Saturday, April 19, 2008

The Polarizers Strike Again

Photobucket

The era of nuanced conservative leadership that ended with Ronald Reagan has been replaced over the last twenty years by arrogant polarizing led by President George W. Bush's administration and the GOP media.

When former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Israel and Egypt last to discuss the situation in Gaza, an area in the Middle East with a 70% poverty rate, the chorus of naysayers from the GOP's ranks was ripe with the usual polarizing platitudes. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice derided Carter's plans to meet with the "terrorist organization" Hamas, who, by the way was democratically elected two years ago as the ruling party of Palestine in elections which were strongly supported and encouraged by Rice herself.

In a Townhall.com article, former Pentagon smuggler Oliver North called Carter's visit to the Middle East "an ego trip." Now, before jumping to conclusions and accepting the whole "Jimmy Carter is bad" mantra of North and other GOP blowhards, consider this for a moment.

North claims that Jimmy Carter has ignored "the entreaties of the Bush administration not to meet with the leaders of Hamas" and "broken bread with the sworn enemies of the United States." This summer, the U.S. will be attending the Summer Olympics, hosted by a Chinese government who performs forced abortions on its citizens, tortures political prisoners, and persecutes practicing Catholics. Yet, has Ollie North ever expressed concern about President Bush attending this event and meeting with Chinese leaders? Does terrorizing and killing their own people make the Chinese government any better than that of Palestine?

The Palestinians in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, live in a ghetto surrounded for miles by a massive Israeli-built "security wall," much like the people of East Berlin during the second half of the 20th century. The Israelis claim that the fence is in place "to keep dangerous terrorist infiltrators out of Israel," however, in doing so, the Israelis have achieved a decidedly different effect.

Instead of stopping terrorism, the wall has actually increased it, as the Palestinian people naturally lash out against the Israelis for "being caged like animals," according to a peace negotiator in the region.

Palestinian men, often the sole breadwinner in their families, find it increasingly difficult to pass beyond the Israeli wall in order to go look for work. Children, therefore, are often forced to sift through garbage dumps in order to find food, a fact not helped by the U.S. cutoff of economic aid after the 2006 elections produced Hamas as the new ruling party, which we proclaimed to be the wrong winner.

The situation in Gaza has long been ignored by the United States, where it is broadly painted in bland terms by the government and the media, who quickly dispatch anyone who cares to challenge their long-propagated notion that the Israelis are all noble warriors for democracy and the Palestinians are all a bunch of nasty terrorists. In fact, according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, Palestinian rockets have killed 13 Israelis since 2004, while Israeli soldiers have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians since 2006.

People like Oliver North, who loves to wax eloquently about the American can-do spirit on Fox News Channel, finds it abhorrent when the same spirit is applied to the troubles in Gaza. Jimmy Carter may have been a failed President, but people like North ignore the fact that Carter is trying to find a solution to a grave injustice, while Ollie lends his support in the matter by throwing peanuts from the cheap seats.

Fr. Manawel Musallam is a Palestinian priest living in Gaza who said that the Israelis "have decided to kill us [the Palestinians], and are doing so slowly, in an indirect way, without weapons, but by depriving us of food and medical care; if the international authorities are unable to stop Israel's violence against Gaza, we at least ask that they guarantee us a burial fitting for human beings".

Condoleezza Rice once claimed that it is the mission of the U.S. to "spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe." How ironic it is that the United States claims to be pursuing this goal while allowing an entire people to be oppressed for the crimes of a few.

51 comments:

RonL said...

Cute article. Reminds me of the story of the abusive husband who blames the bloodied wife for calling the cops.

Gazans were given a choice. The article ignores this with cute communist cant of poverty leads to terrorism.

The fact that Gazans were far richer than their former Egyptian brethren in 1987, thanks to Israeli is ignored. That things only changed after terrorism is ignored.
But what do you expect from “conservatives” who attack Oliver North as a smuggler.

I feel bad for Father Musallam. As a Dhimmi he must blame Israel and defend Jihad, lest the Dhimmi treaty be ended and his whole congregation deemed in revolt.

Peter said...

Since when do 14 dead Israelis in the last four years justify 1,00dead Palestinians, 1/4 of whom are children? Obviously you believe that some guys shooting rockets justifies punishing an entire people. Wow, no wonder they hate us over there. Where's all the Republican talk about "democracy and freedom" when it comes to Gaza?

