What’s Wrong with the World

Steve,

I couldn't resist mixing it up with the crowd over at Matt Yglesias' blog in this post. A nasty bunch and like Greenwald, totally ignorant of the so-called "lessons from history." If Israel really wanted to take the gloves off they could learn a lot about getting rid of terror from their neighbors in Syria. Or going back in time, I just finished a great overview of the Spanish Civil War (by Antony Beevor, who updated his older original history with new material from the Soviet archives a couple of years ago), and Franco knew a thing or two about getting rid of terrorism. I'm glad Israel is taking care of its Hamas problem in a more civilized fashion, but if Greenwald thinks the Israelis are "tough," he should study more history.

"If only the Palestinians were to read up on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and emulate their tactics, the Israelis would give in to them within a matter of months. If not weeks. If not days."

This is the point I have always made with people, and I think it's unanswerable. Who really believes that Israel could withstand even one month of mass peaceful protests in the occupied territories? If Jerusalem and the West Bank were the site of enormous crowds of entirely unarmed, peaceful protesters under the leadership of an Arab Ghandi figure, imploring Tel Aviv to establish a peaceful political arrangement--in front of the ceaseless watch of CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc.--the Israelis would completely unravel and wither under the political and moral pressure.

What the Palestinians want, and think they want, is the destruction of Israel. But heck, who knows. Maybe Ghandian protests would get them that, too. For that matter, if things keep going the way they are going, maybe Israel will just lie down and die to accommodate them even given their non-peaceful behavior. After sending their young men to die to re-take Gaza, they are doubtless then going to return it to Fatah and turn back to the suicidal "peace process." Next stop: Driving fellow Jews out of Judea and Samaria so those places, too, can be turned into rocket launching pads.

Mr. Gottfried cannot obtain a Blogger account? His fans would not read him there if he did? One of the great things about the Internet: You don't have to put up with much just to "have a place to write."

Upon reflection, I cannot think of a single word that Auster has said on the subject of the recent events in Israel, or on the Israel situation generally, with which I disagree. I nearly stood up and cheered when he recently said something like, "The world keeps portraying the Israelis as warmongering monsters and Israel keeps acting like a bunch of liberal wimps." (That's from memory.)

So upon further reflection, both to preserve my peace of mind and perhaps to avoid getting into fights with people I'd rather not get into fights with, I think I'll just let Auster say that stuff for me and stay out of this thread from here on out.

Steve Burton,
How about some ground rules?

Let us agree that while all anti-semites are opposed to the Israeli assault in Gaza, not all who think this action disproportionate and self-defeating are anti-Israeli. Likewise, while all anti-Arab bigots support this incursion, not all who think the invasion morally justifiable and strategically sound enjoy heaping death upon innocent women and children.

Taki is no more a good spokesman for the anti-invasion argument, than Michael Goldfarb is a respected source for the Israeli side. You could have quoted Peter Hitchens (or your own Daniel Larison) for the former, and I know you are familiar with better pro-invasion advocates than a ghoul who gloats about an entire family being "taken out."

Not sure what Auster's point is about Gottfried and Zmirak. Was Buckley also unprincipled for his friendship and working relationship with Taki and why even drag it into this discussion?

Your point about the lack of a Palestinian Ghandi is a good one. My guess is it lies in the different circumstances, parties and cultures. Both Ghandi and King were assassinated. Hamas and their fellow-travelers have ensured the same fate befall any Palestinian who emerges as a viable non-violent alternative to their blood-stained thuggery. A grim fact that only adds to the enormous tragedy that has befallen the peoples of the Middle East. I cannot begin to fathom what it is like to live in mortal fear of one's neighbors, amid unspeakable squalor and hopelessly trapped by complex, atavistic forces that seem to operate only in bad faith, or through gross miscalculation.

If the goal was an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, passive resistance by the Palestinians would be pretty effective. I don't think that's the goal.

Mr. Burton et al., you may be interested in seeing my reply to Paul Gottfried:

www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012217.html

Also, I tried to post the link using html tags, but this is the way it came out:

reply.

Also, your software required me to include an e-mail address. I entered my main address which has become unusable due to a massive malicious spam attack. I am told by an expert that anyone can do this to any e-mail address. I don't know how the Internet can continue to function if any mailbox can be drowned in malicious spam and rendered unusable.

Interesting. In the preview of my previous comment, the word "reply" with the embeddded html tag did not look like a link, but displayed as an html tag with the words "no follow." So I figured I wasn't able to post a link, and just posted the url instead. But once I posted the comment rather than asking for a preview, the odd looking tag turned into a functioning link.

I confess to missing the point: How would massive peaceful protests in Gaza force the Israelis to give in? Give in to whom? Give in to what? I'm not feeling the weight of the argument.

If, against all odds, Gaza were to become the arena of peaceful protests; if it were to embrace Gandhian pacifism in its relationship to Israel, Israeli prayers would be answered by the millions. Israel wants peaceful neighbors across its borders on all sides. That's not giving in. That's winning. When those neighbors are not peaceful, when they fire rockets into Israel day after day, Israel fights back. When it does, it almost always wins (If we can call repeatedly staving off the enemy winning.)

But for Gaza to become the arena of peaceful protests would require massive, fundamental change in groups like Hamas, (and in Hezbollah elsewhere), a change that would mean the very nature of Islam would be altered, a change that would also mean Israel gets what it wants: peaceful neighbors content with co-existence. Real peace is not giving in for Israel. It is winning.

It's also a pipe-dream.

"...you may be interested in seeing my reply to Paul Gottfried:"

Unreal. Let's hope a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not dependent on comical spats amongst the on-line commentariat. At least a disturbing exchange between Rashid Khalidi and Benny Morris would have the merit of relevant content.

The point is to illustrate that Israelis are not like Nazis, or even willing aggressors, in Gaza and the West Bank. They fight because they must, not because they want a fight, and certainly not because they are "bloodthirsty maniacs whose blood gets a-pumping at the sight of incinerated children."

The point is to illustrate that Israelis are not like Nazis,

The good news is no one here holds that opinion. So, why invoke it, unless one hopes only to polarize, inflame and otherwise negate a discussion that should be based on shared moral beliefs and common practical goals?

Can one simultaneously hold that salvation is from the Jews, while also maintaining the state of Israel has sometimes been unjust and self-subverting in her dealings with the Palestinian people? I think so, and thankfully there are many Israelis who agree.

