Does Israel = Hezbollah in B 16's Moral Calculus?

Pope Benedict XVI in his Sunday Angelus message called those responsible for the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah to put down their weapons:

In the name of God, I appeal to all those responsible for this spiral of violence, so that they immediately put down their weapons on all sides! I ask governing leaders and international organizations not to spare any effort to obtain this necessary halt to hostilities and so to be able to begin to build, through dialogue, a lasting and stable concord for all the people of the Middle East.

Professor Robert T. Miller at the First Things blog opines how such an appeal implies a moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah but, with all due respect, it is difficult to see his point. 

To ask both sides in the conflict to stop attacking with weapons that are killing non-combatants in Israel and in Lebanon is not to say that one side or the other didn't engage in unjust aggression against the other or that one side is not otherwise right or more right in the conflict.  If a teacher breaks up a fight between a bully and his victim it doesn't follow that the bully isn't a bully or that he didn't start the fight or that the victim wasn't trying to defend himself.

To be sure, the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is more complicated than a schoolyard brawl.  But how does that complexity transubstantiate calling for an end to hostilities on both sides into a pronouncement of moral equivalence, especially given the fact that there are plenty of civilian by-standers whose lives and livelihood are being lost as the conflict continues?

Professor Miller writes regarding Benedict's appeal that "talk like this implies a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, which intentionally kills civilians, and the Israelis, who in attempting to put an end to that sort of thing sometimes unintentionally kill civilians despite reasonable precautions. Glossing over that difference fatally vitiates Benedict's conclusion."

It is hard to see how the Pope's comments amount to "glossing over" the difference. Hezbollah intentionally kills civilians and the Israelis unintentionally kill civilians, we're told. But surely Benedict's point includes the fact that civilians are being killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally. That does not mean those who unintentionally kill civilians are morally equivalent to those who intentionally kill them, although the distinction probably means little to the civilians who are being killed.  The Pope's words seem aimed at protecting those civilians, regardless of which side, Israel or Hezbollah, is right or more right in the dispute. But that doesn't mean there is no right or wrong in it.

Professor Miller goes on to argue that sometimes ceasefires work to the advantage of the aggressors and that to some degree whether in a particular case a ceasefire will have that effect is an empirical question on which "popes are not well qualified to pronounce". Perhaps this is true as a general proposition, although popes are not without advisers well schooled in geopolitics to aid their judgments here.  Whether the proposition is true in this particular instance is another matter.

In any case, Professor Miller concludes with a different point: that following the pope's appeal will amount to giving Hezbollah what it wants. He bases his judgment on comments Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, made in an interview:

Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine.... The victory that we are talking about-If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory. If Lebanon is not humiliated, if its honor and dignity remain intact, if Lebanon continues to face all alone the strongest military force in the region, and if it perseveres and refuses to accept any humiliating terms in the settlement of this issue-this will be a victory. If we are not militarily defeated, this will be a victory. As long as a single missile is launched from Lebanon to target the Zionists, as long as a single fighter fires his gun, as long as someone plants an explosive device for the Israelis, this means that the resistance still exists.

Concludes Professor Miller:  "So, although this is not Benedict's intention, if he gets the ceasefire he wants, he will have contributed to what Hezbollah sees as a military victory over Israel."

Or at least to what the spin machine of Hezbollah says it would see as a military victory over Israel.  In any event, are we to suppose that unless Israel completely obliterates Hezbollah, humiliates Lebanon, completely incapacitates any hostile forces in Lebanon, including the ability of a "single fighter" to fire his gun, Hezbollah will be able to claim a military victory over Israel? And if so, is Israel justified in doing whatever is necessary to stop Hezbollah from achieving any such victory, including annihilating huge portions of the civilian population?

"[T]he use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated," the Catechism reminds us, echoing common ethical sense (CCC2309). Among other things, that means that there are moral limits to what Israel can do to defend itself against Hezbollah.  It is not to deny Israel's right to exist and to defend itself to point that out or to encourage an end to hostilities.

Comments

[David Deavel]

I don't agree with you Mark. The point is that having a ceasefire with no control over the situation in Lebanon means that this will not be over. Hezbollah will wait till nobody is looking and again start sending rockets, etc. Israel will respond and we'll be back at the same thing--again with calls for Israel to call a ceasefire.

[Mark Brumley]

Even granting, for the sake of argument, the truth of what you say, how does it follow from that that the Pope's call for a cessation of hostilities by both sides "implies a moral equivalence between Hezbollah" and Israel as Professor Miller claims?

[BillyHW]

Why has President Bush showed more wisdom in these trying times than Pope Benedict?

That shouldn't be happening.

[Augustine]

Hizb Ullah is clearly the instigator of this most recent conflict. However, if Israel wants its neighbors to respect its political boundaries, it has to respect the borders of its neighbors. They wasted what could have been a good opportunity to mend faces and cooperate with the Lebanese government to find a resolution and simply attacked Lebanese territory without warning. So, both Hizb Ullah and Israel are to blame for the current state of affairs. Getting them both to lay down their arms is the first step of _any_ kind of resolution to the conflict.

