Redstate

Remember, the old Stalin quote, "How many divisions does the Vatican have?"  The Swiss Guards are smaller than my local police department.  If you try  to survive in almost every country in the world, it takes lots and lots of diplomacy...without military or economic power.

Unfortunately, the Europeans (Western and Eastern), and most of the rest of the world,  have a different take on the Arab-Israeli struggle than you and I.   You are going to be upset alot if you worry about them.  

The picture of the red-hatted Vatican emissary holding hands triumphantly with Yassir Arafat is what I'm referring to.

If you can see where I claimed the Church, my Church, took a "position is based on anti-Semitism", I commend you for creative reading.

I. Said. No. Such. Thing.

Nor was it my intention to jack this thread - and I am indeed sorry that happened.

Perfect way to describe that picture.

...unless you photoshopped it.  It was Bubba who allowed that bloody-handed monster to darken the White House door, not W.  Shame on him.

As for those "other heads of Western Gov'ts", shame on them, too.

--furious

A brief formality at the start of a negotiation is one thing.  But that Victory Grip™ leaves no doubt about the good feelings there.

We didn't declare war on Mexico because of Pancho Villa.

and this;

People across the globe seam to believe that Israel must constantly refrain from responding to this fundamental attack on its existence; that it must always turn the other cheek.

really says it all.

Am I to infer that you did not find the statement out of the Vatican today to be naive, poorly worded, and directed principally (and inappropriately) at Israel?  Did you not find the failure to even acknowledge the kidnapping of the IDF soldiers, particularly in conjunction with the statement "In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon..." (emphasis mine) to be inappropriate at best and misguided at worst?

Is there something in the statement I missed?

I believe it was a very poor statement, unworthy of Benedict - my Holy Father.  It was spectacularly unhelpful and reeks of more piling on of Israel, the only functioning representative government in the Middle East.

Sorry you apparently disagree.

Israel has shown restraint for how long?  And where has is gotten them?

More attacks and now the terrorists are kidnapping their soldiers.

Let's take one of these examples that keep getting bantered around.  Let's assume that the Federalies in northern Mexico kept launching rockets in Arizona, and we were told to be 'restrained', so we did.  This continued for YEARS.  And several Federalie officials held office in the Mexican government.

Finally they come across the border, kill several soldiers, and kidnap 2 of them.  

Oh, and by the way, we (and the rest of the world), had been asking Mexico to reign in these guys for years.

So exactly how would it not be moral for us to invade all of Mexico to get rid of the Federalies?

Wouldn't that be considered self defense?  If the Mexican government refused to take care of the problem, and it finally escalated to the point of an attack like this, we would bring our full force to bear on Mexico and we would do the job for them.  Because that is what it would take to protect ourselves and make sure this never happens again.  

This is exactly what is happening in Israel, and it is both morally and strategically right.  Where do you think most of Hezbollah's command and control centers are?  They're not in the south, they're in Beirut.  Israel is taking out local command and control.  If need be, I suspect they will take out the main command and control in Syria and Iran.

They did not bomb Beirut Airport to keep the soldiers in country. Lebanon has a rather porous border with Syria which would be much easier for Hizbullah to move the soldiers out of country.

More likely they bombed Beirut Airport as a retaliatory gesture.

And, bombing Christians would not erode support in this country, as a number of posters have already made plainfully clear in other posts below.

Additionally, lest we forget, there are hundreds of American citizens now stranded in Lebanon since Beirut is the only way in or out. They certainl can't travel north to Syria to fly out, nor can they cross southern Lebanon to Israel with all the bombing goin on.

...been this outspoken when Catholics in France, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Germany, and Italy were denouncing their Jewish neighbors to the SS.

I realize that individual priests or prelates were heroic in trying to protect Jewish fugitives and some paid with their lives, but the Head Office in Rome was SILENT.

--furious

Neil, I guess you can read minds, these days.  It's called diplomacy.

And sadly enough, the Vatican as a political and diplomatic entity is no better than the rest of western Europe.

...Etchagarray (sp?) doing the Victory Grip™ with Ehud Barak?  I googled hard but couldn't find one.

His Eminence could at least have tried to look uncomfortable instead of grinning like he won the Lottery.

--furious

into Israel?

Also, when the group that does the kidnapping is a group that also holds political power in a country, it can easily be viewed and argued as an act of war.

So just how many citizens does Israel have to lose to kidnappings and murder before it is "okay" to respond?  At what point does Israel have to stop putting up with the murder of its citizens?

seats in Lebannon.

They aren't exactly an "outside the control of government" organization given that they have representatives in the government.

of war mean for the Maronite Christians and Orthodox Christians in Lebanon. A topic that you, and most other posters on this board, seem to be completely unconcered about. His Holiness, however, is greatly concerned. A war will not spare the Christians, and could decimate the community as badly as the ongoing conflicts elsewhere (such as in Iraq) have done to other Christian populations in the region.

As are many posters on this board, you are extremely free with charges of anti-semitism. His Holiness is no anti-Semite, nor are the cardinals who assist him. However, his primary concern will always be for the protection of the peace and the Christians who are forced by circumstances to live among the conflict between Muslims and Jews in the region of the Middle East. He is exercising proper pastoral care in this regard.