Or does Israel dictate what our policy will be? That priest in the article was lamenting the fact that people are dying due to Israel's blockade, you obviously did not read it. Please be more considerate. If the people dying were in the United States I'm sure you'd have a different view.

I acknowledge reality and you call me names. That's not very professional of you. No wonder Reublicans are about to get wiped out.

mike volpe said...

Let's see if I understand you correctly. There is a moral equivalency between terrorists that target civilians and military operations that target terrorists. Jimmy Carter negotiating with terrorists is trying to solve problems rather than feeding his enormous ego in a counterproductive jaunt through the Middle East.

On the same day Hamas gave conditions for a peace deal they also shot a bunch of rockets at Israel. I guess that was their sign of good faith bargaining.

Finally, their peace agreement also involves the Israelis giving back the 1967 borders including the Golan HEIGHTS. I guess there is no strategic value in having the high ground.

Peter said...

You forget Israel operations like their economic blockade that is killing civilians in Gaza, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

Dialogue is far more productive than sitting around and alienating people like Bush has been doing.

mike volpe said...

That so called economic blockade is protecting civilians in their own nation. Give me a break. Are you a member of ANSWER, because you sound exactly like them.

Dialogue with terrorists. That is your answer. Are you kidding? The only agreement that Hamas wants is one that eliminates Israel entirely.

Hamas is all too willing to have a "peace agreement" to the 1967 borders. That gives them the Heights and and with it the high ground. I guess that simply bit of military strategy is beyond your grasp. Anytime you hear any peace agreement that goes back to the so called 1967 borders you know it is a sham because it is a "peace agreement" that gives the high ground back to Israel's enemies.

We tried dialogue with terrorists in the 1990's and it lead to an intifida.

Peter said...

The economic blockade is killing off the Palestinian people and creating more hatred against Israel.

No friend of Israel would ever favor such a thing.

mike volpe said...

Palestinian terrorism is killing Israelis, not anything Israel is doing. Palestinian propaganda is creating hatred among Palestinians for Israel, not anything Israel does. The blockade creates a buffer between terrorists and Israeli civilians. Again, are you a member of ANSWER because your rhetoric is exactly the same. I will be back waiting for your retort.

Peter said...

Insulting people shows a lack of an effective argument.

mike volpe said...

If you took anything I said as an insult then you are a bit sensitive. ANSWER also believes that the right path is negotiating with Hamas. They also believe that the blockade creates terrorism. Maybe you just don't know ANSWER or maybe you think linking yourself to ANSWER is an insult, however with regard to Israel you and the entity have a very similar mindset.

I will tell you what shows a lack of intellect. That is not answering points. You never answered my point about giving up the Golan Heights. You never answered my point about the failed dialogue in the 1990's with Arafat. That was a dialogue that lead to an intifada.

Everytime you make a point I answer it. Everytime I make a point you move onto another topic. Which of us is winning this debate?

Peter said...

Wouldn't you be mad if somebody built a wall around your city and cut off the power and sewage and didn't allow you to leave because they claimed you were a threat?

Israel is doing the very same thing to the people of Gaza, in effect punishing an entire people for the attacks mounted by a few.

This is a totally ineffective response because it only increases the hatred against Israel felt by people who a trapped in a poverty-stricken ghetto because someone of their ethnicity fired rockets at Israeli settlements.

mike volpe said...

I would however Israel built the wall because the folks in Gaza were a threat. Give me a break.

Israel set up camp in southern Lebanon for almost two decades and everyone said their presence was a source of terrorism. They left and in two years the very area they left from was used to launch terrorist attacks. With Israel, it is the lesser of two evils. It can't win.

If they protect their citizenry, the enemy uses this as a reason to build hate in their citizenry. If they leave, the enemy uses the new land to create terrorism.

Let me let you in on a secret. The plight of the Palestinians is not Israel's first problem. It has to protect its citizenry. Its enemies will propagandize to their people to hate Israel either way. This way it at least can protect its citizenry.

