Dear Deal:

I am very pleased to read your excellent coverage of - and insights into -s the struggles being faced by our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Middle East. Loving the Jewish people as our elder brothers and sisters and standing in solidarity with those with whom we are joined in a Baptismal bond in Jesus Christ are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we have a profound obligation to know what is happening to Christians who suffer for their faith in the Holy Land, to pray for them and to do everything in our power to support and defend them.After all, they are Christians with us!

I serve as a Deacon in our Church. Both as a Roman Catholic and, with permission, as a Melkite. My relationships with brethren who have family in the Middle East has been a true blessing. My membership as a member of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre has also kept me aware of the plight of our brethren in the Holy Land. The Knights are charged with defending the Holy Land and the Holy Sites. I encourage your readers to read what both the Latin and the Eastern Church leaders write from the Holy Land. It is CRITICALLY important that there be a Christian voice speaking for those who suffer for, with, and in Jesus Christ in the land where He once walked and where He continues to walk through His Holy Church, His Body, continuing His redemptive mission until He comes again.

Deal, by writing these articles you are treading in waters which are often not navigated by folks associated with some political movements with which Catholic and Orthodox Christians have become identified. You are to be applauded for doing so. We have often become so identified because of our unwavering committment to life, marriage and the family founded upon it and authentic freedom, including religious freedom. However we are also so committed, or should be, to solidarity with the poor and genuine peace, further core tenets of Catholic Social teaching.

Deal, you also know that some of our beloved friends and Christian brothers and sisters in the segment of our broken Christian community often called "evangelical" (in quotes because I believe we should all be "evengels")have a very different read on the situation in the Middle East.

Your willingness to write on the subject with such clarity and concern is to be commended.Thank you.

Deacon Keith Fournier

It is with great interest and thankfulness that I have been reading Mr. Hudson's essays on the Palestinian Catholics. Coming as I do from that background, some of my extended family still live under the conditions which he describes. To an Israeli all Palestinians are the same. They don't ask nor care whether or not one may be Christian or Moslem or have any involvement in covert activites. They want your property and they want you anywhere else in the world but there. One is at the mercy of local officials. Little village shrines which have been there a thousand years are wiped off the map in an instant when a new Israeli parking lot/wall/garrison etc.. is urgently needed.Our Lady's statues are used for target practice by bored Israeli troops. If you are Palestinian you have no recourse, so you leave. There is no interest in these things in America or anywhere else except to send more money to the people who are in charge of decimating the Christian presence in Israel.Thank you Mr. Hudson for giving people less excuse not to know what really goes on in Israel.Please pray for the Catholics of Palestine. They live on the battle front everyday of their lives.

I am in total agreement that things must change in the Holy Land, but not sure what EXACTLY the Church can do to protect the Christian community. First, the Christian community in the Holy Land is divided, so it would be difficult for one particular church to take on the role of "protector."

And when you say "the Church," do you mean the Vatican, or Catholic leaders in general, or all the members of the Church? And what do you propose that each or all actually DO to protect the Christian community there? Should we be sending money to certain groups? Writing letters to our reps? Marching on Washington, D.C.?

These issues tend to leave people like me feeling helpless. Some specific suggestions as to what Catholics can actually take action on might go along way to move this from mere information to actual change.

Thanks for your good reporting on the Holy Land.

Deal, Thank you for this interesting and very informative article. I started to respond to each of your ten hard facts, but then I went outside to work in the garden. When I came back, I realized that my response would be much too long. So I emailed Haaretz and asked them to have Shlomo Avinieri contact you. I hope he does, and you and he can have an interesting exchange of ideas.
I agree with Michael V.. Specific recommendations would help.
Your statistics are interesting. 3,000,000 trees is a lot of trees! Perhaps more than in all of South Dakota, if you leave out the Black Hills. How did you arrive at that number?
Keep up the good work and keep safe. But I also hope you can interview a member of Hamas. Very sincere Muslims.

Deal, You might want to read an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Reuel Marc Gerecht. Very informative on Islam and the Muslim's internal debates.
Thank you.

Mr. Hudson, perhaps you or your readers would be interested in the story of the Cremisan Winery operated by the Salesians in their monastery outside of Bethlehem.It was founded in 1885 as a means to support orphans and the poor of the area. It has been supplying hotels, pilgrimage houses, and churches for many years and its wines have become well known and valued. It employs mainly Palestinian Christians from the Bethlehem area. Now Israeli officials have declared the production and shipping of the wine a "security risk".The infamous "security wall" being built was extended to include the vineyard and separate it from villages where the Palestinian workers live.What was a journey of a few minutes will now take hours to accomplish as the workers must go through a designated checkpoint miles away.These sorts of tactics by Israeli officials are typical actions taken against non Jews to harass and intimidate.Oh and by the way, even though the Salesians' Bethlemhem Wine is now not available for export,an Israeli product is being offered in its stead. This is one of a thousand similar stories one won't hear on Fox News or any other major media outlet in the U.S.

Deal- again thanks for the courageous truth-telling- I know it is easier for me as a humble high school religion and failed politician to be pretty stident in representing the basic facts on the ground in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- I don't have a career that is dependent on raising funds within the U.S. religious and political communities. It is not easy being supportive of the Palestinian Christian community since almost all the major media and political powers-that-be are very paranoid of being critical at all of the U.S.-Israeli unique relationship. I'm currently reading John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt's academic treatise on- The Israel Lobby- and it consolidates a lot of what I have found in my previous research- I highly recommend it for those interested in how we got so far into Holy Land politics and so opposed to the interests of our brother and sister Catholics in the Middle East. Very disturbing.

Also disturbing is the comments at the blog the-american-catholic.com on your article on how the pope should visit gaza, and a previous article I wrote entitled "A Catholic Narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It seems that folks there really have no compassion for Palestinian Christians, they have vicious things to say about them- and hold very strong opinions for people who have obviously never spent any time in the area. I think that Deal could be very instrumental in helping to build a unique Catholic response to Middle East/Holy Land politics. I would love to see Catholic candidates establishing a base of pro-life, pro-Holy Land Christian policies- we have to build up our Catholic lobby in ways following the pro_Israel lobby model. I don't begrudge the fact that the Israel lobby has become so powerful, for the most part they have done so by becoming very organized and very committed. They just happen to be largely mistaken on what they believe is good for the Jewish interest, and of course the interests of the universal common good. By opposing the status quo pro-Israel lobby positions, I hope to convey a pro-peace and prosperity message for all peoples- unlike those who seem to find the Palestinians or all Muslims simply repugnant and irrational jihadists, I do not believe that Jews or Israelis are inherently bad people- it is just the case that a majority of the influential members of American and Israeli Jewry are mistaken as to how to go about seeing to their own peoples' interests. It is quite common to go overboard with patriotism or the idea that one's people are special/chosen and so they are necessarily better than others, and entitled to take what they feel they deserve, even by means objectively immoral- the old ends justifying the means- we do it in various ways here in the U.S.- and only the Catholic Church in it's official teachings seems unique in proposing a more risky moral imperitive- that one cannot do evil that a good should come from it. This official teaching is not something that most Catholics seem to put into practice, but it is true nonetheless.

Deal, I hope you will encourage your Palestinian Christian friends to frequent our Catholic media and blogs and keep putting out their story, their message- it is necessary to compete with the exceedingly strong pro-Israel voices which obviously dominate most every media outlet- see the-american-catholic.com for more evidence of how low an opinion many Catholics seem to have of their brother Christians trying to maintain their homes and lives in our Holy Land.

Dear Mr Hudson

I saw your article mentioned in Edwin Pentin's World News section of the Catholic Herald, 17th April edition, and I hope it will give it the wider coverage it deserves. I believe it is generally accepted that unless there is a fair and peaceful settlement for the Palestinian population, Israel will never enjoy the security it says it desires.

If the Pope pays even a fleeting visit to Gaza Christians, not only will it help them to bear the enormous pressures they endure but it will also focus worldwide opinion on the plight of all Palestinians. It would also strengthen the Israeli objectors to the course their government is taking to suppress and contain the wider Palestinian population.

Might I suggest that you set up a petition on your website for Pope Benedict to make a detour to visit Gaza and present the results to Fr Federico Lombardi, the Pope's spokesman for the impending tour.

Yours sincerely

Charles T Bright

Sadly, this says it all.

Dear Mr Hudson

I saw your article mentioned in Edwin Pentin's World News section of the Catholic Herald, 17th April edition, and I hope it will give it the wider coverage it deserves. I believe it is generally accepted that unless there is a fair and peaceful settlement for the Palestinian population, Israel will never enjoy the security it says it desires.

If the Pope pays even a fleeting visit to Gaza Christians, not only will it help them to bear the enormous pressures they endure but it will also focus worldwide opinion on the plight of all Palestinians. It would also strengthen the Israeli objectors to the course their government is taking to suppress and contain the wider Palestinian population.

Might I suggest that you set up a petition on your website for Pope Benedict to make a detour to visit Gaza and present the results to Fr Federico Lombardi, the Pope's spokesman for the impending tour.

Yours sincerely

Charles T Bright

<i>2. Estimates show that more than 10 percent of the Palestinian Christian community on the West Bank has immigrated in the last five years alone. There is a corresponding number of Palestinian Christians leaving from towns like Nazareth and East Jerusalem located within Israel.</i>

While the exodus of Palestinian Christians from the Middle East is particularly rapid, it's worth noting that there has been an overall mass exodus of native Christian populations from the Middle East over the last 60 years. Since WW2, the era of the Ottoman Empire and the brief period of European colonialism have been replaced by primarily nationalist local governments, springing from the struggle of local populations for self determination.

The problem with nationalism is, of course, that it roots national identity in particular racial, religious and cultural characteristics. And Christians throughout the Middle East have found themselves on the outside of the his phenomenon. Even aside from the increase in fundamentalist movements within Islam, this nationalism has served to increase discrimination and violence against Middle Eastern Christians everywhere, and the Christian populations in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere throughout the Arab world have been drastically decreased over the last 50 years.

While some Palestinian Christians do identify strongly with the Palestinian nationalist cause, and thus strongly oppose the existence of Israel, we should not fool ourselves that a complete triumph for the PLO and/or Hamas would in any sense improve the condition of Palestinian Christians. Indeed, it might make things even worse.

Unquestionably Israel is far from blameless in the conflict, and some of its actions in regards to the settlements in particular are counterproductive in regards to acheiving peace, but Israel has shown a willingness to behave in a civilized fashion when not attacked which is clearly lacking in Hamas and questionable in the PLO. It is not surprising that many consider Israel the most responsible government in the region.

Also, if I may briefly address another commenter (and fellow writer at The American Catholic), Tim Shipe:

<i>Also disturbing is the comments at the blog the-american-catholic.com on your article on how the pope should visit gaza, and a previous article I wrote entitled "A Catholic Narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It seems that folks there really have no compassion for Palestinian Christians, they have vicious things to say about them- and hold very strong opinions for people who have obviously never spent any time in the area.</i>

Tim, I think you're being rather unfair to many of your fellow authors and commenters here. The issue is not of people lacking compassion for Palestinian Christians, but rather questioning whether supporting the causes of Hamas and the PLO (and opposing Israel) are actually to the benefit of the Palestinian Christians.

Other than helping them leave the country faster what can the Vatican do to help Palestininan Christians? Leaving might be the best thing. I'm certainly greatful my Irish ancestors didn't stick around to starve to death at home.

Why make ten points like this when you could just have said "Those perfidious JEWS!!!"

I like how the long list of criticisms just happens to leave out the fact (somewhat inconvenient to be sure) that Israelis are under constant threat of attack from the terrorists who surround them and infiltrate their country. A little perspective would have been nice.

The oldest prejudice will never die.

God Bless You Mr. Hudson!

As others have been saying it is very courageous for you to speak up for the Palestinian Christians and Palestinians in general when many Americans Catholics have bought into the blind pro-Israel mentality of many Americans.

We all must recognize that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are great people deserving of our love as Christians. In particular we must show special fraternal love and support for the Christians of the Holy Land. Nearly all of these Christians are Palestinian (i.e. they are Arabic-speakers and/or live in the Palestinian territories) and as Mr. Hudson said they suffer the same hardships as their Muslim neighbors.

I pray that our pope will give courageous witness to the plight of the Palestinian Christians even if this might be unpopular and subject him to charges of "Ant-Semitism".

Often Americans see no problem with the emigration of the Christians of the Holy Land. This is horrible. Palestine was a Christian region for centuries before and even after the Muslim conquest and long before the Jewish reconquest. We need the Christians to continue to bear witness in the land where Christ himself walked so the descendants of the first disciples may continue to bear witness to the Gospel.

Matthew M. and Gerry,

I suggest you study the issue and bring sound arguments to the discussion rather than ridiculous accusations of racism/prejudice or ignoring the facts on the ground. They do not apply here. Many Israelis share views similar to Deal Hudson's. You can begin with the Israel journalist and author, Akiva Eldar, and his book Lord of the Lands.

"I like how the long list of criticisms just happens to leave out the fact (somewhat inconvenient to be sure) that Israelis are under constant threat of attack from the terrorists who surround them and infiltrate their country. A little perspective would have been nice."