Lawrence Auster is a devout Christian, but has a Jewish background. Christianity is the Jewish captivity of the Gentiles. That men are all of one blood, that blood does not count and shall not be regarded, is the doctrine - a self-protective Jewish fiction - preached to the Gentiles by the Jews after their overthrow as a nation.

That there are no races is their gospel for others. They are themselves among the most clannish peoples.

Israeli racism manifests itself in a bunch of laws that are necessary to safeguard Jewish privilege, including the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State’s Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965), and the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories. The maintenance of all the racist laws that guarantee the Jewish character of the state.

Zionism and Israel are very careful not to generalise the principles that justify Israel’s need to be racist but are rather vehement in upholding it as an exceptional principle.

Gentiles are trained, conditioned, to compete with one another in debasing the race as their Judaic-Christian duty. For decades, pro-Israel Zionists and pro-Israel neoconservatives have not only manipulated the puppet strings of Congres and the White House in favor of open borders and multiculturalisism, but have also supported and still support immigration of Muslims into the West.

Valuing human beings by their intrinsic qualities requires discrimination, which is anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. Discriminatory immigration laws are contrary to the spirit of the religion founded by the Jews for the Gentiles.

The differences between Christians and modern liberals are superficial in comparison to their agreements. Modern liberalism is Christianity in secular form and both are Jewish in origin.

In the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist, genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a racist Jewish state.

"The good news is no one here holds that opinion. So, why invoke it...?"

Steve invoked it in the original post because he was responding to a major paleoconservative writer who explicitly made the connection in print. He even helpfully linked to the writer in question. Now, I didn't realize he wasn't allowed to do that under the constraints of group blog etiquette. If everyone here agrees with it, and if in fact it's such an obviously valid point to make in response to something Taki said, then your objection seems like a hollow and weirdly defensive one.

As to your latter point, well, all I can do is to chuckle while quoting your your objection back at you, since I don't believe that "anyone here" would try to argue that that Israel has never been unjust or self-defeating in its dealings with Palestinians, regardless of where he thinks salvation comes from.

If Jerusalem and the West Bank were the site of enormous crowds of entirely unarmed, peaceful protesters under the leadership of an Arab Ghandi figure, imploring Tel Aviv to establish a peaceful political arrangement--in front of the ceaseless watch of CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc.--the Israelis would completely unravel and wither under the political and moral pressure.

I think it's no coincidence that the hearts of so many Palestinians have been hardened against Israel. Using the biblical precedent, it's clear that God has hardened the hearts of the Palestinians to make them violently hate Israel for Israel's protection against world opinion.

Bruce, let me get something straight, so that I know where you're coming from:

Do you actually think that Israel is a racist state for trying to maintain its ethnic makeup? And if so, then what is your gripe with those Jews living in the West who support multiculturalism, mass immigration, and so forth? If America began actually controlling its borders--say, by building and maintaining a barrier on its southern border, setting immigration quotas and restrictions from Muslim countries, etc.--would it be acting as a racist state? Would Palestinians who flooded Israel with the express intent of overturning its Jewish character be acting in a racist fashion?

I ask because you seem on the one hand to think multiculturalism, open borders, and so forth are Bad Things (I agree). Yet you describe Israel's various measures to retain its Jewishness as racist, using the word in more or less exactly the way a Western liberal does to describe the ordinary operations of a state whose ethnic character is a point of real concern. Recall in your answer that one of Israel's defining characteristics is its total absence of geographical and demographic depth, combined with hostile neighbors eager to exploit that fact to effect its demise.

"Can one simultaneously hold that salvation is from the Jews, while also maintaining the state of Israel has sometimes been unjust and self-subverting in her dealings with the Palestinian people? I think so..."

So do I, Kevin. But this is precisely the view that is not allowed. It gets you called an anti-Semite by the diehard pro-Israel crowd, yet doesn't go far enough to please the real anti-Semites.

The error, as you imply, stems from a failure to distinguish between the Jews as a people and the State of Israel.

Glenn writes:

"terrorism ends when the causes of it are addressed, typically via diplomatic means."

Ahh, every effect looks like the result of an efficient cause if you don't believe there are final or formal causes.

Rob G. writes:

"But this is precisely the view that is not allowed."

But it is not allowed because it is false, not because it is impolitic. Remember, for Hamas there is only one solution to the Israel problem, and it's called the "final solution." They even say it with a German accent.

As for what is "allowed," cry me a river. You have no idea on what is allowed and what is not. Here's a thought experiment: if you are up for an academic appointment at a major secular university in the U.S., what is more likely to lose you the job, being on the advisory board of the PLO or the elder board of Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church?

So Rob G., if you're interested in collecting lists of those beliefs that are "not allowed," you should actually begin with a belief that is really not allowed.

"it is not allowed because it is false, not because it is impolitic"

Really? I don't seem to recall the charism of infallibility ever being extended from the Church to the State of Israel. Do you really believe that the State of Israel is all sweetness and light, and that everything it has ever done re: the Palestinians has been on the up and up?

That's a valid thought experiment you propose, Dr. Beckwith, and I fully agree with its implications. It does not, however, really address my point, which was the suggestion that amongst conservatives, one is not 'allowed' (mebbe I should've used scare quotes in my orig. post) to be what I'd call moderately pro-Israel, i.e., to be generally pro-Israel yet willing to criticize her when it seems she is in error. One can, after all, simultaneously reject both Southern slavery and Sherman's march.

(There are, of course, the hawkish pro-Israel sorts who have no problem criticizing her when they feel she is not being tough enough, but this obviously isn't what I mean).

1/ The very term Jewish is becoming a legal fiction. It has no common cultural, linguistic or even religious content - certainly not a "national" one. It is nothing more than a distinction between those who have full civil rights without duties in a country that they exploit, and second-class (secular) citizens, or third-class (all the rest) residents.

2/The 'Gaza strike is not against Hamas, it's against all Palestinians' http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html

3/ For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. Its Arab population does not want Jews in their country. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. they would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in their country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

4/ The Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Schlomo Sand, an Israeli historian argues that the diaspora was the consequence, NOT of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East. Two thousand years of wandering brought the Jews to Yemen [a vigorous Jewish kingdom emerged during the 5th century in Himyar, whose descendants preserved their faith through the Islamic conquest and down to the present day], Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and deep into Russia [the most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas].

