Israel is fighting one war inside the Gaza borders with Military and weapons, and I pray for their success in combating an evil that will never allow them to live in peace, as a peaceful people. The bigger war is outside of those borders with the phychological propaganda against them, much as the North Vietnamese won the war with weakening the American population resolve, by telling us we could not win, despiye the fact that we were winning. Didn’t Walter Cronkite report that the war was at a stalemate, contrary to what our Military leaders were telling us. Also, didn’t the North Vietnamese military commander tell us if we had not surrendered on the day we did, the next day they were going to surrender? LBJ couldn’t deal with the Anti-War phychologically controlled protesters.

As far as the Catholic views of war, they also don’t believe in birth control either, everything is in God’s hands, I know I was raised a Catholic. I prefer to believe that God helps those that help themselves. Israel is helping itself.

   I seem to think that this fellow Maximos is like my great-aunt; not really bothering to look beyond what the MSM is telling her and, thus, getting caught up in the hysteria of the moment.  Not a peep about Hamas’s continuing rocket attacks over the past several months.

“It’s almost as though while I treat the just war doctrine as an academic exercise, he’s treating the attacks Israeli’s suffered as an academic exercise. He’s detached, and I believe he might be too detached to come to the correct conclusions. Any analysis of Israel’s actions, whether from a Catholic or any other perspective, must include a full view of the entire picture.”

with you on your analysis of the situation, Neil, but am unsure why you find this bias troubling more so than the typical one that exists. I have only seen one news station (out of CBS, NBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) actually favor Israel while the others all were clearly biased on the side of Hamas (of course there is no asking for journalistic neutrality anymore since that corpse has been rotting for years). This particular “inability” to grasp the real threat Hamas poses and has continued to pose resides in anyone who simply doesn’t like Israel or likes militant Islamic groups.

Secondly, while as a Catholic I appreciate your giving credit to the Church on this one (since the earliest extensive formulations of JWD were formulated by Church theologians, e.g. Augustine and Aquinas, that’s not even needed.

Surprising as it may be to some (though less to others with an understanding of the Left’s hijacking of Church doctrine), secular ethicists have jumped on the Just War idea and it is now its own philosophically viable theory separate from any “inconvenient” religious ties. For example, the Left cited the secular Just War Doctrine against the Iraq War to redundancy as if the doctrine were something assumed inherent in all rational people.

It’s always those who cannot think critically who try to steal others’ ideas and represent them within their own framework, not realizing that the ideas were formulated within a specific philosophical framework that enhances and explains the ideas better than any other (and yes this applies to any issue hijacked by the Left, including birth control).

Thanks for the great post.

Here’s an excerpt from an insightful paragraph from Contentions blog that builds off of your conclusion, Neil. I found it an excellent summary of the fundamental deficiency of the legal approach to war.

“It is obviously necessary to combat accusations that a nation is violating the laws of war for having the temerity to defend itself. Yet in doing so we often fail to question a central assumption of the lawfare crowd; that the conduct of war should be subject to a hairsplitting recitation of legal niceties, that the justness of a nation’s conduct in defending itself should not revolve around issues of morality or commonsense, but rather whether this conduct meets a supposed legal definition enumerated in an antiquated section of a particular international convention or military code. This is not a challenge to the vital importance of the laws of war per se, nor an argument that a nation should intentionally violate them, but a concern that questions of war and self-defense not be reduced to a purely juridical discussion of legal definitions and interpretations. It is precisely such a misapplication of the laws of war that the lawfare crowd attempts to effect. In meeting their criticisms, it is important that we do not thoughtlessly accept the framework upon which their entire line argument depends; that there is a clear, unambiguous body of well defined legal principles that control the practice of war, and that the sole justification of any military action is not whether it is right or wrong in the moral sense, not the real world consequences and costs of doing otherwise, not the practical realities that govern a nation’s ability to survive and protect its people, but rather whether a certain military action meets a certain alleged legal definition, consequences be damned.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/48801?cp=6 (comment by ian)

However, the reasons are not so obvious.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/far-left-loves-hamas-terrorists.html

You can assume several things:

• The gun is a toy.
• The gun while real, has no bullets.
• The gun while real, and the bullet while real, is a dud.
• The gun while real, with real bullets, can do me serious damage.

The Just and reasoned response to the situation is different for each of the different possibilities above – but if a police officer were to come on the scene at that moment what would they assume – and how would they respond?

Now, lets flesh out the scenario – let’s say that prior to the scene above, you’ve heard that ‘someone’ proclaim to the world how much they hate you and your family, and you saw the ‘someone’ load the gun in your presence (and show you additional boxes of ammo that they have available), then they proceed to use the gun to kill your spouse and children before your eyes. What does that do to your list of assumptions?

This is the situation with Israel and Hamas. Hamas has continually loaded the gun – has continuously used the gun to bring destruction to those around you – and is continuing to hold the gun to Israels head.

From there, should you

• Plead for them to put the gun down – for now?
• Plead for them to shoot the next guy – not you?
• Plead for them to stop loading the gun?
• Hope that a sniper takes them out before they take you out – and STOPS THEM FOR GOOD?

I read it twice, Neil and I totally agree with your analysis and rebuke of Jeff Martin’s idea on the subject.

Thanks, bro.