Think long and hard before you accuse the spiritual leader of one billion Catholics of being an anti-Semite. Long and hard. As a boy, I was often told that Catholics don't belong in the Republican Party. I joined anyway, because the world of the 70's was shifting and the Dems weren't someplace I felt at home.

Yet, everytime I turn around, I find my church under attack, His Holiness under attack, and even the essentials of my faith under attack. Did it ever occur to anyone to give them the benefit of the doubt, once and awhile? If so many of you keep this up, then don't be surprised if committed Catholics begin to tune you and other anti-Catholic zealots in this party out.

And no, the Dems aren't any better or the the cafeteria Catholics that hang out on the side of the fence. Kerry is and was a disgrace to the Church. But why must I am other Catholics keep putting up with these insinuations as a price for staying in this party? Because I don't have anyplace else to go? For that reason my Church is fairgame for abuse?

Our response to prior Mexican provocations indicates that you are being optimistic. More likely we'd apply diplomatic pressure and ask them not to do it again.

Thats the way the "international community" operates.

did you know that ... :-)

that whenever the military needs a favor, Fedex steps up.  When we needed to fly  a sh*tload of bombs to SA for Desert Storm in '91...all of our BIG planes disappeared from our domestic flights...wedelivered...and then the military delivered!  The only difference is, the US military didn't get a signature for their deliveries! :-)

Zionism.

No, I'm not being cute, and while many Anti-Zionists are anti-Semetic (aren't Arabs & Jews both Semetic? Shem?) a few take it to mean that Israel shouldn't be treated "more equal" than other responsible nations.  Mearschmeir & Walt's paper on AIPAC was probably intended to split the difference there...

Zionism, of course, is the name of the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in the Levant.... to which Britain had colonial claim <--- submitted without commentary...

I work for Fedex, so I've been watching DHL for years and years...

...former Marine, he'd never allow it.

--furious

I was in the airline business for 25 years and watched FedEx come from nothing to the powerhouse that it is today. I was working at Eastern and Fred Smith was interviewed n 60 Minutes as I recall. I think it was Morly Safer that said, psraphrasing, 'Mr. Smith how is it that Eastern Air Lines charges $79.00 to carry a passenger and his luggage from New York to Miami, feeds him and shows him a movie, and you can charge $29.00 to take an 8 ounce package on the same trip, doesn't have to feed it or anything. Smith responds 'Pretty good business, eh.' :-)

What I don't get is this constant call for patients and diplomacy? Talking has gotten us no were in the overall scheme of things. How long are we going let these devious monsters continue to lie though there teeth just to turn around and stick it to us? And by us I mean the west.

It's time to say: guess what? We gave the talking thing the old college try but after repeated backstabbing and going back on your word we've decide to end you! A bit harsh, sure. Necessary, Yes!

...as I was rushed but the essence of my post was clear and doesn't negate the fact that you downplayed the reason for Israel's said response.

If we're going to be intellectually honest we must examine all of the factors that lead to the response not just the kidnappings!

As to these:

"The appropriate one would be a renegade terrorist organization, that Mexico had no control over"

Using the term renegade terrorist organization makes it sound insignificant we all know Hezbollah is fully funded and organized maybe better than most small countries?

"Are you still suggesting we'd run around Mexico bombing the country"

You're perception of what's taking place is completely wrong!

"Or would we execute a limited incursion to eliminate the organization and reclaim our soldiers"

Yes we would but we haven't been in a bitter war for our very survival for some 2000 years or more with Mexico's renegade terrorist organization!

Besides the U.N resolution that mandated the withdrawal from Lebanon also mandated the disarmament of Hezbollah. Most of the world is on the wrong side of this fight!

of my all time favorite sight "gags". The look on Jones' face says it all ...

Anyone who holds hands in a PR stunt with a filthy terrorist has no legitimacy.

Your  lack of knowledge of history and anti-Catholic prejudices are very apparent.  

which cannot be hijacked into attacks on the Catholic church. And it looks like this is not one of them.

Who are you talking about?  The President and less than half of the Lebanese Parliament is Christian.  Do you want it to be all Islamic?

Holding hands with terrorists is matter of survival for them...at least until they can get stronger.  They have no Army to take out Hezbollah.  If they attacked the Hezbollah, Syria would be back.

Would Israel go to war with Syria to protect Lebanon?  The main danger to Christians in the Levant is not Israelis, but the Arab Governments who would persecute them worse.   The Orthodox Patriarches have the same problem.  The Iraqi conflicts caused the country to lose half of its Christian minority, mostly in diaspora.

I don't think the Vatican can send the Swiss Guards to stop persecutions in the Mideast.

Where the Arab swordsman jumps out of the crowd and does all his fancy moves and Indy shoots him with an "I don't have time for your bs..." attitude.

...for Popery or anti-semitism, they're rightly confronting its moral equivalence, if not cowardice.

There used to be a time when, oh, say, Charles Martel led the Franks to battle at Poitiers or Prinz Eugen held the Gates of Vienna against the Turks, that the Church stood foursquare against the Islamic threat to Christendom.