I hope that if anything good can come out of this at all, that maybe, just maybe, the world, and specifically the U.S. government will finally start holding Israel accountable for its policy of killing 100 Arabs for every Jewish death in Israel. They simply have to stop obliterating entire neighborhoods from the face of the earth to get at one or two guerrilla leaders, and to do this with absolute impunity because the U.S. government gives Israel blanket support (of course, the majority party in the U.S. being dominated by neo-cons and dispensationalists probably doesn't help matters any). It's just not good for one side of this conflict to think that it can act in any way it pleases with complete impunity. When Hizb Ullah kidnapped those soldiers, it must have known there would be an Israeli response, but Israel feels that it can mete out whatever punishment it chooses to inflict on Hizb Ullah and hundreds of thousands of innocent Lebanese because no one will hold them accountable for it thanks to the unconditional support it receives from the U.S.

I think that the Holy Father is very wise not to assume Israel's innocence in any of this, as many of us Americans might. An all-out assault on a neighboring state is never an appropriate response to the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of three others by a faction that operates without sanction of the government of that state. At the very least you seek the cooperation of that government or the UN before mounting a full-scale war. Whether or not they agree to cooperate is immaterial, it's inconceivable that any state that cares about its reputation in diplomacy would not even try diplomacy as a first resort. Now, Israel has zero bona fides in any future negotiations because it has shown that it cares nothing about diplomacy. The situation is extremely counterproductive for both Israel and Hizb Ullah. They would be wise to heed the advice of the Holy Father and the international community and halt the fighting immediately.

The only victim in this is not even a party to the conflict- the people of Lebanon, almost half of whom are Christians with absolutely no allegiance whatsoever to Hizb Ullah. This simply has got to stop. Holy Father is right, and moral equivalency is not even an issue here. Why do the good citizens of Lebanon have to suffer the consequences of being totally devastated because two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped? Where is the equivalency in that? It's simply a matter of two parties to a fight causing a third party to suffer for their argument.

[Teresa Polk]

Regardless of what Hezbollah did that promted Israel's reaction, it would be unrealistic to think that Israel's response could be productive of a lasting peace, or that the change it will bring an improvement. The growing reaction in the Middle East has affected a much wider geographic area than just southern Lebanon.

Pope Benedict XVI is the head of the Vatican state as well as the head of the Catholic Church, and as such he is so situated that he can and should properly speak on issues of such international concern, with overlapping issues of faith, morality, and international relations.

Moreover, he is not alone in his opinion that a cease-fire is needed. Among others, Maronite Catholic leaders in Lebanon have called for an immediate cease-fire. Even the U.S.'s most loyal supporter in the "war on terrorism", Prime Minister Blair, today called for a complete change in the way the west deals with extremism once this is over. While the U.K., Germany and Finland kept the EU from reaching agreement today on calling for a cease-fire, they did reach agreement to call for an immediate "cessation of hostilities". Part of what Blair said today in a speech in L.A. is:

"It's still possible even now to come out of this crisis with a better long-term prospect for the cause of moderation in the Middle East succeeding.

"But it would be absurd not to face up to the immediate damage to that cause which has been done."

The Holy Father's position is consistent with that of other Catholic and Orthodox leaders, and is also in line with the thinking of countries that historically have been U.S. allies. There is no basis on which to contend that the call for an immediate cease-fire, or an immediate cessation of hostilities, equates Israel and Hezbollah.

[Les]

"They wasted what could have been a good opportunity to mend faces and cooperate with the Lebanese government to find a resolution and simply attacked Lebanese territory without warning."

Actually there was warning. And what about the ongoing program of leaflet drops warning the non-combatants before bombings?

"I hope that if anything good can come out of this at all, that maybe, just maybe, the world, and specifically the U.S. government will finally start holding Israel accountable for its policy of killing 100 Arabs for every Jewish death in Israel."

This is a policy? I'd love to see some proof of that one.

"An all-out assault on a neighboring state is never an appropriate response to the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of three others by a faction that operates without sanction of the government of that state."

You forgot the rocket assaults on Israeli citizens.

I hope the Holy Father is not relying too heavily on the Quana building collapse in forming his thoughts. It is becoming increasingly evident that it was a staged event. The bodies in the photographs even showed clear signs of advanced rigor mortis far beyond the time frame of the incident. Israel has consistently said their strike was 450 yards away from that building, but the world still reacted with horror at the time.

What needs to come out of this is perhaps some genius can find a way to fight men who won't fight like men but hide behind women and children, Muslim and/or Christian women and children.
Another thing that might help is if the world grew a spine and went after that Nazi in Tehran who stocked piled weapons in southern Lebanon for the Hizbullah terrorists, and then pulled the trigger just when things were heating up at the UN over Iran's nuclear weapons program.
That's what this is really all about. Israel has to sit there and wait till Hizbullah runs out of rockets or go after them. Tough choice, knowing that Hizbullah hides behind children.