This is funny, as if the Israelis were some kind of innocent party in all this nonsense. Here's equal opportunity perspective, both the Israelis and Palestines are guilty of atrocities. Palestinians have fallen into the modern trap of consequentialist thinking, holding a view that the ends justify the means with suicide bombing, etc. The Israelis have done the same, and have no regard for human life, particularly among the gentile. But let's not forget, who's the dominant party here, who's the occupier.

And to all those Catholics who are defending secular nightmare that is the modern state of Israel, realize that what you are defending is a hedonistic state with no concern about the sanctity of human life, and that includes in the womb. Say what you will about the Palestinians, and they have made some seriously dreadful moral errors, they still obey God's commandment to bear human fruit. Meanwhile the Israelis are suicidally aborting their way to oblivion.

I can think of only one way in which the Israeli/Palestinian conflict might be resolved and that is for the US to insist that Israel become a TRUE democracy . Not an easy thing to accomplish I admit, for it is very hard for one group of people to give up their privileged status over another.The Zionists of Israel are no different from the rest of mankind in this. But the laws of Israel must ensure equal protection under the law for ALL its peoples regardless of their ethnicity or religion or lack of religion.Christians and Muslims must have the same business opportunities and chances to progress as do Jewish people.There must not be one law for the ruling elites and another for the goyim.The preferential treatment must be for law abiding people only, regardless of religious affiliation.

Israel was founded for Jews whether they be followers of the religion or not.No one else need apply.How can there possibly be peace under these conditions? Especially when there was already other people living there.How can we call Israel a true democracy when democracy is for the few? Spreading the wealth and providing an atmosphere for all people of good will to thrive and prosper is the best security that Israel could ever have.Family stability and the possiblity of wealth is a hard thing for terrorist recruiters to overcome.

Americans are known for going to bat for the underdog all over the world, but the destruction of the indiginous Palestinian culture has left them cold. I have always found it very curious when Israeli atrocities are mentioned ("Three Toddlers Killed Accidently... Family Mistakenly Shot....") the usual comment is well that's too bad but those rotten terrorists hide among civilians so of course there will be casualties. I have yet to hear though when an Israeli child is killed during a terrorist attempt to destroy an army position, "Oh well,the Israelis shouldn't have put their canteen amongst civilians." All human life is valuable in the eyes of God.But we humans have different standards obviously.

If modern history is any indication, Israel will not survive peacefully while continuing to subjugate the natives, be they Christian or Moslem, by having different laws for differnt people. Nor should they refuse to recognize that bad mistakes have been made. The Holy Land is so beautiful, where Our Lord chose to live.I wish that all who live there will find peace there in this lifetime. But I agree with Dymphna. When the first massacres started and the British took away the locals' guns and protection,for us it was time to go. Thank God for America and the kindness of strangers.

What is happening to the Palestinian people is genocide. Zionists have made claims on this land and ethnic cleansing is an essential part of their plan. Many in the west have been intimidated by an Israeli compliant media. All criticism of Israeli political aims is called anti-semitism. This is absurd. An honest appraisal of what is happening in the Holy Land needs to occur without the threat of repudiation. If the Pope can unflinchingly criticize Israeli racism against Palestinians he will have taken important steps toward establishing truth as a necessary premise to lasting peace. I'm not convinced he will.

How does garbage like this get past the administrator?

The Israeli thought police says "Hello". Is there any country or government that is as immune from criticism as Israel? Bullying is apparently an effective tactic for people like this.

RK and Charlotte, Your interchange is a good example of part of the problem. Let's take RK's first contribution.
RK says: "What is happening to the Palestinian people is genocide." Many Palestinians have indeed been killed. This is because of the lack of freedom within the Palestinian community. Hamas, a group of modern Muslims, and Fatah, a group of fascists, have successfully prevented the emergence of a secular democracy. Hamas is a more serious adversary because it finds its spirit in the Koran.
Zionists have indeed made claims on Palestinian land and some extremists do recommend ethnic cleansing. And how have the Palestinians responded?
Some members of the American media do seem to have been intimidated by other members who support varous views found in Israel. And how have the Palestinians responded?
Some critics of Israel are being called anti-semitic. And how have the Palestinians responded?
RK is absolutely correct when he calls for "an honest appraisal of what is happening in the Holy Land without fear of repudiation." Who could be against "an honest appraisal"? Will it include an honest study of Islam and its believers?
I hope Pope Benedict XVI "unflinchingly criticizes Israeli racism against Palestinians." That shouldn't be a problem since Israel has a free press. I hope he criticizes all examples of racism.
I am for truth. Who could be against truth?
Let us all hope and pray that the sincerity of modern Muslims is taken into account.

Dan,

I never advocated for violence--whether it be Israeli or Palestinian. You seek to reduce the issue to a sectarian dispute, when it's really a matter of justice--at least in my view. Here in the states we tend to see the Middle East troubles as political problems. I submit that this favors the Israeli position and tends to minimize Israeli atrocities. In effect, Israel gets a virtual free pass. Few have the vision or the courage to call Israel out on this lest they be labeled anti-semitic. Any honest discussion is preemptively abrogated. I applaud Deal for his strong attempt to look at these issues objectively.

Obviously no one. Part of an honest discussion includes participants saying up front whether or not they support the existence of a Jewish state, recognized by its neighbors, behind secure borders, as a permanent part of the Middle East. Once that is established, where exactly the borders are to be drawn can be negotiated, just like any other border dispute anywhere else in the world.



Some critics are anti-Semitic. Of course, Israel can be criticized just like any other county. I don't know of any mainstream person or entity who thinks otherwise. Israel is full of critics of Israel. The ADL has criticized Israel. But it's also true that anti-Semitism can at times present itself as criticism of Israel. I think the difference lies in whether or not the criticism is rational, by which I mean is it balanced, is there perspective, context, an awareness of history? Or is Israel simply vilified, with every single claim against it taken at face value? Are ancient fears of Jewish conspiracy appealed to? There will not be peace until Israel is treated as a normal state with normal failings, and not as a unique source of evil. Rational criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic will recognize this.

RK and Charlotte, Thank you for your responses.
Your response confuses me, RK. On the one hand, you say I seek to reduce the problem to a sectarian conflict (by which you mean religious, I suppose) and disagree. And on the other hand, you say we in America see the problem as a political problem. Which is it? In fact, I see the problem as a religious problem. Modern Muslims refuse to accept, on terms of social equality, anyone of another religious belief. For modern Muslims, only Islam is acceptable. For others there is conversion, dhimmitude, or death. I think they are sincere. Don't you? I believe that modern Muslims see the Israel problem as temporary, as a catalyst, so to speak, of a strengthening of Islam. What do you think? I also applaud Deal's courage and hope he can talk with Hamas members and also with Shlomo Avinieri.
Charlotte, the first part of your response is correct. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. I also agree with the second part of your response. But how do you propose to get Hamas to treat Israel, Jews, Christians, and the rest of the non-Muslim world as its equals in law and society?

I'm not sure what on earth Charlotte is thinking about when speaking of "ancient fears of Jewish conspiracy."I haven't heard anyone mention that. I'm speaking of real events that have happened to real people in Israel in recent years.

I am also curious to know what Mr. Deeny would consider an appropriate response to armed aggression against his family and commmunity? He admits that some Israelis openly support genocide against their Palestinian (Moslem/Christian) brothers. Does he suppose the terrible Hamas and Fatah appeared in a society where there was equal protection for all? Does he really expect that these poor people could run to the nearest Israeli police station and expect protection when the latest settlers from New York came to town?. God forbid he should find himself and his family in such an awful predicament with no one to help, no place to hide and his life worth NOTHING. May I gently suggest that once one has been in that position it's not hard to sympathize with others undergoing similar terrors.

It's easy to be facile with other people's homes and lives especially when one is seemingly incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings like oneself. Not crazed, stubbled-chin terrorists or Moslem fanatics, but regular people(including Catholics like ourselves) that only want the opportunities to live in a society that values THEIR lives and THEIR children as much as it does that of its elites. Is that really so hard to understand? Apparently.

You ask exactly the right question. I wish I had an answer. I don't think peace is impossible, but I also think it's probable that Israel will have to learn to live under a more or less permanent state of siege, with all the implications that would have to have for its character as a democratic state. The best hope for a better outcome would be for those who care about the Palestinians to help them understand that their best chance to have the future that everyone wants for them is to give up irredentist fantasies of a return to pre-1947 borders.

I invite Charlotte, Dan Deeny and others to come live in Bethlehem for a while - or at least visit. Why don't you email Deal Hudson and help form a group for a trip? I'm afraid some of the comments here show a very ignorant perspective of what is happening in this part of the world, and the history of current circumstances. May God bless us all.

Even though I wasn't asked , please permit me to give an answer to the question posed by Mr. Deeny:You get Hamas to treat everyone equally when you insist that Israel does the same. Same standards for both. After all, Israel is a sovereign country and not a political organization. When every Moslem or Christian Palestinian feels equally protected in an Israeli court and by Israeli police then Hamas will find itself out of business.

I don't mean to be unkind ,but how many modern Moslems has Mr. Deeny been acquainted with? Surely not one like the nice Moslem dentist that repaired my husband's tooth last year. She was trained in France and does great work.The nice guy who owns the best hair salon in town is Moslem. He hasn't done any bad stuff to my hair yet, except that once, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Smart people have used real Moslem suffering in Israel to stir up and politicize modern moslem fanaticism . They got the idea from the early Zionists' use of real Jewish suffering to secure for themselves the new political idenity we know as modern Israel. If we want them(the extremists) to fail we must insist on the rights of all peoples in Israel to equal treatment and protection under the law.

...it is demographically impossible. The Arab population must be controlled, limited and excluded in many cases. To fully enfranchise the Arab population would mean the end of Israel as it would be voted out of existence by sheer political numbers. Israel will forever be in a state of siege, because the Arabs know that they have time and numbers on their side. They don't have to acknowledge Israel, all they have to do is continue procreating until the Israelis can no longer keep them out. Israel knows this too, which is why I think you will see the settlements expand and the walls go higher...it is the only way they can maintain their existence. Israel is in an untenable position...either they can:

1.) Continue building settlements and force the Palestinians out, which is ethnic cleansing
2.) Attempt to incorporate the Arabs, which would mean the end of Israel

Karina, Charlotte, and Pamela K., Thank you all for your responses.
Karina, I would like to come and live in Bethlehem. It would be a good opportunity to learn about conditions first hand. I could teach English and learn Arabic! It would be expensive though, and we don't have much money.
Charlotte, I agree with your response. If you have Palestinian friends, perhaps you can make progress in this regard. Perhaps your most difficult problem, however, will be with Americans!
Pamela K., Thank you for your very interesting response. Charlotte will have to speak for herself, but perhaps she is referring to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or Jews as Christ killers. Jews have often served as scapegoats for our own failings.
Pamela K., an appropriate response to "armed aggression against my family" would be whatever works. If diplomacy worked, then I would use diplomacy. If violence worked, I would use violence. Only violence seems to work with Hamas, Hezballah, FIS, the Taliban, Al Queda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. That is because, as I think, they find their spirit and tactics in the Koran.
I agree with the rest of your first contribution, except your use of the expression "crazed, stubble-chined, Moslem fanatics." That sounds like something from our media and pundits. Modern Muslims are not crazed, but are calm, filled with serenity. They believe themselves filled with God's holy spirit and feel certain of their reward in Paradise. This serenity comes from the Koran and from Islamic tradition. I encourage you to study modern, Islamic thought. Study the recent and ongoing civil war in Algeria.
Pamela K., Your second contribution is more of a problem. I don't think Hamas will ever "find itself out of business." Hamas follows the Koran, which will not "find itself out of business." Perhaps you are applying American political standards to a religion? I don't know how many modern Muslims I have been acquainted with. I taught ethnic Somalis in Ethiopia, I met Muslims in France, and we regularly shop at the Middle East Grocery Store. Some of the Muslims in France had fled life in North Africa for a better chance in France. Some were students, also seeking a better life. The next time you go to the dentist, ask her about Islamic societies and what can be done to improve material life for Muslims. Also ask your hairdresser! Your third paragraph is interesting. Who are the 'smart people"? You use the phrase "modern Muslim fanatics." I disagree with the phrase, because it doesn't take into account the serenity of the believers. For example, FIS in Algeria was born from the Koran and opposed corruption in Algeria. FIS was, and is, trying to practice Islam. I oppose extremism. FIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezballah do not see themselves as extreme. What I think has little lasting importance for modern Muslims. They follow the Koran and Islamic tradition.
Perhaps you can explain why we do not seem to believe modern Muslims. Is it our arrogance? Our decadence? Our religious bigotry? Please comment!

Kudos to D.B. for your succinct and accurate description of Israeli thought. Would that all who support US Mideast policy be so clearsighted in what is at issue. IMHO the flaw in the thinking is that Israel must be maintained as overlord in the region in order to have racial/religious security and identity. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together peacefully for over 1200 years in Palestine.They did it by respecting each other's right to be there.They got along and coexisted because none of them had the power of life and death over the other, unlike today. If someone is forcing the Israelis to contracept and abort themsevlves out of existence , I want to know. Otherwise I do not think this is a good enough reason to accept their tyrranical behaviour over everyone else's interests.