Now, when Islamofascists are murdering Priests in Turkey, or lynching Copts in Egypt, or selling Sudanese Christians into Slavery, or beheading little Christian girls on their way to school in Indonesia, their Eminences call for the Israelis by name to stand down.

Cardinal DePaolis is a bureaucrat, we need to hear the same words from the Boss...if not the Battle Mass and the Prayer Against the Heathen.

--furious

start a civil war to get rid of Hezbollah, then just say so. That was the only option after the last elections, after all. If a political party wins 23 seats in Parliament fair and square, and you don't want them to claim them - then you had better be ready to start shooting.

The Iranians and the Syrians back Hezbollah. Is the U.S. and Israel volunteering to back the Phalange? Are we ready to start shipping massive weapons and to start deploying the U.S. airforce and the Israeli airforce to put a hurt down on Hezbollah in support of Christian milita?

The Maronites proved they can fight, but who is advocating they get the chance? No one seems to be. I read a lot of people condemning the Lebanese for not stopping Hezbollah, but why weren't all of you so upset last year when the election happened.

Oh, I know. It was because the 'Cedar Revolution' proved that freedom was on the march, so no one wanted to notice the little fly in the ointment. Well, now the fly has produced maggots, and we are up to our neck in trouble.

Don't diss the Lebanese Christians unless you are demanding that the U.S. back their militia to the hilt. You want to be rid of Hezbollah? They do too. These people went toe-to-toe in the streets with Muslim nutcases for a decade.

Then again, my own people (the Serbs) did so as well. We all know how much support we got from the U.S. when we had our own Muslim fundamentalist problem. Don't sell out the Christians in Lebanon.

hezbollah to the point where "strategic" operations that limited civilian casualties would be of any use, then I'm sure Israel would work even harder not to kill them.

The problem is that they Don't.  They FEAR Hezbollah and all the other terrorist organizations so much that they are no longer any more than animals living in the barns allowed them.  They may as well be being bred for food and leather, they're so terrified.

I imagine a great many of them would welcome the death that they'd receive if Israel and/or the US were to carpet bomb Lebanon.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and all the other Terrorist organizations Must be destroyed.  There can be No hesitation, No quibbling, No moral equivalency brought into that equation.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby any of those terrorists when the bombs are going off needs to be praying.  or fleeing.

All that said, would you be screaming "Diploomacy!  Proportionate Response!" et al if this were the 1940's and we were carpet bombing Germany and Japan?

or the King Ferdinand of Spain or the Vlad the Impaler who is leading an army whose purpose is to roll back the Muslims and free the Christians in the Middle East or Indonesia or Sudan or Egypt or even the PA? Where is that leader whom the Pope could back to the hilt whose primary goal is to free the Christians living under Muslim rule and set them up in their own states so that they can be free?

Well - there isn't one. Not a single one. Certainly George Bush is not interested in that. So the Pope knows that his flock will remain under Muslim rule, and that no one with any legions is interested in doing a blessed thing about it. Which means that these conflicts end up leaving Christian communities exposed and vulnerable, and no one is going to come to their aid.

After all, look at the bang up job the U.S. has done in Iraq defending the Assyrians:

By some estimate 250,000 Assyrians have been driven out of their homes and jobs due to the ongoing violence against them. Most have gone to Syria and Jordan others have fled to the north. Most suffer for lack of housing or financial help from the authorities, Americans or Iraqis. Even those who live under the Kurdish rule in Mosul have been forced to abandon their homes and move further north becuase of terror against them, according to :

http://www.ana-ashur.com/gravehomes.htm

Julita Nissan Maku, 46, a Christian, fled Mosul with her family of four, after her 23 year-old son, Morin, was beheaded by armed men. Morin was employed by a Turkish company working with the US military in the city.

"After the death of my son, terrorists sent us a threatening letter saying that if we don't pay 30,000,000 Iraqi Dinars (US $200,000) we would be killed. So we had no other option but to run away," she said.

She together with another family have rented a house with two rooms in a Dahuk suburb for $200 per month. In late 2004 a house like hers could be rented for $70, according to local estate agents. Maku said her husband was ill and could not work forcing them to live on a meagre monthly income of $100.

Some 63 families are currently living in tents in the Zakho and Shiladze camps, north of Dahuk. They are in poor conditions, without electricity and clean drinking water, because they can't afford to pay rents said Sardar Tamar, a senior official of the IRCS in Dahuk. The rest of the displaced are either renting or staying with relatives in the governorate.

Many of the fleeing families are unable to find work and cannot afford to pay the rent alone.

While I am certain that a large number of posters on this board will read that and say, "Anti-American propaganda!" the Catholic sources I consult regularly back this up. The Vatican is well aware that U.S. occupation forces have not protected the Christians in Iraq, and that the situation in rest of the Middle East is equally dangerous as unprotected Christians will bear the brunt of any backlash against Israel and the United States.

IF there was any chance the U.S. and Israel would actually be interested in correcting this situation, then griping about the Vatican might be legit. But since the demonstrated record of both Israel and the U.S. in the area is so suspect, I can understand where the Vatican is coming from.