Get out your magic wand and try this. Eliminate all the weapons in the hands of Hezbullah. What would you have? Peace. Israel would stop and go home.
Now try it the other way. Eliminate all the weapons in Israel. What would you have? The annihilation of Israel. Can it be any more clear?

[Augustine]

Les, 3 people were killed in those rocket attacks. 3 people. So 3 casualties and 2 kidnapped soldiers justifies Israel killing hundreds? It may not be an official policy, but Israel has demonstrated that the value of an Arab life to them is about 1/10th that of a Jewish life.

And maybe what is needed is an end to the state of Israel, at least as it exists today, as a Jewish state. What has Israel done since its establishment? Invade its neighbors, massacre Arabs, spy on its allies, develop nukes, carry out assassinations in foreign countries, attack U.S. ships... The Arabs got royally screwed by the Brits and the UN. Of course they're angry! The 1947 partition plan was grossly unfair, and then the Jews unilaterally established a Jewish state and then the Arabs had nothing. Mind you, 20 years before that before the massive Jewish immigration to the area, Palestine was 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish, and 9% Christian. Even in 1947, 55% of the population was Muslim and owned 50% of the land. Most of the rest of the land was owned by the state, Jews controlling only about 4%. And then they took the whole thing for themselves at the moment that the Arabs rejected a plan to give half the country to the Jews. Imagine that 300 million Chinese immigrate to the U.S. within 20 years, then the UN decides to give the Chinese half of America for its own state. Of course, the Americans reject it, and the Chinese establish a Confucianist state with a Yin-Yang on the flag and start seizing homes and property formerly belonging to Americans and most Americans are forced to flee to Canada and Mexico. That's what happened to Palestine from 1922 to 1947.

Israel is the real problem here. There would be peace in the region if not for Israel.

[Teresa Polk]

n today's Asia News article on the Holy Father's message, he is quoted as calling for "an immediate cessation of all hostilities". That appears to follow the European Union's language of yesterday, which was supported by the U.K. and Germany in preference over calling for an immediate "cease-fire".

I think this address is his first specific mention of Qana, since that bombing was Sunday and may have been after the Pope's call for a cease-fire at the Angelus (I was reading the text of the Angelus online at the same time as I was watching the situation in Qana on TV, so my idea of the timing of the two relative to each other is a bit blurred, but he did not mention Qana on Sunday at all.)

As for the suggestion that bombing civilians is acceptable if you drop leaflets first, keep in mind that the civilians were never given time to safely get out and that some who tried to leave in response to leaflets were killed while fleeing.

[Teresa Polk]

By way of setting the Pope's addresses in their international diplomatic context, the European Union yesterday passed a resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities (ending the battles), rather than an immediate cease-fire which would have called a complete end to all warfare, in order to have agreement among its 25 members.  The U.K. did not support the call for a cease-fire but did support the call for a cessation of hostilities, supported by Germany and Finland to bring the EU to that negotiated position.

Yesterday at a speech before the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles (entire text at the link through BBC), U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair called for a change in the way the West is approaching the situation in the Middle East.  While asserting that the West should tell Syria and Iran to stop supporting extremist groups in Palestine and Lebanon or face confrontation, he also commented that the existing western strategy in the Middle East should be changed.  Here are some of the most significant portions of that speech:

We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once that has happened, we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us. There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world. . . .

"Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win.

"We had barely heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned.

"We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this takeover, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works."

[Les]

Augustine,
I have to say this. You're candor is refreshing. There are many who think as you do about the legitimacy of the state of Israel but the accuracy of your historical summary would require an entire debate in itself.

However, I would caution you to have a look at the desires and long-term goals of the radical Islamists particularly of the Shiite persuasion. The big picture, if you will. Compare that with the Holy War mentality of the beginnings of Islam from the prophet himself and his immediate successor Omar, and the record of the conquests of the seventh century.
I would submit to you that the thinking of the current Islamic Fascists is a desire to return to those glory days and beyond. Combine that with the outright racism of the likes of Ahmadinejad, whose statements make Mel Gibson sound like a Rabbi, and Iran's ongoing program of regional instability, contrary to the French embassador's fawning fantasies, and it is clear that Israel is a thorn in the side to be dealt with first, but Islamic ambitions go well beyond that narrow strip of land and the Palestinian people that the Arab world universally looked down on until they became useful to make the propaganda war.

You and I are infidels and the only good infidel is a dead infidel. It may be Israel today, but if Hizbullah were to succeed in anihilating them (their stated goal), it would only be the first step in consolidating the region and from there expanding outward once more.

So how do you deal with someone whose overriding goal is to see you dead, whose moral code justifies any other deception, treachery or propaganda, including the use of human shields, as long as the end goal is to kill you for religious reward?

Practical military necessity, that's how. It's the only avenue left to someone who fully understands the threat. In that context, which is Sec.State Rice's point, a ceasefire must conform to practical military necessity, not some notion of reciprocal good-will or the expectation thereof. In strictly territorial disputes, without the fascist ideology, there can be a reasonable expectation of generating good will on both sides toward a compromise resolution. It is not the case here.