5/ Some of the population of Judea that continued to live on their lands converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest.

6/ In 1897, Great Britain offered the Zionists land in Africa. This the Zionists rejected. They wanted Palestine! At the time Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian (Middle Eastern) Jews who are blood related and who had lived together rather peacefully for centuries....With Palestine as their choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazim Jews(!) began migrating to Palestine. So when you think of Jews, especially as related to Israel, keep in mind that there is a great difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazim Jews. They are not one united people. They are divided socially, politically and especially racially.

7/ Quite aside from official American support for the "National Home" of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows. The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door.

I just read Taki's blog post where he compares the Israeli tactics to German tactics, and I can't take it seriously because the analogy rests on the false equation of the deliberate randomness of German executioners with the unintentional civilian deaths caused by Israelis as a result of violent Palestinians being in close proximity with their civilian population, which does not seem to be the same thing at all.

Perhaps I will let it slide this time because it was a blog post and of my relative ignorance of the conflict, but that blog post seems without merit.

Kevin writes: "not all who think this action disproportionate and self-defeating are anti-Israeli."

Agreed. Some of those who think this action is "disproportionate" are just sincere Christian believers of the modern sort - i.e., the sort whose beliefs, however defensible in principle, and however well-founded in scripture, would have led to the quick extinction of Christianity many centuries ago - if the powers that be in early medieval times had taken such stuff at all seriously.

That magnificent & fascinating cultural amalgam, the Christian warrior, is dead. The Christian anti-warrior, who rails, and sweats, at the first glimpse of a sinewy thigh, survives. He doesn't exactly thrive - but he survives. And, from time to time, our post-Christian masters find a use for him. Poor thing.

There are, of course, the hawkish pro-Israel sorts who have no problem criticizing her when they feel she is not being tough enough, but this obviously isn't what I mean

Aw, shucks, and here for a moment I was beginning to think I got to qualify as "moderate."

That magnificent & fascinating cultural amalgam, the Christian warrior, is dead.

Not yet, Steve. The United States Armed Forces is testament to that.

Or perhaps you mean the man who is impelled to fight specifically because he is a Christian, rather than the Christian who choose soldiering as a vocation.

Lawrence Auster: I thought your reponse to Prof. Gottfried was pretty much fair and reasonable.

But, obviously, he finds himself in a difficult position.

Steve,
Thanks for not regaling me with stories about your own military heroics. Instead, I'll take your enthusiatic support for an action that results in "just " a hundred or so civilian deaths, continues the spiral of death and inflames hatred as testament to your wisdom.

Prof. Baumann - touché.

"Real peace is not giving in for Israel. It is winning."

We really must find something to disagree about, before somebody accuses one of us of being a sock-puppet for the other.

Kevin - wha-huh?

What "enthusiastic support?"

You need to get a grip. You really do. At this point, you're just trolling.

I have no patience for it.

Oh good Steve, you have qualms. So maybe no more sneering implications about "modern" Christian "anti-warriors"

Some of those who think this action is "disproportionate" are just sincere Christian believers of the modern sort - i.e., the sort whose beliefs, however defensible in principle, and however well-founded in scripture, would have led to the quick extinction of Christianity many centuries ago - if the powers that be in early medieval times had taken such stuff at all seriously.

Well sure. One would hate for there to be sincere Christian believers who act on defensible principles well-founded in scripture. I can imagine the early Christian Machiavellians, "The gospels aren't a suicide pact, these rules only apply some of the time." As a religion founded by martyrs, I have trouble seeing where the Christian warrior myth originated from, although it could be reverse engineered from the Old Testament. The few New Testament passages that refer to conflict are in the context of spiritual warfare, battles for hearts and minds, not armed conflict.

(Sidebar note as this would normally be sent via email, but since his email's full, I have to do this in-line.)
Mr. Auster,

We collect email address information and tuck it neatly away in a database and do not display it ever except to the administrators and authors of the board. On very rare occasion we've used it to contact a commenter personally, but we don't give away or in any way share this list, nor is there any verification email sent to the email address upon post. It's there for identifying users on the back end, really.

In reference to the 'nofollow' tags our code inserts that as a way to tell web spider programs that the link is not trusted by the site and to not follow that link when indexing. This differentiates links made in comments and links made within author-driven posts and serves to reduce the amount of comment spam on the blog and page rankings of pages included in those spam messages.

Todd

(Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...)

Albert: I can't take Taki's blog post seriously for the same reason you can't.

Sage: did you find Bruce Graeme's post this morning at all responsive to your questions?

I didn't.

I think he must be some sort of "white nationalist."

In just war theory, proportionality is not "tit for tat." It is engaging in combat by not exceeding what is required to achieve one's just end (assuming that one is fulfilling all the other obligations of just war). If Hamas stopped firing missiles, surrendered and Israel continued to pound them, then Israel's response would be disproportionate.

Step 2 writes:
"The gospels aren't a suicide pact, these rules only apply some of the time."

Your allusion to the Great Emancipator is duly noted. He rightly saw that the "citizens" of the Confederate States of America, that pretended government for which its descendants should look back in shame, could not rightfully seek the union's destruction while appealing to its principles in order to help facilitate that destruction. The Constitution is an agreement between citizens of the polis. It ought not include those who seek the polis' elimination while claiming the poils' protection to do so. Justice requires as much.

Thanks to the Church Militant, I have only one wife, I don't speak Arabic, and I get to keep my head. Now, that's quite a deal! In fact, to employ a terribly inappropriate metaphor, it's a Mecca!

If Hamas stopped firing missiles, surrendered and Israel continued to pound them, then Israel's response would be disproportionate.

Echoes of the Total War concept that we fell prey to in WWII. Hopefully we look back in shame at the saturation bombings and the use of atomic devices. The tactic of punishing civilians through embargoes and "incursions" until the fanatics surrender is hard to justify under any rubric.

Echoes of the Total War concept that we fell prey to in WWII. Hopefully we look back in shame at the saturation bombings and the use of atomic devices. The tactic of punishing civilians through embargoes and "incursions" until the fanatics surrender is hard to justify under any rubric.

Things like saturation bombings and the use of atomic weapons were wrong not because they were disproportionate (in the sense that people are criticizing Israel's recent actions they clearly weren't) but because they involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants.