You can call this cowardice or moral equivelency or whatever you want, but until the U.S. steps forward as the primary global power and makes the protection of Christian populations living in areas of Muslim violence a primary goal of policy, then the Vatican is going to have to tread very cautiously.

The Pope has no legions. We do. We use them back Israel. We use them to bring Democracy to the Shia in Iraq. Why can't we use them to safeguard Christian lives?

The man was a murderous pile of scum, and everyone knew it.

Anyone who shook hands in that celebratory way with Yassir Arafat has no credibility.

I said: "That the principal condemnation in this statement comes at the expense of Israel is difficult to dismiss as anything far afield of anti-Zionism."

You said: "...you are extremely free with charges of anti-semitism."

I say: You are extremely liberal in your interpretation of what I wrote.  But in case you still don't get it, here's a translation:

Moral equivalence between a representative nation state and murderous terrorsists - and then principal condemnation of the nation state and not the stateless terrorists - looks really, really bad.  It tends to make it look like you have other motives at play, and I really, really wish that weren't so.

Simple enough for you?

Continuing...

His Holiness is no anti-Semite, nor are the cardinals who assist him.

On part one I agree completely.  On part two, I certainly would like to agree but am not at all certain.  Google is your friend.

However, his primary concern will always be for the protection of the peace and the Christians who are forced by circumstances to live among the conflict between Muslims and Jews in the region of the Middle East.

Oh really?  Are you certain?  What "peace" would he be concerned about protecting?  I could go on.

Think long and hard before you accuse the spiritual leader of one billion Catholics of being an anti-Semite.

I didn't need to, because I didn't.

The rest of your screed warrants no response.

But for what it's worth, I am a daily communicant.  Don't question my faith or motives, jaszkowski.  And don't leap to conclusions you have precisely no standing to support.

They did not choose sides.  There are tens of  millions of Christians outside of the U.S. who do not have a "blind faith" in Israeli actions.

They've got pics of Pius XII with Hitler...

of a country in a war is to WIN THE WAR.  There is no other obligation as important.  Of course, the US and most of our allies fight a precision fight now and no longer bomb cities with inaccurate dumb bombs like in WWII, but that is just technology.  

When you are at war, you don't fight unless you fight to win, no matter how long that is.  If you aren't ready to fight to the end, don't start it.  Someone should have told Hezbollah that before they provoked Israel like they did with open war.  I am personally surprised Israel hasn't commenced bombing Syria yet, as they are clearly calling the shots (at least some of them) here.

I could have sworn i heard that on NPR yesterday or the day before.

It sure sounded like a call to battle.

But why the backpeddle today?  Why call for Israel to stop fighting now?

I made the mistake of clicking on your link.

There ARE people nuttier than moonbats.

DHL is part of Deutsche Post

equivalently.

What you are still not getting is:

I. Said. No. Such. Thing.

Check the diary section, presently.

thanks. It still sounds cool enough to scare people.

DHL has a special Katyusha rate, three for the price of two and no explosives handling fee :-)

...where an army off to battle would pray en masse for victory and receive a prelate's blessing.

Prayer Against the Heathen was where a community asked for deliverance from a Barbarian invasion.  Most famous was the Anglo/Irish "From the Fury of the Northmen, O Lord, Deliver Us.", about the Vikings, obviously.

No links, sorry.  What the Sisters of the Sacred Heart drummed into me, along with the Multiplication Tables, at ruler's edge many years ago.

--furious

but as no one said we did I don't see what your incisive statement proves. This is the post:

Your analogy is inapt. The appropriate one would be a renegade terrorist organization, that Mexico had no control over, kidnapped two American soldiers. Are you still suggesting we'd run around Mexico bombing the country? Or would we execute a limited incursion to eliminate the organization and reclaim our soldiers?

See, no mention of declaring war. And we didn't limit our incursion.

As a matter of fact they do...almost all of the Mideast does. You see, years ago when they went into those countries, DHL formed limited partnerships with the governments and ruling parties of those countries. It's a great way of forming a near monopoly, by making the parties in power part of the company!

"Battle mass and prayer against the heathens". Wow! Is there such a thing or did you make it up? If it's real, where is it? If it's not real, it should be.

They are hitting points to prevent their enemy from moving the hostages to Iran or Syria. They are also hitting points related to Hizbullah command, control and capabilties.

So, at least part of your position may not be relevant. That W has asked Israel to not hit Lebanon locations not associated with the enemy and the issue at hand is exactly correct, and would seem to agree with part of your position.

The vatican appears to have made a broad statement without any consideration to the overall situation facing Israel.

I agree with your point on aligned interests. I would add Israel will be aligned with US interests if it serves their interest. At some point that may not be the case. If their interests are ultimately better served not staying aligned with the US they will likely take actions not in the US interest. But in the mean time, that is not likely to happen.

about those early years...when Fedex was in its infancy.  There was a day when he was going to be unable to make the payroll...could have meant total failure...he flew to Vegas, went to the casinos and WON enough money to make payroll and keep the company going. That is a guy with two big ones!

Christians in Israel too.

Condemning war is one thing, but choosing sides, or appearing to is another.

You are not to infer that. You are to infer that I find it inappropriate for you to hijack this thread, which has now veered wildly off course and degenerated into a discussion of the evil of Catholicism.