[Augustine]

Tony Blair is right.

And I don't think a two-state solution is any solution at all. There is too much history and ill-will. The only way these people are going to live together in harmony is if they live together in a single state that they feel equally a part of, not a Jewish state, not a Muslim state, but one that guarantees the natural rights of all its citizenry and gives them equal protection and equal justice under the law both theoretically and in practice. The trick is going to be to get the majority of Israeli Jews who are reasonable people and not religious zealots that want to build settlements in Arab neighborhoods and the majority of Palestinian Arabs who are reasonable people and not religious zealots that want to blow up shopping malls and metro buses, and get these two parties to unite and oppose extremism on either side. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, it will be painful. Yes, there has to be some just remediation for past bad deeds. But it is the only practical way to any true lasting peace. South Africa went through and is still going through a similar process. It hasn't been without its own problems, but they are building a foundation for tomorrow's success. A new Palestine that belongs to Jew and Arab alike is the right avenue to pursue. The moderates on either side should be able to see that after all this time, the extremists only make things worse, not better, and it is up to them to be the actors rather than the observers from now on. If it means marches, demonstrations, so be it. If we need to apply diplomatic or economic pressure, so be it.

But PM Blair is right. This stems from people's hearts, from their living conditions, from those of the surrounding area... it is not a simple territorial dispute, which is how the world has treated it for the last 60 years. We need to work on changing the environment, the culture, the attitudes of the people. We need to first convince them that extremism only makes matters worse, and once they are convinced of this, they need to be convinced that the only way change will happen is if they take the power away from the extremists and assert their own agenda.

[Augustine]

Les,

Hizb Ullah needs to be eradicated, or at the very least disarmed. There is no question about that. Iran needs to be contained. There is no question about that, either. And we need to stop propping up despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, too. You're right in that part of the problem is Islamic militantism, which is not the fault of Israel. But the two problems--Islamic militantism and Palestinian unrest--feed off of one another. You can't just address one problem and not the other. It won't solve anything.

Yes, Islam has some unique characteristics that lean towards militarism. Jihad is waged for two reasons: 1) to spread Islam and 2) to defend Muslims. The mujahideen of today are ostensibly fighting for reason #2. Spreading Islam does not require military force. They are already doing a smashing job converting Westerners (unfortunately). But they do see the Ummah as being repressed at the hands of despotic rulers who are propped up and supported by the West, they object to having very libertine Western media infiltrating what is a very conservative culture--they really see this as something defensive.

Of course, the ideal is that they all renounce Islam, convert to Christ and become loyal subjects of the Church. But this is not really practical. Part of the problem is that our Western world is, in fact, very transgressive. So you have two extremes: the "anything goes" West with its shamelessness, homosexuality, loose barely-clad women, etc. and the arch-conservative world of Islam. It doesn't matter that half of Americans are God-fearing, mostly moral folks. This isn't the America they see on television and hear on radio. I think, therefore, that we need to actually increase the cultural exchange between our two worlds. Encourage Muslim students overseas to study in our universities, offer work-study programs in the heartland, show them that we're not so bad and can be trusted. And the government needs to re-think its support for oppressive regimes in the region.

As far as the Shi`a question, the Shi`a are kind of in a simliar situation to the dispensationalists over here. They believe that the Mahdi has arrived and had gone into hiding. He initially communicated through a series of four mediums, but now his authority is temporarily handed to the mujtahideen (with a "t"), who are the religious scholars, until his eventual return, when the prophet `Isa (whom they consider to be the same person as Jesus) returns and Imam al-Mahdi will rule over the entire world and he and `Isa al-Masih will cleanse the world of impurity and convert everyone to Islam. So they have this end-time prophecy, which is partially fulfilled and are awaiting a "millennium" of sorts. Many of them see the revolution in Iran as being a bellwether of the return of the Mahdi. This is why they seem to be a bit more zealous than their Sunni counterparts. They are trying to usher in the return of their Imam, much the same way as dispensationalists see the state of Israel as being the prelude to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of the millennial kingdom. Ahmadinejad is basically the Islamic Pat Robertson, but with political power and an entire nation and a military at his disposal. Yes, that is cause for alarm.

But anyway, back on point... The correct solution cannot be to blow up the whole region until there are no extremists left. You'll only create new ones in their place looking for revenge on the former ones. This cycle will only end when social justice and people's natural rights to life and to freedom of conscience are recognized, understood, and respected. This is a cultural solution, not a military one. It's like the Hydra. You can cut off one of its heads, but then another one grows in its place. You have to get at the root instead of just chopping down this or that Islamic militant organization or leader. We're just making more martyrs and adding fuel to the fire. And Israel has just consistently made matters worse by piling on unmeasured military responses one after another. Just the other day they announced they were stopping the bombing for 48 hours. Well, of course they did, because what they forgot to mention was they were launching a massive ground offensive and didn't want to risk bombing their own people. How is Israel blasting Lebanon off the face of the world any different from Hamas "driving Israel into the sea"? This has to end- now! It cannot be allowed to escalate further.

