testament, Old Tesatement justice
I’m not sure that is precisely correct, but it reflects the “kill everyone in the land the Lord will give you (unless you stupidly swear not to)” attitude of the Old Testament.
Two things to remember here. First, God made the natural law and can break it if he want’s to just like the other laws of nature, and can order others to break it too. In that case what would be immoral for you or I to do (hence our consciences rightly rebel against the idea) actually does become moral for those so ordered. However, I have no reason to believe that any exceptions given to the Israelites before Christ apply to Jews after Christ. In fact I have heard Catholics including a Catholic priest say specifically that those things like the ban are obsolete.
Second, Old Testament morality is imperfect. It is superior to the pagan moralities of the surrounding peoples and it developes as books like Ecclesiastes are written, but the full revelation of Christ with his “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” had not yet been given. Today Christian morality is what all should practice or at least strive to practice, and there is nothing wrong with holding it as a moral standard against which the actions of others are measured. However, most Israelis are likely not fully culpable for their lack of acceptance (or even knowledge) of this moral revolution and thus I suspect or at least hope that God will judge them by the older Jewish morality. Still, the actions need to be evaluated by the highest moral standards possible, as with any other situation.
Tim J.,
I reject the idea that Israel is the REAL “bad actor” in the region, and that the Arab countries only desire justice.
I agree with you there, as usual. I oppose Israel’s attacks on Lebanon (or at least the scope of them) like I opposed the initial invasion of Iraq. That does not mean I think Saddam or Hezbolla are poor innocent victims or justified in their actions, or that America and Israel are just villans. Israel and [northern] Lebanon are with the new Iraq and Afghanistan (if that’s not too far away) the only real and at least somewhat pro-Western democracies in the region. I will also not buy that the Israelis care nothing for America. I know personally that some Israelis do care about America and see themeselves as parts of a greater Western civilization (which they view as pitted against an evil Islamic civilization). Also considering the large numbers of Jews, often close family members of Israelis, combined with our longstanding alliance with them, it is impossible for them to not care about America except as a weapon’s supply. I’m talking about the people, I don’t know about the government.
Israel is a force on the side of the West, supporting democracy, with a great interest in stability in the Middle-East, opposing strenuously the Islamic extremeism which alongside Asian communism is the main threat to the free world today. Regardless of injustices involved in its creation and excessive violence in recent weeks, it is an important ally of the United States and one that it would be unwise and morally wrong to abandon.
If I had my way, President Bush would pressure Israel to stop its bombardment of free Lebanon and help Israel, Lebanon, and an international force defeat Hezbolla and extend Lebanese control to south Lebanon. Israel and the United States would then lend tramendous aid to the rebuilding of Lebanon (both north and south) and both of us would give an apology for the excessive violence. The Church could play her role encouraging forgivness on the part of Melkite and other Lebanese Catholics, who are still a significant demographic. In this way, we could enter the next decade with two free democratic allies in the Middle East and much better prospects for the future. I have little hope that this is actually what will happen, but it will certainly not happen if we demonize either Israel or the Lebanese government.
good analysis by JR Stoodley,
I hope George W. Bush, MaryC(who thinks Israel is never wrong and can do whatever they want, Tim (who is more genuine), Jospeh Hippolito (who is filled with venom and hate and clearly a paid actor in this) among others listen to him
Er, anon, you’re getting your Mary’s in a muddle again. I am a critic of Israel. It’s t’other Mary you mean to take issue with.
J. R. I agree that the Israeli’s cannot be driven from their homes. It’s just that having visited the Holy Land, and experienced the warmth and hospitality of the Palestinian people, it pains me to see them treated as second class citizens by newcomers, in a country that has been their home for centuries. That smacks of colonialism to me.
There often seems to me that there is this drive in the media to convey the impression that ‘Arab’ or ‘Muslim’ is synonymous with ‘terrorist’.
But the attacks on Lebanon are strengthening Hezbollah and weakening Christians–what don’t you understand about that?
And ultimately weakens Israel’s position, too.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608040294aug04,1,7688356.story?page=2&track=rss
Hezbollah is becoming more popular in Lebanon and in the Arab world not less.
Michel Aoun (pro French Maronite General who fought with US and Israel in the 80’s) forged an alliance with him.
Sunnis now like him
So if the plan was to get Hezbollah out of Lebanon it is backfiring
If the plan is to destabilize Lebanon, the new government, and create chaos and refugees and kill civilians–that plan is working
“I hope George W. Bush, MaryC(who thinks Israel is never wrong and can do whatever they want, Tim (who is more genuine), Jospeh Hippolito (who is filled with venom and hate and clearly a paid actor in this) among others listen to him”
Anonymous, your psychic powers are truly amazing!
One could just as easily say that you think Israel can do nothing RIGHT, or that YOU are a “paid actor”.
I have been reading carefully, and Mary has never indicated that Israel can do “whatever they want”.
Cool yer jets, man.
Mary thinks Israel is always right
I absolutely reject that kind of logic.
Grow up.
Sovereign nations are responsible for all attacks on other nations from within their borders. They are not allowed to have the rights of a nation, to object to attacks on their land, without the duties of it
Anon, while it is unwise to make such jugdgements, Mary’s posts do tend to support even the worst actions of Israel, even misquoting (in my opinion) scripture in a way that makes it seem like she sees herself as a sort of persecuted prophet.
It is important though to stay realistic and rational about this. Especially after some experience reading blogs like this I think most people dismiss blanket accusations by nameless posters.
It’s also a very bad idea to call anyone a payed actor. While payed actors do sometimes post comments on blogs, J.D’H. has been a regular poster here for some time, generally taking contrarian positions on all sorts of subjects.
WHO ON THIS BOARD IS DEFENDING HEZBOLLAH????
NO ONE
Any number of people, actually. To blame the results of their actions — hiding among civilians causing their deaths — on others is defending them.
Mary,
So if the South arises again and forms an illegal nation within a nation and then attacks Mexico for some reason, does that mean the legitimate government of the United States will be responsible?
Or if a radical group of renegade Israelis cross over into Jordan and kill a buch of people would that justify Jordan bombing Israeli cities and destroying the Israeli infrastructure, since the whole if Israel would be responsible?
There are several rule violations in this thread, so I need to ask folks to settle down and discuss things calmly and politely (and concisely) or I’ll have to close the combox on this thread.
Thanks much, folks!
So if the South arises again and forms an illegal nation within a nation and then attacks Mexico for some reason, does that mean the legitimate government of the United States will be responsible?
Yes, exactly.
Go on the Israeli foreign ministry official government website. They are giving instructions to post online about the Israeli government and this current situation. So there is a concerted effort to get on the internet is explicitly out there. It is on the website and news stories have been done on it. I don’t know if Joseph Hippolito is a “paid actor” but he is an “author” for a web based “magazine”/”newspaper” of David Horowitz. There certainly is money dedicated to causes and funding of such which is not wrong. It is called lobbying, AIPAC, ADL, Bnai Bnrith etc. They are powerful and influence opinion–again not bad but we should anaylze perspective.
Rush Limbaugh was making fun of the Lebanese situation, distastefully in my opinion, and saying how it was only 28 deaths of children and not 60 (both are bad).
I used to be somewhat neocon but am completely against an empire like US and invasions of Iran and Syria which would drag us deeper in a quagmire.
The current situation in Lebanon is HURTING us in Iraq. Three emails in the last two weeks from 2 soldiers and 1 civilian DOD contractor on a personal basis to me said it is a negative issue.
Israeli attacks on Lebanon is helping the terrorist insurgents and hurting our troops.
This is bad policy. As was wanting the Iraqi President (our ally) to apologize or not speak to the Congress for critizing the Lebanon situation by numerous Congressman including two Jewish ones from Illinois (Rahm Emmanuel whose brother Ari Emmanuel is the one attacking Mel Gibson and the Passion and Jan Shakowsky is the one whose husband is in Federal prison) Stupid and bad for our troops and bad for the region
Remember our ally Israel stole our military secrets and gave some to South Africa
Israel helped South Africa proliferate with Nuclear Weapons
Mossad agents trained terrorists and drug dealer militias in Columbia
Israel is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world
Remember Jonathon Pollard?
The Reagan administration banned Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu from the White House (Jim Baker in particular) during Reagan and Bush I because he was termed a pathological liar and someone who lied to our government and manipulated us
We should support Israel
Of course Israel has a right to exist
Of course Hezbollah is bad
But we should not allow Israel to do whatever they want to do for whatever reason whenever
It is bad for us and ultimately for Israel
If Israel dropped a Nuke on Beirut, or killed 100,000 people they would be justified in Mary’s view (not MaryC).
Look on the websites of Jewish theological debate and governing rabbinical councils, they are upset that Christian morality would influence their actions as it is too weak and “generous” and there are no innocents (civilians, non combatants, women, children, elderly) in war against Israel, there is no mercy for the enemy.
Arabs are subhuman, and the only blood is Jewish blood (read the Talmud and actually the last qoute is also a paraphrase from the Stephen Spielberge movie Munich)
Mary would justify any action by Israel no matter how violent, because anything is justified in attacking terror and as long as there is no explicit intent to kill civilians it is OK.
Phil,
It would be wise to remember that what you can find some rabbinical council saying is not necessarily what every Jew in the world thinks. Also I doubt any Jews are actually saying Arabs are subhuman. After the Holocaust I would be absolutely shocked to find them using that word, even if some do tend to value Jewish life more than Arab life, perhaps not entirely wrongly from their perspective. Who would not value the life of a family member over that of a stranger in a way? The Jews often see themselves as a big extended family.
The Talmud like any old text could be interpreted all sorts of ways, and Speilberge’s Munich (which I have not seen) has been called anti-Semitic by at least one Jew I know of who is very pro-Christian and apparently didn’t have a problem with the Passion of the Christ. I heard him talking about it on the EWTN news.
I am not defending all of Israel’s attacks (see my above posts) but we need to stay rational and charitible about the matter.
If Israel dropped a Nuke on Beirut, or killed 100,000 people they would be justified in Mary’s view
You lie.
“Our blood is redder, and therefore more preferable to the Lord,” is what the man said, Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg of Nablus, a settler in one of those “terrorist” Palestinian villages that was exterminated in order to make way for new Israeli homes.
Here in the Land of Israel, an Arab hos no right to exist. … The Arabs are clearly lower on the world’s cultural ladder. … Goldstein’s deed [killing 29 Muslims] constitutes a fulfill-ment of a number of com-mandments of Jewish law…[including] taking revenge on non-Jews.”
Ha’aretz, Israel, Nov. 05, 2003
However, Prof. Israel Shahak revealed: “According to the Halacha the killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as murder. It may be prohibited for other reasons, especially when it causes danger for Jews. In many cases the real feelings about a Jew murdering non-Jews, expressed in Israel with impunity, correspond to the law.” (99/100)
Let us remember the Jewish mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. He forced his way into the Patriarch’s Cave in Hebron on February 25, 1994 and killed 29 Moslems with his machine gun by shooting them in the back. Amongst the dead were also children. More than a hundred were injured. The Patriarch’s Cave is also used by the Moslems as a holy prayer site. Mass murderer Goldstein was known as a very pious Jew. Because he strictly obeyed the Jewish law, he was considered a holy man while he was alive. As a medical doctor in the Israeli Army he refused to give any medical treatment to non-Jews, not even to those who fought for the Israeli Army. “I am not willing to treat any non-Jew. I recognize as legitimate only two (religious) authorities: Maimonides and Kahane,” said Goldstein. (96)
Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg teaches: “If a Jew needs a liver … the Torah would probably permit to take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by, to save the Jew. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”
Shahak/Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism, Pluto Press, London 1999, page 62
“A ‘Maariv’ correspondent wrote in his March 8, 1994 article that Goldstein’s military service record was sufficiently distinguished to earn him a ceremonial promotion from the rank of captain to that of a major. The president of Israel would have officially awarded this promotion on April 14, 1994, Israel’s independent day. Only Goldstein’s death, which occurred at the time of the massacre, prevented what would have been a revealing promotion.” (100) When Rabbi Moshe Levinger was asked by Barnea whether he felt sorry for Goldstein’s victims, shot in the Patriarch’s Cave, he answered: “I am sorry not only about dead Arabs but also about dead flies.” (100)
“The Halacha enjoins precisely the behavior of Goldstein …” (100) The mass murderer Goldstein is widely worshipped as a Saint in Israel. Rabbi Dov Lior declared: “Since Goldstein did what he did in God’s own name, he is to be regarded as a righteous man” … After the funeral the army provided a guard of honor for Goldstein’s tomb.” (100/101) “The most important poll established that at least 50 per cent of Israeli Jews would approve of the massacre, provided that it was not referred to as a massacre but rather as a ‘Patriarch’s Cave Operation’, a nice-sounding term already being used by religious settlers.” (104)
Prof. Israel Shahak, who made the Jewish laws public, accuses the western democracies, especially Germany, for supporting such a regime and its deeds: “Those people, especially Germans … are also, at least in a moral sense, guilty for the terrible consequences that followed.” (112)
“All Jews are good by nature, all non-Jews are evil by nature. The Jews are creation’s crowning glory, the non-Jews are the scum of the earth.”
(This is the religious philosophy of Rabbi †Shneur Zalman, one of the leading Halacha scholars in Jewish history according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 1994, page 14)
The above quotes that show a number at the end of each quote are taken from the book of Prof. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel”. The numbers in brackets refer to the page numbers in the book. (Pluto Press, London 1999)
JR MANY Jews are saying that Arabs are subhuman just look at their own words. (the reverse is true too)
Mary, if you wouldn’t Nuke than how far would you go? What is allowable?
“The Jews are creation’s crowning glory”
You could find kooks in the US who make the same kind of claims about white people. That does not mean you can tar the entire population of the US with the same brush.
The same certainly applies here. The fact that some horrid quotes can be attributed to SOME Jewish people does not mean that you can claim any connection between that and the ongoing situation with Lebanon.
We in the West have been careful not to attribute to all Muslims the views of a twisted minority. We should extend the same courtesy to the Israelis.
Wow. The trolls are still going.
“Oh! Oh! A guy with a name that ends in -stein said this! All Jews and Israel, too, are guilty!”
Lovely. Why, exactly, are you on a Catholic blog? After all, Catholic folks *have* done all sorts of horrid things.
Sailorrette, who are you calling trolls? MaryC, Joe Hippolito, the rabbinical councils that say that there are no innocents in war against your enemies (that is an explicit reading of the Old Testament.
The people qouted are not just someone with a stein behind their name. It is people with leadership, authority and voice in Israel and the Jewish community.
The talmud which calls Jesus a sexual deviant, idolator, sorceror, blashpemer, pervert that is burning in hell in his own excrement. This is not one person with a stein behind his name but the TALMUD. Don’t believe me or some anti-semetic Arab website but read it in their own words. The Talmud also calls Mary a whore and that she had an illegitimate son with a carpenter.
The Talmud also legitimizes slavery, and definitely compares Jewish life as better than non Jewish life. Zalman and his Tanya is not minor players or literature but the premiere of Hassidic literature especially for the Chabad/Lubavitchers of that particular line of Rebbe’s but also generally for all Hassidic Jews and Jews generally. This is mainstream thought.
Zalman’s descendant was Baruch Goldstein, who was in the Israeli military, who many Jews thought did a good thing, when he opened fire on unnarmed civilians and killed and wounded people in a mass murder in 1994. He was a medical doctor and Israeli soldier and an devout practicing Jew.
Catholic folks have done all sorts of bad things. Some really bad things. Some things that are bad but are nuanced by history.
Crusades (which were justified to a greater extent but turned more commercial and certainly the 4th Crusade was a tragedy), Inquisition (not as bad as everyone said), Galileo (which the Pope apologized for but again has become a pseudo-historical rhetoric piece without depth or nuance), Pogroms against Jews etc. Or Catholics who were not practicing Catholics (like Adolf Hitler who was at one time in seminary but became very anti-Catholic and supported a pagan pre/and/or anti-Christian Nordic/Germanic/Wagenrian/Occultic worldview)
BUT the official and theoretical teachings of the Catholic Church are very very consistent.
There are of course bad priests, even bishops and Popes, and there are official statements that out and sometimes in context sound odd or bad in the modern era–but again a real look at history and theology will demonstrate a great deal of consistency and no justification theoretically or philosophically for these bad things.
