If we really want peace in the Holy Land, we should apply the Ann Coulter Doctrine:

Keeping in mind, of course, that this Coulterism is a satire. There's much truth to be had in it, though. The Church needs to start evangelizing, and we need to be realistic: the Islamist savages who govern Palestine have made it clear that they do not desire a two-state solution, even "moderate" Fatah leaders saying the same when they are in private--when they think the infidel isn't listening.

Of course a two-state solution would be ideal. But that will be next to impossible while Palestine is still Muslim, or at least Islamist. The Churches really should band together, stop cowering in their dhimmitude, and start spreading the Gospel. Christians in these lands are getting what they deserve. New converts don't spontaneously generate; they must be converted.

By the way, the Church should also get to work converting the Israelis. Jews need to be evangelized as much as anyone; Christ did not include an exception clause for them in the "Great Commission. But as Israel is a peaceful, freedom-loving nation, we need only apply part 3 of the Coulter doctrine to that beautiful nation.

Note to LexEtLibertas: "kill Muslims? Forcibly convert Jews?" Are you serious? Are you advocating the forcible conversion of Jews as some sort of mission from Christ? I have to question if this is a serious post or someone having a rather sick joke? If you are serious, then you are not a true Christian. Conversions must be sincere and come from within the person who is converting and cannot be done under duress. it amazes me that fanatics like you consider themselves "Christian" at all.

Austin:

I think I made it very clear that when I said we needed to convert Muslims and Jews, I did not mean forcibly!

Neither have I called for the indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims. Just their Islamist leadership.

If Jews want to convert to Catholicism, great, but their Convenant with God is still in effect, and we should respect their religion and relationship with God. I see no need for mass conversions of Jews. Trying to implement mass conversions would be Meshuganah. We need to get our own house in order before attempt to get pushy with the Jews.

Austin:

Of course, the Jewish covenant is still valid. The problem is, modern liberal Christians have forgotten what that means. That does NOT mean that the Old Covenant is salvific. The New Testament is clear about this.

The Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New, and in fact is oriented to the Catholic Church. God's Covenant with the Jews will always be valid--it calls Jews to be fulfilled in his Church!

The more a Jew is faithful to the Old Covenant, the closer he will be to converting to Catholic Christianity.

None of which takes away from my respect for Orthodox Judaism, and the Church's Jewish heritage.

Are you serious? Neither the phrase "kill Muslims" nor the phrase "Forcibly convert Jews" appears in LexEtLibertas' comment. How then did you feel yourself at liberty to enclose them in quotes? Where did you get those 'quoted' phrases from, since clearly not the comment you were disputing? You appear to be arguing publicly with yourself, while attributing one half of your own argument to someone else.

The moderators have edited the remarks in my first post. They meant well, but they have attributed the following remark, erroneously, to Ann Coulter:

The United States should invade Palestine, kill the leaders of Hamas and Fatah, and convert the Palestinian people to Christianity.

What Coulter did say, shortly after 9/11, was that "we [i.e., the United States] should invade their [i.e., the terrorists'] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." I simply applied her infamous quotation to the Palestinian situation.

And I stand by it.

If you want to advocate killing anyone, do it somewhere else. We're not hosting that here.

The world community needs to get more involved through the U.N. to impose a one-state solution that would give all Palestinians the right of return as well as equal voting rights.

Administrator:

Are you certain you meant to say, "anyone" in the following statement?

I ask because, while it's your site and you've every right to host what you like, I don't seem to recall any prior posting which was censored or modified for stating that "waging war against the leaders of terrorist organizations is justified, including the use of lethal force."

Which is just my way of saying that, when we identify leaders of terrorist organizations and have an opportunity to slay them with minimal risk to non-combatants, we should do so.

Or does your concern with Lux's post center on the fact that he didn't bother to use the words "assuming it isn't practical to capture, interrogate, hold, and reform them" to qualify his statement?

For of course that would always be preferable to merely killing the enemy combatant in a just war. But it's so rarely an option that Lux may not have considered it worth mentioning that qualification.

Anyhow, these are things worthy of discussion on these fora -- and have been discussed here before.

So the outright prohibition of the topic seems out of character.

What would make more sense would be something like: "We don't advocate killing folk here, unless they're enemy combatants in an at least arguably just war and neither capture nor convince nor ceasefire is a practical option."

And then Lex would show (easily enough) that "terrorist leaders" meet those requirements, Mark Shea would show up to debate about the "arguably just war" part of things, and discussion would proceed normally!

The "one state" portion sadly contradicts the "solution" portion, unless genocide or dhimmitude falls within one's definition of "solution." One must think long-term, and not peer through the gauzy haze of democracy-goggles, which make every tyranny look enticingly attractive, so long as it started with a popular vote.

And then there are "international diplomacy goggles," which mix with "democracy goggles" the way a double shot mixes with two pints. 20th-century European History is a long sad trail of otherwise intelligent and decent men making names for themselves in politics while wearing both sets, and waking up a few years later, dismayed to find themselves lying beside moustached or beribboned mass-murderers of one kind or another, smoking cigarettes with a satisfied look.

For genocide and dhimmitude are exactly the types of solutions which are most regularly encouraged and enabled by the U.N., of course, so I suppose that they fall within their definition of "solution." But no clear-thinking person would share that definition, or, for that matter, the illusion that the U.N. is likely to be anything other than an impediment to constructive changes in Israel or Palestine.