[Rich Leonardi]

My $.02

Miller is wrong, but he wouldn't even be able to make the argument if the Holy Father were more vocal about denouncing the targeting of civilians and the use of them as shields.

Civilian casualties are an unfortunate, unintended consequence of warfare. But treating women and children as "living camouflage" is fortunately less common and marks the crucial moral distinction between the belligerents in this conflict.

[Jackson]

"I hope that if anything good can come out of this at all, that maybe, just maybe, the world, and specifically the U.S. government will finally start holding Israel accountable for its policy of killing 100 Arabs for every Jewish death in Israel."

According to this logic, the U.K. and U.S. were wrong to bomb Germany and Japan during WWII, since many more German and Japanese civilians died at their hands than U.K. and U.S. civilians died at Germany's and Japan's hands.

This is not a "war on terror." As Rick Santorum has correctly said, it's a war on Islamo-fascism. I've afraid that it's going to be too late until people fully realize the meaning this.

[Augustine]

"Fascism?" That is just empty rhetoric. What the Islamists are seeking bears no resemblance to fascism whatsoever. They want a theocracy. There is a tremendous difference. Then again, Rick Santorum has his own political agenda and equating Islam to fascism suits his purposes well.

[Jackson]

A theocracy bears no resemblance whatsoever to fascism? Strange. Tell that to the Taliban.

[I am bored]

There is only Good and Evil.
God is the Good. And God established the Church.
Muslims and Jews, not established by God (Well the Jews should have accepted Jesus. And the current state of Israel is a defiance of Our Lord's curse, as He said that there would be no stone over stone.)
Ergo, evil.
So they are both at fault.
Israel=Hezwhatever

[Augustine]

Fascism: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fascism.html

Now, let's see how the Taliban scores...

dictatorial government: no, governed by councils
centralized control of private enterprise: no, unless you count shutting down opium production, which had been the largest private enterprise in Afghanistan
repression of all opposition: yes
extreme nationalism: no, ethnically diverse. oppression of Shi`a minorities, but this is religious in nature, not nationalistic

But then again, to a neo-con like Rick Santorum, anything that is not a republican or democratic government is fascist. Funny how Iran is a republic (a theocratic one, but a republic nonetheless), but they're "fascist", too, according to Mr. Santorum. Actually, what he wanted to do to the National Weather Service is actually fascist. He wants to prevent the NWS from providing its data freely to the public in order to protect the ability of private companies like AccuWeather (which just happens to be based in Penna.) to profit from the data (as if they own the weather and it isn't something that anyone can observe for themselves!). This is a page right out of Mussolini's playbook. Only the friends of Il Duce are allowed to profit. Nevermind that NWS is taxpayer funded and the taxpayers deserve to have access to the data NWS collects free of charge. He also wanted to impose his will on the life of Terry Schiavo. I guess he has something in common with the theocrats, too. But at least the theocrats are religious scholars. Mr. Santorum just has knee-jerk reactions and doesn't understand the subleties of Catholic teaching on such matters. Or how about the nice little oil industry kickback he slipped into the Tax Relief Act of 2006? This is where he allows the oil industry to reap billions of dollars in profits billed as a "synthetic fuel tax credit" which has absolutely no effect on the market price of oil. Only the oil barons profit. Again, just like Mussolini- my friends benefit and to hell with everyone else. And who supports military intervention to assert American dominance in the Middle East? You know, maybe Rick Santorum likes to throw around the word "fascist" to distract attention from his own fascistic tendencies...

[Les]

What is perhaps missing in this argument and is well beyond the scope of the Holy Father's exhortation which is focussed at the current proxy war in Lebanon, is the real issue of Islamo-fascism.

No, Augustine, they are not equivalent, but they form a very natural marriage. The prophet Mohammed's first unique accomplishment in his own time, was the forging of a fighting alliance, out of many warring tribes. There are two ways this can be done. Either by a common enemy, or by a common religious fanaticism.
How do you keep the great diversity of Arab tribes aligned while you pursue larger regional objectives? A combination of both methods. You can see the difficulty George W. has in sustaining support for the fight in Iraq because over time the memories fade. However, if there were a national religion that had a militant past and all the Holy War elements that can be easily drawn from the "book", the combination of inflammation can sustain a war for a much longer period.
If you think that Ahmadinejad not a serious threat, there is one ingredient you miss. The Aryan connection. There is indeed in some powerful circles of Persia, a great admiration for Hitler and his ideology. Ultimately, those true believers, are after the same goal as Hitler, but with the heavy hand of Islamic Theocracy and the legacy of a glorious Islamic past. It is a natural for controlling large populations. What does it matter if they really believe in Allah? The bottom line is that Islam is a ready made social system that can simplfy keeping large populations under control.
The dirty little secret is that the elites of Iran, do not give a rat's nether region for Arabs any more than Jews. But there are so many that can be made willing to be ground up or blown into hamburger for the cause. And the more innocents that get caught in the crossfire, the better. If they happen to be, as some are in this case, Lebanese Christians, our brother Maronites, so much the better for the cause of Islam. If they are Arab Muslims, the propaganda value is higher if you can make the case that Israel likes to kill women and children, Arab women and children. Besides, there are plenty more where they came from.
Socially, I sympathize with the Muslims that worry about the western corruption that is taking hold. I'm reminded of Longshanks in Braveheart (Mel again), "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." It may appear to many Muslims that the west has said, "if we can't beat them we'll corrupt them."
On the other side there are those who continually goad and instigate in the name of Allah, but at least they stand for religious purity.
I think that many of the Arab Muslims know they are being played by the power hungry in Iran, but they are silent. Better the devil you know. That was what Iraq was supposed to be about, giving those people another option.
One thing is certain, if the influence of Iran and their surrogates could be removed from around the state of Israel, the creative minds could put together a workable relationship of the indigenous peoples of the entire region.