My dear Mr. Deeny I suspect the reason that no one is worried about the imminent takeover of Islam is they do not feel that it is germane to the topic at hand. The pursuit of money, power, and control are the causes of violence in the Middle East, not religion per se. The Israelis do not kill Palestinians because they are Moslems or because they are Christians. They kill them because they are not Jews.They do not want to convert them. They want their land.

The term "smart people" means generally speaking, those clever folks that figure out how to get others to do the dirty work for them in order to increase their own power, prestige and wealth. Politicizing religion is a way of accomplishing this. Zionists were very successful in the last century. Zionism is politicized judaism. Next came politicized Islam--the movements you mentioned i.e., Mr. Deeny. Christians are caught in the crossfire. No political movement and no concerned coreligionists willing to step up to the plate for those under the gun. We need to remember to pray and work for their protection in Israel, India and Africa to name but a few places.

Briefly I have lived, been married , and vacationed in Moslem countries. I have Moslem friends. I have a nodding aquaintance with the religion. Personally I am far more afraid of the land hungry Israelis at the moment. So while I thank Karina for her kind invitaion to come back, I think I will keep a safe distance between me and them. Let's pray for the dear Holy Father. He has an unfathomably hard task ahead of him. How will he be able to console and comfort the millions of poor, unvalued
people who are at the mercy of the powers that be in Israel? May our dear Lord guide and protect him.

Pamela K., Thank you for your interesting response.
I didn't understand you when you said "no one is worried about the imminent takeover of Islam." Do you think someone is going to take over Islam, or do you mean that the Islamic faithful are going to take over someone else's land?
I am also unsure of your phrase "politicized Islam." My understanding is that there is no distinction between politics and religion in Islam. Muslims do not have a separation between church and state, so to speak, as we do here. There is only the umma and the others. I don't think FIS would identify itself with the term politicized Islam.
And why are you afraid of the land hungry Israelis? do you own land they want?
Your contribution is interesting. Please keep commenting.

A while back in this thread I mentioned the responses to my article entitled "A Catholic Narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" over at the blog the-american-catholic.com- where I am one of several writers. I did not mean to suggest that the blog is somehow officially represented by the negative comments made directed at Palestinian Christians- or myself. There is a range of beliefs from various writers all attempting to be orthodox Catholics- some are close to where I am coming from on this issue and others are almost polar opposites. What I was hoping to do is alert Palestinian Christians to check out the comments on this issue over at american-catholic, as well as here at insidecatholic, and offer their testimony. My view of seeing the Palestinians in general, and Palestinian Christians specifically, as primary victims in the struggle with Israeli Jews, is a minority view pretty much everywhere here in U.S. media land- including much of Catholic media land- but I am not giving over this battle for truth without a big-time fight- using words as my weapons.

The reason it is so important to maintain the link to the Christians in the Holy Land, and throughout the Middle East, is simple- the Church must be planted everywhere in the world, we are called to such an evangelical mission by our Lord. It is a complete shame on us if we allow the churches of the Holy Land to whither and die from neglect and from hostile forces funded and supported by American leaders and tax monies. Some are saying that the Palestinian Christians are in league with the jihadist Muslims, or they are too cowardly to deal with the majority Muslims in the Holy Land and the Middle East since they are not evangelizing aggressively. I would suggest another interpretation- for the Palestinian Christians I met, the Palestinian cause in general is one that would compare to that of the Irish Catholics of Northern Ireland- they feel pitted against a very powerful and foreign colonizing entity- for the Irish Caths it's the Brits, for the Palestinians it's the Zionist Movement and the forces that support a "Greater Israel" today- meaning an Israel that controls territories taken in 1967 and thereafter. Most of the Christians in the Holy Land did not feel that the Muslims were a primary force against them- until much more recently in any case. In fact, I had the sense that Palestinian Christians felt pretty much betrayed and abandoned by American Catholics much more than they felt any animosity towards Palestinian Muslims.

Now, I believe that the Catholic Church- meaning all of us- has a responsibility to assist fellow Catholic communities under duress- and in the Holy Land the way to help has been pretty clear if one has been listening to the Latin Patriarchs of recent times- we need to get our U.S. leaders to become equally supportive of Palestinian interests as we have been of Israeli interests. Following the way of international law, UN Resolutions, the World Court rulings, and VAtican diplomatic accords such as the VAtican-PLO Accord of 2000- this is the path for the American Catholic community to pursue.

Palestinian Christians are important because they can offer a life witness to majority Muslims- this is the slow road to conversions, but it is one that can bear much fruit- the American model of door-to-door conversion seeking is not one that is workable in many parts of the world right now- we must have some prudence and patience in this regard- the best thing we can do is help set conditions that are just on the ground in the Holy Land- this would give Palestinian Christians some credibility in fellow Palestinians' eyes and throughout the Middle East- right now they just look like powerless fools, or agents supporting crusading Western powers.

One last thing- it is often said that the Palestinians have been terrorizing the Israelis non-stop for decades now- it is important to look at the facts- after Oslo in the early 1990's, the Palestinians gave peace a chance, - in 1994 67 Israelis were killed and 167 wounded in terrorist attacks, in 2000 only 1 Israeli was killed and 12 were injured. During this time period Israel took full advantage of the peace and the number of Israeli settlers doubled as the Israeli establishment decided to change the "facts on the ground"- with no discernable American protest.

Ah Mr. Deeny, I don't know how to be more clearer than this.As a Palestinian my life does not have the same value in Israel as does other citizens of the world. Why would I want to put myself in that situation without good reason? No, I don't personally have any more land to confiscate. That was taken care of back in the day. But I do have extended family and friends that are trying to hang on to their property and businesses. I fear for them.

I am aware of the differences in world view between classical Islamic thought and Christianity.Hezballah, Hamas are examples of using Islamic rhetoric to fight against another political entity-politicized Judaism ,which uses Judaic concepts to gain popular support. Fatah was a secular group in it's foundation, formed in reaction to the same. Per my previous comment, read "imminent takeover OF Islam" as "imminent takeover BY Islam". Mr. Deeny I think I understand your concerns with fundamentalist Islam and its goals. I don't think it's a overriding concern in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict; in fact sort of a red herring one might say.

Thank you Mr. Shipe as well for your comments and attempts to bring a more measured view to this topic. I will take a look at the site you suggested.You might want to google "Israel Shamir". He's a bit too much of an old lefty for my tastes but he documents life in Israel rather accurately as an Israeli journalist. It's difficult to overcome long held perceptions as you have discovered. As someone once said, "It doesn't much matter what the truth is.It's the perception of the truth that is important." I'm afraid that holds very true in this case.

Pamela K., Thank you for your interesting and helpful response.
I hope your extended family and friends are able to hold on to their property and businesses. You must document the wrongdoing: Israel claims to be a country of laws fighting a group of implacable, anti-Jewish terrorists. You must get on programs like Hannity and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, EWTN, and the various evangelical Christian programs. But stay calm! Shouting and bickering will get you nowhere. I know staying calm is a problem, but practice. Bring a rosary, put a holy card in front of you, set up a statue of St. Francis or St. Anthony and look at it from time to time. Put a Benedictine cross there, or a Benedictine medal. Avoid, I repeat, avoid CNN, ABC, and the other main stream media outlets.
Pamela K., you might be interested in a new book by John Kiser called Abd el Kader, Commander of the Faithful. I understand it's very good. Kiser's book The Monks of Tibhirine was excellent. Did you know there is a town in Iowa named after Abd el Kader? It's a nice little town on the Turkey River.
Our country's contact with Islam has been almost uniformly negative, from the time of the Barbary Pirates to Muhammed Atta and his comrades. And the unfortunate Palestinians have had some very troubled leaders. Isn't there anyone like Rafik Hariri?

Mr. Deeny ,thank you for your well meaning advice. What you have proposed has been tried by better folks than myself for many years without success. Israel is indeed a land of laws, but they are laws mostly for Israelis. Palestinians need not apply or expect redress.

Please consider other sources of Middle Eastern news than the ones you mentioned.You won't hear much news that show the Israelis in an unfavourable light, such as the story of the Salesian monastery I wrote about above. Did they report the story of the young American girl who was run over and killed by an Israeli earth mover whilst in the process of demolishing Palestinian homes?

It is interesting that you mentioned the St. Benedict medal. I am a Benedictine oblate and the medal's status as a sacramental has always fascinated me.It's a powerful remedy against evil.I will also look at the reading material you mentioned. Sounds rather intriguing.I've driven past the St. George where Mr. Hariri was murdered, poor man. Lebanese politics make my head spin( and others lose their's).

Pamela K. Thank you for your response. Yes, the girl's death was extensively reported on in all the media, including FOX News. It is important for the Palestinians to get on news media that might be influential. We all know CNN, ABC, and the other main media outlets slant the news, sometimes unintentionally. And the Palestinians have paid the price!
You are a Benedictine Oblate, so you know the RSB. Follow a regular routine of pushing the Palestinian cause. Work for peace, justice, the rule of law, prosperity, and progress. But be careful! Hamas, Hezballah, and fanatic Zionists will not approve.

Dan, neither will Fox News, most evangelical stations....not even EWTN. Neo-conservatives and their media mouthpieces will not oppose the Israeli agenda. They may occasionally pay lip service to being "fair and balanced" but don't be fooled; the Palestinians won't get equal treatment in these outlets. It's bad for business.

RK, Thank you for your helpful response.
I disagree with you, of course, but I'm not sure where to start.
While reporting on the recent Israeli response to Hamas missile attacks, Shepherd Smith reported that Arab citizens of Israel did not receive training against bomb attacks, nor did they have an adequate number of bomb shelters in their villages. I heard no more of this. Are you saying this might be a neo-conservative plot or conspiracy?
Why "not even EWTN"? Do you believe the Israelis control EWTN?
Is Alan Colmes a neo-conservative?
You mentioned "most evangelical stations." Which ones will broadcast the truth, and which ones won't?
You say "Palestinians won't get equal treatment in these outlets." Where will they get equal treatment? What do you advocate?
I propose that Palestinian Christians accept the existence of Israel as a nation. I propose that the Palestinian Christian clergy begin actively opposing in word and deed (peaceful protests, demonstrations, and the like) Hamas, Hezballah, and other modern Muslim groups. The clergy will, of course, be risking their lives, but then the clergy must lead the way. I propose that Palestinian Christians try to get their message to Americans through media like FOX and EWTN. I propose that Palestinian Christian clergy begin starting schools and hospitals. I propose that Palestinian Christians oppose the abortion business because it is a racist program designed to reduce the number of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. Palestinian Christians must be sure to get this message out to Americans. Palestinian Christians must be sure to volunteer for the Army of Palestine currently being formed under American supervision in Fatah controlled areas.
RK, you seem unrealistic. Start reading! Read the two fine books by John Kiser. Read Jean-Jacques Antier's biography of Charles de Foucauld. Read Sea of Faith by Stephen O'Shea. Read Fouad Ajami's books. Read a book by Yasmina Khadra. Read the Bible. Maybe you've been reading too many conspiracy books?

Thanks for your helpful response Dan. I don't read "conspiracy books", unless you consider 'Blood Brothers' by Fr. Elias Chacour a conspiracy book.

Frankly, I find your whole approach to these issues intractably unrealistic. Pamela K has spelled out quite clearly why Palestinians don't trust the Israelis. In rereading some of your posts your most cogent point is that Arab extremists are also untrustworthy. Yet you seem unable to acknowledge that in light of Israeli provocation, it is predictable that some Arabs would resort in kind to violence with violence. Is it that hard to acknowledge that Israel has lots to answer for? You ought to take a break from polemicists like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Read 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt if you really want a "fair and balanced" perspective.

It's common knowledge that influential televangelists like John Hagee from Crossroads Church in San Antonio are significant advocates for Israel.

Mr. Hudson:

I generally like your writing. I was thus distressed to read this piece. It takes a very one-sided and simplistic approach to a tragic issue. There are many, many aspects to this issue, which you simply ignore.

First, there is the purely theological side to the question. As Catholics, we believe in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God makes a covenant with the Jewish people. Under this covenant, the Jewish people are given the Land of Israel. As John Paul often said in relation to the Jews, God made a promise to them, and the promises of God are not broken.

What relevance does this have to the discussion? Lets be frank. Most discussion of the State of Israel assumes that its right to exist is an open question, that the foundation of the State of Israel was an act of injustice. No Christian should ever take such a position. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, because God gave it to them. If you have trouble with that -- and I know most of our secular friends do -- then you have trouble accepting that the Bible states the truth.

Second, I have to confess to ignorance about Middle Eastern Christians, and I have to complain that this article did little or nothing to educate me. In broad general terms, of course, this area is divided between Jews and Muslims. In broad general terms, the Jews are now, and always have been, open to peace based upon a two-state solution. The Muslims are now, and always have been, opposed to peace, opposed to a two-state solution and dedicating to driving the Jews into the sea.

Where do the Middle Eastern Christians fit into this conflict? I do not know. I had gathered the general impression that there were caught in the cross-fire and disliked by both sides. I had gathered that the Jews view them as Arabs, and the Arabs view them as infidels, so life is pretty uncomfortable for them. Do the Middle Eastern Christians side with one side or another, or do they try to stay out of the fight? I do not know, and you did not tell me.