The Gospel, the rest of the New Testament, Early Church Fathers/Elders (some made statements that could be construed as anti-semetic), Encyclicals, Catechism, Aquinas, Augustine etc are remarkably consistent with a universal ethic (Catholics are not the only ones with the universal ethic but Jews certainly are not universalist concerning race and ethnicity, but theoretically Islam, Bahai, Unitarians, most Protestants are)
There is no magisterium in Judaism and most other religions so there is more amorphous and subjective interpretations–but Judaism does have central tenets and definable beliefs and heirarchy at least in some sects even if not as definable as Catholicism. The people and texts cited are representative of an inherently racist view that Jews have. That is a bold statement but true. The ability to justify usury, killing of others albeit for a purpose, and treating others (others defined as non Jews and specifically Christians) is explicit in official religious texts with aprobation.
Hopefully nobody here would have the temerity to call Pope Benedict an antisemite.
VATICAN CITY: Pope Benedict XVI has called on Christians and others touched by his words to mobilise against the widening warfare in the Middle East, saying no good comes out of war, not even for the victors.
Benedict pressed his campaign for a rapid peaceful solution to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon during an interview with German media to be broadcast in Germany on August 13.
The Vatican released the pope’s answer to one of the questions, about the situation in the Middle East.
“Naturally, the Holy See does not want any political power,” Benedict replied, during the interview on Saturday morning in his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, a hill town outside Rome.
“But we want to appeal to Christians and to all those who feel in some way touched by the words of the Holy See so that all the forces which recognise that war is the worst solution for everybody are mobilised,” the pontiff said.
War “doesn’t bring any good for anybody, not even for the apparent victors,” Benedict said. “We know that well in Europe, following two World Wars.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1860076.cms
I notice that the word “war” is not in quotes. That makes me a little suspicious. So does the fact that I can’t find this alleged quote in any Vatican sources. However, if the Holy Father did state the above, he was wrong. Freedom is worth fighting for and has to be fought for, because, since The Fall, freedom is not the usual condition of man; slavery is. We like to think that the opposite of war is peace; history has shown us that the opposite of war is usually either slavery or annihilation.
Bill, please I thought you, your doctor, your priest and your mom told you not to go on the board anymore. Also, Bill, Please learn about some subject matter, become informed, and learn so basic logical reasoning skills. Please stay off the board Bill, for your sake and ours.
Pardon me for making my point again, but it is one thing to say “The Talmud says so-and-so” and another to say “Jews are racists”.
Aren’t most Israeli Jews secular rather than religious Jews? How much stock do they put in the Talmud, anyway?
Also, smearing another poster rather than respnding to his/her statements is pretty lame.
I don’t know exactly what the Pope said about war in general. In any case, he was not laying down doctrine, but expressing his personal thoughts. Of course war is horrible, but in the words of G.K. Chesterton;
“War is not the best way of settling differences; but sometimes it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.”
At any rate, I can’t imagine that anyone thinks we would be better off had the Allies just rolled over and let the Axis Powers have their way.
Check out the ideas of Michel Aoun, they might help resolve issues in Lebanon:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/8/emw418759.htm
Is anyone surprised there are anti-Christian things written in the Talmud? I’m not. I could add another nasty quote or two from Jews but shall refrain. Yes, many Jews (both secular and religious) are more or less anti-Christian. Yes, many if not most, at least among religious Jews, value Jewish life more then Gentile life, again with degrees.
How do we respond to this? Do we respond to hatred with hatred? Even on an individual level, much less hateing all Jews or Israelis because some say and do nasty things? What we need to do is love those whom Christ loves.
Must we approve of everything Israel does and justify every action to ourselves to prove we are not anti-Semitic, of course not. We should cry out in protest when clear injustice is done, but to a degree also we should focus on ourselves. While having compasion on Arabs killed by Jews and Jews killed by Arabs, and while judging the violence to be wrong and praying for peace and the conversion of those involved, we should also let the subjective moral element remain between the others and God, focusing on our own relationship with God and responding to the situation in a spiritually healthy way.
I don’t think I’m saying anything everyone reading this doesn’t already know, but I’m saying it in case anyone could use a reminder. I know I do sometimes.
Richard– simple google, ignoring the angelfire.com and revisionisthistory.com sites (no, really) gets me the following:
Yeshu – A Talmudic Tale
A story about a man named Yeshu can be found in the Talmud. There is debate whether this Yeshu in the Talmud is the same Jesus who later became a Christian divinity.
According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. “Betrothed” means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him. The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira, a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a “mamzer” (bastard), a product of an adulterous relationship. The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish “Supreme Court”) ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics.
While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. The main inconsistency between the Talmudic and Christian story is that during the time that Jesus was killed, the Romans ruled and the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty. Thus, some Jews believe that today’s popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus’ writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
So because it *might* refer to Jesus– despite some rather major differences– we’re supposed to hate Israel.
That, Richie, is trolling.
I thought Trolling was something else not appropriate to discuss on a family oriented Catholic website.
Do a google news search on Michel Aoun
He has a plan, he has a track record
He is a Maronite Christian
Let him help to resolve Lebanon
Anonymous, My mother was killed in a car accident 12 years ago. Go to Hades.
Bill,
I don’t think anyone could blame you for responding to Anon in the way you just did.
Thanks, David.
Bill can insult others (although not as bad as JH), his one liners. A lot of Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian mothers are dying also. Children are dying. However, we are not casting anyone to Hades, that is God alone. Hades as defined as death and not hell. However, the Talmud does cast Jesus to hell to burn in his own feces.
The bottom line is that Bill should think before he posts and not post one liners that don’t have any information or logic.
“A lot of Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian mothers are dying also. Children are dying.”
Jewish mothers and children are dying, also.
Enough of the personal stuff. No name calling and everyone even controversial and opposite opinions should be respectful in dialogue and even debate.
former General Michel Aoun, has good ideas and should be listened too, please discuss this and save lives in Lebanon.
The first thing we need to do, as Catholic Christians, is recognize ALL LIFE is equal before God and hopefully the law. Jewish and Arab life is equal, Muslim and Christian Arab life is equal.
“We live in a confessional system today. We agreed to distribute the key positions according to faiths; the presidency, the prime ministry, the speaker of the parliament, the number of ministers in the parliament … everything is agreed on,” he says. “What we should work on are political programmes and economic initiatives and these are not confessional … because an economic initiative will affect all of the Lebanese population and political reform will involve all the Lebanese population — so there [would be] no reason for confessional disagreements. The debate [then] will be based on the programmes … and in these instances confessional characteristics for a minister or MP disappear and the programmes’ characteristics remain.”
Aoun also wants to change laws in the country to allow civil marriage, empower women, establish a system of corporate governance and accountability, alleviate the country’s debt burden by bringing in an outside auditing firm, amend the country’s present citizenship laws and restructure the military. The general says these are all areas that the opposition is unwilling to address because that would affect their prominence. “We want to create a secular culture with the people so that the population begins to demand it and be able to confront religious authorities that refuse it,” he says.
(Secularism is not viewed in the same was as religious Americans would view it)
Aoun is credited to make sure that there were not Hezbollah reprisals on those Christian militias that supported Israel during the occupation and were viewed by some as collaborators. There was no reprisals and most of those pro-Israeli Christian militia soldiers and their families (who Israel did not allow in and left high and dry after the pullout earlier in the decade) went back to civilian economic pursuits and were not killed. Merely pointing that Aoun saved lives and also that Hezbollah is not completely unreasonable and made political arrangements.
Aoun has been staunchly against Syria who the neocons want to invade and we are blaming Syria for a lot of the proplems. Aoun is not pro-Syrian at all, and is Christian (Maronite Catholic by birth, confession, and claimed belief). However, Aoun believes that leaving Hezbollah out or more agressively going after Hezbollah after the UN mandates would have left Lebanon is a bloody civil war. He also believes that Israel can make concessions like prisoner release among other items. Aoun believes that Hezbollah should be disarmed and that Lebanese non or multi confessional troops should partol Southern Lebanon and insure no terrorist (or freedom fighters, or rebels or however you term them) Palestinian or otherwise hurting Israel or anyone else.
There are other solutions to this. Lebanese are dying of all confessions and the country is being put in chaos. There is anti-Hezbollah feeling but the overall feeling is anti-Israel including people who were previously NOT anti-Israel and in fact pro-Israel and looked forward to commercial ties including many Sunni middle class and upper class Muslim businessmen who did business with Jews for 1500 years and families with long ties in Lebanon and Israel among other places.
Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg teaches: “If a Jew needs a liver … the Torah would probably permit to take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by, to save the Jew. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”
IS THIS TRUE?
This a warning, no matter what results from it.
Those who need to know will realize what is close.
And it isn’t the end of the world, but it is the end to this world of sin.
The Wall Street Journal Today Published a Landmark and Prescient OP-ED by Former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun
Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document.
The Lebanese-American Council for Democracy issues a statement regarding Aoun’s article.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) August 1, 2006 — The Lebanese-American Council for Democracy issued the following statement today:
“Today, the Wall Street Journal published as its lead editorial piece an unprecedented, powerful, and humane op-ed piece by former Prime Minister Michel Aoun,” said Tony Haddad, president of the Lebanese-American Council for Democracy. “Written at the end of last week, the article lays out the basic groundwork for a comprehensive solution to Lebanon’s current crisis. In it, Aoun states that political negotiations will ultimately be the endgame of the horrendous crisis now facing Lebanon, and that the solution that will be available when the killing stops days, weeks, or months from now will be the same solution as the one which was available months before this crisis erupted. In light of this weekend’s horrific killings in Qana,” Haddad said. “Mr. Aoun’s prescience is undeniable.”
“Aoun urges in the article that basic universal human values, such as the equal value of human life, whether Lebanese or Israeli, should be the operative fact around which a solution is built. Aoun challenges Israel and the Arab governments to recognize this universal fact, and to use it as a basis upon which to analyze and solve the current conflict.”
“Aoun also outlines and details his party’s own interactions with Hezbollah, and delineates precisely how he was able to bridge the ideological, political, and religious differences between his party, the Free Patriotic Movement, and Hezbollah. Aoun explains how he addressed those differences not through conflict, but rather, through internal dialogue, and was able to resolve some highly contentious points of disagreement. Aoun states, for example, that his party’s dialogue with Hezbollah caused Hezbollah to agree for the first time that Lebanese who collaborated with Israel during Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon should return peacefully to Lebanon, that a civil society should replace the present confessional system which distributes power on the basis of religious affiliation, to finally delineate the border between Lebanon and Syria, to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries, that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be disarmed, that security and political decision-making should be centralized with the Lebanese government, and that all Lebanese political groups should disengage themselves from regional conflicts and influences.”
“Most importantly, Aoun describes how his negotiations with Hezbollah resulted in an articulation of the three main roadblocks regarding resolution of the Hezbollah arms issue: First, the return of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons. Second, the return of the Shebaa farms, a tiny piece of Lebanese territory still occupied by Israel. And third, the formulation of a comprehensive strategy to provide for Lebanon’s defense, centered upon a strong national army and central state decision-making authority in which all political groups are assured a fair opportunity to participate.”
“Aoun describes how the Lebanese government and the international community brushed aside his party’s attempts to resolve the explosive situation in Lebanon. He describes how the international community imposed a twisted electoral law upon post-liberation Lebanon, which resulted in an unrepresentative and paralyzed the Lebanese government.”
“In the article, Aoun set forth a comprehensive solution which, because it is based upon human values and reconciling the rights of parties, would stand the test of time and ultimately lead not only to physical disarmament, but also a ‘disarmament of minds’ on both sides.”
“This article proves that the U.S. administration is overlooking real solutions to this problem, solutions being presented by those who can deliver, who can accomplish the goal of freedom, stability and democracy in Lebanon. Instead, the administration has been following a path which has led repeatedly to impasse, and to the situation we are in today,” Haddad said.
Lebanese American Council for Democracy
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 900 South Building
Washington DC 20004
Phone: (202) 220-3039
So… if I am reading this correctly… Hezbollah is a not purely bad group who are a problem that could have been solved before this.
Who cares?
I mean, really, who cares about “could have”?
I suppose the Israeli victims of Hezbollah terror “could have” died a day later from sudden-onset deadly flu, but they didn’t.
Why are folks acting like Israel started this? They were attacked, their population and army were attacked, by a simi-governmental body that Lebanon has been saying it will be rid of for years.
I know I was bullied in school, like most kids. The bullies often made great promises when someone was watching– and broke them with ease. But when I defended myself, they stopped.
Sailorette, you make no sense.
Hezbollah did not start bombing civilian Lebanese (certainly Israelis)nor creating 1 million refugees. ISRAEL DID.
NOW, YES, Israel IS doing that because of a legitimate sense of self interest in protecting civilians from missle attacks targetting civilians from Hezbollah.
But the direct cause, the missles are from Israel.
The “root” cause as President Bush says is Hezbollah however, maybe there is a deeper root which is (right or wrong) the taking (perhaps justified) of Palestinian land, and the treatment (perhaps justified) of Palestinians in what is/was known as the occupied territories or the “Palestinian Authority”. Remember that Israel did not exist pre-1948 and different people were living there (specifically Arabs both Christians and Muslims now called Palestinians that had some identity and co-existence for centuries before 1948) although certainly the idea of a nation or even a separate Palestinian identity (beyond Arabs from a certain region) was different than currently.
But specific families and clans had property, deeds, businesses and other claims on the land through legal and historical justification. The Israeli(s)/Jews won a war or more than won war and one school of thought (which is not illogical) is that to the victor goes the spoils and that the Arabs who were previously there are tough out of luck and should blame Egypt or Syria. The fact remains is there is a population that was controlled by Israel and for all purposes is affected by Israel now even if they are supposed to be autonomous. The fact remains right or wrong, that Palestinians believe they have a claim to the land in the nation now known as Israel.
That is the root cause.
Hezbollah may be completely wrong, but they believe that the root cause is (why they took the 2 soldiers or fire missles into Israel) that there are prisoners in Israeli jails who should not be there (maybe they should but they want a prisoner release which happened before and happens in war) and there is disputed land (not much) in Lebanon (or Syria) under Israeli control specifics beyond the broader Israeli/Arab (or Arab/Israeli) conflict.
But the root goes deeper than Hezbollah.
The broader issues are not addressed except as far as Israel by the United States.
I recognize the right of Israel to exist and support Israel, even with the complex birth of that nation or as another poster likes to use the word “nuance”. But every time there is a hard line government, or so called hard line policies, than more violence ensues.
The issue of settlements is bizarre as they certainly do not have an ancient claim (except by the Bible which does not state that in the year 2000 that they should push people off their land who were there for the last 2000 years (or 1500 or 1000 or 500). There are many good historical reasons for Israel to exist, and many good reasons for it to act hard and tough. But the settlers manytimes are recent Jewish immmigrants who literally took Palestinians homes that were taken over or bulldozed down, protected by their own arms and militias and the Israeli government. Some of them are Jews from New York, or other parts of the US or Russia who have no historic tie to that land and are put in settlements that recently displaced Arab mostly Muslim but also some Christian Palestinians.
This is recent, not 1948, and since 1994 Arafat and the PLO (not Hezbollah and I am not saying to trust Arafat or the PLO or it was sincere) recognized Israel and the right to exist (as was offered by the Arab League and Saudi in the most recent deal that Israel rejected)
Any real resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict has to also deal with issues that Likud (and others) believes only can be dealt with through force.
It seems reasonable for the US and/or the International community to call for a complete ceasefire (and if Hezbollah breaks it than can respond) to stop the destruction of Lebanon and the counter (or initial) missles into Israel which are only increasing. The destruction of Lebanon with an even more pro-Hezbollah population and regime is not positive and certainly could happen.
Who is Michael Aoun? I never heard of him
Sailor,
the bully is Israel
backed up by the biggest bully on the block the US
Iraq did not invade the US or attack us in anyway, but we are over there in their home
Israel attacked all of Lebanon not just Hezbollah that they could of dealt with through negotiations or in a more limited capacity
this is to depopulate the South (mark my words)
and create a buffer zone and depopulated area
who cares about how many are killed or if someone wants was or likes or needs to live there and the cost of displacement as long as Israel actually and perceptually subjectively feels safe
It is all about Israel
all Muslims are evil
Israel can do no wrong
anyone caught in the middle like innocent civilians, Christians, children, women, elderly, infirmed–it is all Hezbollahs fault and it is just collateral damage in making Israel safe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aoun
Many more Arab, Lebanese, and Palestinian mothers are dying compared to Israeli’s Tim J
but both are equal and we should not kill any of them
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak07.html
actually a Jew by blood and birth, raised Methodist, and converted to Catholicism (I think he was connected to Opus Dei priest Fr. C. John McCloskey.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast/index.html
*Snort* A group Lebanon was supposed to get rid of has been attacking Israel, with a good bit of proof that *another country* has been helping this group, and no obvious attempt to stop the group. Israel moves to get rid of the group, which happens to hide in civilian areas and even builds schools over weapons.