[Jackson]

"dictatorial government: no, governed by councils"

These councils were not dictatorial?

Let's consider another aspect of fascism: no religious freedom. Did religious freedom, or freedom of thought generally, exist under the Taliban? I recall some statues being blown up (Buddhist ones, I think), along with the death penalty for Christians.

And another feature of fascism: the exclusion of certain groups from political participation. Women were fully excluded from such participation under the Taliban, as indeed they were brutally oppressed in other ways too.

Another feature of fascism: the lack of legal due process. There were summary executions in a certain soccer stadium and elsewhere, as I recall.

I find it strange that you have such animus towards a fellow Catholic, Rick Santorum, yet appear to be somewhat of an apologist for the Taliban.

[Augustine]

Les,

I am not so sure about the "Aryan connection" that you mentioned. I think this was probably true during the Pahlavi regime, which changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran to reflect its Aryan heritage. The Pahlavis tried to use nationalism to foster the support of the people. The Islamic Revolution was very much opposed to everything associated with the Shah, including nationalism. There are many minorities, such as Balochis (who are largely Sunni) and Azeris who now enjoy protected status but were formerly persecuted. In fact, Jews and Christians are also protected minorities and have seats in the majlis reserved for them. I have known many Iranians and never knew any of them to harbor any sort of racism. They do, however, feel a responsibility towards other Muslims, even Sunnis. Hizbu 'llah was formed in 1985 to drive the Israelis out of occupied south Lebanon and to provide social services for those affected by the occupation. Had Israel not invaded and occupied Israel over 20 years ago, there probably would be no Hizbu 'llah today. The hatred many Iranians feel towards Israel is derived from their occupation of south Lebanon, a Shi`a land, their treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, and their conviction that Jerusalem, site of al-Haram ush-Sharif, properly belongs to the Muslims. It is not a racial hatred of Jews or even a religious ones. There are Jews in Iran. If an Israeli Jew became a Muslim, he would not be hated. I really don't see any connection to the kinds of "Aryan superiority" theories that the Nazis espoused.

Jackson,

Lack of religious freedom has nothing to do with fascism. Mussolini's fascist state promoted atheism, but Catholicism was tolerated. Nazi Germany promoted a sort of nationalist atheism with pagan overtones, but it's not like they went around burning Evangelical or Catholic churches. Other than for Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses, there was a great deal of religious freedom in Nazi Germany, moreso than under the principalities that existed 100 years before. In those days, if your prince was Protestant, you were Protestant. If your prince was Catholic, you were Catholic. Or else! And then the Prussian Union made the Lutheran Church in Germany Reformed. A lot of Lutherans left for America and founded what later became the LCMS and WELS churches. So, restriction of religious freedom was not really a feature of fascism. If anything, fascism tended to stay away from religion (although the Nazis opposed the Jews for supposedly racial reasons and the JW's due to their refusal to salute the flag or pledge allegiance to the state).

"The exclusion of certain groups from political participation." Does this make the U.S. fascist? It's been less than 100 years since women have had the vote here. And blacks were excluded from voting in a large portion of the country until just a few generations ago. Even today, felons are excluded as are non-citizens.

"The lack of legal due process." Isn't this exactly what is happening in GTMO right now? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Rick Santorum is one of those Catholics who despite being Catholic has political views that stem more from fundamentalism. Compare Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson, and you'll find their political views are almost identical. Compare him to Pat Buchanan, and you'll find many disagreements. Pat Buchanan's politics reflect Catholicism a lot more closely than Rick Santorum's. The funny thing is that I truly believe that if Rick Santorum had his way, he'd turn America into a Taliban-style theocracy. The Taliban would have been Rick Santorum's best friends if they had been fundamentalist Christians. I would not be surprised at all if Rick Santorum would support legislation requiring political officeholders to swear to an official Christian creed, make it a crime to work on Sunday, and institute full-scale censorship of all media. He is like a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Catholic that serves the interests of fundamentalism (which is inherently anti-Catholic).