But, and here is where we get to the nub of the matter, what do you want the Pope to do, Mr. Hudson? You did not say, but I think your intent was clear. Every word in your article was critical of Israel. You did not mention a single thing about the Arab refusal to accept peace. So, if the Pope accepted your view, what he do? Obviously, he would join the secular chorus who say that Israel is an illegitimate state, and who seek to destroy Israel.

Do you really want the Pope on the same side of this issue as Iran? John Paul worked very hard to get the Church past its unfortunate history of anti-Semitism. I am sure this is not your intention, but, whether you intend it or not, you are basically advocating a return to the bad old days on this issue.

I am surprised and saddened to find that so many people in a Catholic discussion would be so completely anti-Israel. I am very sorry that you have these views.

For those of you who feel this way, let me ask you a simple question. How do you think America would act if one of our neighbors was continually shooting rockets at us, trying to kill schoolchildren? Since Israel left Gaza there has not been a single day that the Arabs have not fired rockets at Israel seeking to kill civilians. How are the Jews supposed to live with this? How would you feel if your town was subjected to this?

I know your answer, before you make it. It is morally OK to shoot rockets at Jewish civilians, because of all of the evil things Israel has done. All of the evil done by the Palestinians is justified, you will say, because, after all, it is THEIR land, which the evil Jews wrongfully took from them. Everything that Arabs do, you will say, is self-defense. There are, in short, no moral restraints upon Arab behavior. Nothing which Israel does is self-defense, none of it is justified, you think, because Israel is the one nation on Earth, which has no right to self-defense, because of its uniquely evil nature.

Am I summarizing your position unjustly? I do not think so. You are basically saying that Jews have no right to shoot back, because they have no right to be in the land to begin with. The short answer to that is, read your Bible. To whom did God give this land? The longer answer is, look at history. In the mid-20th century, Europe did its very best to exterminate the Jewish people. Israel was founded, not as a religious state as such but as a place of refuge for the Jewish people.

Was that an evil act? I just visited the Holacaust Museum in Washington. They had an exhibit on the time when the Jews could have escaped Germany. Why didn't they? Because no nation would let them in. At a time when it was literally life or death, when Jews who did not get out would be killed, all of the nations of the world united to say no to Jewish immigration.

The premise of the foundation of the State of Israel is that the Jewish people will never be safe until they are in their own Land, have their own military and can defend themselves. The premise of the State of Israel is that the whole world opposes the Jews, that they have no reliable friends anywhere on the planet. After this history of the 20th century, can you say that the Jews are wrong in this feeling?

Again, I know your answer before you make it. You will say that the Arabs had nothing to do with this, that the Holacaust was not their fault. This is correct. The Holacuast was a purely European affair, for which the Arabs were not responsible. This is the tragic nature of the Middle Eastern conflict. Both sides, to some degree, have right on their side.

This is why sane and civilized people support the two-state solution, which would recognize the rights of both sides. Who is blocking the two-state solution? Israel has always accepted it. If the Palestinians would agree to accept Israel, and to live in peace with the Jews, there would be peace tomorrow morning. It is the Arabs who are now, as they have always have been, opposed to any peace which does not involve the destruction of Israel.

When the ancient Chinese wanted to curse someone they would say "May you live in interesting times." Our Father St. Benedict did live in such a period of history and his Rule of how Christians should conduct themselves is worthy of note and practice.Readers wanting to pray for world peace might also like to know about Blessed Emperor Karl of Austria. He too lived in "interesting times".

FYI: RC priests and religious may not take part in such political activities as suggested by Mr. Deeny, for rather obvious (I should think) reasons. A relation of my husband is a RC bishop from the Latin Patriarchy so I am somewhat familiar with the subject and also the consequences of such activity. Laity that participate in political protest tend to end up dead(accidently shot 10 or 20 times) or in gaol for several years without charges ever being filed. I do not know what the policies are of other religious traditions, but I expect they are the same.

There is another more modern saying that I have recently learned, and very useful it is: "Stick a fork in me because I am so done."Dominus vobiscum to all.

RK, Thank you for your response.
No, I don't think Blood Brothers is a conspiracy book. But didn't you recommend Chalmers Johnson's book? I looked it up on Amazon. It does seem to have a good chapter on China and human rights.
I don't think I use the term "Arab extemists." I think Hamas, Hezballah, and FIS are following the Koran. Do you think the Koran is extremist? By what authority? You bring up the problem of why no one in the West seems to take modern Muslims at their word. It is exasperating. Doesn't the Koran strictly require violence if the infidels resist? Doesn't the Koran require Muslims to have no Christian or Jewish friends?
I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, except once very briefly on a TV program, and he seemed like a whiner to me. He had no proposals, only complaints. I no longer watch Hannity or O'Reilly - too much shouting, and not enough forward movement.
So, amongst the evangelicals, we shouldn't listen to John Hagee. Who should we listen to? I like Woodrow Kroll. Is he okay?
Israel does indeed have lots to answer for. So do we all. Especially we Americans - think of the abortion business, RK. Over 40 million people.
I haven't read Mearsheimer and Walt's book. You use the phrase "Arab extremists," but you give me no names. I think Hamas, Hezballah, and FIS are sincere, faithful Muslims. Do you think they are extremists? If so, by what authority?
I hope to read your response!

Pamela K. Thank you for your response.
Actually, your comment about Catholic priests and nuns being forbidden to participate in political demonstrations is incorrect. Many priests and nuns walk in the annual March for Life in Washington D.C.. They protest the government sanctioned abortion business. But you are correct when you say activities for peace and justice would be more dangerous in Israel, although still more dangerous in Gaza. I doubt if the clergy is forbidden to start schools and hospitals. Fr. Elias Chacour, for instance, has a school.
You say "accidentally shot 10 or 20 times." Do you mean by Israelis, who are breaking Jewish and Israeli law, or by members of Hamas, who are following the Koran and Islamic tradition, obligation, and duty? As you know, Muslims are forbidden to have Jewish or Christian friends.
I'm sure Karl of Austria was an interesting fellow.
Pamela K., I look forward to reading your comments.

Dan,

I've never heard of Woodrow Kroll. You're, of course, free to listen to him or Hagee or anyone else for that matter. I was merely making the point that Hagee happens to be very influential with the GOP and has all kinds of rationale for supporting Israel.

Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be quite consistent in claiming that Hamas and Hezbollah sponsored terrorists are a greater threat than Israel. Staighten me out there if I'm wrong.

Of course we all have lots to answer for and we'll have that opportunity at the final judgement. Abortion is a horror, but I don't really understand why you bring it up. Point # 10 of Deal's article outlines the tragic costs to Gaza from the recent Israeli incursion. Shouldn't we (loosely) limit this discussion to issues related to Israel, the Palestinians and the Pope's upcoming trip?

Someone suggested the two state solution. This is very controversial, even within Israel. Many don't think it would work

Rick Gibson seems to know what he is talking about. He seems to have clearly explained some of the problems. Maybe some of the others can respond to his clear explanation?

RK:

You ask another poster if she is really saying that Hamas and Hezbollah are a greater threat than Israel. I can not speak for her, bur I will gladly endorse that postion. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, seeking to both exterminate the Jews and to impose tyranny on their own people. They are evil organizations, by any sane standard. As one example, they routinely use schools and hospitals as launching pads for rockets, with the deliberate intention of drawing Israeli counter-fire onto their own children and wounded. Why would they do this? So, they can say to people like you, "See the evil Jews! See the evil Jews!"

Israel, on the other hand, is a basically decent, democratic state, which does what it does toward the Arabs out of self-defense. Israel is not a perfect nation -- who is -- but compared to the tyranny and suffering of all of the Arab nations, Isreal is like comparing day to night. Israel is not very different from America in its values; the Arab world, on the other hand, has little democracy, little law and far less basic decency.

How can you possibly compare the evil of Hamas and Hezbollah with Israel? You remind me of those people on the Left in the old days who used to morally equate the United States and the Soviet Union.

I am sorry, but you either very, very misinformed, or motivated by some type of hatred toward the Jewish people. I can understand having sympathy for Arabs, whose lifes are dificult in many ways. I cannot understand having no sympathy for Israel which is a lifeboat and a refuge for a small people which was almost wiped out by Hitler.

The Middle East is a tragic situation, which is very hard to sort out. The solution does not lie, however, in supporting Arab efforts to destroy the Jewish state.

Again, I am disheartned that Christians would be having such a discussion. Forgive me, but we have some history to remember. Anti-semistism is a sin which too many in the Church have fallen into. Being stridently opposed to the existence of Israel, and being stridently in favor of terrorists who target civilians on purpose, is not a postion which any Christian should ever take. Shame on you.

Rick Gibson's arguments are straight from the christian zionist catechism as taught by John Hagee, Pat Robertson ,the late Jerry Falwell, and any number of fundamentalist protestant preachers on late night tv. Maybe it was too hard to fit palestinian christians into the theology, if they were aware of their existence at all. Search "Christian Zionism" for a more detailed description and history of the movement.Dan Deeny you seem to know a lot about the moslem religion. How much do you know about the jewish religion? For a more exact picture read -"Jesus in the Talmud" by Peter Shafer and for Rick Gibson -"The Holocaust Industry:Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" by Norman Finklestein.Both are available on Amazon.

Ziggy:

I was born and baptized a Catholic. I have never heard John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or any other Protestant minister speak on Middle Eastern issues. As I understand it, from third party discussions, many Protestant fundamentalists who support Israel do so, at least in part, because of their belief that the foundation of the State of Israel is somehow connected to the Second Coming. I have no such belief.

My views about the Middle East do not come from fundamentalists. They come from personal knowledge. I have visited Israel three times. I have followed Middle East politics for decades. I know exactly what I am talking about.

Which is why I do not "argue" as you do, by facile put-downs of other people, saying you are totally ignorant, go read so and so. Instead, I argue by presenting the facts, which I note you are ENTIRELY unable to answer. You just simply ignored every word that I said thinking it was enough to put me down as a fundamentalist.

Ziggy, this is a CATHOLIC forum. You can not use here the slap down tactics of the secular left. You need to stay within some kind of recognizable Christian thinking.

First, while the Church disagrees with fundamentalists on many issues, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is not a refutation of any argument to simply sneer at it that some "fundamentalist Protestant" made a similar argument. You need to show some respect toward, not just other arguments, but toward other kinds of Christians.

Second, Ziggy is it your view that the Jews just made up the Holocaust, in order to give them pro-Israel arguments? As I said -- and as you had trouble understanding -- the Middle East is a tragedy precisely because BOTH sides have good arguments. Israel's claim to the land is based, (a), on the promises of God in the Old Testament -- or, since referring to the Bible seems to offend you -- the history and tradition of the Jewish people, which has always been deeply tied to their ancient homeland; and (b) on the acute need of the Jewish people for a land of their own, after the annihilation of 50% of the world Jewish population during the Holocaust. Both of these are surely good arguments to people of good will. The claim of the Arabs to the land is based on them having been there since the 7th century A.D. That is also a good claim.

So, two peoples have morally respectable claims? How do we sort them out? Well, all people of good faith would like to see some type of compromise, some solution which respected the rights of both sides. This is the logic of the two-state solution. The two state solution was first proposed by the UN in the 1940s. Israel immediately said "yes"; the Arab world immediately said "no" and invaded Israel, seeking to destroy it.

And so it has been, ever since. The Jews have always been willing to accept a two-state solution. They have never sought to eliminate their opponents. The Arabs, on the other hand, have always clung to the hope that they can wipe Israel off the map.

To a sane and humane person, this is a tragedy. The Arab approach to this issue is so deeply, deeply frustrating and foolish. The Arabs combine utter mulishness on this issue with military weakness, which lands the situation in permanent conflict and permanent stalemate.

You do not see it that way, Ziggy. To you, everything that the Jews do is immoral. In your eyes, the Jews -- alone of all people on Earth -- are not allowed to defend themselves against attack. I cannot imagine you, Ziggy, defending terrorists of any other type, yet you defend terrorists who kill Jews.

What does this sound like? Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. It is OK to kill Jewish children and civilians. Who makes arguments like that Ziggy? In what camp do you find yourself, Ziggy? Do you really like being with those people?

RK and ziggy, Thank you for your responses.
ziggy, I don't know very much about Islam, nor do I know much about Judaism. I'll look up the books you recommend. I have heard of Norman Finkelstein, and have briefly listened to him on TV.
RK, I didn't know that John Hagee is very influential with the GOP. I'll check into that. Woodrow Kroll has a website and a very early morning radio program.
RK, Yes I can straighten you out, I think. As you know, I do not use the term terrorist to describe Hamas or Hezballah. The members of these groups are calmly applying the Koran to the situation. If the infidels submit peacefully, then all is well; if not, then force is called for. Muslims condemn terror. They oppose terror. They reject terror. I would say that Islam is a greater threat to Christians in the Holy Land than Israel is. And such has been the case since the Arabs left their homeland to spread Islam.
RK, abortion is important in the discussion because our legal abortion business is a crime against humanity. How can reasonable people accept moral lessons from others who permit legal abortions? RK, look at the evidence, study the works of Margaret Sanger, study Planned Parenthood, read the comments of our Secretary of State, etc. You mentioned Pope Benedict XVI. What would happen if the Pope went to Israel, compared the abortion business to the Holocaust, inquired about Israeli laws on abortions, mentioned our laws here, criticized Catholics who tacitly support the abortion business, then went to Gaza and criticized the policies of Hamas? What would happen?
I hope to read your comments.