Good point, Blackadder.

Your allusion to the Great Emancipator is duly noted. He rightly saw that the "citizens" of the Confederate States of America, that pretended government for which its descendants should look back in shame, could not rightfully seek the union's destruction while appealing to its principles in order to help facilitate that destruction. The Constitution is an agreement between citizens of the polis. It ought not include those who seek the polis' elimination while claiming the poils' protection to do so. Justice requires as much.

The Union was never militarily threatened by the CSA. The worst that could have happened would have been that Special Order 191 would have never landed into enemy hands, Lee would have occupied DC, then moved his army into Maryland. With the Union troops driven out of Maryland, the legislature would have been free to vote for secession, and the US capitol would have been moved to Philadelphia, and DC would have become the Confederate capitol.

The biggest threat that the CSA posed was ideological. The slavery issues aside, the Confederate constitution had some improvements on the US Constitution that more closely defined the role of the national government. That would have been attractive to a lot of states in the long run. In fact, issues like abortion would probably have been a lot easier to resolve under the CSA's constitution than our current one.

Things like saturation bombings and the use of atomic weapons were wrong not because they were disproportionate (in the sense that people are criticizing Israel's recent actions they clearly weren't) but because they involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants.

The same thing happened in our own civil war, which many consider the first modern war. A good percentage of the Union Army's officers would hang under, Sherman being first among them, under the UCMJ. Yet, for some reason, the South was uniquely evil in Western history and many who would condemn these tactics everywhere else, feel that they were justified against us.

"Yet, for some reason, the South was uniquely evil in Western history and many who would condemn these tactics everywhere else, feel that they were justified against us."

I was going to bring this up yesterday, Mike, but didn't want to open another can of worms. There is something akin to what R. P. Warren called the "Treasury of Virtue" (the idea that the North, being right in its attitude towards slavery, is therefore excused for all abuses) active in many conservatives' defense of the State of Israel.

but because they involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants.

The ability to rationalize our actions is infinite. Firing rockets into densely populated areas will lead to the "accidental" deaths of civilians, much like driving downhill without brakes will inevitably lead to a car-crash.

Things like saturation bombings and the use of atomic weapons were wrong not because they were disproportionate (in the sense that people are criticizing Israel's recent actions they clearly weren't) but because they involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants.

Blackadder,

That these things involved the intentional targeting of noncombatants is not ipso facto obvious. The intention may have been entirely other than this; and the destruction of non-combatants may have been an unintended (but nevertheless completely foreseen) effect of these actions.

To judge these acts as intrinsically murderous is to cede the high ground to the pacifists.

To judge these acts as intrinsically murderous is to cede the high ground to the pacifists

Or anyone else with a conscience. A debate between bin Laden and someone holding your position would best be held in an echo-chamber.

"The intention may have been entirely other than this; and the destruction of non-combatants may have been an unintended (but nevertheless completely foreseen) effect of these actions."

Stuff and nonsense. One purpose of such actions is to weaken the will of the civilian population so that they no longer emotionally or psychologically support the war effort. This was exactly Sherman's strategy, and modern warfare has been using it ever since.

"To judge these acts as intrinsically murderous is to cede the high ground to the pacifists."

False dichotomy. One need not be a pacifist to reject the notion of "total war."

I was going to bring this up yesterday, Mike, but didn't want to open another can of worms. There is something akin to what R. P. Warren called the "Treasury of Virtue" (the idea that the North, being right in its attitude towards slavery, is therefore excused for all abuses) active in many conservatives' defense of the State of Israel.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I excuse Israel's actions is that Israel is in a position where just war is nearly impossible. The MO of their enemies is to fight with human shields, and I can't think of a single state in history that has fought a group that is as simultaneously barbaric and cowardly as the Palestinian militants.

Democracy also complicates things further, morally, because the voters are the ultimate sovereign, and thus a legitimate target in a time of war if you want to get technical about it.

"To judge these acts as intrinsically murderous is to cede the high ground to the pacifists."

False dichotomy. One need not be a pacifist to reject the notion of "total war."

Total war makes perfect sense against a modern democratic state. Since the people are the government, any adult citizen eligible to vote is a target.

That is one of the few things Osama Bin Laden was right about. His logic is more sound than that of his opponents on this issue. By elevating themselves to the level of the king, the people have made themselves targets in a time of war like the royal family would be.

The ability to rationalize our actions is infinite. Firing rockets into densely populated areas will lead to the "accidental" deaths of civilians, much like driving downhill without brakes will inevitably lead to a car-crash.

When the enemy is hiding among the people, especially with the consent of a large portion of them (as is the case with the Palestinians), I fail to see the moral issue of bombarding their positions and risking civilian casualties. The innocent ought to blame those that used them as human shields, not those attacking those that used them.

That's a very Rousseauvian view of democracy, Mike. I tend toward more tolerance for Rousseau's doctrines -- precisely because he was, as Irving Babbitt put it, the "most radical of all modern theorists of democracy," and it's good to see the true colors of modern democracy -- than most Conservatives, but this may go too far even for me.

I agree in principle, Mike. I tend to side with Israel here (although I do feel concern towards those Palestinians who, while disliking Israel, are not fans of Hamas either, and are stuck in the middle: Palestinian Christians, for instance), but I don't believe that you can give them a sort of carte blanche, militarily speaking. When Israel overdoes it, we should be able to say so, without fear of being called anti-Semitic, just like I should be able to reject, say, the bombing of Belgrade under Clinton/Albright, without being called anti-American.

That's pretty much all I'm saying.

Total war makes perfect sense against a modern democratic state. Since the people are the government, any adult citizen eligible to vote is a target.

Are civilian voters who abstained or voted against the current regime also legitimate targets, simply in virtue of being voters?

One salutary thing about discussions like this, despite how much I detest the subject, is that it highlights the moral insanity of modern political doctrines. Somehow merely mentioning Israel in a political discussion brings out the worst in everyone. Perhaps it is good for that to be on display, if not for the benefit of participants then at least for the benefit of others.

that is where the philosophy of modern democrats leads them, then to Hell with them

This is what I like about Rousseau. He showed us the hell of modern political philosophy in its democratic form. The first property owner was a thief, the first ruler a tyrant, and all that is left is for us to totalize our equality. To quote Babbitt again, he gave wrong answers to the right questions, but it is no small thing to ask the right questions.