Within days of its inception, its enemies launched attacks against it. That was in 1948. There was no wall. There was nothing. Its enemies attacked Israel simply because it existed. That is the crux of the matter. The Palestinian people are so backward that they spent centuries on their land and never got around to creating a nation. Israel has turned a plot of land the size of Rhode Island into a beacon of capitalism and democracy far beyond anything else in the Middle East. This has nothing to do with barriers. It has to do with Israel existing. You are delusional if you think that Israel giving up anything will improve its position. It won't.

Israel removed all of its settlements from Gaza and now that area is used to launch attacks.

Israel built a wall around the West Bank and suddenly there is no terrorism from the West Bank.

Anonymous said...

Peter:

When people disagree with you, it does not mean that they are insulting you.

In fairness, you do make a few good point, however, going over the top does not win sympathy. It has been said that extremists do not know who their friends are. I fear that the Palestinians do not know who there friends are. It has been said that Mr. Clinton is the first Black President and Mr. Bush is the first Catholic President. Prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush was actually the first Palestinian President.

You claim that America is not winning any friends in certain parts of the world. I respectfully tell you that certain parts of the world are not winning any friends in American. 9/11 and similar events have caused average fair-minded Americans in both parties to Hate the Palestinian people. Even Left Wing Democrats who hate Mr. Bush have told me that they do not like to see Palestians dancing in the street while brave fireman lose their lives in NYC saving innocent civilians.

It is a two way street Peter. It is interesting enough that the Left cares more about the Palestians than they do about the people in Northern Iraq, but if you want to win back our sympathy instead of hatred, how about the Palestinians and their friends show some good faith and start respecting the rights of non-Muslim civilians.

No, it may not be right to punish all civilians in Palestine. Then why is it right to punish civilians in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Turkey, The USA, France, Spain, Canada .......? With respect, The world does not revolve around Palestine. When they behave themselves, I will be happy to talk.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

You're justfying evil to accomplish a supposed good. That is quite incompatible with traditional morality.

Anonymous said...

Peter, with respect you have been the one justfying evil much of the time over the past few weeks and all of a sudden it is the rest of us that are supporters evil. Please consider both sides of the arguement before writting us all off as supporters of evil, this truly does not help your cause. Failure to know who your friends are is trouble waiting to happen.

OHIO JOE

mike volpe said...

Huh, I am justifying self defense.

Your view is fairly twisted. Again, if you think the removal of the barriers will remove the terrorism you are delusional. You have your whole view backwards. If the Palestinians rooted out the terrorists, the Israelis would be able to remove the barriers. You don't seem to demand that Palestinians control the terrorists within their mist. You only demand that Israel remove a barrier to keep their people safe in order to get people that hate to like them. Of course, any reasonable person knows that there is nothing Israel can do to get the Palestinians to like them.

There is absolutely nothing evil in protecting your citizenry from attack.

What I can't get over is how one sided you are. There is absolutely no criticism of the corrupt Palestinian government the puts their people in starvation. There is no criticism of the terrorism of the Palestinians. There is no criticism of the propaganda.

In your world, everything would be fine as long as Israel removes the barriers it uses to protect its citizenry. That is very simplistic view of the world.

mrdon said...

The bottom, bottom line is that the Palestinians could end their suffering today by actions that are fully within their control and not co-opt the possibility of gaining some of their objectives toward regaining territories.

The truth, restated today by Hamas is that they will never, never recognize Israel. So long as they are unwilling to help themselves and so long as they remained semantically determined to see the end of Israel, why should anyone care?

mrdon said...

Hamas has the autonomous ability to end its suffering immediately and refuses to do so.

Hamas restated today its absolute unwillingness to recognize Israel -- ever.

So long as Hamas is unwilling to do anything whatsoever to help itself, and so long as Hamas continues to insist that Israel does not exist, why should anyone care about them?

The world has set the lowest possible bar for them to achieve recognition which might move them toward peace and prosperity and they refuse to make any meaningful (or even symbolic) attempt to clear that bar.

Peter said...

Well ignoring Hamas is only going to make the situation worse. Ronald Reagan didn't ignore the Soviets just because they were baddies, now did he?

Anonymous said...

What does that mean?

Jh79 said...

Peter: "Since when do 14 dead Israelis in the last four years justify 1,00dead [sic] Palestinians, 1/4 of whom are children?"

I love this. The last four years, huh? Gee, I wonder what happened about five years ago? Maybe someone built a wall or something? Between the Oslo "Peace" Accord in 1993 and the construction of the Israeli Wall of Evil Wicked Self-Defense, Palestinian terrorism killed over eight hundred people.