Rick Gibson are you by chance related to the Amazing Kreskin?You know all these things about me from my brief comment? I hate jewish babies.I routinely sneer at protestant theology. I think all jews are immoral. I am a holocaust denier. I am a leftist. That's quite a talent. Telling you that you missed on all accounts won't change your opinion. Will it? You know my kind, right? Rick I don't assume anything about you. Please give me the same courtesy.

If you arrived at your theology about Israel all on your own thru intense bible study and divine inspiration well then God bless. Search christian zionism and see how much your opinions agree with them in both form and content. That's really the point I was trying to make.

All your comments are from a predictable script. So I am a leftist. Can you tell me Rick one other subject besides Israel that Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken agree on? Pres. Obama is America's premier leftist. He appointed Ralm Emanuel whose father was a early zionist terroist.How does that fit in with your theory? Did you read any of the previous posters? You may have studied middle eastern politics for many years but some of them have lived thru the consequences and not on the picture post card side. You went to Israel 3 times and you didn't know about the palestinian christians, some of whom are descended from the christian communities of the 1rst century? Go again. This time visit the salesian monastery in bethlehem or take Karina up on her invitation.

I don't hate jewish babies. I don't hate palestinian babies . God loves both of them. Do you? If so stop repeating the same old stuff and insist everyone's life be given the same value.

Ziggy:

To have a rational conversation, you really need to read a post before answering it. I made a number of points, to which you have no reply. We do not have to agree with each other, but it is helpful if we at least make an effort to talk about the same thing.

First, you had kicked off our chat by ignoring what I had said in a rather lengthy post, and simply putting me down as agreeing with Christian Zionists. Your reference to these people was obviously negative. I pointed out that a put down is not an answer, and that my views are my own, not theirs. You reply by denying that you were putting down fundamentalists and once again asserting that my views and theirs were the same.

Lets parse this a bit, shall we? I am not an authority on Protestant fundamentalists, but my limited understanding of them says that they support Israel, because they see the re-foundation of the State of Israel as setting some kind of cosmic clock for the Second Coming. As I said, I have no such belief. I do not know when Jesus is coming again, and I do not think anyone knows.

What I said was fairly simple. I simply said that in the Old Testament, God made a covenant with the Jewish people. As part of that covenant, He promised them the Land of Israel. If you will read the Old Testament, you will find that this is not an obscure point. It is a promise that is made, over and over. As John Paul said, the promises of God to the Jewish people have not been revoked. I find it hard not to see, in the miraculous foundation and survival of modern Israel, out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the hand of God.

Now, of course, one can deny the authority of the Bible on various grounds. One can make any number of theological arguments about this. Or, if you like, you can simply deny that the Bible should be discussed by intelligent people, which is rather a secular postion. What is your position on all of this? You have not said.

Second, you say that what I say comes "from a predictable script" and that I called you a leftist. Read my post again, Ziggy. I did not call you a leftist. I know nothing about your political views, except that you are very critical of Israel. It is sad, but also funny, that you would heatedly accuse me of following a script, when you have simply assumed that I said things that I did not say. I also did not say that you hate Jewish babies.

Here is what I did say. I said that both sides in this conflict have morally respectable claims. I said that all people of good will should want a compromise, which respects the legitimate rights of both sides. Which part of that offended you?

I did make some assumptions about your position, from what you said. Correct me if I am wrong. I assumed that you do not believe it is legitimate of Israel to defend itself. The recent encursion into Gaza, which you criticize, had, after all, the goal of stopping daily rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. You appeared to me to be saying that it was OK for Hamas to fire rockets at Jewish civilians, but it is not OK for Israel to try to stop this.

Is this not your position? Did I misunderstand you? And, if this is your position, what is its justification? Israel is a sovereign nation. Like all other sovereign nations, it has the right to respond with military force when it is attacked. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I await your reply with interest.

1)"Ziggy this is a Catholic forum. You cannot use here the slap down tactics of the secular left" 2)"Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. It is ok to kill jewish children and civilians. Who makes statements like that Ziggy." Did you not write these sentences? I'll let other readers decide if I was unduely sensitive. I wasn't aware of any heat or slap downs in any of my answers.

Rick it is impossible to have a productive conversation with people who believe as you do. No one can win against a circuitous argument. 1) God gave the holy land to jews(religious and secular) forever.2)Jews may seize and do anything to defend whatever land it can acquire against who ever is also living there because 1) God gave the holy land to the jews forever and not to the people living there the past 2000 years who had better leave or else. Footnote 1 Atheist/agnostic jews may also claim this promise even though they don't believe the Giver of the promise exists . Do I have it right?

The answer you asked me about re defense is this. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that country/person "A" may defend itself from imminent harm. Does the same country/person "A" , while committing a theft against another country/person "B", have the same rights of defense if the other country/person "B" resists? Does then country/person "A" have the right to not only destroy country/person "B" who will try to defend his possesions (maybe violently) but also "B"'s family, neighbor and village for resisting "A"'s attempt to take his stuff? Put any country's name in for "A" or "B". I don't think so. Maybe you do. I don't.

JPII bent over backwards to make up to jewish people and apologized many times. Have we heard anything from that quarter except endless kvetching and complaints. They don't like the words in our liturgy , Pope Pius didn't do enough on and on. Nothing will ever be good enough.AMATEUR THEOLOGY ALERT. I don't comment on Old Testament theology Rick because I don't know much about it. What I learned in catechism class was that when God sent His Son into the world to die for us he opened up the covenent he had exclusively with jews to every human so that all have the possibility of friendship with Him. The Church became the new Israel on earth, so no more need for the old spiritual kingdom of Israel which is why it was allow to wither away.And why we are its spiritual heirs.

It's nice I guess that you find the founding of modern Israel miraculous.Zionism is not a result of the jewish holocaust but preceded it. I find things like the curing of the lepers more inspiring. The other seems like the results of seriously clever politicians and lots and lots of money. I'm sorry if you are offended by a suggestion of association with fundametalists. None meant. Christopher Hitchens is an ardent supporter of Israel if that make's you feel better. I assure you no slur was intended on your intelligence when I suggested some book titles.

I haven't mentioned Hamas etc. I think you have me confused with someone else. I believe Rick in one Israel with liberty and justice for all, like a previous poster. Take away the wingnuts from both extremes. Give everyone the same rights and the chance to make money.Make one law for all.You'll see how fast people can get along. Or continue sending your tax dollars over there in perpetuity and get ready to send more kids and grandkids to keep things as they are.

Ziggy:

You need a history lesson.

First, lets dispose of the Biblical argument. You are not interested in it. Fine, it is not necessary to bring in the Bible. Those of us who read and believe the Bible find it an interesting book, but let it go.

As I have said, I see both sides in this conflict -- both Jews and Arabs -- as having legitimate rights in the Holy Land. That is why I would prefer a compromise between them.

You disagree. I asked, do you believe that Israel has the right to self-defense? You answered that, under Church doctrine a person has the right to protect him or herself from imminent harm, but that you did not believe that this applied to a person who was engaged in theft.

You did not put it quite this way, but your implication is clear. You think that the Jews stole the Land of Israel from the Arabs. You think that, since the Jews are thieves, they have no right to defend their ill-gotten gains.

In making this assertion, you show that you are not familiar with the history of modern Israel. The Zionist movement was founded in the 19th century by European Jews who had this crazy idea that they were not safe in Europe. (Jews are just paranoid, aren't they?)

At that time, the Holy Land was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Zionists obtained legal permission from the Ottomans to immigrate. The bought their land legally. During the Ottoman phase, the Zionist enterprise was entirely legal and peaceful.

The next phase was World War One, 1914 to 1918. During that war, the Ottoman Empire was defeated. Most of its former possessions were distributed to the Allies, under a League of Nations mandate. The Holy Land -- what is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan -- were part of the British mandate. The British were the legal rulers of the Holy Land from 1918 until 1947.

The British issued the Balfour Declaration, which declared their support for establishing a Jewish national home in their ancient land. Under this mandate, the British permitted some further Jewish immigration. With trivial exceptions, all Jewish immigration up to 19147 was legal (under the laws of the ruler of the land) and peaceful.

We then get to 1947. The British decided to abandon their Empire. Virtually all former British possessions became independent. In the Holy Land, a United Nations resolution was passed. The UN split the land between a Jewish State and a number of Arab states. Israel then declared its independence, lawfully, under the UN mandate.

What happens next? The Arab Leaque rejects the existence of the State of Israel. Every Arab nation attacks Israel simultaneously. Their stated goal was to drive the Jews into the sea. Miraculously, their backs to the wall, the Jews survive. In the process, they expand their borders somewhat.

This then happens again in 1967. A number of Arab nations attack Israel at the same time, openly seeking its annihilation. Fighting at 60 to 1 odds, the Jews once again pull off a miraculous victory. In the process, they conquer the Sinai, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

What do the Jews do with the land that they conquered? They offer to trade it back, to any Arab nation which will let them live in peace. Egypt took the offer. Israel gave back the Sinai, to Egypt, in exchange for peace.

The Jews have repeated this offer to ALL of their adversaries. They are willing to give back the land, which they conquered in wars of self-defense, in exchange for peace. Except for Egypt, no Arab state has been wiling to take the offer.

Where in this history do you see theft, Ziggy? At every state of the enterprise, the Jews followed the law as it then existed. There was no violence, until the Jews were attacked in land which they had legally and peacefully purchased.

You also need a theology lesson. You say that the New Covenant wiped away away the Old Covenant, making the Jews irrelevant and unneeded. You need to read what John Paul and Benedict about the people who John Paul called "our elder brothers." God made a promise to the Jews. They have their Covenant, and it has not been annulled. To think otherwise is to go back to the bad old days of anti-Semitism.

So Rick you believe that traditional catholicism is de facto anti-semitic? That faulty catholic theology brought about the jewish holocaust? Is there a point to Jesus Christ in your new anti-semitic way of thinking? It would seem that God sending His Son to suffer and die would have some meaning other than being just a nice gesture on His part. But maybe that's me. It would be a mistake to assume that because I don't share your intepretation of the bible, I do not value or read it.

I won't argue with your history of modern Israel , although I don't agree with all your assesments of its land positions. Let me point out one little flaw in your argument. When is it ever moral to give away land or possesions that do not belong to you, be you the British Empire, the UN or Nazi Germany? The zionists understand this very clearly of course or some of them would not still be fighting in courts all over the world 60 years later to regain their paintings and property. All sold legally and purchased legally under Nazi law. I agree with them. I wish them success. Rick what is legal may not be just or moral or good. You can't sell what you don't really own. A wrong committed against someone for whatever purpose is never defensible in the old traditional catholic theology. Is it in the modern anti-semitic one?

Who knows.If Pope BXVI agrees with your version of the Old Testament he might be going to Israel to give back to the Zionists all the property that the anti-semitic Church has wrongfully occupied there for 2000 years, because after all Rick it belongs to them anyway . Either God gave it to them or they purchased it legally from the British Empire/UN. Right? Lets see if he does.

You were right in saying that legal immigration and settlement took place under The Ottomans, and that it was peaceful. There has always been a jewish presence in Palestine. No nasty Palestinian massacred them. The massacres started when the incoming european zionists didn't want to live in peace with everyone else . They wanted to be rulers . That's when the massacres started and it was the likes of Rahm Emanuel's dear old dad doing some of the dirty work. Didn't you forget that part in your recitation of Israeli history?

Which brings me to my last point. Jews, christians, and moslems have lived together in the past peacefully and securely for many years in the holy land . They can again with some major attitude changes of the big players. What's wrong with that Rick?

Ziggy:

Lets see if I have this straight. The Jewish State gained its land by theft. This theft was so horrid morally that it justifies Arabs in shooting rockets at Jewish civilians, for years, and it deprives Jews of all right to self-defense. Yet this theft was in accord with the law which existed at the time, it was peaceful and the land was paid for.

You say that it is not moral to "give away land which does not belong to you." Are you saying that the Ottoman Empire did not own the Holy Land, prior to World War One? If so, what is the basis of that claim? Are you saying that the British did not rule the land, between 1918 and 1947? If so, what is the basis of that claim? To whom did the land belong, if it did not belong to the nation ruling it at the time?

Ziggy, do you think that the United States has to give California back to Mexico? We took it by force, not so frightfully long ago. And if we have to give it back to Mexico, do the Mexicans have to give it back to Spain? And if the Mexicans give it back to Spain, do the Spanish have to give it back to the Native Americans? And if the Spanish have to give it back to the Native Americans, which tribes? If you start going down this road, no nation holds lawful title to any land, because there is always some group that can claim that the land was "stolen" from them. If the world is going to have any peace, we have to have some respect for law. That the Jews got their land legally is not trivial legal abstraction; their claim to their own land is as good as that of any other people.