Yeah, right, and _I_ am the one not making sense.
TJ Houlihan- Can you find a single instance where a ceasefire between Israel and a terrorist group was broken by the terrorist group and the “international community” even bothered to fake outrage?
Honestly, sometimes it seems like people have been brainwashed into supporting Israel at all costs, as if Israel has anything at all to do with us and our destiny is intricately tied into that of Israel. Israel does not give a rat’s posterior about us. If it did, it would not be spying on us or attacking our ships to draw us into its wars, etc.
With “friends” like Israel, we don’t need enemies. In fact, we just get to have all of Israel’s enemies for ourselves!
Honestly, sometimes it seems like folks are brainwashed into beliving that people support things only because they are to our good, rather than because they are right.
I still don’t understand Sailorrette. She (?) thinks that somehow Chuck Hagel, Robert Novak, Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah?
She thinks destroying Lebanon is the only solution?
She thinks that Israel is completely justified and no proportionality concept applies here?
Published: 08/06/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)
Christian support to Israel dies under hail of bombs
The Telegraph Group Limited
Jounieh: It was the most astonishing escalation on a particularly bloody day.
For the first 24 days of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, Lebanese Christians in the Beirut area believed they were protected from the mayhem gripping other parts of the country.
But a 15-minute air raid shortly after dawn yesterday on the attractive port of Jounieh destroyed the complacency of the Christians and served to turn them against the Israelis. The capital of Lebanon’s Christian heartland is unused to such violence.
Even during the 15 years of the 1975-1990 civil war, when Christian and Muslim militias sowed destruction across the country, Jounieh survived unscathed a party zone of nightclubs and beach resorts 10 miles from Beirut.
The Israelis’ target was not the Christians of Jounieh but its bridges, two in the town and two a little to the north. The intent was to sever the last artery connecting Beirut to the outside world, and in that the Israelis succeeded.
But the strikes also destroyed whatever support Israel still enjoyed among Lebanon’s Christians.
Among the dead was Joseph Bassil, a Christian. Out for his morning jog, he passed under the 300 metre Fidar bridge, to the north of Jounieh, just as it was destroyed by a huge bomb that pitched cars into the ravine below. Bassil was crushed to death and three motorists were killed.
“Hezbollah has never bombed us here, yet Israel bombs us here so who are the terrorists?” asked Manal Azzi, a 26-year-old HIV specialist, as she stood in the chasm where the Fidar bridge had stood. “We have spent 30 years rebuilding this country and now Israel is taking us back to the Middle Ages.”
As the scale of the civilian casualties in the early stages of the conflict became clear, Lebanon’s Christians dutifully expressed their solidarity with the Shias in the south. Yet some Christians remained unconvinced.
On Thursday, the hillside resort of Broummana just outside Beirut seemed a place untouched by war. Many of Beirut’s trendy Christians had escaped here at the start of the conflict, and the party was continuing in its bars and restaurants. “We cannot blame the Israelis alone for this,” said Elie Dahoud.
“The Shiites are our enemy and it is they who have brought Lebanon to disaster.'”
But by Friday night he had changed his mind. “I was wrong,” he admitted. “The Israelis no longer care who is Muslim and who is Christian. We are all enemies to them.”
I don’t understand why folks can’t bother to put a name in the loverly lil space.
I’d like you to give examples of where I say that various groups in Lebanon support Hezbolla, rather than the government.
I believe that crippling or eliminating Hezbolla is the only answer left, since peace, ceasefires, abandoning land, etc, have failed.
The Israeli cure is worse than the sickness
Sailorette,
Crippling or eliminating Hezbollah is creating more violence and more support for Hezbollah.
The approach that Lebanon took took time but did work. Syria left (after peaceful protests mass protests like those in the Phillipines)
The Civil War did end.
Syria did leave.
The country was rebuilding.
Far less violecne towards Israel was happening.
There were no reprisals on the paid pro-Israeli Christian militias.
The economy was moving.
There was not infighting as there was in the 80s and 90s.
THINGS WERE GETTING BETTER.
Through dialogue, recociliation (Michel Aoun went to visit Samir Gaegae in jail.
Hezbollah was welcoming tourists and businesspeople into Lebanon.
Hezbollah was part of the government.
They (the Lebanese government) could not go after Hezbollah because it would of caused chaos.
Chaos does not benefit anyone and certainly not Israel.
So ceasefires, negotiations HAVE WORKED it is emperical. What has NOT worked is Israel’s policy(ie) EVERY TIME they have taken a so called harder line it has meant MORE DEATH for Israelis.
Whoe, hold up– you’re saying that Hezbollah was part of the Government in the 80s and 90s?
That would mean that the Government of Lebanon killed the single largest number of US military personel in a single day since WWII.
If ceasefires and negotiations lower death tolls by making it so only the Terrorists are kiling folks. That’s kind of like trying to lower the number of folks in jail by refusing to arrest folks.
BTW– Rafiki? Like the baboon in the Lion King?
I am not a baboon, and no offense taken, although one could being compared to a Baboon but I am less sensitive than Bill9.
Hezbollah was not part of the government in the 80s and 90s. Actually Hezbollah was probably the worst terrorist group before Al-Qaeda came on the scene. They blew up the US Embassy in Beirut killing about 100 people, they are deemed responsible for blowing up the Marine barracks in 82 killing 300 people (which a Jewish author wrote in a book on the Mossad that the Israelis knew about the attack and did not notify the US)
Hezbollah also kidnapped the CIA station chief and others who were intelligence or those who were not like Terry Waite. Hezbollah was the pro-Iranian terrorist group and this was before they recruited so heavily among Palestinians, representing the Shia poorer Lebanese.
Hezbollah was not part of the official government in the 80s and 90s and there was much more killing in Lebanon and much bigger problems for Israel in the 80’s (not the 90s) than there was for them after they started the bombing.
Hezbollah is a terrible terrorist group, however, just like the Stein Torpedo gang became the modern Israeli state and warriors, the same can happen for other people.
By trying to immediately dismantle Hezbollah would of put Lebanon in another Civil War.
Hezbollah put out press releases inviting Western visitors and businessman and there is not the kidnapping or violence of the 80s.
Some historians and political observers believe that part of the reason for the Civil War was the exclusion of the Kateb party in the government and many did not want the same to happen in the present day. The exclusion of Kateb and the different Christian militias Franjieh, Geagea etc. caused a lot of problems, some of them Syrian supported, some of them Israeli supported and at war for Israel against Palestinians (remember Sabra and Shatilla) The autobiography by Ariel Sharon “Warrior” describes this in great detail. The book by Jewish New York Times reporter “From Beirut to Jerusalem” by Thomas Friedman is also very good, and while now dated, is still a primer on the Middle East, Lebanon and Israel.
I am not sure how you thought that I said that Hezbollah was part of the government. I do not know if I did not type correctly, typo or I am not making myself clear.
Hezbollah was not part of the 80s gov on.
They are now and there was until recently more peace in Lebanon.
Hezbollah, again, while certainly a terrorist group, has shown restraing, discipline and rationality, including helping the peace and promotion of business and the rebuilding of Lebanon, the stopping of fighting in Lebanon, the working with the political party of Michel Aoun which is Christian heavy and secular in philosophy, and by not taking revenge on the Southern Christian militias that were fighting as proxy front line fighters for Israel, not all of them who were allowed in Israel nor got any severance for their front line service. Hezbollah may be part of an inherently violent religion and nihilistic and terrorists, but they are a force, and did some good recently in the pre-Israeli bombing Lebanon. Most people agree in Lebanon that they should have not capture the soldiers but the Israeli response could of been very different and more effective at getting a result such as the US neogtiating directly with Syria and/or Iran (Israel wants us to invade Syria and Iran next there are 96 articles by Wolfowtiz and Perle and Krauthmauer to indicate this and 2001 and present day and the call is there) The targets could have been more surgical and less indiscriminate bombing, less attacks on infrastructure and avoidance of Christian neighborhoods who have been pro-Israeli (at least somewhat) and anti-Palestinian (as uninvited guests after the PLO had to leave Jordan)
Hezbollah certainly killed, or a terrorist truck car bomber associated/motivated by Hezbollah killed the US Marines (at a time the US was pro-Saddam Hussein and the US was helping Iraq fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war)
Ceasefires and negotiations certainly have lowered death tolls and that is proven. The current crisis in Israel and raise in death rates was after Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount after 2000. 90-2000 did not have a significant amount of death. In fact the post 2000 death count for Israel is much larger than even the 70’s on (Arafat shut down Black September and even Munich, as well as more scholarly journals, state that Arafat did not want nor do terrorist attacks on other countries, not necessarily for moral purposes but for publicity, and there was a deal with the CIA, and certainly many PLO higher ups were US CIA assets)
Israel in attempting to damage Arafat and the PLO helped strengthen Hezbollah and Hamas. Again, their policy backfiring and working against them and increasing death toll.
Hezbollah is big enough (perhaps unfortunately) and rationale enough to be dealt with.
The Michel Aoun plan calls to disarm them, but that will not be done as Israel is destroying Lebanon. The Hezbollah strength is surprising many pundits and watching the McLaughlin Group or Sunday morning neoconservative pro-Israeli talking heads, every week for the last almost month they have been predicting Israeli victory and end and something better, and everything gets worse. This is war, and negotiations and cease fire, with Nazis, Communists, brutal imperialist Japanese, Russians, Muslims are part of that to save lives and bring different results.
I am surprised that there is so little depth or historical knowledge of many of the Israeli partisan posters, even those who are Catholics.
The pro-Israeli reaction seems almost reflexive without logic and justification. Israel seems never to be wrong, and in this case, and in any potential theoretical case–Israel is justified in any military response, and any response to supposedly end terrorism in proportional or that proportionality does not matter.
Please look at the Wall Street Journal (I think Aug 1) Op-ed of former Lebanese anti-Syrian, formerly pro-US, Lebanese Maronite Catholic general (his Army was multi-confessional with many Muslims) Michel Aoun, it is logical, informed, nuanced, sound and can bring about peace.
Please engage and discuss the ideas of Michel Aoun.
Catholics should start defending and helping other Catholics, especially when they are innocent victims, and not defending their destruction under false pretenses.
The neocon, radical pro-Israeli, exclusionary Jewish group is no friend to Catholicism.
I only mentioned the deaths of Israeli mothers and children because none of the anti-Israel posters seemed to take much notice of them (I know, I know… you’re not “anti-Israel”. But the demand for a unilateral cease-fire from Israel, and the insistance that they are the real root of the current conflict, makes you against their policies at least in this case. Heck, Hezbollah has already rejected the kind of cease fire you mentioned).
Another oversight was the failure to mention that there were many Jews living in Palestine before the state of Israel was created. Arabs were certainly not the only ones there. Neither did the state of Isreal drive them out. Those who left (and the number grows every time I hear it) did so at the behest of Arab leaders in the region who had vowed to drive Israel into the sea and who promised that the war would be brief.
And who keeps posting all the Aoun material? Are you his campaign manager or something? It makes me wonder if there is not a concerted effort to cram English language blogs with pro-Aoun commentary.
You say Aoun wants to disarm Hezbollah. What in the world makes him (or you) think that the chances of that happening are anything but slim or none? He couldn’t manage to do it before.
“Israel seems never to be wrong…” I haven’t read any such allegations on this post, yet others claim that the allegation was made. Now, either some are seeing things that are not there, or I am not seeing things that are there. If the latter is true, I am sure that someone can qoute those who have claimed that Israel is never wrong.
Rafiki– I’m going to just stop reading you. You flat-out stated that Hezbollah was part of the gov two posts before you claimed you couldn’t understand why I thought you said so.
To heck with reading other folks’ points– read your own.
Hezbollah is part of the government now, as in elected legislative posts not in the administration nor official military. Hezbollah is part of current military coalitions including alliances with Christians.
Hezbollah was not in the government in the 80s under either pro-Syrian gov or the Aoun de facto government nor Gemayel.
So again, Hezbollah is part of political coalitions now but actions by Hezbollah militias are not indicative of the government of Lebanon just as Sinn Fein has MP etc. in government but an IRA provo attack is not representative of the government of Ireland nor England.
BUT, Hezbollah was NOT part of the government in the 80s but was an Iranian backed and became popular terrorist group but also social service agency (similiar to Hamas) that provided food, welfare stipends, daycare etc. in areas where there was a lot of problems. It was primarily Shia (but the Israeli attacks have given them wider popularity).
If you misread my postings, or the sequence, but I re-read them and that is what I meant to say but it could of been misunderstood.
Bill9, What do you disagree with Israel about?
TimJ, there is NO DOUBT that Israeli Jewish (also Israeli Arabs have been killed and feel like second class citizens but certainly have more economic opportunities than in the PA)Israeli/Jewish life is equal, all life shoule be equal, something Aoun has talked about for some time. Certainly, many, too many Israeli civilians, mothers and children have died from terrorism. I thought I mentioned that before and if I did not loudly or frequently enough, I apologize. I certainly condemn the killing of civilians by Hezbollah or Hamas or Amal or Al Aqsa brigade or anyone else. Aoun supports the disarmament of Hezbollah and a secular state.
The Israeli nation question certainly is an interesting question. The official historian of the Israeli military wrote a book that was heavily circulated in the Jewish press, and he stated that they did force Palestinians out of their homes, the estimate by Israeli military archives is approximately 900,000 “refugees” and no most of them did not want to leave which is an admission now. Even if practically there is no right of return, or to the winner goes the fruits of victory, just as from WWII from Holocaust survivors and others, or the displacement in homes in Krajina Croatia/Yugoslavia there can be compensation. Of course many many Jews lived in British Palestine and Zionism was a force since the middle of the 1800s and many Hassidic Jews were going to Safed (Zafet) for aliyah for centuries. The point being there was relative co-existence in a multi-confessional area (the region now known as Israel and the Palestinian Authority was over 20% Christian, with Christian towns in Bethlehem, Jericho, Nazareth Now both in the PA and Israel these numbers are probably only over 1%) You do not want Lebanon to go into the same direction as it will cause an increase in radical Islam and more problems for Israel and a less pro-Western government. There were certainly Sefardic Jews in Palestine since 70AD (and they fought with the Persians and killed many Christians in 600AD as history goes), many Ashkenazi Jews (that while certainly real Jews may not be genetic descendants of the actual Biblical Jews and no real legal or historical claim to the land beyond theology) I support, and Michel Aoun supports Israel, their right to exist, and the amazing nation and economic and technical contributions they can make to the region. Aoun worked closely with Sharon and the Israeli government throughout the 70s and 80s to the benefit of Israel and against Syria.
However, the fact is Arab Christians and Muslims lived in areas that are now called Israel and where Jews live. As of this last decade Israeli bulldozers mowed down Palestinian homes and settlers from New York City and Russia came in and made “settlements”. This creates resentment, and whatever the numbers in the post 48 and 67 world in this area, hundreds of thousands of refugees were created. Certainly Jews were also here, but they gained power and pushed others including Christians out of the region. There are many reasonable voices in Israel and peace can be achieved. That does not mean it is easy.
What is not working is the perception that all Muslims are evil, and the only achievements can be through hard line violence.
The point is not that Hezbollah is good but only that Hezbollah can be rational, and disciplined and some at least temporary goals can be achieved.
Again, through the influence of Aoun and the Patriarch of the Maronites in Beirut, Hezbollah (nor other Muslim para military) made reprisals (which was predicted and did not happen and required some thought of a broader good and discipline) against Christian militias who were the front line fighters (like Israelis use the Druze in the front line). Hezbollah also was ordered (yes like your Sicilian Mafia or street gangs) that on pain of punishment to not affect US and European tourists and more importantly business people. So just as they achieved other goals, if there was a prisoner exchange or other items, this bloodshed might of been avoided. The longer term question of the disarmament of Hezbollah requires a strong Lebanese governement that can make these demands and has the power to do so and is not put into civil war and more deaths to achieve this goal.
Please read the Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Michel Aoun.
“Bill9, what do you disagree with Israel about?”
If that was directed at me, I’ll take it as a tacit admission that you cannot find any poster on this thread who has ever claimed that Israel is never wrong.
“…if there was a prisoner exchange or other items, this bloodshed might of been avoided.”