Apparently some of the victims were children, I gather.

mike volpe said...

Peter, Reagan first built up our missiles so that Soviets were beaten into submission and then he negotiated. Apples and oranges.

Peter said...

Reagan made war on Communism, not an entire people. What the Israeli's are doing is taking an eye for an eye, without regard for those innocent civilians who die in the process, including many of Palestine's Christians, whose population will soon be extinct.

mike volpe said...

You have gone off the deep end. The point I was making was that Reagan first built up our arms to the point the Soviets realized they couldn't stay up and then he negotiated.

Once again, you are changing subjects. You are right. It is very tricky to be Israel. The terrorists don't stand out. They blend in, and thus they have to take heavy handed tactics. They do it to protect their citizenry. If the Palestinian people gave one tenth the effort to trying to destroy the terrorists among them that they do trying to destroy Israel then Israel wouldn't need to resort to heavy handed tactics. They don't. In fact, they allow terrorists to thrive and even elect them to rule the territory. That leaves Israel with little choice but the heavy handed tactics they have employed.

Now, please cease changing topics everytime someone makes a point you can't counter.

mrdon said...

Talking to Hamas -- see Chamberlain, Neville, Hitler has no designs on us. When a tyrant says he's going to destroy you -- believe it. Lending credibility to hegemons has a long history and none of it is good. Carter dealing with Hamas is pretty much like Lindbergh accepting an Iron Cross from Hitler. Dream on until it is too late.

fabersham said...

First, Carter has no business being involved, because he is not the President of the US. We un-elected him in 1980 for a reason. His ineptitude resulted in Iran falling into the hands of extremists and American citizens being held hostage for more than two years while he did nothing to help them. He's done enough damage already.

Second, imagine the outrage from the Left if, in twenty years or so, George W. Bush took it upon himself to start negotiating foreign policy with other nations. Dems' heads would literally explode.

Peter said...

I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about Carter. He is free to do whatever he wants, whether you agree with it or not.

Hamas is not "Hitler," please get that straight. That is propaganda told to you by the right in order to demonize them. Not everyone whom we dislike is a "Hitler," don't you think it would be for our interests if we were a bit more nuanced and didn't isolate people and demonize them as much?

Killing off the Palestinian people is a crime. If America was being blockaded and destroyed by another country and you saw people dying in the streets without the basic neccesities of life, I'm sure you would you would use stronger language to describe their actions than "heavy-handed" tactics.

One must be guided by moral principles, not what "feels right."

Disparage dialogue all you want, but tell me, what has the violence from both sides acomplished beyond provoking death and suffering?

What is 40 more years of fighting going to accomplish? The "peace process," as it is, is non-existent. After Carter's visit, Hamas said they will accept any agreement approved by Israel and Palestine.

It may not be much, but it certainly is an improvement over the standstill that has so marked the last decade.

Anonymous said...

It would be nice if Hamas was guided by moral principles; it is a two way street. Hamas may not be Hitler or Stalin, but the point remains that they kill innocent women and children (both Christian and Jewish) on purpose (not by accident.)

As a somebody who tends to be in favor of Free Trade, I do not like Blockades. However, if I lived in Buffalo, NY and there were terrorists from Canada shooting at my children everyday, I would have a different view of NAFTA. Moral Principles also need to be accompanied by compassion. Let's have some compassion for the victims of terror!

The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to promote peace in the Middle East, but each time the Palestinians just laugh, insult and kill. Mr. Carter has turned into a fruit-loop if he fails to realize this.

Roni from the New York Republicans had a good analogy, about battered wives. Palestinian men repeatedly get themselves in trouble and then cry to us to have us bail them out. At this point, it is not moral to help such characters. Let's instead help people who are willing to seek peace, pull up their socks and get their act together. This non-sense is getting old fast.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

You're talking as if every Palestinian was a terrorist, which is obviously not true.

Why are you so intent on punishing innocent people for what a few guys with rpg's did? Remember, they're people too.

Anonymous said...

By the same token, not every American, Jew and Kurd is a terrorist either. Mr. Carter and company seem to forget that.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

He's never said anything remotely like that, Ohio Joe.

Anonymous said...