You kick off with the following remarks, "So Rick you believe that traditional catholicism is de facto anti-semitic? That faulty catholic theology brought about the jewish holocaust? Is there a point to Jesus Christ in your new anti-semitic way of thinking? It would seem that God sending His Son to suffer and die would have some meaning other than being just a nice gesture on His part. But maybe that's me. It would be a mistake to assume that because I don't share your intepretation of the bible, I do not value or read it."

I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Let me answer, however. No, I do not think that the Church is, or ever has been, intentionally anti-Semitic. (There have been, of course, individual Catholics who have been anti-Semities, just as there have been individual Catholics who commit all of the others sins.) At this point, however, I am very clear that YOU are anti-Semitic and you are quite deliberate about it. You pretend to want peace in the Middle East. You have no interest, however, in any approach which respects the rights of all sides. Rather, you deny that the Jews have any rights. If that is not anti-Semitic, it is hard to know what might be. It is also a path to endless war, because guess what, Ziggy, the Jewish State is not going to disband just because you and so many like you think it is illegitimate.

Rick three things strike me about your posts. You imply certain things and then get upset if you are asked to elaborate.You brought "old covenant/new convenant" and old testament theology into the discusssion. You equated my understanding (which I believe has always been traditional catholic teaching) with antisemitism.("To think otherwise is to go back to the bad old days of antisemitism") Maybe you are unaware, but there are current discussions which tend toward blaming Church teachings for all the miseries jews have suffered as a people. I am glad you do not feel the same way.

The second thing I have noticed is your willingness in accepting double standards for the disputing parties.Specifically when I told you that under modern law and practice the british government did not have the legal right to sell private property(private as opposed to public) without the owners' permission you went off on colonial and conquest situations unrelated to the issue at hand.Generally when one buys a house or acquires posssions there is a provable chain of ownership. This is exactly how european jews have been able to get back their stuff which was illegally sold.

Without calling me names can you give me another example where a modern government took possesion of a "spoil of war" and sold off half of the private land or property to a third party--to another culture yet? It might be well to note Rick that the private property sold/given belonged to nonjewish palestinians. Jewish property acquired under the Ottomans (and previously owned) was safe from seizure and resale under the British/UN.A nonperson is a nonperson Rick whether they be given that designation by brits or germans. Both are WRONG.

Since you did not know about palestinian christians Rick maybe you also don't know that when the empire acquired the territory from the Ottomans it contained a viable and vibrant society much like that of your near ancestors. People had businesses, farms, schools, churches, mosques ,towns and villages. Some of them went on vacation to the beach stayed in hotels and drank coffee in nice cafes. The zionist fiction of a barren and empty land which they made "bloom" is not really true. There are quite a few books out there describing this lost world but I won't insult you by suggesting titles.

The third thing Rick is that you call me names and make woefully wrong assumptions if I disagree with you.When I can't agree with your biblical interpretations you say that I am dismissive of the bible and don't read it. If I think the way to peace is equal justice for ALL religions and nonbelievers under ONE law applied justly FOR EVERYONE you accuse me or hatred toward jewish people and dismissive of their rights.You say I am an antisemite. Did you ever think Rick how hard it is to be antisemitic in a situation when all disputing parties ARE semites?

ziggy, I am interested in your conversation with Rick Gibson. You mention books about the lost world of "beaches, hotels, and coffee in nice cafes." You say that there are books describing this world, but then don't list them for fear of insulting Rick's intelligence. Go ahead and list them for me. I won't be insulted and may very well have time to read them.

Ziggy:

The question of the Old and New Covenant is, of course, a very contentious issue between Jews and Christians. Taken to an extreme, the Christian position can be stated in way which encourages hatred and contempt toward the Jewish people. One can say that the coming of the Messiah has annulled the Old Covenant, and made the Jewish religion irrelevant and unneeded. One can go further and blame the Jews for rejecting Jesus. One can go further and use this as justification for hating the Jews, despising them, and launching violence against them. Such things have happened in Christian history -- although never with Papal endorsement -- and let me assure you, the Jews remember them. People have long memories about that kind of evil, as well they should.

My understanding of Church teaching was shaped by reading John Paul and Benedict's writing on the Jews. Both of them had and have tremendous love and respect for the Jewish people and their religion. Benedict wrote a book called, Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church and The World. For present purposes, you could summarize what he teaches as saying that the Old Covenant is worthy of great respect, and that it is a grievous sin to teach hatred toward the Jews (or any other people) based upon their religion (or anything else). I agree with these teachings. I do not know how you feel; you seem to disagree.

Second, you accuse me of having a double standard for Jews and Arabs. You specify your theory that British government did not have the right to sell private property to the Jews. You ask for an example of when a modern government did such a thing.

Ziggy, this is the first time you have raised the contention that the British sold Arab private property to the Jews. As far as I know, you are incorrect. It is my understanding that, under both the Ottomans and the British, the Zionists: (a) had permission from the government to immigrate into the country; and (b) paid fair value to the private owner of the land, for all land which they obtained. I am not aware of of the British seizing land from Arabs and selling it to Jews.

You talk about the wonderful old Arab world which used to exist, before the evil Brits and the horrid Jews came in to ruin it. Have you ever been to the Old City of Acco, Ziggy, or to Haifa? How about to Nazareth? I have been to all of those places. I have seen the Arab cafes and coffee houses, which are still there and still vibrant. I have seen warm friendships between Jews and Arabs in those places. All of this still exists, Ziggy. Despite everything, Israel is a happy, joyous nation, and its Arab citizens generally live in peace with the Jews.

Ziggy, you are biased against Jews. You seem unaware of how extreme your opinions are. You have stated that, because of the immense evil of the way that the Jews obtained their land (lawful purchase, with fair market value paid to prior owners) it is morally acceptable for Arabs to fire rockets at Jewish civilians, and to bomb women and children, but it is outrageous and morally unacceptable for the Jews to fight back in any way.

Defending your family from violence is the most basic human right. If you say that a group of people are not allowed to defend themselves against violence, and that those who commit the violence have done nothing wrong, you are saying that the group involved has no human rights. It is a short step from these views – which you have expressed – to advocating packing them into trains and sending them to Dachau. What, after all, is the difference -- other than firepower and level of efficiency -- between Hamas deliberately targeting children with explosives and Hitler's Final Solution? You have defended those Arabs who kill Jewish civilians. You have not -- thank goodness -- praised Hitler. Frankly, I am not sure why.

After reading my prior post I need to correct myself.The british empire did not to my knowledge physically seize and sell private property on an individual basis. They did create a climate where it was possible for europeans to do so. As the governing agent they had the resposibility to protect the inhabitants from attack. The brits, as we all know, were woefully derelict in this duty.In the end they couldn't protect themselves from the terrorist gangs of irgun and stern and liked minded foot soldiers mostly from europe.They left the natives to their tender mercies(unarmed) and went home.

Rick in your narrative of a joyous zionist paradise where do chrisitian palestinians fit? If it were as glorious for them as for the jewish residents do you think they would be leaving in droves after a 2000 year presence? Is it because it's so great they can't take it anymore? After all this is the reason for Deal Hudson's pieces. But wait he's just a big hater right Rick ? Made up all that stuff, hates poor innocent jews and secretly has a picture of Hitler in his closet like me?

Your accusations are silly and your name calling skills lack variety. Both of which occur when someone has run out of logical argument. You can't give concrete solutions when you cannot see what the problem is. Come to think of it, you are a part of the problem.

Wouldn't want to insult YOU rick , so don't read the next bit. Dan the book that comes to mind is "Teta, Mother and Me" by Jean Makdisi. Sort of a general cultural view of the holy land before Rick's kind and gentle zionists took over. Kinda girly but very descriptive of a lost culture.

ziggy, Thank you for the book recommendation. (But you said you had a list.) I looked it up on Amazon. Sounds interesting, but the author is the sister of Edward Said. As you know, he had a few problems. I did read, a long time ago, his book Orientalism. I'm sure you know the story, but when I read it I didn't see the problems his current critics see with the book.
I recommend Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel; Abd el Kader, Commander of the Faithful by John Kiser; and Sea of Faith by Stephen O'Shea.
Do you know Arabic? If not, why don't you study it?

Zigggy:

Lets use logic. Lets break this argument down, into pieces, and evaluate it.

First, for what positions are we arguing?

Me. I am arguing for the view that both Jews and Arabs in the Middle East have legitimate rights. I am arguing for a peace based upon respecting the rights of both groups.

Ziggy. You are arguing for the view that the Jews in the Middle East have no rights. It is your view that the manner in which the Jews obtained their land was so immoral that the Jewish community has no right to be there, and no right to defend itself against attack.

Is this your view, Ziggy? If not, please tell me.

Second, I contend that your view is extreme. The Church teaches that all people have human rights, including the right to defend their families against physical attack. I do not believe that there are ANY circumstances in which an entire community could have no rights, and in which it would be OK for their neighbors to attack them at will. The only arguable exception that I can think of to this is when a just war is being fought. During warfare, however, the rules of war apply, and they prohibit indiscriminate attacks on civilians, of the type which the Arabs routinely use and which you (I believe) defend.

Do you disagree? Why?

Third, I contend that your view is not supported by the facts you cite for it. You advance the factual argument that the Jews got their land in an immoral manner. That argument is not true, factually. As I have shown, the Zionists had the legal permission of the current governments to immigrate into the land. They purchased their land from its prior private owners, paying fair value. You do not dispute this.

So, what was immoral about the way the Zionists got their land? You have said that the problem is that they wanted to be rulers. If you mean that the Jews wished to deprive others of the ordinary rights of free citizens, in a democratic state, you are wrong.

How do the Jews treat non-Jews in the Middle East? Israeli law makes a distinction between citizens of Israel, those people (Jews and non-Jews) who live within the borders of the State, and those who live in the Territories (the areas taken in war, which are not part of the State.)

Within Israel proper, all people are citizens. Non-Jews are permitted to vote. There are Arab political parties who have elected representatives sitting in the Isreali Knesset, their parliament. Arabs are a minority, but their rights are respected.

It is different in the Territories. These are the areas taken in the 1967 war, which, remember, was fought in self-defense. These areas are in legal limbo, until a peace treaty is reached. The Sinai was once part of these areas. A peace treaty was reached with Egypt, and that land went back to Egypt.

What about Gaza? Before the 1967 war, it was part of Egypt. As part of the peace with Egypt, Israel offered to give Gaza back to Egypt, but Egypt refused to take it. In a similar way, before the 1967 war, the West Bank was part of Jordan, but Jordan now refuses to take it back.

The Jews do not wish to rule over these lands. They would like to give them back to some responsible government, which would live in peace with Israel.

You are particularly concerned with Arab Christians. The same rules apply to them. Within Israel, they are citizens and have few issues. In the Territories, they live under the strict security rules which result from the refusal of the Arabs, in general, to make peace. This is sad and unfortunate, but the fault is not that of Israel.

Ziggy, try to respond to this by addressing the actual points I have made. Our discussion will be more clear, if you can respond to each point, either telling me how I misunderstand your views or telling me why you disagree.

Ziggy:

Let me add something. You say that I do not have any concrete solutions. You say that I am part of the problem.

Lets examine this. My view of this is that the two peoples involved need to compromise. My view is that peace should be made, based upon mutual respect. Given the past course of events, this is unlikely to happen. I believe, however, that it is the only solution which could work. I am not optimistic about the situation, in the short-term.

Do you have solutions? What are they? If I understand you properly, your view is that the Jews have no rights. The logical inference from your view is that the solution is for the Jews to leave the Middle East.

Is this your "solution"? Do you think there is any chance that it will happen? I see such an approach as both immoral and impractical. The Jews are not leaving. They are committed to their land. They are well armed, and they will fight those who wish to make them leave. If this is your "solution", then it is the path of war. It is the path the Arabs have trod for many decades now. Your team is not very good at war; they have lost over and over. The only thing this approach has achieved is to bring misery to large numbers of people.

So, the unilateral approach, of simply denying that the Jews have a place there, is not going to help anyone.

What about the Christians in the area? First, in Israel proper, the Christians do not have any problems. They are a minority, living under a Jewish dominated government, but the government respects their religion and respects their rights. I have no heard no complaints from Christians, in Israel proper.

The complaints I have heard are in the Territories. Bethlehem, for example, is in the Territories. The complaints are that, because of the security restrictions, life is very limited and the people are leaving. This is very sad and unfortunate.

What is the solution? Obviously, we would all like to see an outcome where the security restrictions would be removed and the local Christians could live like ordinary people. I think we all agree on that.

How do we get there? I see two ways. First, the security restrictions can be lifted, by reaching a peace in which the Jews are secure from attack and no longer need extreme security measures. That is my preference. It is not likely to happen soon, but it could happen, if the Arabs ever embraced peace. Second, the security measures could be lifted by the defeat of Israel in a huge war. This, I would assume, is your preference. I do not like this is likely to happen. And, if it did happen, the level of violence would be so high that I have a hard time seeing the Christian community coming out of the war in one piece.

Peace really is the only way, Ziggy. The path of hatred, the path of seeking to eliminate one side in a conflict, is not going to help anyone.