In the interest of not permitting silence to be construed as agreement, I will state for the record that I find that position despicable. If that is where the philosophy of modern democrats leads them, then to Hell with them.

Well, you do have a penchant for hyperbole on moral issues...

In all seriousness, I am not a democrat, but I have little pity for people who support democracy wholeheartedly, and then walk away from the responsibilities of government and the aftermath of the government's actions. To me, these people are like a scientist who creates a monster in their lab, and then abandons it to its own devices.

As it stands, my personal ideal system is one in which sovereignty is not a given, but must be earned through respectable public service wherein one takes responsibility for the defense of their nation against others and itself.

Well, you do have a penchant for hyperbole on moral issues...

Neither of us are democrats, Zippy. The difference is that I am indifferent to the suffering of people who will passionately defend their unearned right to boss others around, but then act like a petulant child when told that they must bear some personal responsibility for holding the government accountable. In my opinion, they are no different than someone who owns a dangerous dog, walks it without a leash and then refuses to be held personally responsible when it mauls a third party, justified or not (mugger; friendly child).

Lets be clear here. The stated doctrine was this:

Total war makes perfect sense against a modern democratic state. Since the people are the government, any adult citizen eligible to vote is a target.

Despicable doesn't begin to do it justice.

Some people call it clarity; I leave the judgment to the individual reader. I don't think "despicable" is too strong a word for doctrines which support murdering civilians in wartime. If anything, I showed too much restraint.

I think murdering civilians is a natural consequence of an expansively democratic system of government. That is one of the reasons why I don't support universal democracy or anything close to it. I just won't argue with Bin Laden's cold logic that if the people have assumed sovereignty in general, then the people have assumed a status for themselves as peers to the state and war machine when dealing with an enemy--because I can't. He is entirely correct that the most people have made themselves legitimate targets since they wield sovereign power, however, limited, over the decision to go to war.

None of this is to say that we cannot recognize the need to defend civilian life and help other countries do the same. What it means is that blowing up a civilian target in Russia in 2009 is not the same level of moral issue that it would have been under absolutist, tsarist rule.

This means that the Ladies Sewing Circle is a legitimate target for bombardment, based solely on the formal political fact of their eligibility to cast a vote in an election.

Despicable doesn't begin to do it justice.

Are adult members of the royal family not legitimate targets in a time of war?

Once again you sputter and spittle, calling it moral clarity. The fundamental problem here is that if you accept it as a given that a king and his potential heirs are a legitimate target in a time of war, a democratic transference of sovereignty to the electorate transfers a similar liability to the electorate.

This is one of the reasons I find universal democracy problematic, and why I support enfranchising only citizens who will make a conscience, responsible claim for sovereign power.

Zippy, don't you know, the august Sewing Circle is an indispensable aspect of the General Will? There you will find democracy. There, indeed, among those high-born ladies, working in concert to exemplify equality, you will discover the sovereign in all his regal bearing.

I think murdering civilians is a natural consequence of an expansively democratic system of government.

It is another thing entirely to suggest that killing civilians is justified because those civilians happen to hold these false doctrines. It seems like you are saying this latter thing. If you are, "despicable" as a coldly accurate descriptor of this meta-doctrine holds.

It does not become OK to murder someone just because murdering him is consistent with the victim's own false doctrines.

There are worse things than military defeat or death, and it appears too many are willing to experience it in exchange for fleeting terrestrial triumphs. In many of these exchanges there is little evidence of any abiding trust in God. Instead, we're treated to a "we have to become like the enemy in order not to lose to the enemy" logic that reeks of moral exhaustion. The Liberal Death Wish has produced a "conservative" version that is merely utilitarianism masked by a very brittle form of faith.

It is one thing to say that murdering civilians is a natural consequence of adopting false modernist political doctrines. If that is what you are saying, well, I would just suggest taking a different approach to saying it.

It is another thing entirely to suggest that killing civilians is justified because those civilians happen to hold these false doctrines. It seems like you are saying this latter thing. If you are, "despicable" as a coldly accurate descriptor of this meta-doctrine holds.

My apathy on this subject comes from the fact that the people have assumed power without responsibility. While I don't condone killing them, I won't throw up my hands in a fit or moral outrage as though this is somehow uniquely criminal because I believe that free will AND ideas have consequences. Call this the conservative cynic position, if you will. A society ought to be treated according to its foundational ideas and values. If one of those is that the people are the sovereign, then like any sovereign, the people have posted a big fat target on their posteriors in a time of war.

This is, again, why I support a merit-based approach to gaining sovereignty. Giving most people the right to vote is as responsible as giving a child a loaded gun without supervision.

While I don't condone killing them, I won't throw up my hands in a fit or moral outrage as though this is somehow uniquely criminal because I believe that free will AND ideas have consequences.

Zippy, don't you know, the august Sewing Circle is an indispensable aspect of the General Will? There you will find democracy. There, indeed, among those high-born ladies, working in concert to exemplify equality, you will discover the sovereign in all his regal bearing.

That which you are mocking here is precisely the flaw with modern democracy.

So you agree that it is murder, but you are indifferent to it, and will use your rhetoric, as in this thread, to excuse it?

I don't agree that it is murder. I am saying that the transference of sovereignty to the people, transfers the moral issues of waging war on government targets onto them. Their own actions demand it, as much as I may bitterly disagree with them. To kill a voter is, in the modern democratic system, technically no different than to kill someone who is theoretically eligible to assume the throne.

You're refusing to accept the fact that even under Christian thinking, if the people seize sovereignty for themselves, they've become responsible for and part of the state. However, I am willing to take the modern democratic system at face value and assume that God was willing to ordain modern democratic states as legitimate governments capable of acting in accordance with the revealed role and legitimacy describe in verses like Romans 13.

What upsets you is that I apply all of the standards that were used for the sovereign in the Ancien Régime to the people who took his place. I do this to point out the deadly consequences of modern thinking, and to hopefully undermine the assumptions that people have about the wisdom of most modern political thought.

What is the moral difference, Zippy, between active voters and extended members of a royal family who could assume sovereignty in the absence of the reigning monarch?

I don't agree that it is murder.

What is the moral difference in wartime between the King's lieutenants and the Ladies Sewing Circle? Are you really asking that question?