I'm not saying the Taliban were great guys. Heck, I enlisted in the Army in order to go to Afghanistan. But they were not fascists. They were Sunni theocrats. They harbored terrorists. They had an opportunity to hand over Usamah bin Ladin and other al-Qa`idah leaders and operatives. They didn't cooperate. They suffered the consequences. But I also don't insist that every government in places of the world that are much different than the one I live in and cultures that are much different than mine necessarily need to have the same form of government or the same constitutional rights as we have here in the United States. I don't seek to impose my values and my way of life on people to whom it is completely alien. You need to change the condition of the people's hearts before you can change the condition of the people. You make a lot more progress filing down a square peg until it is round than trying to just cram a square peg into a round hole. They have to go through the same process that Europe had to go through. Thomas Aquinas did not write his Summa in a vacuum or overnight. There are some parts of the world, including Afghanistan, that are literally 500-700 years behind the rest of us. Trying to make them liberal democracies overnight is never going to work. You can't force them to be what they don't even understand. All you end up doing is stirring up more anti-Western prejudice. It may take another 100 or 200 years, but it's going to have to happen when they are ready--when their own people study and come to a more modern appreciation of philosophy. Then their people will insist on representative and responsible governments. But these have to be revolutions of the people. Our mission in Iraq is doomed to failure. The Iraqis just did not have the collective will to claim a democratic government. As brutal a tyrant as Saddam was, the people were not (and still are not) united in their philosophy of government. In fact, many of them would probably prefer a theocratic state similar to Iran, particularly the Shi`ah, who are the majority.

Cultural exchange, dialogue, trade, and education is the only way to progress and transform the culture and the politics of the Middle East. Military intervention is short-sighted and will fail to have any permanent effect.

[Jackson]

Augustine,

"Lack of religious freedom has nothing to do with fascism....Other than for Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses, there was a great deal of religious freedom in Nazi Germany."

Wow. Nothing to do with fascism. And there was a "great deal" of religious freedom in Nazi Germany? Tell that to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Or Martin Niemoller: "In September 1933, Martin Niemöller, a pastor of a fashionable church in Berlin, set up a Pastors' Emergency League which led to the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessional Church. This church wrote a memorandum to Hitler attacking the government's anti-Christian campaign, policies of antisemitism, and terrorizing tactics. Hitler responded with a crackdown on members of the Confessional Church. Hundreds of dissenting clergy were arrested, many were imprisoned, and also executed." http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/people/victims.htm

Further examples could be multiplied.

"'The lack of legal due process.' Isn't this exactly what is happening in GTMO right now?"

No, it isn't. The women under the Taliban were citizens of Afghanistan who would thus have been entitled to due process under a non-fascist regime. The men in Gitmo are foreign enemy combatants, jihadists captured on the battlefield.

"'The exclusion of certain groups from political participation.'Does this make the U.S. fascist? It's been less than 100 years since women have had the vote here. And blacks were excluded from voting in a large portion of the country until just a few generations ago. Even today, felons are excluded as are non-citizens."

I cited this as one among several features of fascism. While such exclusion is a necessary ingredient of fascism, it's insufficient by itself.

Your assessment of Rick Santorum is, frankly, twisted, paranoid, and astonishing. I'll leave it at that for others to address.

As for the ridiculous Muslim belief that Jerusalem properly belongs to them, see this:

http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_07.html

As for "occupation" being the cause of the conflict, see:

http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_101.html

and

http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_100.html

I'll give you the last word.

[Mark Brumley]

So you guys don't have this whole Middle East thing resolved yet? I thought for sure it would have been solved by now. Let's wrap this up. I think we're approaching the more heat than light stage.

[Augustine]

Mark's right. And this is probably the reason why this conflict does not seem to have any end in sight. People have wildly different perceptions of the history and politics of the region, and everyone comes to the table with their own prejudices and ideological biases. In the end, we're never going to get anywhere unless we do less talking and more listening.

[Daniel C.]

"If a teacher breaks up a fight between a bully and his victim it doesn't follow that the bully isn't a bully or that he didn't start the fight or that the victim wasn't trying to defend himself."

When the teacher says, "I don't care who started it, just stop fighting." the teacher is telling the fighting students that there is no difference between the bully and the one responding to the bully's violence. The teacher is making the two fighting parties morally equivalent. Therefore, this example fails as support for you argument, since you are arguing that the Pope is not creating a moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel. And, since it is the main example you present to support your case, you entire argument collapses.

Ceasefires with those that would destroy Israel have been tried before and they ALWAYS came to nothing but more death for Israelli civilians. This call for yet another ceasefire would lead to exactly the same result. I am left wondering why the Pope nor anyone who advises him seems to be aware of this.

If Hezbollah (and all IslamoNazis throughout the Middle East) chose today to lay down its all weapons the killing would end. If Israel chose to lay down its weapons then Israel would cease to exist.