Your view of Israel is far too benign. Israel has intitiated or provoked the violence. What they've done to the Palestinians is a human rights atrocity. It is virtually impossible to negotiate with them. Many Americans have been snowed by the dominant media who generally carry water for Israel. If they dare to criticize Israel, they're called "anti-semitic", which has been the kiss of death. Gradually some media outlets have found the courage to place Israel under the same scrutiny as any other country.

RK:

I am sure that what you are saying is sincerely felt. (I also sure that Ziggy is sincere in his feelings.) I am not quite sure how to respond, however, because you spoke in very general terms.

Let me do what I can. Lets take your statements one by one.

First, you say "Israel has intitiated or provoked the violence."

Which violence are we referring to? We have over fifty years of it, going back to the War of Independence and forward to the recent little war in Gaza.

Lets look at the recent war in Gaza. What caused it? Prior to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt. In 1967, Egypt lead a pan-Arab attack on Israel, with the stated goal of driving the Jews into the sea. The Arabs lost the war. In the process, Israel took over Gaza, as well as the Sinai. When Israel and Egypt made peace, Israel offered to give back the whole region. Egypt, however, would only take the Sinai; it did not want Gaza.

Since there have been many negotiations over Gaza, as well as the other Territories. None of them have been successful. Ultimately, a few years ago, Israel threw up its hands in frustration and simply withdrew from Gaza. There was no peace treaty; the Jews just got tired of occupying the place and pulled out.

On the very first day that the Jews pulled out of Gaza, the Arabs started to use Gaza as a place to shoot rockets at Israel. Since then, they have fired rockets at Israel on pretty much every single day. The rockets do not kill many Jews, because the Jewish civilian defense system is good. The air raid alarms go off, the Jews rush to the bomb shelters and the rockets tend not to kill people. But, when a town has to dive into air raid shelters pretty every day, it is very nerve wracking. And people do get killed by it.

Ultimately, the Jews got tired of the rocket fire and attacked Gaza. As they said, the entire reason for the attack was to stop the rocket fire. And the rocket fire did not stop, and has not stopped, because the Jews did not take the war as far as they would have had to to stop the rockets.

How do we evaluate this morally? If we start with the assumption that both sides are ordinary communities, with ordinary rights, the Arabs were the aggressors and the Jews fought purely in self=defense. This is justified by Church doctrine and international law. In my chat with Ziggy, he has been arguing that the Jews have no right to self-defense. For reasons I have explained, I disagree with him.

Next, you say, "What they've done to the Palestinians is a human rights atrocity." Are you familiar with the general state of human rights in the Middle East? Are you familiar with human rights in Syria, for example? Are you familiar with human rights, in Gaza, under Hamas? If you are, you know that these areas are brutal dictatorships, which do not pretend to give any human rights to their own people. Israel, on the other hand, has a functioning and real court system which tries hard, under conditions of endless war, to respect human rights. To attack Israel on human rights grounds is to either use a double standard, or to simply be ignorant about the region.

Then you say, "It is virtually impossible to negotiate with them." I am very familiar with Middle Eastern peace negotiations. The closest that anyone ever got to peace was Bill Clinton. In those negotiations, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a tremendous amount to the Arabs. In response, Yassar Arafat did not even have a counter-offer. Instead, he went home, and started the Second Intifada.

The official position of the Arab Leaque for many, many years was the Three Nos. No recognition of Israel. No negotiations. No peace. Just recently the Arab Leaque backed off of this position, but, of course, at this point the Arab Leaque has nothing to say about it. The Sunni powers which it represents are no longer front line states. The front line are Hamas and Hezbollah who are financed and backed by Iran.

If you look at the details of Middle Eastern history, you will find that, while you can certainly criticize some of the things Israel has done, the barrier to peace is, and always has been, the universal Arab feeling that the Jews simply do not belong in the Middle East, and that Israel ought to be destroyed. It is not easy to negotiate with people who want to annihilate your community.

Dan bad habits are catching. I didn't say I had a list. To quote myself I said "...quite a few..". I chose that particular title because it describes everyday life with almost no political content. Jean Makdisi describes tea parties, church socials, boarding school,trips to the sea. If you don't trust her recounting of average palestinian christian life because she is Edward Said's sister, that would be your decision to make of course.

Here are more titles:1)Great Expectations:American Woman in 19th Century Palestine Barabara Krieiger 2)Mrs. Finn's Victorian Palestine: Diplomat's wife in 19th century Mrs. Finn 3)Family and Court:Legal Culture and Modernity in late Ottoman Palestine Iris Agmon 4)The Road to Jeruselem:Glub Pasha, Palestine and the Jew Benny Morris 5)My Happiness Bears No Relation to Happiness: A Poet's Life in the Palestinian Century Adina Hoffman...to name a few. Perhaps one of these will suit.

It has nothing to do with feelings. As you know peace negotiations haven't worked. They've been a useful tool for the Israelis to point to when someone says they aren't interested in peace.

Let's consider the war with Hezbollah. Israel says that Hezbollah "started" the war by capturing two Israeli soldiers. This view conveniently overlooks the fact that Israel kept a hostile and provocative posture by daily sending warplanes and drones into Lebanon.

Israel claims that Hezbollah's launching of rockets was an act of aggression even though they were fired after, and in response to, Israel's massive bombing of civilian areas in Lebanon. Israel claimed that Hezbollah, unlike Israel, used civilian shields even though Israel's continual and comprehensive aerial spying produced almost no evidence of this. Furthermore Israel claimed that Hezbollah, not Israel, targeted civilian populations when death tolls tell the exact opposite story.

Israel claims that Hezbollah's arming by Iran is entirely illegitimate, even though the weapons were used to defend Lebanon from a long-prepared Israel attack. Meanwhile Israel claims they have an absolute and unchallengeable right to receive their arsenal from the U.S., even though those weapons have been used offensively mostly against Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations.

The recent assault against Gaza is similarly filled with lies and deceptions. Israel has long ago squandered any right to be seen as a fair minded player in the Middle East. Don't believe the spin.

Rick I have no intention of discussing each battle or political event in israeli history with you.It's really not necessary plus I would put myself to sleep.I got in a short catnap while reading yours--no offense. I would suggest to you that unless you actually participated in these events you really don't know WHAT happened. You are relying on information from a source you trust obviously, but you don't KNOW. Neither do I.

That being said, let me state our most important points of agreement. *God loves EVERYBODY including both jews and palestinians. Both have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. Both are of equal value in His eyes.There are many wonderful, marvelous jews and our world would be impoverished without them.* Heck I like jews so much I even worship one!

Where we disagree: *How the zionists acquired their land.* I don't really KNOW what happened back in the day. But I do know this. It doesn't makes sense to me rick how one group of people(Palestinians) all of a sudden 60 yrs. ago decided to sell 70% of their houses, farmlands and businesses to a group of foreigners they hated and for a fair market price no less. If you hate someone wouldn't you at least charge them more? And then they leave until suddenly they want their property back. What is that? Seller's remorse? Like Judge judy says Rick, if is doesn't make sense, then it isn't true.

Where we agree: *There are some good features in the zionist paradise. There are good jews living in the zionist paradise.* Some of them are vigilant in recording the abuse by israeli soldiers toward the helpless. They are in fact many videos on the internet. Take a peek. Can you imagine Rick if the soldiers do this in front of cameras what they get away with when no one is looking? And so far how many have gone to jail even when caught on tape? I don't see alot of nonjews getting shot without someone getting a court date.

Where we disagree: *Allowing zionists zealots from Brooklyn Heights or anywhere to continued to settle disputed land. Non jews have the same status and opportunities to succeed in israel as do jews.*I don't buy that Rick. The Chrisitans wouldn't be leaving ALL the places they have been for 2000 years for frivoulous reasons. They don't much mention moslems or hamas either. And if they are treated the same then why can the israelis put the salesians out of business without fear of punishment? How could you expect to hear things from christians anywhere in Israel since you did't know they existed till recently. *There are no bad, violent prejudiced jews who do terrible things to people just because they live in a zionist paradise and they can.* I can think of a few.

Where we agree: *Extremists on both sides need one way tickets to Canada where they will be jailed for speech ANYONE (other than a catholic) finds offensive.* Well I agree with that one anyway.

Where we disagree: *You continually refer to palestinians solely as "arabs".* It's a bit like saying "Caucasians" By doing this you don't give them the respect of a unique identity . I assure you that Syrian and Egyptian and Jordanian societies are not interchanable and one of the big mistakes is with israeli insistence that one arab country is is just like the next. Sort of "they are all arabs whats the problem. Take'em off our hands." It's a patronizing and fruitless attitude.*Arab countries are uniformly bad, scarey places.* Nah, most of them are actually fun except for Saudi.

I'll continue tomorrow.By the way Dan- I'm too dumb to learn to speak arabic.

RK:

During World War Two, the United States massively bombed civilian areas in Germany and Japan. The result was hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Israel has a modern air force, which -- given Arab weakness in the air -- can act with impunity. Thus, if Israel wanted to do so, and if it had massively bombed civilians in Lebanon, or any other densely populated areas, there would have been deaths in the tens of thousands, if not the hundreds of thousands.

Of course, the death tool was much, much lower than that. Israel does not target civilians. It never has. A certain number of Arab civilians are killed, because Hezbollah has a long established tactic of siting its missile launch pads in schools, hospitals and similar places, in order to try to draw Israeli fire unto civilians, so that people like you will scream, "Oh, those horrible Jews."

But, something tells me that you and I are not going to agree on this. Lets agree to disagree on the issue of which group in the Middle East is horrible, terrible bad. Lets put that disagreement to one side. Lets ask the next question, regardless of fault, how do we move forward?

Question one is, what is our goal? What would we like to see happen in the Middle East? I have given my answer many times. I would like to see peace, based on mutual respect. I would like to see a secure and peaceful Israel next to a secure and peaceful Palestine.

Do you share that goal? I ask, because you cannot rationally discuss how to achieve a goal, until you define the goal. "Peace" is an ambiguous word. It means the end of the war. OK, but on what terms? The Arab goal, for many decades, has been peace, after they drive the Jews into the ocean. Is that your goal? Do you, like Ziggy, dream of a Middle East which is cleansed of the taint of Jews.

Lets assume that is not your goal. Lets assume you want peace, in which the rights of all people are respected. How do we get there? Compromise, mutual respect. But what do you do? You and Ziggy endless attack Israel and never have a harsh word about the Arabs. How does that lead to peace? How does that help?

ziggy, Thank you for your response, and your correction. I thought "quite a few" would be a list, certainly more than one. But now you have given me several books to choose from and I thank you. I didn't understand, however, the expression "bad habits are catching." Can you explain?
You didn't answer my question about whether you know Arabic. Have you read any books by Yasmina Khadra or Naguib Mahfouz?
On your discussion with Rick Gibson: I think you are getting bogged down in Israel and the Jewish question. Both of you seem to be neglecting the followers of Islam: Hamas and Hezballah. (Although Rick did mention them in his most recent post.)
Keep discussing! It's interesting.

Ziggy:

I gave you a very tightly argued statement, asking for response. You ignored it.

Instead, you say you agree/disagree and then proceed to quote God knows what. You put quotation marks around things which I did not say. I have no idea from where they came. Who in the world said all extremists to Canada? I certainly did not.

How about you answer what I said?

And how about you quit grossly contradicting yourself? On the one hand, you says that Jews in the Middle East have no rights; it is totally OK to shoot rockets and they can not defend themselves. On the other hand, you say that all groups are entitled to equal rights.

No, Ziggy, you can't have it both ways. You cannot see Jews as so evil that they have no rights, and then say you believe in equal rights for all. The two things do not go together.

Rick Gibson, Your discussions with ziggy and RK are very interesting. At one point you say that Hezballah puts rocket launchers in schools, etc. in order to draw Israeli fire so that civilians will be killed and people will condemn Israel for killing civilians. People do in fact condemn Israel. But how do you know that that is the reason Hezballah does what it does? Couldn't the only reason be that Hezballah, composed of the followers of the Koran, believes that Muslims will go to heaven if they die in battle against the infidels? It seems to me that you, ziggy, and RK are not taking modern Islam into account. Modern Muslims have also been active in Algeria, as the actions of FIS demonstrate. Perhaps opposing Israel is part of a more important obligation? If so, then compromise will not be possible.
I hope to read your comments.

Dan:

You raise an important general issue. In discussing the Middle East, it is, of course, relevant the other side, opposing the Jews, is majority Muslim. Thus, of course, Muslim beliefs are relevant to this discussion.

The particular question you raise is, might Hezbollah and similar groups draw Israeli fire onto their civilians with the intention of making martyrs out of them, so they will go to heaven and enjoy the 77 virgins and all of that. There is no question that Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of them deliberately create martyrs. I think it is clear that they are aware of the propaganda value of martyrs. You can see this in the way that they deliberately manipulate the Western press. "See! The evil Jews once again shell a school and kill children!" They love that sort of thing.

Is part of their motivation that they think the children who are killed in these incidents will go to heaven as holy warriors? It is an interesting question. I think the answer is yes. They justify getting their own people killed, both for the propaganda and because (after all) you were not really hurting someone if you send him or her to a wonderful after life.