!!!!!
So, Israel should have given them what they were after? Actually rewarded them for their behavior?
No. There should be no negotiation with terrorists. Ever.
Tim J, as Michael Corleone told his fiance Kay (after she told him that Senators and Presidents don’t have people killed, in response to Michaels characterization of his father as a powerful man) “Now who is being naive?”
Tim J, both Israel and us deal with terrorists all the time. If Hezbollah are terrorists (and not a government or a legitimate rebel group) than why not help Lebanon more in rooting Hezbollah out. We did not give money or advise in an unfunded UN mandate on the disarming of Hezbollah (Israel hates most of the UN mandates anyway.)
Tim, we funded Saddam against Iran including chemical weapons. We with Ollie North and Israel traded weapons for hostages or at least tried to. You can surf the web to find the photos of Saddam and Bush I or Saddam and Rumsfield. We funded the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan who became Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We negotiated with Soviet Russia communism aethiests. We negotiated with the PLO, the IRA. Israel sent Omri Sharon (the son of Ariel Sharon) as the emissary to speak with Yasser Arafat. Should we go into the history of the birth of Israel and Lord Nelson, or the Norwegian negotiator or hotels being blowed up or downing airlines or killing civilians before Israel was a nation or shortly thereafter. We deal with Saudi Arabia which funded Al-Qaeda, and Kuwait which has slavery on the books. We have dealt with Contras in Nicarauga overthrew democratically elected regimes in Chile (which turned out for the good) in Guatemala, Dominican Republic in 65, Iran under Modaseq, we funded the Katanga fighters, the brother of the Dalai Lama in blowing up parts of China (justified I believe but they viewed as terrorists)
Israel has dealt with the PLO behind the scenes, Iran, and funded terrorist activity (even if justified) in Operation Wrath of God in response to Black September, Israel helped create Hamas and other groups to destabilize the PLO.
Let alone just Israel spying on the US (Jonathon Pollard among others), helping the apartheid state of South Africa proliferate, having the most serious weapons of WMD and threatening to use them, creating Hamas, destablizing other regional governments, assasinations in other countries, selling weapons all around the world.
It may be justified but is dealing with terrorists and unnaive view of human history and the specifics here.
Bill912, I am not sure what you want people to admit or prove, but the question still stands.
What do you think Israel is wrong about?
If you are always agreeing with and justifying Israel than it is hard to not come to that conclusion. On the issue of Lebanon, it seems you and others think that Israel is completely right and within their rights.
Tim J- Thank you for making me believe I’m not *utterly* insane.
Timothy,
What do you think we(the United States of America) did in Afghanistan?
Do you think that Dostrum, the Uzbeks and warlords, were not brutal drug dealing mass murderers? We dealt with them correctly but they were brutal terrorists, to take out Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Cooperation with evil is a concept in Catholic moral theology, Aquinas, and Aquinas got his Aristotle from Muslims (actually not all Arabs)
I did not say that there has never been cooperation with terrorists. I said that there SHOULD not be.
The fact that we (the US) have cooperated with terrorists and thuggish dictators in the past is a national shame, and is how we have ended up where we are.
Iraq is a good example. I only hope we have learned from our mistakes. It doesn’t matter which “side” they are on, terrorists and dictators should have no place at the table.
I freely confess that I am no student of international politics, and it seems that any situation (looked at closely enough) becomes so complex that it is hard to sift the good guys from the bad guys.
But we cannot let this bring us to despair, and to the abandonment of our principles.
It might be naive that I do not think we should be playing footsie with terrorists and dictators. It may be naive to think that torture is always a bad idea, no matter what it is called.
Doubtless there are those who would say that to play with the Big Boys we must learn to look at these things in a more mature, nuanced and morally relativistic way.
I think that way of thinking has been the whole problem, though, and that there has never been a better time to abandon it.
Sometimes you deal with terrorists when you beat bigger terrorists or worse people
at the time Iran may have been worse than Iraq
or the mujahadin better than the Communist Russia
or Israel better than Hezbollah
or the PLO better than Hamas
or the Shah better than communists or the Ayatollah
it is sometimes the lesser of two evils
the principle is saving lives and bringing peace with justice
not a de-entological principle for the sake of principle (not in this case at anyrate)
so negotiating with Iran, Syria or even Hezbollah may be better than creating 2 million refugees (1 million Israeli, 1 million Lebanese) and all the death and destruction including the infrastructure and economic devastation of an entire nation (Lebanon) over two kidnapped (if terrorists) or captured (if war or freedom fighters)soldiers (soldiers are combatants and Israel was in Lebanon before and the claim is Hezbollah is targetting civilians so possibly or theoretically those soldiers are “legitimate” targets in a “conflict)
No doubt that Israel legitmately imprisoned Hezbollah members, but prisoner exchanges are done all the time, and in every war, conflict etc.
and if that is worth not going to WWIII than so much the better, even if imperfect or dealing with evil people
Under the Bush W doctrine we should invade (theoretically) North Korea, Iran, and certainly the Sudan.
2 Israeli soldiers, or even the relatively small number of deaths (comparatively)to the deaths now (just for Israel) does not justify the cost
The complete destruction of Hezbollah (no matter what the cost) is not resulting in anything good
Total destruction of Hezbollah?
Sounds good to me.
Civilian deaths is another question. Those should be minimized, by all means.
These civilian deaths cannot be hung solely on Israel, however, but are at least as much the result of Hezbollah’s shameful, un-manly and cowardly practice of hiding among civilian populations.
Hezbollah is against creating refugees, true.
Because they’ve stated, repeatedly, openly, that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Many want to kill every Jew.
Doesn’t sound too “open” to diplomacy to me.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/597/597_12_ElaineHagopian.shtml
the only way that you will get the total destruction of Hezbollah is by killing civilians and destroying Lebanon unless some diplomacy or pressure is used on Iran or Syria
Hezbollah has proven too strong, too entrenched, and with too much popular support
Some culpability is certainly on Hezbollah for starting this and for hiding among civilians
but there is also culpability on the Israelis for seemingly wanting this, exagerrating the response, increasing the death toll, being indiscriminate in bombings, underestimating the response and destruction, killing civilians even if uninentionally, and destroying the infrastructure of the nation
Hezbollah has been open to “diplomacy”, and the reason for the kindapped soldiers was to that end (which is done by both sides) Again, as mentioned many times by different posts above from different perspectives even, Hezbollah negotiated the pullout of Israel for the Christian militias and return, to end sectarian fighting, and to promote the rebuilding of Lebanon and welcoming foreign nationals and expatriates return, working with Christians in politics
for the stated reason that started this of two captured soldiers, and the long term reason of the security of Israel,
again the goal of decreasing death in Israel
making it safer
this response by Israel (whether morally justified or not) has created (remember Israel directly created this even if the “root” cause is Hezbollah, they are Israeli missles, troops, actions etc.):
1 million Lebanese refugees
1 million Israeli refugees from the North
1000 Lebanese dead
over 100 Israeli dead
a country with destroyed water supply, electricity, no fuel, roads, airports, bridges, buildings
killing of non combatant women and CHILDREN (on both sides)
a stronger Hezbollah in Lebanon and worldwide
an increasingly isolated US and Israel worldwide
a 2 day operation turning into a month
I am aware of the anti-Christian passages in the Talmud.
Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jews who did not regard Jesus as the Messiah knows that they had alternative explanations of things such as His miracles.
I do not find it a shock that those who are not Christian do not accept the Christian explanations of things and therefore have their own.
There is a difference between alternative explanations and disrespect and justification for maltreatment of Christians.
I am critical of Israel. However, I think that the reason for the strong attack on Lebanon is because, and the counter attacks prove this, Hezbollah is strong, has to much weaponry and eventually could devestate Israel. Thus, you have to take out Hezbollah NOW, if not it will grow and not just fester but grow strong and eventually attack strong and deep.
But Israel should of told us, we seem to have been caught off guard, and had a better strategy, public relations strategy, and tried to minimize civilian damage.
Hezbollah does need to be eliminated, or at least the infrastructure of medium range missles and other arms that could hurt Israel.
This is not a blank check, but this killing the problem once and for all so it not just maimed grows strong and strikes again.
In 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the First World War, the Zionist movement approached the delegation from Lebanon, in particular, the Christian community. They understood that the Maronites (though not all of them certainly) didn’t consider themselves to be Arabs, and that there was a big debate in Lebanon.
At the time, the boundaries of Lebanon were significantly smaller. Lebanon was essentially the Lebanon Mountains in the West. The rest of what is Lebanon today was part of Syria. It was the French who originally drew the lines and called it Lebanon.
At the Paris Peace Conference, the Zionist delegation had gone to argue for the French Grand Levant, a larger Lebanon. The French wanted a larger area, and they wanted to make the Maronites the dominant group. Yet there had been this debate in Lebanon, with some saying let’s have a smaller, Christian Lebanon that we’ll be able to manage better. Ultimately, the Grand Levant won out.
But the Zionist delegation at this peace conference presented a map to the delegates to show what they wanted for a Jewish state. The map included South Lebanon up to the Litani River, which they wanted for water. It also included the Golan Heights of Syria, and even a slice of the east bank of the Jordan River—–and, of course, all of Palestine.
The Lebanon delegation ultimately didn’t cooperate with the Zionists, so that plan failed. The Zionists were promising that if the delegates supported their plan for a state of Israel, the Zionists would protect them, and they would forever be happy.
Then again, in 1954 and 1955, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, argued that Israel should build a Maronite state in Lebanon. He said the time was right, Syria was weak, and they would be able to just walk in there.
Ben Gurion and his followers figured that the Maronites would recognize Israel. The Zionists coveted this area, because it controls the Mediterranean ports, it’s adjacent to Syria, it’s a good source of water, and they would have a client state.
Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister, recounted this period in his diary. He wrote, “The only thing that’s necessary is to find an officer, even just a major. We should either win his heart or buy him with money to make him agree to declare himself the savior of the Maronite population.
“Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory and will create a Christian regime, which will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward would be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will be alright.”
This plan didn’t work out either. But in the 1970s, Israel didn’t find a major, they found Bashir Gemayel, the head of the Christian Phalange Party, and his militia. Gemayel agreed to cooperate with Israel.
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, expecting Gemayel to deliver. But while Gemayel initially wanted to be with Israel, he failed to recognize it. There was a lot of pressure from Syria and other Arab states, and Gemayel also realized that Lebanon was tied by trade and other relationships to the Arab world. So this didn’t work out for Israel, either.
Hezbollah grew out of the 1982 war. The Shia of South Lebanon had long suffered neglect from the national Lebanese government, and they also suffered as a result of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) fighters operating in the area at that time. PLO fighters would stage operations from South Lebanon, and the Israelis would bomb the Shia, trying to turn them against the PLO.
In any case, the Shia began to feel oppressed by all sides. When Israel came into the area in 1982, the Shia welcomed them, and they thought that Israel would be their saviors. But the Israelis made a fatal mistake by mistreating and oppressing the Shia.
The Shia then formed Hezbollah. There’s a long history to a different group that formed as well—–Nabi Berri’s Amal group, which was more secular. Hezbollah was a guerrilla force that began to protect itself against the Israelis, and defend the territorial integrity of Lebanon, which the Lebanese army couldn’t do.
So the Israelis’ 1982 plan also failed. Hezbollah turned against them and eventually helped push them out and forced them into a position that they wanted to withdraw without support from the Israeli public and media.
Anon-
But Israel should of told us, we seem to have been caught off guard, and had a better strategy, public relations strategy, and tried to minimize civilian damage.
When we– the US– are getting the pictures that give us news from photographers who are probably tied to Hezbollah (if not active members), how is Israel supposed to make it look good?
And since when is “public relations” a higher priority than “defending our citizens”?
Nothing good can come from any of this. We are headed for more death and destruction with no solution in sight. In this particular case, Israel is the center of fault.
“In this particular case, Israel is the center of fault.”
No. Wrong.
If Hezbollah were not based in Lebanon, do you think Israel would be there now? No.
Want peace? Let Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel’s right to exist. That would be a good start.
And who gave them that right to begin with?
Our Lord cursed them and told them their city would be destroyed.
Yet they choose to defy God, and that won’t sit to well with God.
Ergo, they are center of problems.
But the Muslims are not excempt from guilt.
They are pretty bad in that sense, because they hate Catholics and ANYONE who won’t “embrace in the victory of Islam”.
And then there is the rest of the world…
AND most importantly the Catholics have got to rise up from our miserable ways and rise the the threat to the Church that is the East, and the Secular and Athiest West.
We Catholics will set the note.
The History of Man is and has always been the Good vs. Evil, the Sons of the Virgin, and the Sons of the Serpent.
From the Pope and those faithful to him shall rise those who are called to defend the Church.
Tim J,
PLO did recognize Israel’s right to exist in 94. Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey all recognize Israel and have helped them. The Arab League offered recognition in the Beirut plan of 2002. Lebanon has worked with Israel.
Israel went into Lebanon before Hezbollah existed. Hezbollah owes part of it’s existence to Hezbollah.
Oooh! I broke 400! That smashes the JA.O record, methinks.
“…PLO did recognize Israel’s right to exist in 94…”
Yes, for a few minutes… right before Arafat cynically initiated the next bloody Intifadeh.
“Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey all recognize Israel”
And is that the same as Hamas, Hezbollah and the PA?
“Israel went into Lebanon before Hezbollah existed”
That doesn’t answer my question. Would Israel be there NOW, if Hezbollah were not? No.
————————————————
“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only ally in the Middle East I can’t help but think that before Israel we had no enemies in the Middle East. John Sheehan, S. J.
———————————————
“Not everyone who spares is a friend, nor is everyone who strikes an enemy” St. Augustine (Ep. 93)
Timmy,
The Palestinian Authority does recognize Israel. The infitada was spontaneous and not created (even if exploited) by Arafat.
The violence started when Ariel Sharon cynically visited the Temple Mount, now you can argue causality but not correlation.
Arafat and the PLO recognized Israel 12 years ago.
Hamas was created by Israel. It is a terrorist organization and does not recognize Israel but was funded and helped grow by Israel just ask Shiek Yassin and the Mossad. US and Israeli policy also lead to a Hamas electoral victory–democracy in action.
Hezbollah does not recognize Israel. Not really moving in the direction of recognition. But Lebanon might of but who knows who lead the country after all this.
Israel is in Lebanon to create a buffer up to Litani and it was a plan since 1919 before and regardless of Hezbollah, read Ben Gurion, and meetings between Maronites and Zionists earlier last century. Read about the Kissinger plan.
Read up on the last Israeli invasion.
This is not to take out Hezbollah, but to have part of Lebanon, the invasion, according to Israeli news sources, has been planned for 2 years.
Mark my prediction:
Israel wants to depopulate South Lebanon.
Israel wanst the US to go to war with Syria and Iran.
only bad can come out of all this
Pretty plausible I would say.
Very if not.
Who is Sheehan SJ? SJ is Jesuit no?
Sheehan related to that anti-war goof mom who bought a ranch by Bush.
The Jesuits have a history of destabilizing countries and being anti-semetic.
Jesuit bashing is very old
I spoke to a Jewish girlfriend of mine today who said that Lebanon should be a parking lot.
She said we all know that. This thinking is not uncommon.
*snort* Stay away from military bases, Anon. You might hear a frusterated E3 say “Nuke the Middle East, it’ll solve all the problems” and take it seriously.
Although, I must say that if Canada’s military started lobbing rockets into Washington, I’d be of about the same response….
An E3 can say nuke the mideast, but if an Arab says push Israel into the sea it is not viewed in the same way.
If Canada killed a few people and we turned them into a parking lot that would not be proportionate.
As the Jesuit priest stated earlier, paraphrased though, we had no enemies in the Middle East before Israel.
Skipper,
Do you know that during his presidency, Thomas Jefferson fought against Muslim pirates? They’ve been warring against the rest of the world for well over 1400 years! Remember the battle of Lepanto and what led to that confrontation? Will everyone stop blaming the Israelis for everything but the Holocaust? Read up on world history, please.
Skipper– *bingbingbingbing* You win a no-prize! Yes, the leader of a nation saying something in multiple policy briefings carries more weight than the bottom of the totem pole saying something off-handed, or the random statment of someone who shares a religion with one of the opposing factions!