My own position is that I'm critical of the Isreali response, not for being an over-reaction, but for being an under-reaction. I think every Hamas bomb and Hezbollah missile should be met with a bomb or missile on Damascus or Tehran.

But the Catholic church is perfectly consistent on this type of thing. It opposed the US invasion of Iraq, for example. I disagree with its position but find it bizarre that anyone can claim that position is based on anti-Semitism.

I could find a photo of Arafat shaking hands with most of the heads of Western governments, including the U.S. President. So what?

gets us where exactly?  How about a nice dose of deterrence and think seriously about what constitutes a legitimate political party?

I think the Vatican made the right call on this one. Israel's response is entirely out of proportion to the kidnappings.

if Mexico had dug a miles long tunnel (which they have already done for other reasons) under our border into San Diego attacked and killed eight of our soldiers and kidnapped another we wouldn't be talking about propionate response we'd be talking about complete military supremacy so that could never happen again.

And that's just one aspect that Israel is responding too, there are many more!

at least be intellectually honest about the reason for the response!

This war didn't start two days ago, its been going on since 1948. Isreal has gone through a number of phases in the course of the war. They began by defending themselves and while victorious they were sapped and were just as happy to have it stop, even thought I seriously doubt they thought it was actually over. They've had to do the same to a greater or lesser degree ever since then.

There are a number of reasons for this some due to the sheer size of Israel versus the size of the problem; Israel is simply not large enough to sustain a long drawn out war to achieve ultimate victory. They have also been pressured on many, many occasions by their supposed friends in Europe and here to "moderate" their actions, to "be proportionate" in their response. In each case proportionality left the enemy standing; in some cases badly bloodied perhaps but still standing.

I doubt that Israel has the capability, short of nuclear war, to actually bring the war to an end so they are hamstrung by their inate limitations. Given the pressures on them from Europe and the US I doubt that they will even be able to finish off Hezbollah and/or Hamas. So I guess the answer is that the games goes on.

Are you sure that Israel is bombing willy-nilly?  The reports I hear and read talk about airports, fuel depots, and known Hezbollah locations.  They're locking down the country, not wiping it out. After all, since almost any location could house the two captive soldiers, they want to take out only those targets which do not, such as airport runways and fuel tanks.  Those are targets because they want to make sure that the hostages stay in Lebanon (if they're still there), and also to force Lebanon/Hezbollah to surrender.

Hitting a bunch of Christians would erode support in the U.S., and they may need our support someday (like today).

...here.  Their Eminences ceded it when they chose sides.

--furious

Comes to mind!  ;0)

In the Middle East with a functioning, prospering democracy.  And the autocrats in the Middle East fear that more than they fear drooping dead tomoorow morning.  The idea that they can continue their autocratic regimes into perpetuity is what is guiding them, and in a truly twisted bastard alliance of history, the Left is on their side.  George Soros is on their side.  And so is CommonDreams.  It is amazing to me that so many people have been blindsided by this idea that Israel is the perpetrator.  Israel is a tiny state surrounded by enemies who have always wished to destroy it:  and why?  Because they have a Democratic government?  Because they allow women to vote and hold university tenure?  Because they allow their people to innovate?

"From the River to the Sea" -- unfortunately the Egyptians and the Syrians (especially the Syrians) and the Lebanese will be happy if they can succeed in kicking Israel out of the Middle East, slaughtering tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, and letting their people vote the only way they can -- by massing in the streets with guns.  

Those guys are certainly a triumph of popular sovereignty, dontcha think?

with what ultimately happens because I want Hamas and Hezbollah eradicated if not exterminated. This was a long time coming and anything short of decisive action will only prolong the problem.

One thing about the Muslim prohibition of "games of chance" is that neither Assad nor Ahmadinejad really knows how to play poker and will run out of cards very soon. I don't see what they're accomplishing besides inviting disaster.

Drawing a line between anti-war and pro-war, or even pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli defense is a false dichotomy.

As I mentioned below in a separate post, the Vatican has a responsibility for the millions of Maronite Catholics living in the Levant. They are their primary consideration, and they should do everything in their power, including condemning Israel for their lack of consideration.

Israel has a tendency to lump everything into an us versus them mentality, which is on display in this recent situation. The fact is that things are a touch more complex. The Maronite Catholics in the region hate Hizbullah as much as the Israelis do for ruining their country. Bombing them indiscriminately doesn't help them in regaining some stability and protection for themselves from an ever growing Shi'a and displaced Palestinian refugee population.

I think the post, and a number of comments are being a mite reflexive. We're rather accustomed to defending Israel as a beacon of shining democracy and stability in the region.

And, most times we are right.

However, I think the Vatican made the right call on this one. Israel's response is entirely out of proportion to the kidnappings.

I'm in full support of their incursion into southern Lebanon to eliminate Hizbullah and recover their own. But bombing Beirut, the airport, power plants and others? With over 60 civilians dead, this is starting to look less like a strategic move and more like indiscriminate revenge.