Israel said it will return the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, Hamas has said it will accept any agreement approved by both countries. Pretty good for an impossible situation

Anonymous said...

Of course, Mr. Carter has not come out and said such a thing outright, but that is about what his side is saying in between the lines. Again it is a two way street.

It is not honest to lement how the Bush administration is hurting our country's reputation and then wonder why certain characters have a bad reputation here in America. If defending my faith family and country gives me a bad reputation, that is fine.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

Putting words in his mouth is not the way to help solve problems.

Assuming the best of someone's intentions is alot more Christian than assuming the worst.

Anonymous said...

Peter, with respect, you fail to understand that this is a two street. When you assume the best of our great current President (who is also our country's first Palestinian President,) I will be glad to consider the best from a former President.

Furthermore, I am not really joking when I refer to Mr. Bush as the first Palestinian president, he has done more for the Palestinian cause than any other President, but to no avail. Your failure to recognize this is shall we say quite interesting.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

Does cutting off economic aid count and count as "helping" them?

Anonymous said...

At that point, there was little else to do. He needed to send a message that there behavior was unacceptable. Prior to that he had bent over backwards to help them.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

By "their behavior" are you talking about the few who fired rockets, or the many who didn't?

Do we punish collectively now and are all Palestinians repsonsible for what a few of them may do?

Anonymous said...

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God."

Mr. Volpe,
You say "There is (not) a moral equivalency between terrorists that target civilians and military operations that target terrorists." I agree, but what you imply is not true. The military operations use missiles and bombs that kill indiscriminately and many civilians have been killed.

You also call Hamas a terrorist organization. By whose definition? They were democratically elected and by the U.S. Govt. definition a state cannot be called a terrorist organization. That's the only thing that saves our government from being called terrorists. Officially.

Do you really think that Palestinian propaganda can turn their citizens into mindless hate machines? If that's all it took, the U.S. govt. could use that very method to stir up enough hate for us to do dastardly deeds. oops.

Why do you accuse Peter of being affiliated with an organization that you apparantly don't agree with? Does that mean his views are discredited? Are you trying to label him? Are you trying to say that he can't think up his own arguments? Just because you may have heard arguments like his before doesn't mean they are wrong. After reading your comments, I would peg you as a neo-conservative fox-news watcher.

You say that Israel made a nation out of nothing. I thought they had international help and also the help of the United States. Maybe I'm wrong.


Ohio Joe,
You say that Pres. Bush, prior to 9/11 was a Palestinian President. What did he do in those eight months? Who in their right mind would ever call Pres. Bush Catholic? If it's because he's Pro-life, then I respectfully disagree. He was known as the "Happy Executioner" down in Texas and he completely disregarded Just War Theory and the advice of Pope John Paul II in this Iraq debacle. Furthermore, he's had eight years in office and abortion is still here. Perhaps, we'll always have that wedge issue because it's the only reason anybody would ever vote for the GOP.

You state that Pres. Bush has repeatedly tried for peace in the Middle East. Huh? I thought Iraq was in the Middle East.

What is so great about a fear-mongering, war-mongering, Constitution-breaking President? Pres. Bush has used war, torture, signing statements and executive orders to do whatever he wants. He's hurt our moral standing in the world, he's almost bankrupted the country, he talks about expanding his misguided war into Iran and he seem to think all this is a "Christian" thing to do. Beware of false prophets!

mrdon,
You seem to think that Palestinians could help themselves today? If they would just follow their masters and do as their told? Are you even giving them a chance to have autonomy? They are a relatively new govt., even the Iraqi govt. isn't quite up to snuff yet. You scare me with your reference to Hamas being like Hitler---is there really a comparison, do they want to take over the world, are you that afraid of them or are you using a false fear to gain support? We all know how that works. {Please people, enough with the Hitler references---even the real Hitler wasn't as scary as the 2000's version is. In reality, Hitler was never a threat to take over the U.S. He didn't have any of the resources, anyone who thinks he could is just parroting some schlep's talking point}

Why are people so afraid of peace? Jimmy Carter has proven himself to be the greatest person who ever held the office of President. He brough peace to Israel and Egypt, he started Habitat for Humanity, he's helped various countries hold democratic elections and he's continuously strove to bring peace and understanding to the world. The only way peace can ever occur is with dialogue and a coming together. I don't see any problem with him trying his hand. In fact, if any of us could bring peace to the situation, we would be morally obligated to try. Individuals who have the means of bringing people together should do whatever is in their power. I certainly trust Jimmy Carter more than anyone in the Bush Administration when it comes to seeking peace.