Battle of Tours 732 (Charles Martel known as Charles the Hammer grandfather of Charlemange aka Karl de Grosse aka Carlous Magnus)
Battle of Lepanto (Don Juan of Austria the bastard son of Charles V)
Battle of Siege of Vienna
All against Islamic armies
BUT that does still not justify Lebanon
and killing CHRISTIANS in Lebanon
Am I reading my internet screen correctly, that the latest news is there is a cease fire in Lebanon? Confirm, comment
“Arafat and the PLO recognized Israel 12 years ago.”
The PLO never changed the wording of it’s charter, and no real change in policy ever occurred. It was only Arafat cynically manipulating Western appeasers.
And if you think Arafat was not behind the Intifadeh, he manipulated you, too.
Why shouldn’t Sharon visit the Temple Mount? It is part of Jewish history.
Sharon shouldn’t have visited the temple mount if it was foreseeable that it would cause outrage amoungst the Muslims and therefore likely lead to more violence. It was not worth it.
JR– by that reasoning, the Jews should instantly convert to Islam, because their existance outrages some Muslims.
Sailorette,
You are not being reasonable. Just because one act is not worth risking the deaths of others does not mean any act, or any lack of action (not converting to Islam) is not worth risking the deaths of others.
If the Pope’s visiting the Temple Mount was likely to cause Muslims to kill lots of Christians, wouldn’t you oppose any plans for him to go there? I would, but that does not mean I want all us Catholics to convert to Islam to please the Muslims.
Still, I don’t know with 100% certainty that Sharon anticipated the Palestinian response to his visit.
The Pope isn’t a member of a religion whose high holy site was destroyed on that spot.
Anon.
So waite until you’re out of office before making a visit. Plus I thought he did not just visit the wailing wall but went higher up and saw the Dome of the Rock up close. I think it is an abuse of religion to say (and I don’t know if he thought about it this way or not) “it’s worth all these people dieing for me to go to the temple mount today.”
Ooh! Horror of horrors! He actually VISITED A MUSLIM SHRINE!!!!
…Gee, that’s so much worse than, say, blowing up a religious icon that isn’t of your religion… not that someone would do such a thing, y’know. *cough*Buddah*cough*
If Canada killed a few people and we turned them into a parking lot that would not be proportionate.
Nonsense. This does not give sufficient information to determine whether it is proportionate.
If we had reasonable grounds to believe that the few would turn to some, then many, then lots and lots — like, say, the declaration by the killers that they want to push the United States into the sea — and if the killers were spread out over Canada, taking shelter among civilians so that strikes that took out them alone are impossible, with neither the civilians nor the Canadian government doing anything against them (indeed, some of the killers are elected to the government), effective action against the killers would be proportionate, and might turn large portions of Canada to a parking lot.
Proportionate, I repeat for the umpteenth time, does not mean proportionate to the offenses that have already occured. It means proportionate to the offenses that you reasonably expect to occur.
Mary, Thank you for your rationality, patience, and perseverence.
“Proportionate, I repeat for the umpteenth time, does not mean proportionate to the offenses that have already occured. It means proportionate to the offenses that you reasonably expect to occur.”
Mary
regardless of the standard, the entire destruction of Lebanon is not proportional
Bill, all the posters on this site wish we could thank you for your rationality, patience and perserverance. Unfortunately we can not.
Sharon may have had a moral and legal right to visit the Temple Mount. His motives seem suspect as it was a media spectacle with lots of security.
The Muslims had a reason to be suspicious as close by the mass murder by Baruch Goldstein.
PLO did change their policy take it off their website and make it their policy (regardless of your mind reading of Arafat) in terms of recognition (which again for a nation that did not pre-exist 48). Again as an earlier post notes, Sharon was probably the cause of the post 2000 violence (regardless of it was an innapropriate response) but there is certainly a correlation if not cause and effect.
Most historians, political analysts, etc. believe that the intifidahs were spontaneous or more started by Islamicists who were funded by Israel, Arafat may have exploited it after that but not before. When you are persecuted and live under occupation as Palestinians clearly did/do under Israel, you have things like uprisings and protests. Sharon probably wanted the response so he could come to power and if that was his plan it worked. There was less dying, terrorism, destruction from 90 to 2000 under the less extreme governments, leaders, policies. That is statistical fact.
Just add up how many people Hezbollah killed (the theoretical number of how many they could kill in the future by Mary could be highly exploited) and now add up how many people have died on both sides.
Add up the people who died from terrorism from Hamas, Al-Asqa, Fatah, Amal, Hezbollah (or keep it just to just Palestinians) from 75 tp 2000 or 90 to 2000 and you will find an exponential increase in terrorism after 2000. The hard line policies of Sharon created a hard line response.
Again, New York Ashkenazi Jews with no historical or legal tie to Israel who moved to Israel in 1998 creating a settlement on peoples homes and businesses causes resentment.
Anon,
I was only addressing the claim that, if Isreal didn’t exist, we would have no enemies. I haven’t said Isreal is justified in killing civilians, so please don’t impose others claims upon my arguments. Thank you.
“Most historians, political analysts, etc. believe that the intifidahs were spontaneous or more started by Islamicists who were funded by Israel”
References, please, for the claim that Israel was – IN ANY WAY – behind the intifadeh.
So, was Isreal behind 9/11, too?
There’s sort of an interesting analog to P M Sharon visiting the Temple Mount and the violence that ensued…
This may be a bit of a stretch, but in 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, in the seminal Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education case.
With the historical back drop of slavery, violent racial tension and historical oppression, and with the certain promise of riots and violence against blacks by an intimidating group of domestic terrorists, who might have comprised a large block of non-black folks living in Topeka at the time, a brave group of black students, bused and escorted into public schools under police and military escort, ignored their oppressors, and asserted their rights to enjoy a public education, devoid of “separate but equal” bigotry. Dramatic violence did result from the Court’s decision and these brave folks actions, but good luck arguing it wasn’t worth the cost…
Sharon, in visiting the Temple Mount, recognized the bullies in HIS neighborhood, and under escort, knowing full-well that his actions could get him killed, and start a mini-insurrection, braved the local thugs, and asserted his right to enjoy the Jewish Temple area like all jews SHOULD be able to enjoy. Furthermore, I would argue that by attending the TM, Sharon not only asserted his right as a Jew to pray there, but met with his responsibilty as the head Jewish leader to set such an example…he in effect told Jews around the world that it’s their Temple too.
If you bow to oppression, particularly if you’re a Jew surrounded on three sides by hostile Muslims, you’d might as well pack your gear and find a new Island to plant the Star of David, because every where you turn you’re gonna be faced with any Muslims dissaproving your decisions, and willing to kill you for them.
I’m not saying I agree with everything Sharon has done in his various careers, but bullies suck, and God bless Sharon for having the courage to stand up for Israel.
John
Tim J, Israel was behind Hamas that was behind the intifadah (not Arafat)
do a google search or wikipedia (check the sites) on Hamas
the 1st intifidadah read the older book by a pro-Israeli NYT author Thomas Friedman From Beirut to Jerusalem
John, the bully is Israel, Israel has the bigger army and better and more weapons
Comaring Sharon (Israel in power with armed guard) to African American children students during segregation is disgusting
Sharon is a killer, butcher, and certainly not a victim or little African American children
He is a bully
READ HIS OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY WARRIOR
his own admissions
“John, the bully is Israel…”
Shame on Israel for fighting back! They should just have swapped prisoners and ignored the eight dead soldiers. They apparently don’t understand that the occasional bus-bomb is just a neighborly gesture.
If Israel has the biggest and best eqipped army in the Middle East (and they do), it is because they need it.
Yes Tim J the elimination of the Zionist regime might go along way to solving the terrorist problem. The existence of Israel seems to be the root cause of much of the terrorism. In fact the artificial state of Israel was founded on terrorism, so that’s hardly surprising.
Timmy, you claim that we should NEVER negotiate with terrorists. The state of Israel would of NEVER came into existence if not for terrorism including INTENTIONAL killing of civilians and targetted assassinations of diplomats. I am not sure why anyone needs to keep repeating that actually Israelis started targetting civilians, and using assassination (although you could go back to the Ishmaelis to see a similiar policy although they were considered heterodox Muslims and allied themselves with the Crusaders against Saladin and the official governments) (Ishmaelis descendansts became followers of the Aga Khan that the British used to sell drugs and other interesting geopolitical realpolitk in the subcontinent)
Israelis killed civilians first
Blew up hotels with British (white Christian folk) people including civilians
Killed Arab CIVILIANS before 1948 and any nation existed
forced the first airline down and the first airline hijacking (many Muslim ones since than)
So no dealing with terrorism, NO ISRAEL
Israel funded and created Hamas
Israel dealt with Iran (remember Iran/Contra and it was Jewish middlemen who hocked the Shah’s wives jewelery)
Israel helped trained Columbian drug dealers
Israel helped the racist apartheid state of South Africa proliferate with real WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, actual nuclear capability
Israel spied on the US for their own benefit and South Africa
Israel has done assassinations in soverign nations including France, England, Italy, Norway, Jordan, (should we go on) many times getting the wrong people (like an Alegerian waiter)
and Israel has done everything to destabilize the region and does not want a stable region
supporting dictators and killers in Morocco, Jordan, and at one time more favorable to Iraq
so stop the lies, the jokes, or the stupidity
In a book on the Mossad by a Jewish author it stated that the Mossad knew about the Marines barracks bombing and did not tell us (because Reagan threatend to bomb the Israeli army when they were going to slaughter the PLO and women and children Palestinians SLAUGHTER ALL OF THEM before they went to Tunisia Reagan stopped them)
They did not alert us, we could of stopped it, because we wanted a stable Lebanon and viewed the former Christian French Levant as old school allies.
Read up on the USS Liberty, they claim it was an accident, but Rusk, Clifford (pro-Israeli) thought that the Israelis attacked us on purpose, TRIED TO KILL ALL SURVIVORS, to get us to attack Egypt, with friends like these…..
Israel has created problems for us in the ARab and Muslim world that we did not have
Israel is the bully and has blown up most of Palestine and Lebanon, more people hate Israel, which is why 17 year old girls strap on bombs to kill themselves, not because of Arafat, and what replaced Arafat is far worse
The reason I am not that sympathetic to an E3 saying to nuke the Mideast is that besides it is immoral it is WE ARE IN THEIR COUNTRY
NOBODY INVITED US
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE
THEY DID NOT INVADE US
yes, since Prez Jefferson we have been figthing pirates on the shores of Tripoli who were Muslims (also the Halls of Monteczuma who were probably Catholic) and radical Islam is a problem, a problem that has been increased with Israel
BUT BEFORE ISRAEL WE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH ARABS OR MUSLSIMS AS THE US
(Maybe some in the Phillipines but there was mutual respect with General Pershing)
Arabs and Muslims liked us
Lebanon was the center of a lot of fortune 500 companies
Iran was pro-Western at one time (even before the Shah) (and has a non Arab heritage albeit a Muslim one but also a Sassessinian and Zoastrian one)
We (the US) were loved, imitated, and not viewed as colonialists like the English primarily and the French
READ THE BOOK THE ARABISTS by KAPLAN (more later)
(talking about Ivy League State Department polyglot, tall, WASP, and other gov who built universities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon that are still well recognized and the building of Democracy that they feel (US, non Muslim,) Israel helped destroy
The Iraqi people probably don’t want us there
the Lebanese were doing better
WE DO NEED TO BE IN AFGHANISTAN but again we helped create the Taliban by creating or at least funding the anti-communist MUJAHADEEN and than using them and forgetting about them
one day an ally the next an enemy
THEY DID NOT INVADE THE UNITED STATES
ARABS AND MUSLIMS ARE DYING IN MASS NUMBERS EVERY DAY BECAUSE OF US RIGHT OR WRONG
SO NUKING THEM IS NOT THE SOLUTION
ANY MORE THAN NUKING US
The issue keeps on coming up if/of Iran having Nuclear capability and using weapons on us.
That is bad, I do not want ANY countries to proliferate including South Africa or Israel.
It is dangerous if illogical Islamic nations associated with terrorism have WMDs (Iraq did not at least not a major extent besides the earlier chemical ones we helped them get to use on Iran when we were helping Iraq)
BUT in recent history we have (We the United States, White, caucasion, ostensibly Christian, West) bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Atomic bombs and killed many many people. We also did the fire bombings in Dresden that Catholic Cardinals condemned. Israel has threatened to use for their survival or revenge, weapons of mass destruction and supposedly have a contigency plan to do so.
We keep on hearing about radical Islam inherently and philosophically violent and at a war that cannot be at all negotiated with agains the West and Christianity. There may be some truth to that BUT Iran was overthrown by BRITISH, controlled by UK oil, overthrown by our CIA, Lebanon was French controlled, Palestine was British controlled, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan were British controlled. So we controlled them, they did not control us at least not us white, Anglo-Germanic or US peoples (certainly Muslims controlled most of Spain until 1400s or Turks had Greece and Balkans for a long time)
WE the United States killed American Indians (they were their first so probably should of had immigration control on us maybe a Senssenbrenner bill), had African slaves, genocide on Indians LIED TO THEM (so Indians can believe like some posters suggest that WHITE PEOPLE or CHRISTIANS or the US Governernment ALWAYS LIES and cannot be trusted)
We the US have dealt with Muslims as friend and foes in WWI, WWII, the Cold War, there was help offered in the Civil War by some, there were actual camels in the US besides movies, oil trade recently (WASPy US and British oil companies have dealt with Gulf States, Iran even Iraq now for generations)
The idea that there is no working together, or no surrender or no negotiation is absurd.
This does not mean being naive to a virulent strain in Islam especially modern to be part of modern terrorism. Whateve the particulars, Islam is in a lot of conflict from Bali to Israel, including against predominantly Hindus in India like blowing up trains or taking over the Lak Su Ba parliament (although there are legitimate Muslim greivances and the British created a situation by putting a Hindu Raj in charge of predominantly Muslim region in Kashmir), Christian Russian Slavs (formerly aetheists) in Chechnya (although the Russians also commited atrocities, obviously in Israel.
There are major problems in the world with Islam.
Much of modern terrorism, but not all is Islamic.
However, that does not mean that we do not co-exist with them, or they are inhernetly evil (as a people not speaking as a philosophy which may or may not be evil vis a vis Christianity and/or onjective truth)
It also does not mean that they are inherently violent anymore than the so called Christian West in dropping Atomic bombs even if claimed to be justified, or Dresden, or Black Slavery (which Muslims also did and some do to this day), genocide of people in the American continents (much not intentional by disease), genocide of American Indians, WWI, WWII, 30 years war
An argument could be made that WE, United States, Christian West, Europe are INHERENTLY VIOLENT
We are the only ones who have used Atomic/Nuclear
WWI had a lot of gas warfare more than Saddam ever but no British generals or French or Prussians were on War crimes
Israel is an artificial nation that we now have to deal with, but we don’t have to give them a blank check so we can alienate everyone else against us or so they can opress others.
Annon– in response to the Israel/Middle east trouble, you respond to the theoretical “nuke ’em all” quote of an American enlisted lowbie by shouting:
The reason I am not that sympathetic to an E3 saying to nuke the Mideast is that besides it is immoral it is WE ARE IN THEIR COUNTRY
NOBODY INVITED US
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE
THEY DID NOT INVADE US
If this is a referance to Iraq, actually several groups *did* ask the US for help. If for Afganistan, what part of “aiding and abetting” do you not understand?
Amazingly, it seems that the only countries that can be responsible for anything is the US and Israel, because they are responsible for EVERYTHING.
Oppenheimer- do you always troll like this? HUMANITY is INHERENTLY VIOLENT. Want proof? Show me one society that has never had a war, an invasion, anything.
genocide, n, the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. (dictionary.com)
There is no such thing as an “inadvertent” genocide, Oppen.
Sailorette,
Actually, suposedly there are societies that never had war, like the Sami in far norther Scandenavia and the Maoriori or something like that (not the Maori who exterminated them) on an island in the far south Pacific.
Still, your point is valid that you can point to any major group in the world and say it is inherently violent. The West gets a bad rap because we had more opportunities for mayhem than most and because it has become popular in the West, at least amoung those of white European ancestry, to hate their culture and ethnicity above all others.
However, I think it is totally unfair to call Oppenheimer a troll. What has he done besides give his viewpoint, and a fairly moderate one at that, on a matter that is being debated here?
Dictionary.com again- (waaaay down the screen) Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
To make a short list, using caplock liberally (yelling), treating American Indians as a single large block (I’m part AI; since I’m in the military, that red herring is obviously off), drawing in Heroshima, the settling of the New World, a wide array of terrorism (like anyone’s saying that only Muslims can be terrorists?), lumps the US with most of Europe at will, and suggets that only “the west” has nukes.