The larger point you raise is, how we can compromise with Islam? That, of course, is a question with which the West has been wrestling for a long time now. Islam, of course, is a large religion, with many different schools of thought within it. I think it is a mistake to see Islam as a monolith, all of whose members share the same views. Yes, there are people in Islam who take very seriously the Koranic injunction that Islam is to conquer the world. But, as far as I can tell, the majority of Muslims, in most Muslim nations, want to live in peace and have normal lives.

If you want to have hope about Western relations with Islam, I suggest looking at Turkey and Iraq. The modern Republic of Turkey remains majority Muslim. Despite that, it has a secular government, a functioning democracy and a vibrant free enterprise economy. It may represent the path forward for Islam. You also have Iraq. After the war, it also a functioning democracy (albiet a new and shaky one) and seems (so far) to be launched in a free direction. Another source of hope is the Muslim community in India. This is a huge community, which, by and large, most of the time, lives in peace with its neighbors. As I said, Islam is a big religion and there are many strands in it. It is dangerous to generalize too freely about it.

Rick, Thank you for your response.
Yes, I hope Iraq can create a democracy in which all Iraqis can prosper.
Do the Christians in Turkey have the same rights as the Muslims? Can they preach the Gospel with the same freedon that the Muslims can preach Islam?
Yes, the Muslims in India do seem to live in peace with their neighbors. But then they swim in a sea of Hindus. It seems that when Muslims dominate, the problems begin. The leader of CAIR once said on CSPANN that when Muslims are in the minority, they follow the rules of the country. When they are in the majority, they install their rules.
I hope to read your comments.

The first question that needs to be asked is whether the Palestinians have any rights? Their land was and continues to be confiscated. They are restricted in movement, access to food and medical supplies, and they are marginalized in a land that was once theirs.

What it was Rick was a foolish attempt to redirect our conversation to a more fruitful end.Read what I said about arguing back and forth over statements that neither of us can prove .

It was a silly attempt to find common ground with you Rick.
In your haste to attack, did you even notice that I agreed with some of the things you wrote? I didn't think so. The stars(not quotes) were general conclusions that I wanted to limit our discussion to in order to prevent an endless sort of yammer.
The reference to canada and extremists was a little joke meant to amuse. That didn't work either.

I will cite ONE example of the pointlessness of your approach .You say confidently, " Israel does not target civilians. It never has". There is a video on the net, taken by israelis civilians, of the army shooting a blinded, bound palestian protester. One of several such videos of similar violence. You will say ," but I wasn't talking about THAT kind of targeting." And so on and so on.... yammer time. It's more important to me to discover WHY it's acceptable to you that palestinians can be treated in a way that would not be legally allowed for an israeli jewish person, whether it be en masse or on an individual basis. Can you not understand why I would find that the most important questioned to be answered?

And by the way Rick, you've mentioned several times how it's all good for christian palestinians in the zionist paradise -just a few inconveniences here and there.Did you even read any of THEIR comments? Like THEM, perhaps you didn't know their COMMENTS exisited. Do you believe yourself to be more knowlegable on the subject than BXVI? Should he call you before he goes? After all that was the main reason for these comments.

Nevermind.Let me be blunt.Anyone reading this exchange can judge for themselves who hates whom and how much.You are seemingly obsessed with the phrases "evil jews, "jews don't need rights", "horible jews" etc...No one but YOU has EVER used those words or expressed those sentiments and they are out of place in this type of discussion. Your hysterical eagerness to impute these thoughts and motivations to me and your continuous references to them are creepy and reflect more on your state of mind than mine or anyone else's. Like I said before : Dude, YOU ARE the problem. We've spent enough time in life together Rick and now we're done.RK,Dan Deeny he's all yours.

Dan it was a reference to Rick's habit of continuously mis-stating what I, in fact, wrote.Thank you for the book suggestions. I don't know enough about the islamic groups you mentioned to comment on the subjects you are interested in. Since most of israel's 'self defense' measures kills their co-religionists it would seem logical that their main reason to exist would be to give them more protection. As for the other stuff, none of my moslem friends are willing to sacrifice their kids for heaven( I asked), but maybe I don't know the right kind of people.

ziggy, An interesting contribution.
You mention a video taken by Israeli civilians. How can I view this? And why hasn't this been on main stream media, like the police brutality videos we often see?
Hope to read you response.

Dan try youtube.com/watch?v=C8ST5m9pREQ , also type in these search terms "israeli soldiers greeting palestinian women", OR "palestinian children beaten by israeli soldier" OR "israeli soldiers shot palestinian worker" OR "israeli soldier shoots pro-palestinian protestor" when you get to youtube.com ,and you 'll probably see lots more titles.

To answer your question : palestinians were given non-person status by the american media/political types a long time ago. It's why you never saw a positive story about any palestinian on tv or heard a good thing about them or knew anything about their culture. It's why Rick wouldn't call them palestinians and give them the respect of their specific identity.That's typical for people who feel as he does. They are the one people we are permitted to sterotype and say bad stuff about without fear of reprisal. And besides it's easier to send money to kill them if you don't get too involved. Well ..you asked me dan! Anyway that's what I have come to think thruout the years.

Ziggy and RK:

This has not been a very useful discussion. You continually mis-represent what I say. You also continually refuse to answer any questions. I come away, feeling that you have a passionate dislike for Israel and a great deal of affection for Arabs, but, frankly, I know nothing else about your point of view. I do not know how you feel about Jews in general. I do not know if your dislike of Israel is politically or personally motivated. I have no idea what your religious ideas are. You have not communicated with me clearly.

In your most recent posts, both of you say that the Palestinians have no rights, and that this is your primary grievance. Guys, have you read anything that I have said? I have said, over and over, that I want a solution in which the legitimate rights of both sides are respected. I have never, at any time, advocated disrespecting Palestinians or other Arabs. Scroll back through what I have written. You will not find a word advocating disrespect for, or bad things toward, the Arabs in the Middle East.

Much of our disagreement has come about, because I have understood YOU to take the position that the Jews in the Middle East have no rights. I find that to be a shocking and outrageous position. I have asked you, over and over, if this is your position. Frankly, I have expected you to say, no it is not your positon. I have expected you to come back to the ordinary American, and the ordinary Christian, position, that all sides in this dispute have rights, and the problem is how to sort them all out. If you had ever said something like that, then I could regard you as reasonable people. I have reacted to you, as I have, because you have never once acknowledged that the Israelis have any rights.

I find it tiresome to deal with continual mis-statements of what I wrote. For example, Ziggy, one of the first things you throw at me is that I called you a leftist. No, I did not. I have no idea what your politics are. I do not infer from an anti-Israel position a left-wing ideology. Yes, many on the Left do not like Israel, but the position is far from unique to the Left. In any event, I never said you were a leftist, yet you accused me of having said that. I could multiple the examples. I say this, not because I am upset by it, but simply because it confuses the discussion tremendously. It is hard to talk, when the other side will not listen.

A word on labels. I generally use the more generic word "Arabs" rather than "Palestinians." Why? There are many types of Arabs involved in this conflict, including Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians, as well as non-Arab Islamic people such as Iranians. This conflict is far from limited to one between Israelis and Palestinians; most of the Islamic world has been, and continues to be, involved.

Further, there has never been an Arab nation called "Palestine." On the contrary, the entire idea of a nation is Western and un-Islamic. The Islamic idea is that the community of the faithful is supposed to be one polity. The current division of the Islamic world into nation-states is quite recent, and was brought about by the West. The idea that there is a nation called Palestine, and that the Jews have violently snuffed it, has no basis in historical fact. This area has been for centuries ruled by foreign empires -- the Ottoman Turks and then the British. All of the nations there are new. Israel is no newer than any other.

Here is the thing that puzzles me the most. Why are you guys so passionate in your hatred of Israel? Frankly, why do you care? There are many conflicts and injustices in the world. Are you equally upset by the Tamil civil war in Sri Lanka? Are you passionate about the rights of the Armenians, the Kurds and the Tibetans? If you do throw yourself into all of these conflicts, then I can follow your motivation. OK, then you would be just be people who care very much about suffering minorities in different parts of the world.

But something tells me that you do not put 1/10th of the energy into these other conflicts that you do into this one. What is different about this one? Gee, maybe it is just a coincidence, but the one unique thing about this conflict is that taking your position does give you a reason to spend a tremendous amount of energy denouncing Jews. Just a coincidence, i am sure.

Dan:

You asked about Christians in Turkey. I am not intimately familiar with this subject, but my general impression is that the Christians are not free in Turkey, or in any other Islamic nation. To the best of my knowledge, Christian missionaries are not free to preach the Gospel anywhere in the Islamic world.

We live in societies with a separation of Church and State, and a number of competing religions. The Islamic world is different. There are verses in the Koran that teach some level of toleration toward the other monotheistic religions, and many Islamic societies have a tradition of permitting Christian and Jewish minorities to survive, but, no, Islam does not believe in freedom of religion. Don't let anyone kid you on that subject. The best a Christian can hope for in a Muslim society is being permitted to survive as a minority, under foreign rules. Christians can not preach their religion to others in Muslim societies.

Frankly, this is why I find this entire discusson -- dominated as it is by hatred of Israel -- to be so odd on a Catholic forum. Yes, the Jews and the Church have had a long and difficult history, which is not easy, even now. But Islam and the Church have been at war for 1500 years. The Eastern Orthodox Church once ruled North Africa, Egypt, the Middle East, Turkey and the Balkans. Most of this area was conquered by Islam. Spain was conquered by Islam, until it was reconquered by the Church, in a series of crusades. For Christians to be loving Islam, and hating Isreal, is very odd to me. At this late date, of course, we hope that the Church will get along with both Jews and Islam. Lets face it, however, as little history as we geting along with Jews, we have even less getting along with Islam, the ancient nemesis of the Eastern Church.

ziggy, I looked at some of the videos. They don't look good. Especially the one of the soldier shooting the individual in the green t-shirt. Also, another video said that AP erased a scene of a boy getting shot.
These don't look good, ziggy. And you are right to bring them out for view. You say the MSM doesn't show these because they interfere with the news story. Do you think this is a conspiracy or laziness on the part of the MSM.
One problem you will have is previous problems with the MSM. I'm thinking of the scenes from Lebanon by Reuters and the, now famous, scene of the Palestinian father whose son was shot while both were taking cover behind a wall. James Fallows wrote about this in an article in The Atlantic.
David Aikman has an interesting article about the different narratives, as they are known, of the Palestinians and the Israelis in The American Spectator.
Read Rick Gibson's two recent contributions. They are informative. His information about Christians living in Muslim lands is generally true. Orthodox Christians have been bleeding for Jesus since the rise of The Prophet.
We know what you expect from Israelis. What do you expect from Palestinians? What should they do?

My favorite clip is the one where the palestinian woman is busy yakking away and shaking her finger at the israeli soldier so he head butts her. Not that some of us haven't felt the same impulse at one time or another-but most of us live in a place where it is frowned upon (and punishable).

To answer your questions:
1) Media Conspiracy ?-Not in the National Enquirer sense, but in the latin sense of the word, yes. There 'conspiratio' is defined as "harmony of agreement". The basic meaning is a "breathing together".When group consensus is "these people don't matter" or "these people have no legitimacy" you won't be seeing them or reading much about them anywhere. If you don't exist in the media, as far as the world is concerned, you don't exist.

2)What shall palestinians do?-Beats me. They tried appealing to legitimate authorities, U.N, U.S. for 20 year. Zippo. Then they started "taking prisoners". SO didn't work. They have peaceful protests--Bang bang. They appealed to world opinion. That and a few shekels will buy them a plate of falafal.Maybe media designated "smartest woman in the world", Hilary Clinton will solve it all. After all she is working for the newest media star, Pres. B.O. He is not only a miracle worker but eminently suitable for torso shots on major magazine covers.The media types couldn't ask for more. Surely he'll know. I wish I did.

3) Christians & moslems- I have trouble with Rick's analysis for these reasons:1)He seems knowlegeble but he is animated by a fierce, unshakeable belief that legitimate criticism of israel equals hatred of jewish people.["dominated...hatred of israel"] It is the starting point of his thinking and colors every aspect under discussion. He assumes if anyone is critical of israel then they are automatically "loving islam" and of course the ever-present "hating israel/jews". You can't get pass that with him.

Rick's description of modern islam's treatment of christians is substantially correct I think.2) But as a comparison he fails to mention israel's 1977 anti-missionary law or a 2001 legislative attempt to widen the scope. He doesn't mention the bombing of a church or two-oops and the YMCA - whoops. He neglected to say that while atheistic/agnostic jews are given israeli citizenship, jews that convert to christianity are not. Has all that changed? In other words , there are limits to israeli tolerance of christians too isn't there?. All well and good but let's tell all of the story.

Personally, at the moment, I am far more alarmed by the cultural communists who are slowly, persistently marginalizing christianity and its precepts in western law and culture.When christians can be criminally prosecuted for SAYING homosexual marriage is not a christian possibility or when a christian can be legally compelled to perform an act of abortion, well Dan that scares me more than does Islam.It's here in my own back yard RIGHT NOW. Will it really matter whether it's the ACLU, the US judicial system, Abe Foxman or mullahs who succeed in preventing the practice of our christian faith publically?