Ah. Well, just so you know, it is murder. What is more, this doctrine you are espousing which leads you to conclude that it is not murder is, in addition to being false, a vile, despicable doctrine.

I feel much the same way about much of what the Roman Catholic church teaches, such as the pagan doctrine of transubstantiation. I find it ironic to be lectured by someone who eagerly participates in a ritual they believe leads to an odd form of cannibalism.

What is the moral difference in wartime between the King's lieutenants and the Ladies Sewing Circle? Are you really asking that question?

If you take seriously the modern democratic system's assertions about the people being sovereign, then yes, what is the difference?

Not that I agree with those assertions, but I am willing to judge a society by the standards it asks me to judge it. I can do that independent of discerning its nature according to a Christian worldview.

If you take seriously the modern democratic system's assertions about the people being sovereign, then yes, what is the difference?

Not that I agree with those assertions, but I am willing to judge a society by the standards it asks me to judge it.

Me:

To judge these acts as intrinsically murderous is to cede the high ground to the pacifists.

Rob G.:

False dichotomy. One need not be a pacifist to reject the notion of "total war."

I didn't say one needed to be a pacifist to reject the principle I was expounding. I said to do so is "to cede the high ground to the pacifists," and thereby to the enemy. And right on cue, as if to prove my point, follows the very non-pacifist Mike T. with this:

I can't speak for others, but the reason I excuse Israel's actions is that Israel is in a position where just war is nearly impossible.

This, of course, allows Zippy, Kevin, et al to mount their high horses and start raining down moral denunciations like thunderbolts from Olympus.

Mike T.:

I appreciate your critique of democracy, but trying to justify Israel's actions by suggesting that a just war in these circumstances is impossible or that Israel has no choice but to "murder" civilians will, in effect, achieve about as much as sending a check to Hamas.

The difference is that you shouldn't take something which is false seriously as the moral foundation of your own acts, especially when it leads you to the conclusion that you have a moral license to commit murder. The truth matters. Veritas, baby.

What you haven't said is what is false. Is it false to assume that a society can ever transfer sovereignty from a monarch to republic, democracy or a hybrid of the two? Or is it false to assume that if there is a transference of sovereignty, there is also a transference of sovereign responsibility to the people?

So again, you seem to be saying that it is OK to murder someone as long as murdering him is consistent with the false doctrines held by the victim. If the victim's own false doctrines would lead logically to the conclusion that killing him isn't murder, then killing him in fact isn't murder.

I'm not saying that it's OK to murder. I'm saying that in order for it to be murder, the person would have to have never agreed to anything that would have put themselves in a position to be assumed to have sovereignty by an aggressor. If you are willing to say that the public can never be sovereign, then I can respect that completely, but I can't respect a willingness to treat modern democrats like children by allowing them to wear the king's robes, but cower in the fields like peasants when it comes time to act like a king.

I agree with George R on this point. Israel can, and it does, have the rationale for a justified war, and militant Islam, which surrounds Israel on all sides, and attacks it relentlessly, does not.

I appreciate your critique of democracy, but trying to justify Israel's actions by suggesting that a just war in these circumstances is impossible or that Israel has no choice but to "murder" civilians will, in effect, achieve about as much as sending a check to Hamas.

My primary concern with a just war for Israel is that the Palestinians are actively behaving in ways that prevent it. How CAN Israel prevent civilian casualties in many cases without refusing to fire on its enemies who are targeting its soldiers and civilians? As I see it, the Palestinians have, as much as a group can, given the Israelis license to wage war on them with impunity by refusing to draw a distinction between their civilians and fighters.

IMO, the only rational response to Israel deciding to carpet-bomb the entire Gaza Strip tonight would be "they really should have considered the wisdom of supporting Hamas and letting them hide in their midst."

What you haven't said is what is false.

What is (obviously) false is the notion that the Ladies Sewing Circle is composed of active combatants in the war: that 'eligible to vote' is the same category as or is a subset of 'combatant'.

And here we go again. Once again, you refuse to answer the question of whether or not a society can transfer sovereignty to the general public. If it can, then it can choose to make its people every bit as much of a general target as a king would be to enemy troops that can kill him.

I'd like to point out that I have never said that being eligible to vote makes you a combatant. I've specifically pointed out that being eligible to vote makes you the equivalent of a sovereign, and that that has serious problems for you since it technically isn't murder for soldiers to capture their enemy's king, line him up and shoot him or unleash every artillery round and bomb they have on his known position in a time of war.

Mike T:

How CAN Israel prevent civilian casualties in many cases without refusing to fire on its enemies who are targeting its soldiers and civilians?

Israel is not morally bound to prevent civilian casualties, they are only forbidden to have that as their intention.

Israel is not morally bound to prevent civilian casualties, they are only forbidden to have that as their intention.

Amen to that. The Palestinians should praise God that the Israelis haven't finally got frustrated to the point that the reenact the siege of Grozny on Gaza.

I'd like to point out that I have never said that being eligible to vote makes you a combatant.

The Palestinians should praise God that the Israelis haven't finally got frustrated to the point that the reenact the siege of Grozny on Gaza.

Well, hard to top that on the scale of moral repulsion, but that won't keep some from trying.
Can't wait for a post entitled; The Killing of Palestinian Children in Fulfillment of Dispensationalist Scripture.

The only people it can be morally licit to deliberately kill in wartime are combatants, that is, individuals engaged in attacking behaviors. Noncombatants are not morally licit targets. So if being eligible to vote does not in itself make you a combatant, then it also does not in itself make you a morally licit target.

That may be true according to Just War theory, but I regard Just War theory as a human invention based on a desire to piece together an understanding of how Christians ought to behave. As it is not revelation, it certainly cannot be mandated as universal, obvious truth on the church, let alone on non-believers. It may only present some truth, but not a whole, universal, complete truth.

IMO, it would be morally permissible for a weaker nation to commit an act of terrorism against an aggressor that wipes out its body politic and military command structure, even if the act came at a great cost in human lives to non-combatants. For example, one day, the United States' only recourse against China if we go to war might be to hit Beijing with a nuclear weapon when its Poliburo and most of its military leadership are meeting together.

You may find that morally horrific, but I don't in the least. In my opinion, the loss of several million civilians in a "take-no-chances" act of surprise nuclear terrorism by the federal government as desperate gambit to decapitate the Chinese government would be justified.