There are several million Maronite Catholics residing in Lebanon that the Vatican has a responsibility over, and condemning Israel for putting their lives in jeopardy directly from bombings, and indirectly from instigating civil strife, is the right response.

can have with a group of people whose main goal is to see your citizens pushed into the sea.

point well taken.

It is not coming out of nowhere.  As the West presses Iran on its development of nuclear armaments, Iran presses its proxies to stir up trouble for Israel and the West.

From WSJ today:

Mr. Bush has been in a diplomatic stand-off with Iran over its nuclear program -- a showdown that some analysts think actually may be fueling Tehran's desire to stir up trouble in the region. Iran, some U.S. and Middle Eastern officials suspect, may be eager to demonstrate to Washington its ability to harm American interests if the White House pursues a coercive policy to stop Iran's nuclear programs.

[looks...]

No, but I've been thinking it for two days.

And I'm glad our President has made the right call on this, in support of Israel defending itself.  

I'm speaking of the Holy See, of course.

"In particular," the statement continued, "the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."

I can only hope that Sodano was smirking when he wrote this.  Lebanon is no more "free" and "sovereign" of influence (or outright ownsership) by Syria and (principally) Iran than Guam is "free" and "sovereign" from the United States.

The statement made in the name of Pope Benedict, basically demands that Isreal negotiate with people who want to saw their heads off with butter knives.

That the principal condemnation in this statement comes at the expense of Israel is difficult to dismiss as anything far afield of anti-Zionism.  I wish that were not so, I really, really do.

I'm still not dissuaded that the appropriate US response to Hamas and/or Hezbollah pronouncements from Damascus isn't an immediate air strike as opposed to the usual diplomatic platitudes that have thus far gotten us nowhere. I think Syria and Iran are encouraged by the thought that we are so bogged down in Iran and Afghanistan that we dare not start a war on another front. An actual attack by us on the territory they use as the safe haven from which to launch their catspaws might have a generally salutory affect on the entire region.

Question for the Vatican's supporters in this antiwar stand they are taking against Israel:  If the Vatican were around when Israel faced the Phillistines or the Canaanites, would they have supported Israel then, or was the Holy Land more holy then, somehow, when they were ruled by kings and used swords and slingshots instead of tanks and rifles?

why the terrorists shouldn't use the MSM that way is that its redundant --- the MSM is already doing it for them. Besides the NYT reporters write better anyway.

Clear?  Definitely.  Right now the Civilized World needs Clarity more than it needs Nuance.  That way we'll know who stands with Civilization and who acquiesces to Barbarism.  We mostly know that already, but now we have it in writing on a UN Security Council Resolution.

I really don't understand the Russians.  I realize they are little better than a gangster state where the moral calculus is "did their check clear?", but the Islamofascists murdered their babies at Beslan, for pity's sake.  The first suitcase nuke deployed against a city will be in a Russian city, and it will be made from plutonium from a reactor sold by Russia to some odious regime, and likely built by a mercenary Russian scientist.  I take no comfort in saying that, either.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice Doggie" until you find a rock; otherwise it is simply another means of surrender.  Witness the "soft power" of Europe.

Israel is throwing rocks now.  We should stay out of their way and let Amb Bolton do his job.  No more "restraint" nonsense from you, Madam Secretary.

--furious

that doesn't mean the idea of an all out war in that region doesn't scare me, or that I worry for spillover, but in the end Israel has heeded the call to "patience" time and time again.

I think the patience tank has run dry, and Israel is ready to fight.

I used to have tons of empathy and sympathy for the Palestinians, but that ran out sometime in the late 90's when they couldn't figure out that negotiations for peace involve compromise from both sides.

Israel may have done things differently, but they are a sovereign nation, and they have the right to do what they think neccessary to protect the security of their borders and citizens.

Does anyone find it odd that Hammas used the Post to op-ed just before Hezbolla opened the second front? This is what it has come to...terrorists using our MSM as a tool for perfectly timed propaganda.

protest the Hariri assassination.  We all watched and admired them.  The problem is that their protests didn't accomplish enough.  Israel is now furthering their own revolution against Syria by destroying Hezbollah as a military organization.  Lebanese patriots who don't want Syria to control their country should hunker down and cheer Israel on.    

By the way, you also are able to "declare the moral high ground from the comfort of your home". Or are you there in Lebanon?

We live in a world where moral equivalency resulted in inaction which resulted in September 11th.  I am NOT feigning indignation, I am really indignant.  

Free peoples of the world need to join together against the islamofascists or get out of the way.  America, by the way, is standing right where we should be, squarely backing our Israeli allies.  

Maybe you should think about where you stand yourself.

I never said the Pope was anti-Semetic did I?  I said: "For reasons ranging from legitimate fears of a larger war to anti-semitic drivel the world asks Israel to just live with its intolerable position."

Others in this thread brought up the issue and I made it clear that I didn't share those suspicions.  I have made clear what bugs me about the Vatican statement.  So I am not sure how I am guilty of letting it hang around.

My concern, quite frankly, isn't with the Pope but with Israel's ability to survive and defeat the monsters who seek to destroy them.

I have always been of the opinion that a nation at war does have a binding moral imperative --- that obligation being to end it as soon as possible. Allowing it to drag on when you can end it is, to me, immoral. That is one of the  reasons why I have never questioned Hiroshima; if you have it in your means to end the war you have an obligation to do so.

Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants in Lebanon decide to join in the call by those opposed to Hezbollah in the Lebonese government to remove them from any responsible positions in the government or to disarm.  They should have loudly turn out in the streets like they did for their freedom to call for Hezbollah to disarm long ago?

Did they or the Druze or the moderate Muslims take any action or just sit back in this powder keg and wait for Hezbollah to light a match?  Did the Vatican make any statements then?  Or do they wait for Hezbollah, made a party in the Lebonese government by these christians in Lebanon through their inaction, armed for no other purpose than to destroy Israel and beholden only to their masters in Damascus and Tehran, to attack Israel and draw them into a fight before making any statement?  The Vatican needs to be morally right, not just when Israel attacks, but all the time.

I think they need to be on God's side and the Old Testament shows whose side that is.  Stop ringing your hands over people who were too lazy to take action to prevent this very event themselves.

Oops, no you are actually right, they don't use FedEx.

The Beirut airport has been a sieve for contraband since the day it opened and for the past 20 years or so one of the major imports was "contraband" weapons for Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PLO, et al, enroute to the PA.

Behaving morally can be strategic.

All of the Maronite and Orthodox in Lebanon despise Hizbullah. So do the Druze.

If you start bombing greater Lebanon you risk galvanizing that sentiment behind Hizbullah, rather than against it. Especially with the Druze.

Additionally, calling someone to restraint in no way implies an accusation of moral equivalency. Restraint is often demanded of those countries that have the ability to do so. Israel is certainyl competent and adept enough to engage Hizbullah in souther Lebanon without havin to do things like bomb Beirut airport or destroy power stations supplying the city.

I'd also add lastly that it is a mistake to assume that Israel is on our side. Israel looks out for itself; it just so happens that our interests are aligned with theirs. Nothing more.

to declare the moral high ground from the comfort of your home, however things are mite more complicated and tense in Lebanon.

The feigned indignation is rather atrocious. The Lebanese have had no choice in their own affairs for the past decade. The Israeli invasion and the subsequent occupation by Syria has not given them much choice in dicating the affairs of their country.

But hey, I'm sure's it is just as easy as you say for them to just hit the streets protesting the same organizations that kidnapped Israeli soldiers and assasinated Hariri.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that a country is obliged to ensure a quick and terminal solution to the campaign.

The question that must follow, then, is whether the Israeli's will finish the job by clearing out Hizbullah and ensuring stability in Lebanon, or whether they will cut and run.

The U.S. didn't leave Japan to fend for itself, nor should we in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My concern is whether Israel will do the same.

...prevent Iran from Fed-Exing more rocket reloads to the Hezbollah gunners currently bombarding Israel.

--furious

They don't fed-ex weapons into Lebanon via Beirut airport.

They do it across the Syrian border.

I don't think the Vatican is motivated by anti-Semitism.  I don't know all the concerns the Church has with the Christians in Lebanon either.

But the Vatican's pronouncements on foreign policy often strike me as incredibly naive and in the ones on the Middle East seem to treat Israel and her enemies as morally equal.  This strikes me as riddiculous.

It is this unfair neutrality and the double standard that often goes with it that drives me crazy.

I'll refrain from responding to Mr. Furious, since he seems to have moved off the deep-end.

To Mr. Foley,

Your analogy is inapt. The appropriate one would be a renegade terrorist organization, that Mexico had no control over, kidnapped two American soldiers. Are you still suggesting we'd run around Mexico bombing the country? Or would we execute a limited incursion to eliminate the organization and reclaim our soldiers?

If you are going to create an analogy, let's try and be a little more intellectually rigorous, okay?

To Mr. Kohltsberry,

A proportionate response is keeping with just war theory, nothing more. I would expect on a conservative website that most people would agree that there exists a binding moral order on all actions in all situations. As I said earlier, limited incursion into southern Lebanon to reclaim soldiers made sense, bombing civilian targets across the country seems outside those limits.

Rather, they did: Israel also bombed the Damascus/Beruit highway.

I think we'd apologize and promise not to get in the way next time. Oh and by the way would you consider Mexican citizenship for the kidnap victim?

Of course, you'd have to be acquainted with history to know that.

Behave.

fairly and squarely, without the whole 'anti-Semitism' thing hanging around. I had to endure enough of that from liberals and pseudo-Catholics over the fact that Pope Benedict is German. The last thing any of us need is more of that from Republicans.

The Vatican has been quite out front, especially lately, discussing the problems with Islamic terrorism.

Did you happen to catch this:

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves.” Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus’ admonition to his followers to “turn the other cheek,” De Paolis noted that “The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century … and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.”

De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund’s Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.

I think the Vatican is very clear-eyed on this, but the primary goal of the Vatican is to protect Christians. That can mean that it will be at odds with the state of Israel when it perceives the state of Israel's policies as threatening to Christians in the region. This is probably one of those times.

You can disagree with the Vatican on this, but I don't think the current Pope is at all naive. In fact, he has made remarks about Islam I would never have imagined Pope John Paul II uttering. Pope Benedict is a fighter. I have a lot of confidence in him, and his views.