That “supposedly” is a problem for the society-that-never-had-war thing. Supposedly, Atlantis had amazing science. I still can’t use it as evidence of ancient science, because we don’t have any solid info.
I think the point is to say that Islam is inherently violent may be only part true that if the US and the Christian West (most of which is not Christian anymore) have the Nukes and also if a case could be reasonably made against them for violence if not inherent at least emperical.
“Yes Tim J the elimination of the Zionist regime might go along way to solving the terrorist problem.”
Just so we are clear, there, that you are on the same page with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Bronze-Age Fanatics. That’s some impressive intellectual company you keep.
I’ll take Israel over anyone that would like to see us all dead or enslaved.
These radical Islamist’s main problem ISN’T with Israel or with U.S. foreign policy (though that makes a convenient excuse), it is with the entire non-Muslim world. They do not believe that ANYONE should have the option of saying “no, thank you” to Islam. When they are resisted with force, they strike the David and Goliath pose. Poor terrorists.
I am aware of the sins of Israel (at least those that have not been made up), as well as our own, but you can’t possibly hope to justify a plot to blow up ten U.K./U.S. airliners last week because of… what, the Trail of Tears? Dresden? Hiroshima? Rosa Parks?
There is an existential threat, here, that you are just not getting. This is not the time to indulge in hand-wringing over Dred Scott!
I remember reading, once, of a Russian diplomat who, when confronted with questions about the Russian Gulag by an American reporter, countered with “What about the Scotssboro Boys?”, as if that disqualified any American from criticizing the unbelieveable brutality of the Soviet regime.
Oh, and MaryC., can I assume that you see the hidden hand of Israel behind the 9/11 attacks?
I mean, you may as well go all the way, here.
Tim J, for what you are about to receive, may God make you truly grateful!
I am not anti-West IN FACT I am pro-Western Heritage (in a Mortimer Adler sense) that Western Heritage (as let’s say taught by Thomas Aquinas College loosely or by analogy) is a THEOLOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL system and NOT a RACIAL or ETHNIC SYSTEM (not per se)
I believe (and I also have American Indian and Mexican Indian blood) that the European “Encounter”, “Conquest” was inevitable, and brought much good (written language, CHRISTIANITY which is good per se and objective truth) BUT there was “inadvertant” genocide, as whole peoples died (genocide) some of it intentional by direct killing, massacre other by disease and bacteria and the diseases the Europeans brought that the “Indians” did not have immunity from. The point is that human history is complex and has nuance and that the conclusion that all Islam/Muslims/Arabs are evil or violent is not necessarily correct. The point about Genocide is that whole peoples died from disease and other “natural” causes and perhaps Europeans did not intend to kill them all in all cases but I would still characterize it as a genocide.
I am making a contrast between American Indians (justifiably) saying they could not trust the US Government or White People (most purporting to be Christians) and the statements about Israeli’s/Jewish people saying they cannot trust Arabs or Muslims. The American Indians actually had more justification. But there are blanket statements regarding Muslims that are not necessarily universally true.
The point on the Nukes, is that the United States, NATO (us), France separately from NATO, former Soviet Union (the most dangerous from safety and proliferation), Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea all have Nuclear Weapons (I may be missing somebody) Iran is probably close but Iraq was never close, and Lebanon is not close. Out of all of these countries, WE (the US have used them) and Israel would use them because of the difference they view Jewish and non Jewish life and their strong revenge concept (just read their own writings)
I was also in the military (no longer) and got the opportunity to go to Iraq (although when I went it wasn’t as bad as now) Again, I was in Iraq and volunteered for Afghanistan from the IRR (was a little old and out of shape though)
This is probably a point that we should of taken Ronald Reagan’s STAR WARS plan especially if North Korea has ICBMs. Also probably should of dismantled the former Soviet Union more systematically so not to have another Chernobyl or terrorists getting real WMDs.
We should be in Afghanistan. It was absolutely necessary.
You said people invited us to Iraq? Maybe oil rich Kuwaitis who have slavery on the books. Or Saudi Arabians who will whip you if you have a Rosary in public or kill you if you convert to Catholicism. Or maybe Israel. Or some dissidents well funded by our government who had no popular support like Chalabi.
I was in the military, nothing special or that I deserve a medal. But Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cohen all the neoconservatives who want to invade Iran and Syria, but not them or their children AT WHAT COST???? Yes, most of the neocons especially the planners are mostly Jewish. Read the University of Chicago/Harvard report on AIPAC and influence on US foreign policy it is excellent, and not anti-Israel but they were branded anti-semites by Alan Dershowtiz.
The first Bush and his WASP ilk all fought in wars, but the Bush II generation were all rich kids who were partying getting defferments or in cozy reserve assignments. Cheney never saw a battlefield that he fought in nor his daughter, but he sure makes a lot of money off of war.
War is sometimes necessary and part of human history. But it was not some dove peacenik or communist who warned us about the Military Industrial Complex but former Allied Forces Supreme Commander and than President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Many of my good Republican friends (who are good people) and my young Catholic friends are very pro-Bush and pro the Iraqi war but it almost seems brainwashed and none of them are serving but are becoming lawyers, doctors, stock brokers–and the humanity of the Iraqis (who did not invite us regardless of what Sailorette says) or the Lebanese seems far less than US or even more so with Israelis. We do not need to be in Iraq. This is not Ted Kennedy but Republican Chuck Hagel, it is not Pat Buchanan but Jewish by birth Robert Novak, this is not a peace protester but General Zinni.
Iranians never used Nukes (they did a lot of other bad things like send childrens into human wave combat or finance Hezbollah) but to think that we cannot deal with them, they have a bad leader now, but Iranians have a deep history that predates Islam (always non Christian and against Christian governments like Byzantium)with the Sassenian empire and the Zoarastian religion. There is nothing inherently violent about Iranians. Just as there is not today anything inheretnly imperialistic about the US (manifest destiny/American Indians) or the British (the sun does not set on the British Empire: Africa, India, China, Middle East–we inherited some of this mess) Point is we can deal with Muslims, it is not impossible and it is not the end of the world. (and if it is the end of the world Jesus will come like a thief in the night so frequent confession and daily Mass rather than predicted the date from current events is better)
Sailorette has not criticized Israel at all. She justifies any response as proportional based on a possible future threat.
Oppenheimer said (I think qouting one of the Hindu Vedas I think citing the Hindu goddess Kalli): I HAVE BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF THE WORLDS
only WE (the United States of America) ever dropped an Atom bomb on a human population
(excluding New Mexico tests or the French in the South Pacific)
and WE dropped them on Catholic centers of Hiroshima and Nagaski the sites of incredible martyrs
The Lebanese Christian martyrs are being killed on the altar of Zionism and US neoconservatives who use our E3s and the Israelis for all their vaunted military might use DRUZE as front line fighters and used Christian militias as their buffers in their last brutal invasion of Lebanon
Lebanon is a crime
Bill, it is your doctor again, please stay off the board. Bill go study and read about the topics you want to post on. Thank you
Is it always so easy to get your goat?
To the party that posted (and perhaps you might consider posting your name or some pseudonym next time!):
“John, the bully is Israel, Israel has the bigger army and better and more weapons”
I respond with two points:
#1: If the neighborhood punk; the gangly, demanding little fellow with the big mouth, sneaks up behind the biggest, toughest brawler in the neighborhood and slaps him in the back of the head, and then runs back to his yard and hides behind his mama, he probably shouldn’t be too suprised when he feels the brawler’s hands closing around his neck the next time he turns around!…just saying….
#2: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, the ‘Stans, Egypt and the rest of north and central Muslim Africa…not to mention parts of Asia…all of these countries comprise a much better armed, soldiered, and equipped military than Israel could ever hope to field…look at the differences in the air order of battle alone, if just a few of these countries got together; look at the nuclear weaponry these countries could lob at Israel if they acted in concert…but they don’t!!!!…these Muslim brothers who by ordinance and direct accountability to their Holy Koran are mandated to fight a Holy Jihad to the death for their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, in places like Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, simply DO NOT!…the resources to pound Israel to dust are there if the cause is just, but still they do not!!! So is the cause just, or do the Muslim nations lack the spine to fight like men? (or do they remember 1967 and 1972)? What they (Iran principally) actually do instead, is support with their dollars, enough infrastructure in these extremely poor areas to establish a local dependency on their aide, then they through more dollars and low tech weapons, establish an mom-n-pop insurgency that allows these poor folks to do their bidding without committing to battle themselves…bus bombings, blowing up cafes and shops, etc., killing women and children, certainly not military targets…these are world scale bullies, and some of the most cowardly military organizations in the history of warfare…Israel does what it can to keep itself alive…and I’ll remind you that God, not the British, or the Ottoman Turks, or the Moors gave this land to the Jews…the first couple books of our Holy Bible cover this in pretty good detail…you may also wish to consider verses such as: 1 Chronicles 16:22…Doesn’t appear God looks at Israel and its Jewish inhabitants as a pack of butchers and murders anway…
Peace,
John
To whom it may concern:
Oppehnheimer said:
Yes, most of the neocons especially the planners are mostly Jewish.
Since when? First I hear the Jews are behind the liberals, then they are behind the Islamists, then they are behind the neocons. Cheney and Rice arn’t Jewish are they? I know you personally arn’t saying it, but the Jews (or pseudo-Jewish Central Asians if you like) can not be behind every evil in the world.
And MaryC, first you agree that Israel has a right to exist, then you seem to suggest removing the Zionist regime, which would be the same as destroying Israel, unless Zionist, like troll, has a more specific meaning than I thought. Despite the bad way in which Israel was founded (and it is hard to find a nation that did not start in a bloody, unjust way), they are a nation now that has a right to exist and defend itself. This debate is on a Catholic blog. I would think common decency would dictate it should be about whether the action in Lebanon is proportional to the threat posed by Hezbolla, not whether or not a whole nation should be destroyed.
By the way, I have both Lenape (Delaware) and Jewish ancestry, so I think I am qualified to say, please don’t blow up over simplified versions of history like someone is trying to offend you.
And what’s up with the bill912 bashing? So what if he has an incurable love for one sentence posts? Just because he disagrees with you and chooses to be brief he must be stupid?
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, its just that this discussion is getting frustrating.
John,
Are you Catholic? If so I would look up the position of the Catholic Church toward Israel (expect it to be vague) and more importantly the claim that God’s promise of that land to them still applies after Christ, and whether the orders to kill those whithin the land still applie.
I am not confident enough in my knowledge to just tell you “the Catholic position is THIS,” but my impression is that those Old Testament things, though not the covenent with Abraham, are now obsolete.
Still, Israel is an established nation now with a right to defend itself, within the limitations of Natural Law of course (and that is the issue in my opinion).
My family and I are becoming Catholic…going through the RCIA starting this Fall (so I guess very newbie Catholics…I’m not arguing with you J.R., but the idea that the Old Testament has an obselete section to it would be a shock to me…any ideas where I might look to check on your point?…you’ve got me interested…
John
JR– speakin’ for myself, I think we could use a few more one-line posts….
John,
Welcome home. I am a convert myself (was received Easter 2004). In fact it seems thre is a disproportunate number of converts amoung the JimmyAkin.org regulars.
I like you have gotten a sudden interest in the subject of whether or not the promise of Canaan to Israel still applies from this discussion. I am afraid my current impression of Catholic teaching on this is based on hearsay, including what a priest told me and an answer to a question I read (not mine) on the EWTN Q&A webpage. You could search that page but it is far from infallible. I bet any teaching on the subject is old, since I doubt any recent Pope or Vatican II would have taught on such a touchy subject (maybe unfortunatly). It would be nice if Jimmy posted something on this subject. Tim J., do you know where we can find an authoritative answer?
Considered generally, I would say (sorry, no backup documentation but I am more confident about this) nothing in the Bible truely becomes obsolete.
The whole Old Testament points to and is fulfilled in Christ. I’ve heard Fr. John Corapi (a sort of minor orthodox Catholic celebrity if you haven’t heard of him) say that Christ can be found in every part of Scripture even if you don’t have the brains or faith to see how in a certain passage. The connection between the Promised Land and salvation is clear enough though. This would be the meaning of such passages to the Christian. Whether the promise of the physical land is still current after the fulfillment of what it pointed to and after the New Covenant effectively equalized everyone is a secondary question, the answer to which I have heard is “no.”
As an example of something that more definitely fits what I meant by “obsolete” would be the Mosaic Law. It also pointed to Christ somehow as well as serving pratical funcions in Israelite society, but now, as St. Paul makes clear, no one, not even Jews, are obliged to follow it.
J.R.,
I found this at a Catholic apologetics site:
“The Church also states in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”(325)
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,(326) “the first to hear the Word of God.”(327) The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,(328) “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”(329)
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
325 LG 16.
326 Cf. NA 4.
327 Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI.
328 Rom 9:4-5.
329 Rom 11:29.
The Church teaches that the gifts of God are irrevocable! The promises made to Abraham and Sarah regarding their descendants remain true today. Perhaps we could say that from a Christian perspective, the New Covenant does not replace the original Covenants. Rather, the New Covenant in Christ and the original Hebrew Covenants run parrallel to one another!”
I’m right with you in my confusion on this one, but it appears to me that this says, what God provides for the new people of God (Christians) is for the Christians, and what he’s provided and continues to provide for the jews, belongs to the Jews…
For the record, in my postings above I wasn’t addressing whether Israel had a right to kill those within it’s borders, I was responding to challenges relating to Israel’s right to exist and practice it’s faith freely, and secondarily to Israel’s powerful Muslim neighbors baiting then lining up the poor refugee folks living in and around Israel to fight Israel for them. Seems to me that’s just cowardly (and not the way these neighbors behaved until they lost a couple of wars to Israel).
John
John,
What you quote, and I don’t think you are argueing otherwise, does not actually state whether or not the Jews still have a valid religious claim on Palestine. Yes, the covenent with Abraham endures (though maybe not the one with Moses) but does that include an actual special right to a piece of land. I could see you argueing so from the fact that the promise of that land seems to have been part of the covenant with Abraham, but perhaps the covenent was only about the number of Abraham’s decendents, a certain special regard God has for them (though on another level God shows no partiality, St. Paul carefully includes both elements), and the promise that through them (specifically through Jesus of course) all the nations of the world will find blessing. The purpose of the whole of salvation history was to bring redemption ot mankind. The existance of an actual nation of Israel (which grew stronger and then progressively weaker but more spiritual and with a growing level of revelation and morality) was a step on the way.
Also, regarding the place of the Jews today, to paraphrase from the EWTN interview with Joseph Ratinger a year or two before his election, the Jews had a responsibility to become Christian, but God is faithful to his promises and all Israel will be saved. These two elements, said Ratzinger, do seem to have some tension between them, but perhaps it is not our place to reconcile them since they are both clear from scripture.
From this I would say it is a mistake on the one hand to say that being a Jew is now worthless because Christianity has replaced Judaism, but also a mistake to say that Christianity and Judaism are two paths both set by God to reach him, both equally valid. I’m not sure if you were saying the latter or not.
John,
Also, the phrase “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” could easily be abused. After all, the book of Job is all about God giving gifts and then taking them away. I don’t have access to a Bible at the moment to check the context of that quote, but I suspect St. Paul is talking about a specific kind of gifts here (faith and salvation perhaps).
regardless of the standard, the entire destruction of Lebanon is not proportional
This is not the Catholic position.
You can not flatly state that a given act, including the destruction of a country, is not a proportionate act of war.
J.R. & friends,
This is about as general as it gets, but coming into the church, I come in with a prior understanding that God had dispersed the Jews, called them back to Israel (1948), and then once back, has end times plans for them. The below verses sort of lay that out:
Deut 28:64 ‘Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.’
Deut 28:65-66 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life.
Zech 7:14 I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land was left so desolate behind them that no one could come or go. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.
Isa 27:6 In the days to come, Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill the world with fruit.
Zech 14:2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.
Zech 14:3-4 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.
Zech 12:9-10 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
Joel 1:1-2 In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.
Romans 11:25-26 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
Looking at other position papers of the Catholic church, it appears then, Cardinal Ratzinger (just a few years ago) clarified the position of Catholic church with respect to the Jews. His announcement seemed to be pretty analogous to the Catholic Catechism, citing this sort of dual track, Christian and Jew, for salvation. As you mention in your last response, the concern is that the statement “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” could be prone to misuse, here, and particularly given the above verses I offer, it appears God has a specific intent and purpose to place the Jews back in Israel. If I read you correctly, I would also agree that Israel isn’t exclusively for the Jews, I think God’s Gentile elect are also privy to the Holy land and its fruits. But God bringing the Jews back to Israel clearly in my mind, marks Israel as God’s chosen place for the Jews.