Well, hard to top that on the scale of moral repulsion, but that won't keep some from trying. Can't wait for a post entitled; The Killing of Palestinian Children in Fulfillment of Dispensationalist Scripture.

I can't wait for you to join the IDF and show those rank amateurs how to live, fight and die by the highest standards of Christian conduct in a time of war. Onward, Christian (armchair) soldier.

In my opinion, the loss of several million civilians in a "take-no-chances" act of surprise nuclear terrorism by the federal government as desperate gambit to decapitate the Chinese government would be justified.

One thing is obvious here, and that's that some of you, especially Kevin, are not even trying to empathize with the Israeli position. This comes from being a pampered westerner who has never known a serious armed conflict, an existential threat to your state that was non-nuclear, and never known a life where getting blown to pieces by a terrorist while you eat at a local cafe is a realistic possibility.

It's easy to apply philosophy, wax eloquent about what they should do, when no other state is simultaneously under attack from so many people that would relish the genocide of its people, while the rest of the world tells it that it has almost no right of self-defense. If the Israelis finally snapped as a nation, and unleashed genocide on the Palestinians, it would something that a reasonable person could understand given the 60 year campaign to unleash hell on Earth upon them. Our own government would have long-sized rendered the first 50 miles inside Mexico uninhabitable for 1,000 years if subjected to 60 years of the same treatment from Mexico.

I can't wait for you to join the IDF

Why would I join the IDF?

Look your the guy who has called for the death penalty being applied to girls who procure abortions and the use of the US military to quell social unrest. Everything you've said is consistent. Except one, you're the guy strutting around with the cyber-gun and celebrating modern warfare as a form of Christian manhood. You should be over there "cleansing" a village with your Hagee-edited Bible. Not me.

Look your the guy who has called for the death penalty being applied to girls who procure abortions and the use of the US military to quell social unrest. Everything you've said is consistent. Except one, you're the guy strutting around with the cyber-gun and celebrating modern warfare as a form of Christian manhood. You should be over there "cleansing" a village with your Hagee-edited Bible. Not me.

Actually, I'm the guy who is saying that he would be merciful and understanding toward the Israelis if they finally psychologically snapped as a society and committed any number of serious acts against the Palestinians, given the 60 years of unrelenting killing of Israelis by them and their allies. You have precious little appreciation for how much your precious doctrines of just war might sound like utter rubbish to the residents of Sderot who have to live in constant fear of having their house caved in at night by a qassam rocket.

But--whatever. You get indignant about abortion-as-murder, but then look askance when I say that execution naturally follows for someone who gets a medically unnecessary abortion. You think I'm a tyrant because I actually prefer the use of the military to the police when civil unrest gets out of control precisely because that keeps a clean separation between the functions of the two in every other circumstance which actually prevents future abuse of power by the police. Then, you can't understand why I would say that giving the depth of the depravity of the Palestinians' behavior toward Israel, by all rights the Palestinians should be grateful that God has given the Israelis enough patience to resist the urges that most nations would unleash with abandon on a similar aggressor. Even the most pious, Catholic leaders would have marched their armies on a similar aggressor and razed their land to the ground if their people had been raped, robbed, maimed, kidnapped and murdered for two generations by a country that showed absolutely no respect for peace, civilization and decency toward others.

Even the most pious, Catholic leaders would have marched their armies on a similar aggressor

Reaching back to past atrocities to justify new ones makes no spiritual sense, especially when the Church has apologized for the dark episodes that you now hail.

The Jewish people were subjected to the unfathomable industrialized genocide of the 40's and the Palestinians were the ones who paid Europe's price in 1948. Nothing in your discourse suggests the slightest appreciation for the historical circumstances surrounding this ongoing, epic saga of human suffering, much less the basis for arriving at an honorable resolution.

I didn't say one needed to be a pacifist to reject the principle I was expounding. I said to do so is "to cede the high ground to the pacifists," and thereby to the enemy. And right on cue, as if to prove my point, follows the very non-pacifist Mike T. with this:

Since Zippy's keeping a record, for the record, I'm indeed not a pacifist, but neither am I a militarist. I advocate the time-honored American tradition of seeking no enemies, but when enemies come to our national doorstep, beating them until their neck is under our boot and they are begging us for the privilege of living another minute. Furthermore, I don't believe there is anything gained by telling non-Christians to behave like Christians, by telling them how to wage war, how to live as married couples, etc. To me, that is a bit like dressing your dog up in a sweater, booties and a hat, and calling it your "baby."

Reaching back to past atrocities to justify new ones makes no spiritual sense, especially when the Church has apologized for the dark episodes that you now hail.

I wouldn't call all of them dark. I think Vlad Dracula, for example, was an evil man, but I can look at his position and see reason to have mercy on him by recognizing that he had completely different goals than a Hitler or Stalin, ones that were actually quite noble in many cases by comparison. I could see reason to have compassion on him because of what he was up against, and what his people would face if he failed.

The Jewish people were subjected to the unfathomable industrialized genocide of the 40's and the Palestinians were the ones who paid Europe's price in 1948.

You, of all people, should recognize that their response has been disproportionate. The American South suffered horribly at the hands of the North, yet I would never advocate hurting a single random yankee in retaliation for burning half of our territory to the ground, forcefully reintegrating us, and similar crimes. Evil does not justify evil.

Nothing in your discourse suggests the slightest appreciation for the historical circumstances surrounding this ongoing, epic saga of human suffering, much less the basis for arriving at an honorable resolution.

It isn't epic. It's pathetic. The Palestinians have been whored out by their fellow Arab Muslims. If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were on any other continent, the West would laugh with side-splitting hysteria at the suggestion that such a small issue could destabilize such a large region, when it affects few outside of the immediate vicinity of the conflict. The Palestinians ought to be suicide bombing Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt for making them largely persona non-grata in other Arab societies, and then using them as propaganda marionettes to placate their people.

Kevin,

What would you do if American Indians suddenly started behaving like the Palestinians, and I mean pretty much exactly, like the Palestinians with regard to killing and championing the killing, of other Americans?

What would you do if American Indians suddenly started behaving like the Palestinians

Michael T.,
Like the Israeli peace movement standing before the abyss, I'd do all I can to reach a concord with a people who are cynically being used by Islamist regimes, badly managed by backwards fanatics and maltreated by the foreign entity in their land. If life became intolerable or called for committing genocide, I would emigrate.