Israel's lack of consideration for the Palestinians by not dying fast enough or by not surrendering completely to Hezbollah's demands to turn over the would-be suicide bombers Israel has in jail?

Or do you mean Israel's downright non-niceness at responding to an act of war (killing and kidnapping of their soldiers on Israeli soil) with the bombing of Hezbollah (or Hezbollah support like the Beirut airport) targets in Lebanon?

I think the Vatican is correct to make statements that war is not good for anyone and that all sides should be careful as possible not to hurt civilians in a war.  That is far from saying they should take outright sides in a statement like they made.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so the Vatican is essentially on Hezbollah's side, right?

That is where the Vatican is WRONG.

As far as the EU and the other hand-ringers in the world, we expect moral equivalency, but we expect moral GUIDANCE from the Vatican. We are talking about a threat to the Holy Land itself. I remember that the Catholic faith taught with pride how ancient Israel kicked the Philistines and Canaanites, et al, out of the "Promised Land".  

Do Catholics still believe the land is the "Promised Land" or not?

I was thinking more strategically than morally.  Despite the rhetoric in the post, I don't deny there is a line that Israel could cross that would make me question their position.  I haven't seen any thing like that at this point.

The larger point is that they are on our side and we should be on theirs.  They must be the ones to decide how best to defend themselves.  And I want them to win.

I don't have a problem if your concern is minimizing civilian deaths or the prospects of Christians in the region, etc.  I have problem, as I have noted elsewhere in this thread, when everyone immediately jumps to call for Israel to back off and calm down.  It is always Israel who is called restraint.  This often goes hand in hand with a moral equivalence between terrorists and legitimate sovereign nations.

The pope is only concerned for the Catholics in the region?  That is to say that he could care less about the Jews and what is happening to them.  Any war/action that endangers Catholics is unjust and should be stopped?

I'm sorry, but that just does not work.  The Bible is very clear that there are times when wars are just.  In our time, the war on terror and against the Islamic extremists is a just cause.

Just because we are Christians does not mean that we can turn our back on our Jewish brothers or Israel. These are still God's chosen people, and if we are to be children of God, then we had better get on the right side of this issue.

If the Pope is concerned about Catholics in the area, then he should be calling on Lebanon and Hezbollah to release the Israeli troops.  That would de-escalate the situation.  By condemning Israel, he is inherently taking the side of the enemy.  I'm not willing to be on the side of the enemy of God's chosen people.

But let me just say this: I support Israel. Period. Full stop. End of story.

That would be "Period. Full Stop." I get the impression that the majority of Christian supporters of Israel in the United States couldn't care less if whole neighborhoods of Maronite Christians went up in smoke. Or Orthodox Christians in Syria, for that matter.

Before you hyperventilate, I am not accusing Israel of doing any such thing. I don't know how judicious Israel is being in its targeting, but regardless, bombing the airport, destroying roads and bridges, and filling streets with rubble isn't going to be exactly good for the health and safety of the Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants in Lebanon. And, since many targets will be in ethnically border or mixed areas, it isn't like collateral damage is impossible.

Also, what are the odds that Hezbollah is going to get ticked off and decide to make an example of 'crusaders' the same as the Iraqi insurgency has done when it comes to cutting Christian throats in Iraq? Based on past history, I'd say quite likely. The Phalange better be geared up for a fight, because it's coming whether they want it or not.

May be we should consider funding the Christian militia in Lebanon? Seems to me that that would be a better use of money that most.

How is it distinguished from anti-Semitism?

Given that Israel is an explicitly Jewish state I don't see how any such distinction can be made.

Even if such a distinction did exist, I don't see any evidence that the Vatican engaged in any "anti-Israel" activity here. I disagree with the Church's position, but they don't change it based on the countries or people involved.

Anti-Zionism is the unofficial creed of the UN.  It's deemed acceptable because it uses anti-colonialism, the old unofficial creed of the UN, as cover for the age-old hatred of Jews.

...he can appeal to other heads of state, as a peer, publicly and aggressively that they protect all of their citizens.

Not sure about the Sudan or Iran, but the Presidents of Egypt or Pakistan or Indonesia aren't barbarians and don't want to be shamed before the World as such.  Publicity and Shame kept Soviet dissidents alive, and freed some and got them exit visas.  Publicity is keeping Aung San Suu Kyi alive, albeit under house arrest.

The Vatican can use its PR and educational apparatuses and all of the media contacts at its disposal to publicize the plight of Christian communities in Muslim lands, and roll back the victimist propaganda of the Islamists and their "root cause" leftist enablers.  Not even in the Middle East, but in the Christian West whose media seems to have bought the Islamist line and where the Crusades are condemned with no mention of the Muslim conquest which preceded it.

I have yet to even hear a sermon about such in the last three parishes of which I was a member going back almost twenty years.  The Vatican isn't even educating its own when it has their attention an hour a week.  I have to get that from Bernard Lewis, instead.

We brought democracy to the Kurds and Sunnis, too.  Christians in Indonesia and the Philippines are bearing the "backlash" of simply not being Muslim, can't really see how that's the fault of US or Israeli "legions".

--furious