[Mark Brumley]

Speaking of arguments that entirely collapse, Daniel C: it might help the soundness of your argument, and help you avoid being rightly dubbed guilty of the fallacy of the straw man, if you better attended to the example given, instead of arguing from the example you construct and attribute to me. The example given does not have the teacher saying, "I don't care who started it."

[Augustine]

Something that troubles me is the ease at which people throw around words like "Fascist" and "Nazi." Besides the anti-Arab prejudice implied by painting an entire religion and culture with such loaded terms, it cheapens the true sense of the words. I fear that as everyone who disagrees with Israel or has a problem with someone who happens to be Jewish is branded an "anti-Semite" and that as anyone espousing a right-of-center ideology that is not in harmony with the ideals of neoconservativism is branded a "Fascist" or a "Nazi," people will begin to forget what a true anti-Semite, Fascist, or Nazi is. The Islamists probably have a lot more in common with the Scottish Covenanters than the Fascists or Nazis. The real irony is that Zionism has its roots as a nationalist socialist movement. It was decidedly not religious in nature, indeed, it was very much anti-religious! If any state today has roots in an ideology approaching Nazism, it is Israel, not Iran. And to suggest that Islam is inherently anti-Semitic goes a bit too far. Jewish religious scholarship flourished under Muslim rule. Maimonides, Nachmanides, Caro, ibn Ezra, ibn Arabi were some of the greatest scholars of Jewish theology, law, and mysticism. Jewish scholarship flourished in Muslim Spain and many of these were expelled by the Catholics and fled to the Ottoman Empire, particularly Palestine. Muslims revere the Israelite prophets. Furthermore, they believe that the Messiah was born to an Israelite girl, Mary. (Their theology and history may be completely screwed up, but their intentions are surely not anti-Semitic.)

When we generalize other people, religions, or cultures without understanding them, we just alienate them further and we increase hostilities. I have never liked any aspect of ecumenism, but I do think that this one part--having dialogue and learning to understand our non-Catholic neighbors--does have some value. It is one thing to go to war with someone over a legitimate dispute and to fight injustice. It is quite another to go to war over a misunderstanding because we want to overlay our own culture and history over an alien people and brand them with all sorts of labels that have absolutely no meaning in the context of their culture or religion.

What is truly disheartening as I have read not just here, but on other blogs as well, is that American Catholics will unconditionally support Israel even when it is killing innocent Catholics recklessly. One may deduce from the opinions of the seeming majority of Catholic bloggers that any Arab is worth less than the life of a Jew, or anyone else really, even if they are baptized brothers and sisters in Christ. This I find to be utterly disgusting. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Christians in the West Bank and Gaza who are suffering because of Israel. There are over a million Christians, mostly Catholic, in Lebanon. Plus about 10% of the half million Palestinian refugees there. Why can't we see this as a Christian problem? Does nobody care about the Christians? Because they are Arabs? Who are the real Fascists then?

Why are we silent when it is Arabs who are being killed? Every time 1 Israeli is killed, 100 Arabs have to die in revenge exacted by Israel. Why? Do we not speak up out of fear of being called an anti-Semite? Do we stay silent because we have allowed ourselves to be swayed by dispensationalist notions of the state of Israel having divine sanction and the Jewish people being equal, if not superior, to the Church in holiness? Are we just keeping the party line because we have taken the neocon poison pill of tying America's destiny to that of Israel supposedly to spread democracy and freedom, but really to subjugate the world and bring it under Western influence to open up new markets to trade, exploit cheap labor, and extract their natural resources?

I can't think of any reason to justify a Catholic's unconditional, undying support of the state of Israel, especially now in the face of a mounting war that is killing, starving, and displacing millions of our brother and sister Catholics who had absolutely nothing to do with Hizbullah or Israel at all and are innocent bystanders being slaughtered.

Please listen to what Holy Father is saying. This is senseless slaughter. This goes far beyond Israel's right to defend itself and its right to exist. Nobody is arguing that Hizbullah are not terrorists. My arguments are not justification of Hizbullah, but clarification that their ideology is not "Fascist." They are fanatical thugs, for sure. But let's at least call things by what they are, not by what our prejudices cause us to see. People are dying. Unnecessarily. Hizbullah is at fault for instigating the fight. Israel is at fault for involving millions of people in a fight that is not theirs and subjecting them to death, destruction, homelessness, and starvation. This is the part of the schoolyard fight where someone has to step in, break it up and send both sides to the principal's office so we can sort it out there. As long as Hizbullah is armed and funded by Iran and Syria, and as long as Israel enjoys unconditional support and massive economic and military aid from the U.S., this can go on forever. And millions more people will die who have no dog in the fight. It is senseless. Let's stop the fighting, actually do something about Iran and Syria, put Israel on alert that this kind of response will not be tolerated, and start building a real dialogue for a future where there might be just one single generation that doesn't know what an exploding missile sounds like.

[Jackson]

Apparently "Palestinians" also view their lives as worth less than Jews'. Witness the 400 to 3 prisoner swaps.