You, of all people, should recognize that their response has been disproportionate.

Michael T.,
I have higher standards for my spiritual ancestors than I do the peoples of Arabia and Persia. The Arab sees 1948 as a great humiliation and apparently lacks the Christian framework for forgiveness and reconciliation. I know the gun won't force them to their senses.

Like the Israeli peace movement standing before the abyss, I'd do all I can to reach a concord with a people who are cynically being used by Islamist regimes, badly managed by backwards fanatics and maltreated by the foreign entity in their land. If life became intolerable or called for committing genocide, I would emigrate.

An honorable choice, but Israel has no such mandate because their claim to that land is by divine decree, not by human philosophy, war or any other claim. One can't help but noticing that God certainly has cursed the majority of Palestinians with a heart as hard as Pharaoh's, and wisdom in dealing with the Israelis as weak as that possessed by the rear-end of Pharaoh's mount.

I have higher standards for my spiritual ancestors than I do the peoples of Arabia and Persia.

I don't because all things being the same, most of our forebears were not actual believing Christians, but rather cultural Christians the way that most Muslims are cultural Muslims. Their natures being a lot closer than you might think.

The Arab sees 1948 as a great humiliation and apparently lacks the Christian framework for forgiveness and reconciliation. I know the gun won't force them to their senses.

We can't know that until it's been tested. Fortunately for the Palestinians, God isn't allowing them to stop fighting long enough to acquire enough wealth to buy the sort of weapons that would make Israel finally test out your hypothesis.

"Israel has no such mandate because their claim to that land is by divine decree, not by human philosophy, war or any other claim."

Says who?

"One can't help but noticing that God certainly has cursed the majority of Palestinians with a heart as hard as Pharaoh's"

That you repeat this in every third post doesn't make it so.

"most of our forebears were not actual believing Christians, but rather cultural Christians"

Really? Again, says who? By what standard do you make that determination? Methinks you should speak for yourself.

"God isn't allowing them to stop fighting long enough to acquire enough wealth to buy the sort of weapons that would make Israel finally test out your hypothesis."

That's some bass-ackward logic there. Funny thing about the dispensationalists -- they always have an out when history proves them wrong. They simply change the story. I know, because I used to be one.

Says who?

Says the biblical teachings about the chosen land being given to Abraham and his successors.

That you repeat this in every third post doesn't make it so.

Fair enough, but it is a sound observation about the behavior of the Palestinians since no reasonably rational people would throw themselves again and again at a country as powerful as Israel. Like Pharaoh, the more successful the Jews are and the harder that they get squeezed, even to the point of utter ruin, they continue to grow harder and harder in their desire to see Israel destroyed.

Really? Again, says who? By what standard do you make that determination? Methinks you should speak for yourself.

If there wasn't much of a distinction all along, then why did Jesus say that in the time of testing, most would be fall away like wheat being separated from the chaff. Furthermore, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, human nature hasn't changed since the fall of man, and what was true about Jesus' observations in His day are true today.

That's some bass-ackward logic there. Funny thing about the dispensationalists -- they always have an out when history proves them wrong. They simply change the story. I know, because I used to be one.

I've never been one, so I wouldn't know what it's like to be one. I'm not going to make any assumptions about your theological background, so you might want to reciprocate.

Back in the building, at last.

My. How long this thread has grown. And there are several more, upstream, on related issues that I suppose I'd better check out.

But I must say this, to Kevin: your responses to me on this thread were, in each and every case, rhetorically...disproportionate.

Mike T has done an excellent job at stating his case for collective punishment. Out of morbid curiosity I would like to ask how is it even possible to state that "Evil does not justify evil," while also advocating what he himself describes as an act of terrorism, a nuclear decapitation strike certain to kill millions?

One can't help but noticing that God certainly has cursed the majority of Palestinians with a heart as hard as Pharaoh's

Michael T, don't reduce the Old Testament to a Gnostic text in the service of your political viewpoint. There are enough historical moments to subvert your effort. The Holocaust being the most obvious.

Kevin: your responses to me on this thread were, in each and every case, rhetorically...disproportionate.

Really Steve? You drop the gloves with this gem; The Christian anti-warrior, who rails, and sweats, at the first glimpse of a sinewy thigh, survives.and expected what - an embarrassed cringe before I slouched over to the bench?

A volunteer military has left us with too few people with any skin in the game. I'm confident we'd do a better job of defining our national interests and formulating a proper foreign policy, if somehow war wasn't so abstract and more of us had to look in the mirror, or the eyes of our loved ones before giving assent to armed conflict.

Peguy once said the most revolutionary figure in the modern age is the Christian father. The Christian warrior today needs the guts to carry a Cross over his shoulder more than a weapon in his hands.

Sorry for my excessive force earlier in the thread.

Mike, about the Jews, the Palestinians and hardness of hearts -- what Kevin said.

Sorry about mischaracterizing you as a dispensationalist, but I've not run into many folks who buy into the whole "God promised Israel that land" thing who aren't dispy's, or who haven't at least been influenced by their theology.

"If there wasn't much of a distinction all along, then why did Jesus say that in the time of testing, most would be fall away like wheat being separated from the chaff."

This is true, but it does not seem to be a hard and fast rule in the sense that everywhere and always, a certain percentage of people are the only true Christians. Like most things in history, this too has an ebb and flow to it, so there are undoubtedly peaks and troughs. I tend to give my forbears in the faith the benefit of the doubt.

Kevin - yeah, that *was* a gem! (Cribbed as it was from Yeats.) Thanks for noticing. It's a theme I'd like to explore in future posts.

For example, I might like to discuss the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and the present Pope, in comparison to some of their predecessors in the (quaintly named) "age of faith."

Remind me, now - which of the Holy Fathers was it who danced for joy on being told that his crusaders waded knee-deep through the blood of the Mahometans?

I might like to discuss the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and the present Pope, in comparison to some of their predecessors in the (quaintly named) "age of faith."

Steve,
True heirs to Charles Martel have adapted to the changing terrain and new order of battle. Their allies are few, as they navigate between the political religions of the ailing West and an ancient rival from the turbulent East. Equipped with armor far stronger than mere metal and steel, they are lead by a Vicar known as "God's Rottweiler". I await the identity of the contemporary you march behind and his or her's battle plan.