Lastly, I agree that Christian faith and Judaism are not equal paths to God, but they are different paths…Cardinal Ratzingers comments, I think, bear this out…and I think it’s God’s business to decide whom he selects and whom he does not. I’ve got enough to worry about not screwing up my own opportunity for salvation.
Jimmy, if you’re out there and reading this…this, I think, would be a great topic thread if you haven’t already covered it…a lot of folks seem to be coming down in different places about the Church’s take on Judaism and its place in Israel…particulaly given the events unfolding over there…Please let me know if you’d like a formal email thread request, or how that works here, thanks…
Regards and peace,
John
Mary, everything to you is proportional. What is not proportional? The destruction of a nation is proportional????? (over some dead and kidnapped soldiers)?
Have you studied the Just War doctrine? or Thomas Aquinas?
The Jesuit Sheehan must not be a typical example of famed Jesuit scholarship, since Palestine was Christian, until the Muslims occupied it and to this day, persecute the Christian population. Sheehan either doesn’t know of, or chooses to ignore Christendom’s enemies in the mid-east, starting with the slaughter of the Christian and Jewish populations of Mecca and Medina, continuing on through the Muslim occupation of the Roman Empire from the Pyranees, through North Africa, Palestine, and Constantinople herself, with incursions nearly to the Rhine in the West, and the Siege of Vienna in the East.
ben Gurion wasn’t that far wrong. The anti-Colonialists turned out to be -very- wrong.
Re-establish Outremer in Lebanon, as an ally of Israel, with mutual defense treaties against Syria, Iran, Hizbullah, Egypt, etc., would give Israel a somewhat better chance to exist and resist genocide, the loudly and plainly proclaimed goal of Hizbullah, Iran, the “Palestinian Authority” Hamas, etc.,
Mr. Stoodley, a Jew visiting the Temple Mount is bad, and not offending heretics and mass murderers is good? Huh?
Proportionate means not devastating a civilian population in response to an early modern European campaign involving armies lined up like football teams, all wearing the team colors.
Porportionate does not mean sitting there and letting your civilian population be murdered, day after day, by an organization devoted to exterminating you and all of your people.
It would be non-proportionate to go beyond what is necessary to stop the attacks on your civilian population, plus, in the theory of proportionality, addtional retaliatory damage proportionate to what was done to your country. Israel has not violated proportionality. Hizbullah and Iranian rockets still rain down upon the civilian population of Israel, both Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
Hizbullah deliberately hides it’s arsenals among the civillian population – usually with the aid of that population – making them enemy combatants, and with the UN, with the compliance of the UN to Hizbullah’s non-military, genocidal aims.
The destruction of the transportation means that Syria and Iran are using to get those weapons into the hands of Hizbullah is a totally legitimate war aim.
Now Nicolaus comes up with the old, tired, anti-semite claim that Jews of the Diaspora in Europe are really Khazars.
What is with this Catholic anti-semitism, anyway? Isn’t anti-semitism contrary to the teachings of the Catholic magisterium?
Mr. Stoodley, does your Bible lack Romans 11? Your neo-Marcionite claim that the OT is obsolete isn’t exactly orthodox.
There are prophecies in the Old Testament, to Jesus’ blood relatives, that have not yet been fulfilled. Romans 11, and John’s Apocalypse indicate that they are still on.
It does include an actual piece of land. Not only Judah and Israel (aka the West Bank), but everything from the Wadi ‘al Mitsrayim to the Euphrates.
Now that Rome recommends that you read the Bible, you really should. Your Biblical illiteracy is appalling.
John, there isn’t a separate track for atonement for the Jews than for the gentiles. It would appear that not only Our Lord and the apostles were and remain Jews, but that perhaps 4/5 of Jews became Christians before the fall of the western Roman empire.
The Mosaic covenant with the people of Israel for the land is not a covenant of atonement for sins, but a suzereignty covenant for the land, from the Wadi ‘al Mitsrayim to the Euphrates. What people has ever been brought back to their native land after 19 centuries, but Jesus’ blood relatives? In spite of much of today’s Israel’s unbelief, many miracles were wrought by God defending Israel in the Muslim wars against Israel attempting to finish Hitler’s genocide. God defeated the jidhadis with miracles right out of the Bible. Israel is hardened “in part” *for a time* not forever. The prophecies quoted just above show that they -will- convert to the faith at the end, in the Land, as promised by God for thousands of years.
The Abrahamic covenant, fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the covenant of atonment for sins, and it is a separate track *and a separate purpose* than the Mosaic covenant with the children of Israel.
Methinks Puzzled and Sailorette are the same person or people
legion
“Methinks Puzzled and Sailorette are the same person or people”
Not according to my experience.
Jimmy should do a whole new link on biblical prophecy and the Holy Land if one is not already done. I had dabbled in a Pentecostal sect in Texas before I came back to Rome sweet Home.
I always have admired Israel. However, I am disturbed by what is happening in Lebanon and have met a lot of Lebanse and Palestinian Christians in both Houston and Dallas Fort Worth areas. Some of this discussion is way above my head but I enjoy reading it.
The church I used to go to was very supportive of Israel and believed that Israel was tied up into the last days and fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Since my return to Catholicsm, I am more focused on developing my interior life and cultivating virtue. However, I do want to study history, current events, and the Bible and this particular topic.
My best wishes and prayers to all sides on this topic, thank you for allowing me hopefully to learn something.
I accept Israel’s right to defend itself, and I even understand a certain degree of paranoia in relation to their Arab neighbors. That does not mean that I think they can do no wrong.
I do NOT accept that they currently enjoy a Divine/prophetic right to the land of Israel, though I acknowledge their earthly/political right to be there.
I am also troubled by the scale of their response in this case, but I can’t say that it is not proportional… beacuse I don’t know. I am just not interested in piling on and blaming Israel for everything that happens in the region.
I do notice that the press seems far more interested in covering Lebanese civilain casualties than Israeli ones. Hamas is tightly controlling the press coverage coming out of Lebanon, and they are spotlighting Lebanese civilian casualties, while cynically continuing to launch attacks on Israel from civilian neighborhoods.
So they draw Israeli fire and then can’t wait to broadcast the inevitable destruction that they, themselves, bring to the poor unfortunates from who’s rooftop they have decided to launch missiles.
“Look! Look what Israel has done!” they shout, beating their breast, while their comrades set up a missile launcher on the roof of another apartment building. Are there innocent men, women or children inside? So much the better… it all feeds into the propaganda machine.
Puzzled,
You stated:
“John, there isn’t a separate track for atonement for the Jews than for the gentiles.”
If we take the earlier verbiage I posted directly from the Catechism:
“The Church also states in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,(326) “the first to hear the Word of God.”(327) The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,(328) “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”(329)
840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.”
…and focus particularly on the last clause:
“the other [the jew] awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.”
…this seems to say that the redemptive and other features of Christ are unknown to the Jews until the time of the end.
This in turn seems to be somewhat in conflict with the earlier portions I’ve quoted:
“To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,(328) “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
…particularly if Gods covenant remains intact with the Jews, yet Jesus meant what he said by stating in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”…and,
as you argue, “John, there isn’t a separate track for atonement for the Jews than for the gentiles.”
…So, the Catholic Catechism seems to say:
1. Jewish access to Christ the Messiah comes toward the end of times; and
2. God keeps his covenants with Israel (which ostensibly involves the salvation of the jews at some point); and
Scripture seems to say via John 14:6 that Christians may “come” to God only through Jesus (and one would assume that means right now)…
then, the path to atonement for Jew v. Gentile seems to be a different, but perhaps parallel track.
But then again…in the end, perhaps Jewish salvation occurs as the result of Messiah returning to earth, with a sort or retroactive salvation for those Jews with “scales” in their eyes, placed there by God until the time of the end… so YOU may be right with a little temporal shift in your argument…
Jimmy, where are you man, we need you!!!
Peace,
John
And see the Toledoth Yeshu (onsite). Interestingly, an article appeared on the website of the American Jewish Committee that affirmed what is being said here about what Jewish writings themselves say about the death of Jesus. That article disappeared from the site within days (oops! how’d this get published?), but you may read the article here on-site.
To continue with the topic: the errors of the Pharisaic rabbis, their legalistic, “anti-goy” elitism, grew even greater after the Temple fell and the only priests left were New Covenant priests. Their desires for a restored Jerusalem and a worldly Messiah-King were not shared by the Christians, ethnically Hebrew or not, whose Messiah told them to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”; this Christian anti-Zionism only fueled the Pharisees’ hatred for the Christians.
Around A.D. 100, the Pharisees started a school at Jamnia (often referred to as the “Council of Jamnia” or “Jabneh”) to solidify the Pharisees’ power. They threw out the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, used by the Palestinian Jews for hundreds of years and cherished by the Apostles, because this version, which contains the Deuterocanonical Books (referred to as the “Apocrypha” by Protestants), was used by the Christians to proselytize the Jews due to its more specific language used to convey the Messianic prophecies. From this “Council of Jamnia,” too, came the Birkat ha-Minim — a part of the Amida prayer which consists of a curse against Christians asking God to destroy us. This Amida prayer with its curse against Christians has been prayed by religious Jews three times a day for almost two millennia. Rounding out this racism, in A.D. 125, one of the most respected rabbis (he is quoted over 700 times in the Talmud), Rabbi Simeon Ben Johai, formally declared that non-Jews are not even human.
Jewish pogroms against Christians took place not only in Palestine (note the famous Bar Kochba Rebellion of A.D. 135), in Caesarea, Scytpolis, Yemen, Antioch — a town through which Jews dragged the body of Patriarch Anastasius in A.D. 608, after they threw his genitals in his face and disembowelled him — and any other place they could get away with it.
When reading the typical history book talking about the “repressiveness” of the Church, or hearing a typical disensationalist Protestant sermon reviling the great Saints like John Chrysostom who spoke against the errors of Pharisaic Judaism (just as Jesus did!), you won’t hear a word about the above — or how Jews agitated anti-Christian animosity among Kings and Emperors, resulting in the slaughter of true Israel (the Church). You won’t read this, from Sozomen’s (c. A.D. 375-c. 447) “Ecclesiastical History,” Book II, Chapter IX:
When, in course of time, the Christians increased in number, and began to form churches, and appointed priests and deacons, the Magi, who as a priestly tribe had from the beginning in successive generations acted as the guardians of the Persian religion, became deeply incensed against them. The Jews, who through envy are in some way naturally opposed to the Christian religion, were likewise offended. They therefore brought accusations before Sapor [King of Persia], the reigning sovereign, against Symeon, who was then archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, royal cities of Persia, and charged him with being a friend of the Caesar of the Romans, and with communicating the affairs of the Persians to him. Sapor believed these accusations, and at first, ground the Christians with excessive taxes, although he knew that the generality of them had voluntarily embraced poverty. He entrusted the exaction to cruel men, hoping that, by the want of necessaries, and the atrocity of the ex-actors, they might be compelled to abjure their religion; for this was his aim. Afterwards, however, be commanded that the priests and conductors of the worship of God should be slain with the sword. The churches were demolished, their vessels were deposited in the treasury, and Symeon was arrested as a traitor to the kingdom and the religion of the Persians. Thus the Magi, with the co-operation of the Jews, quickly destroyed the houses of prayer.
You won’t hear how Jews allied themselves with the Christian-born but later professing pagan Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome between A.D. 361 and 363 and fourth successor of Constantine, who oppressed Christians even as he tried to help Jews rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, a project that ended when mysterious balls of fires emanated from the ground (and sky, depending on the account) at the site, burning the workers to death, and an earthquake struck. (For fascinating accounts from primary sources as to what happened when the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple, see this page, onsite).
You won’t hear how the Jews allied themselves with the Persians in attacking Palestine in A.D. 614 — and how they reveled in slaughtering the Christians there and razing their churches, including the one built over Christ’s Tomb. According to Monk Strategius of Mar Saba (Antiochus Strategos), Jews purchased Christian slaves from the Persians for the sole purpose of slaughtering them “just as one might buy cattle to slaughter.” 3
You won’t hear how Jews rose to high levels in Spanish society by falsely claiming to have converted to the Holy Faith, how many became priests, rose to prominence in the Church, and then proceeded to Judaize that country’s Catholics. You won’t hear how these false converts also cooperated with Muslims to overtake that country during the Muslim aggressions (oh, so that’s why that nasty Catholic Queen Isabella kicked them out in 1492!)
And all this is relevant HOW, exactly?
Come on, “Id”, at least have the rocks to post under the same name every time.
Puzzled,
It was a mistake to use the word “obsolete” so freely. Obviously no part of Scripture is truely obsolete. What I meant is that some elements of the meaning of a given passage may not apply to anyone anymore. A clear example would be the Mosaic Laws that no longer need be followed. Those parts of Scripture still have meaning, but have lost that one part of their meaning.
I may comment on other elements of what has been said above later.
BTW, Diddo to Tim J.’s last comment.
And Puzzled, I agree with more of your post than you probably expect.
Check out the great Catholic website (traditionalist in orientation)
http://www.fisheaters.com
check out their discussion forum
and the Jewish/Catholic relations and related topics
legion- A conspiracy? For me? *blush*
Thanks for the voucher, Tim J.
I think this post has officially devolved into general disagreeing– as I was catching back up with this thread I was thinking about the same thing Tim J posted and JR seconded.
The post was about the Middle East generally.
A subtopic certainly was Christians in the Middle East (that I am surprised so many Christians are so insensitive too)
Specifically, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
It spun off into Jewish and Catholic history, and the nature of the nation of Israel.
Very interesting post, but also very strong positions.
????
I just saw Iran’s ‘Leader’ in an interview where he kept talking about ‘Zionists’. He sounded a lot like some people on who are posting on this thread.
I think minion’s of the leader of Iran are posting anonymously on this blog. 🙁
Well, he *does* have a supposed blog….
Tim J
I don’t see how anyone can deny that Israel is an artificial state founded on terrorism, but please, I see you are a still a child, don’t let me spoil your fairy stories.
And since you mention it, yes, there is a lot evidence which points to Israeli involvement in 9/11. No doubt you’ll call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’. But after all, isn’t that what every good detective is?
“No doubt you’ll call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’. But after all, isn’t that what every good detective is?”
No. Good detectives, indeed all good police officers look for “just the facts, ma’m.”
2 sentences for Billy Boy. Good! He is getting better. Increasing. More. Now, if just some knowledge or logic
Puzzled really must be puzzled if he believes that neocons are not mostly Jewish (foreign policy so called hawk inverventionist imperialist neocons)They are almost all Jewish
Nobody seems to care about the poor Middle Eastern Christians
Comparing traditionalist Catholics or Middle Eastern Christians to the leader of Iran is really contsructice
But it is easy to dismiss those who disagree
they are all anti-semites
MaryC,
So Israel planned 9/11…Does that mean that all of the Israelis who died in the towers and on the planes were suicide bombers?
Your theory is an insult to all the surviving family members of the Israelis who died on that day.
BTW, the human being who keeps using personal attacks should stop. Now. It doesn’t lend credibility to ones arguments, and it tempts one to use personal attacks whenever he fails to make his point.
David B, let him go. When someone is making a fool of himself like that, just get out of his way.
MaryC,
Are you Catholic?
John
Mary, everything to you is proportional. What is not proportional? The destruction of a nation is proportional????? (over some dead and kidnapped soldiers)?
Have you studied the Just War doctrine? or Thomas Aquinas?
Studied it more than you have, clearly, since you keep trying to use “proportional” to mean “in proportion to offense already occured” when it means “in proportion to offenses that you reasonably expect to prevent.”
Mary,
do you think 1 million refugees and 1000 dead (just in Lebanon not including yet the almost 1 million Israeli refugees and dead) and the destruction of the economy and infrastructure of a nation is proportional????
What does “BTW” mean?
Pardon the lack of knowledge please.
If you ask me, I’ll say the whole worlds deserves more than that. Innocence is not simply ignorance.
We REALLY deserve worst catastrophies than this. And I think we are going to get them.
Blessings on the Vigil of the Assumption
Some Day,
My “BTW” just means “by the way.”
Yes, the world does in a way deserve catastrophes. This I think is much of what underlies the idea of war (and other disasters) as a result of sin. Some would say you and I should take personal responsibility for the wars of the world. The idea would be that it was our personal sins that caused this and other wars, and we should pray and do penance in a spirit of reparation.
BTW 🙂
I interpreted Tim J’s “And all this is relevant HOW, exactly?” to refer only to the real or alleged sins of groups of Jews in the past, which has as little to do with the discussion than such sins of historical Christians or Muslims. I do think that the issue of the intentions of Israel toward the United States is relevent as well as the issue of whether or not the Jews have a divine right to all the land between the Nile and Euphrades.
John, it does seem that the usual procedure is to email Jimmy about the subject and see if he will blog on it. I was thinking of doing this myself but I don’t know if he is still favorably disposed towards me after some of my rash posts, so perhaps you ought to do it. Let us know if you do so Jimmy is not barraged by multiple emails asking the same questions.
“… No doubt you’ll call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’.”
No need for that. I do appreciate your candor, as it reinforces my suspicions regarding all your previous comments, and makes your “logic” plain to all.
Thanks! You have saved me the trouble of arguing with you any further.
Some Day,
BTW, the way I used it, means BTW.
How’s that for being clear?
Okay, okay. It means ‘By The Way’.
J.R.,
I emailed Jimmy on the 13th about the topic. I look forward to something from him soon, perhaps as early as tomorrow. It would be a timely thread given world events, and the broad range of feelings toward Israel as have been expressed on this site. Clarification here is greatly needed. If you have concerns about your postings I’d suggest emaing Jimmy directly…nothing wrong with a little mea culpa if you’ve done wrong, and Jimmy seems like a great guy…He was graciously patient with me and my mouth recently after I was a royal weiner on another thread and said some pretty mean things…Thank God for the gift of foregiveness!!!
Peace,
John
TY for the BTW
…soo crunchy on my part…
What do the bloggers here think of the ceasefire?
I have been praying for peace and a ceasefire (for all sides), and I am not so self centered (nor so holy) that think my prayers created it (and I hope it is a good thing)but I do believe in the power of prayer. I also want peace understanding long term peace and the complexities of war and world politics.
May God grant us light on this topic. I am truly confused.
I think that “ceasefire” is going to be a syn. for “hold up, let me reload.”
What do I *wish*? That the folks around Israel would grow up and stop trying to paint this as a huge defeat of Israel when the UN came in and talked Israel into backing off.
I think the ceasefire is good morally and overall but it could be a net negative for Israel. Less people will die especially innocents in Lebanon but also Israelis from these missle attacks.
Israel messed up by invading and not realizing the strength of Hezbollah and not getting any international support and being so brutal in Lebanon. Hezbollah is stronger. The sympathy in Lebanon and the Arab world is with Hezbollah. Israel said it was going to be a 2 day operation, than 1 week, than 34 days and missles were still coming. Anti-Hezbollah Christians in Lebanon now hate Israel. Egypt and Jordan, not pro-Hezbollah, now have sympathies.
This is not reload. This is stop the killing but yes, Israel has to deal with serious issues that it only wants to deal with as a bully with big brother United States to force down everyone’s throat.
Is the ceasfire working?
Mary,
do you think 1 million refugees and 1000 dead (just in Lebanon not including yet the almost 1 million Israeli refugees and dead) and the destruction of the economy and infrastructure of a nation is proportional????
I realize this comes as a shock to you — so sit down first — but proportionate can not be used as an absolute. Nothing can merely be proportionate or disproportionate. It can only be proportionate or disproportionate to something.
Bill912:
Good detectives do work with facts, but they arrive at the facts by considering every possibility, not by merely accepting at face value, the yarn spun by interested parties.
TimJ:
I could give you plenty of evidence that points to an Israeli link to 9/11. However, as this isn’t a thread about 9/11,I see no point in doing so.
It’s funny, the only people whose logic you call into question are those whose opinions differ from your own.
Are you familiar with the saying:’people in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones’?
Bill912:
Good detectives do work with facts, but they arrive at the facts by considering every possibility, not by merely accepting at face value, the yarn spun by interested parties.
TimJ:
I could give you plenty of evidence that points to an Israeli link to 9/11. However, as this isn’t a thread about 9/11,I see no point in doing so.
It’s funny, the only people whose logic you call into question are those whose opinions differ from your own.
Are you familiar with the saying:’people in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones’?
As for the cease-fire,
I once heard a saint’s description of what Hell is like. It was something about the main torment,
that it PAUSED, but not as a mercy of God, but to begin a new one instantly.
Ergo…
Whatever happened to forgiving and loving our enemies (and friends for that matter)…seems to be a lot of discussion on this Catholic blog about killing people, etc.,…really can’t we all just love God and eachother, and let God work out the details? Just saying…
Peace,
John
Whatever happened to forgiving and loving our enemies (and friends for that matter)…seems to be a lot of discussion on this Catholic blog about killing people, etc.,…really can’t we all just love God and eachother, and let God work out the details? Just saying…
Peace,
John
John,
Few if any people here are promoting killing Israelis. Some are defending to a greater or lesser degree the killing of Lebanese.
Look up Just War doctrine if you are not familiar with it. It’s in the Catechism and I’m sure it’s online all over the place. Sometimes it is right to kill others, though in general your attitude is right I think. At least if you are not in a position where you have to make those tough decisions.
As my mentor Gandalf said to me recently
“Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, J.R. Stoodley? Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me both Arabs and Jews have some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over.”
For those who do not hold a prejudice against Wikipedia (and according to the news a study showed it is about as reliable as conventional Encyclopedias) you might want to check out their artical on the Khazars for a more likely story about them and their relationship with Judaism.
This part of the artical is particularly relevent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim
As to the cease fire, Lebanon is already waffling on the requirement that Hezbollah be disarmed.
This means that, yes, the cease fire is ultimately most likely only a break to re-load.
Israel can not allow Hezbollah to continue accumulating sophisticated weaponry from Syria and Iran, Lebanon will not even attempt to disarm them, so eventually Israel will have to. I expect Hezbollah will hand the IDF plenty of justification to resume before too long.
But, heck, it has been this way for my entire life. Why should it be any different now?
Bishop Andreas Abouna was consecrated an auxiliary of Baghdad in Rome on January 6, 2003, and shortly afterwards we sat down for an interview in which he voiced concern about the possibility of a Christian exodus from Iraq in the wake of a then-hypothetical U.S.-led invasion.
Today, Abouna says, his worst fears have been realized.
“The constitution and the political developments of the past 18 months or so have not helped at all. It is just a theory,” he told the German agency Aid to the Church in Need this week. “Everyone is asking: when will the violence stop? They want to rest. They cannot live like this — everyday there are these terrible things.”
As a result, Abouna said, the Christian population of Iraq has been cut in half over the last three years, from an estimated 1.3 million to 600,000. In Baghdad, he said, historically home to a disproportionately high number of Christian residents, up to 75 percent have left — some to safer zones in the north of the country, some abandoning Iraq altogether.
“When so many are leaving from a small community like ours, you know that it is dangerous — dangerous for the future of the Church in Iraq,” Abouna said.
Iraqi Christians who took refuge in Syria, Jordan and Turkey and have attempted to return, Abouna said, are generally disheartened by what they’ve found.
Abouna indicated that Christians in Iraq are not necessarily being targeted more than other groups, but given that they were already a small community facing an uncertain future, instability and difficult living conditions have added to the demoralization.
Sadly, Abouna said, many of the Christians who remain are simply too poor or too weak to leave.
“What we are hearing now is the alarm bell for Christianity in Iraq,” Abouna said.
What is the update on the ceasefire?
Read the books ORIENTALISM and COVERING ISLAM
Last I heard, Hezies were saying they won and fired some rockets in Lebanon, Lebanon was carefully doing absolutely nothing to disarm Hez, the Blue Helms were saying they wouldn’t go in if there was actually going to be (eeek!) resistance, and Israel targeted a general in a raid.
But the killing stopped? No?
at least Lebanon is not being destroyed
and Christians being pushed into the sea
as was happening for the last month
No, the killing hasn’t stopped.
Patrick D– Yeah, THAT is what those horrid Jews were up to! Not trying to defend their counrty, no matter how you disagree with the way they were doing it– they were conducting an attempt to wipe out the Christians in Lebanon!
…they were conducting an attempt to wipe out the Christians in Lebanon!
One might become convinced of that based upon their actions and the rhetoric of their apologists. Whether it is intended or not though, the effect is the same.
So in the defense of defending their country, Israel destroyed Lebanon and pushed Christians into exile
but it was justified
I could give you plenty of evidence that points to an Israeli link to 9/11.
Give a link.
That would have been better for most of the long screeds posted here.
Give a link.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html
There is a theory that Islam was invented by the Jews to bring war to Catholics.
Very possible.
the anti-Catholic Chick cartoons have a theory that the Catholic Church invented Islam and it backfired
that Khadijah was a loyal Catholic
and it was a way to oppose Jews
and to get converts east of Arabia
and gain political control
but the Catholic plan went bad
The Jew-Muslim theory has valid reasons.
Not some cartoon.
Many Middle Eastern Christians believe that Jews created Islam and used Mohammad to create a new religion because they were allied with the Persians (and Jews slaughtered Christians in the 600’s including the takeover of Jerusalem)
Mohammad did his own thing. Remember that until recently Jewish historians were telling people how tolerant and great Islamic civilization was especially compared to Christian civilization and Jews flourished in Muslim lands (Maimodes was the official doctor to the Caliph), the Ottomans had Viziers who were Jewish, and the Sephardic Jews kicked out of Spain found refuge in modern day Turkey, Iraq, Syria. The Jewish negative media campaign on Islam has only been recently to create (which is real) a deeper culture war between the Christian West and Islam (demonizing and radicalizing Islam)(not that there aren’t inherent problems with Islam, and not only radicalizing the pereception of Islam but actually radicalizing Islam through creation and support of Islamic groups)
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION THAN?????
This post has jumped the shark.
What is the status of the ceasefire?
Anon, last I heared the ceasefire was holding, Italy was sending lots of troops, and France inclreased the number of troops it was sending dramatically.
I have been mostly out of touch with the news though for about a week.
Sailorette, what does “jumped the shark” mean? Just currious.
Jimmy, SUGGESTION RENEWAL #2 about a permapost where we can report to you these evil ads for removal.
J.R.,
Sailorette, what does “jumped the shark” mean? Just currious.
Now you are showing your age! It refers to a Happy Days episode where Fonzi jumps a shark on water skis, and is generally used to refer to the point in time when something passes over from credible (or at least somewhat credible) to farcicle. The show never recovered from it. (I believe that there is a website entirely devoted to determining when any particular television show has “jumped the shark.”)
Michel Aoun has a great proposal, including a disarming of Hezbollah but a way that is sustainable and long term, for the benefit of Lebanon and the region.
Israel did a great crime against Lebanon that will cost Billions and have results that are negative for Israel and region unless a comprehensive solution is realized.
C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
The findings are part of a continuing inquiry by the committee into prewar intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond its earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.
Several Republicans strongly dissented on the report with conclusions about the Iraqi National Congress, saying they overstated the role that the exile group had played in the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. But the committee overwhelmingly approved the other report, with only one Republican senator voting against it.
The reports did not address the politically divisive question of whether the Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence as part of its effort to win support for the war. But one report did contradict the administration’s assertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Hussein’s government provided evidence of a close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.
The C.I.A. report also contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case for going to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.
The panel concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’
One of the reports by the committee criticized a decision by the National Security Council in 2002 to maintain a close relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had warned that “the I.N.C was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably Iran.
The report concluded that the organization had provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and concluded that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.”
The findings were released at an inopportune time for the Bush administration, which has spent the week trying to turn voters’ attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist threat. On Friday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, played down the reports, saying that they contained “nothing new” and were “re-litigating things that happened three years ago.”
“The important thing to do is to figure out what you’re doing tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won,” Mr. Snow said.
The two reports released Friday were expected to be the least controversial aspects of what remains of the Senate committee’s investigation, which will eventually address whether the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq accurately reflected the available intelligence. But unanticipated delays caused them to be released in the heat of the fall political campaign.
The reports were approved by the committee in August, but went through a monthlong declassification process. It was Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, who set early September as the release date.
The committee’s report in 2004, which lambasted intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, was issued with unanimous approval. But the reports released Friday provided evidence of how much the relationship between Republicans and Democrats on the committee had degenerated over the past two years.
A set of conclusions that included criticism of the administration’s ties with the Iraqi National Congress was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr. Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans, Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, and Olympia Snowe, of Maine, along with all seven Democrats. Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the conclusions about the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, saying that they were “misleading and are not supported by the facts.”
The report about the group’s role concluded that faulty intelligence from the group made its way into several prewar intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program.
The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources used by the United States before the Iraq war was tied to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi who was code-named Curveball, was a crucial source for the American view that Mr. Hussein had a mobile biological weapons program, but the information that he provided was later entirely discredited.
The report said other mistaken information about Iraq’s biological program had been provided by a source linked to the Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies’ use of the information had “constituted a serious error.’’
The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other Republican members of the committee, minimized the role played by Mr. Chalabi’s group. “Information from the I.N.C. and I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in intelligence community products and played little role in the intelligence community’s judgments about Iraq’s W.M.D. programs,” the Republicans said.
Francis Brooke, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, called the report “tendentious, partisan and misleading,” and said that the group had not played a central role as the Bush administration built the case for war.
At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised at how little the American government knew about Mr. Hussein’s government before the war, which may have forced the American officials to rely more heavily on the organization. “We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the administration had on Iraq,” he said.
Source: The New York Times
I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004
but he has screwed up Iraq
his friends have made BILLIONS
and he has lied
the economy is not great and gas is high
I am pro-life but Bush really hasn’t done anything but used social conservatives
I don’t believe him
Iraq is based on a lie
Hey, Jimmy: Can you block the above vulgar troll from posting every week?
The pro-Zionist media blew this issue with the Pope’s words out of proportion and the Muslim response out of proportion. Do a Lexis Nexis or Google news search and watch the video’s from Anglo and American sources. This is media contrived.
Hezbollah had a rally and thousands of people showed up. They are more powerful now. Israel screwed up big time by trying to destroy Lebanon.
People should of listened to General Michel Aoun.
It would of been better for Lebanon and Israel.
We need to pray for peace and pray for all people suffering in war and that Truth, Justice and the will of God prevail, and if not now than in the Final Dispensation of Justice.
This is the REAL Purgatory. To purge through GILGUL.
Gilgul, Gilgul neshamot or Gilgulei neshamot (Heb. גלגול הנשמות) refers to the concept of reincarnation, emanating from the Kabbalistic framework within Judaism. In Hebrew, the word gilgul means “cycle” and neshamot is the plural for “souls.” Souls are seen to “cycle” through “lives” or “incarnations”, being attached to different human bodies over time. Which body they associate with depends on their particular task in the physical world, spiritual levels of the bodies of predecessors and so on.
The most basic component of the soul is called the nefesh and is always part of the gilgul process, as it must leave at the cessation of blood production (a stage of death). It moves to another body, where life has begun. There are four other soul components and different nations of the world possess different forms of souls with different purposes.
The essential Kabbalistic text in regards to “gilgul” is called Sha’ar Ha’Gilgulim (“The Gate of Reincarnations”), based on the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria (and compiled by his disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital). It describes the deep, complex laws of reincarnation. One concept that arises from Sha’ar Ha’gilgulim is the idea that “gilgul” is paralleled physically by pregnancy.
Pray for the Maronite Christians.
This Dutch documentary (in English) was created as a result of the controversy created by “The Israel Lobby” article published in 2006 in the London Review of Books and written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
The documentary features interviews with Mearsheimer, dispensationalist preacher John Hagee, geostrategist Lawrence Wikerson, Richard Perle, historian and critic Tony Judt, former Congressman Earl Hilliard, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, Michael Massing, and Daniel Levy.
check out links from
http://www.fisheaters.com
This Dutch documentary (in English) was created as a result of the controversy created by “The Israel Lobby” article published in 2006 in the London Review of Books and written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
The documentary features interviews with Mearsheimer, dispensationalist preacher John Hagee, geostrategist Lawrence Wikerson, Richard Perle, historian and critic Tony Judt, former Congressman Earl Hilliard, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, Michael Massing, and Daniel Levy.
check out links from
http://www.fisheaters.com
The Dutch video is anti-Semetic and conspiracy minded.
What is more conspiring than the Jews?
The Jews conspired against Our Lord.
They still do.
Against the Church.
Any update on Lebanon 1 year later?
What is going on with Christians in the Middle East?