Guardian

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your insightful comments,Guardian, especially attacking the ridiculous notion that a president who junks our just war theory, increases funding for Planned Parenthood and bankrupts the nation (9+trillion national debt) is somehow a "Catholic president.

Lastly, if anyone dealt with members of their own family the way this president deals with other nations, they'd have been divorced a long time ago.

Blessings,

JASNA GORAK

Anonymous said...

Guardian:

You have a lack of knowledge when it comes to history, for you to declare that Mr. Carter was a good President is unreal, he disgraced our nation, but then again, it does not bother you that Hamas has disgraced the Palestinians.

I suppose you supported the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Please give us a break with your silly notion of what is a just war and what is not. Mr. Carter is a trouble maker, not a peace maker, it is foolish to think otherwise. Stop talking about peace and prove it for once. It is time that those on the Left start being honest and deal with America in good faith.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

Why is the United States now the sole determiner of what is a "just war?"

The ones who advocate wars where success is defined as a "comfortable level of violence" are the "troublemakers," not Mr. Carter, who was never foolish enough to start wars with no clear objectives.

Anonymous said...

Ohio Jim,
Carter's presidency may not have been the greatest, but as I said he is the "greatest person" to ever hold that office. I notice you didn't debunk any of the list of achievements. Look up Reagan's election campaign against Carter. There is a lot of evidence that he had talks with the Iranians to hold onto those hostages until after the election. (Now that is a disgrace.) Then we sold Iran weapons under Reagan in order to fight our stooge Saddam. Gee, do you think that was a mistake. Add on Iran-Contra scandal and then let me know how the character of Carter compares to Reagan.

Did Carter disgrace our nation because Americans in a foreign country were taken hostage on his watch? The real disgrace was a President letting terrorists hijack airplanes and kill Americans on our soil. Maybe, if he hadn't gone AWOL when he was in the service, the military would have been prepared to take action on 9/11 against those terrorists.

You accuse the "left" of being dishonest, but you have to admit the dishonesty of the "right" is just as bad. In fact, dishonesty is bad regardless of left or right. Can you even argue that anyone has been more dishonest that the current "on the right" Pres. Bush?

I oppose all wars of aggression. I opposed Iraq's war of aggression against Kuwait because it was morally wrong. I also opposed America's invasion of Iraq because it was morally wrong. In fact, the Nuremburg trials and Geneva Conventions prohibit what was done. But then again, the "right" doesn't really believe in the "rule of law" anymore does it. You see, I'm on the "right" politically, but I don't blindly agree with people on the "right" when they are oh so wrong. In fact, I think the right has been betrayed by the neo-conservatives (the very name is an oxymoron). In fact, the neo-conservatives were all leftists until they hijacked the Republican party. Their ideological predecessors are Trotsky and Strauss. They were aided by Bill Buckleys purges of anyone who believed in small government. The new "right" is the old "left".

Guardian

Anonymous said...

It was not only, the Unites States that decided it was right to restart the war against Saddam, New Europe, Australia, Italy, Spain, Britain and several countries agreed. Once again, the United States is not as isolated as many think.

OHIO JOE

Anonymous said...

Pope John Paul II

"The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."

"Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it."


"Pervading nationalism imposes its dominion on man today in many different forms and with an aggressiveness that spares no one. The challenge that is already with us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery."

Catholics are against unjust war.

Anonymous said...

Yes Catholics are against unjust wars, but some Catholics are in favor of just wars.

OHIO JOE

Anonymous said...

Only the foolish believe that the Iraq war is just.

Anonymous said...

By that logic, it is foolish to believe in Human Rights at all. It is all fine and well to jump up and down and yell for peace and trash war, just do not cry when your Human Rights are infringed upon.

OHIO JOE

Peter said...

What about the innocent Palestinians who are living in a walled city with no way to leave and no power and sewage due to Israeli airstrikes?

When aren't we starting a war to free them from oppression like we did for the Iraqis?

After all, human rights are being violated. One person's human rights can't be more important than another, right?

Anonymous said...

Then feel free to start a war against Hamas if you wish, Peter. It is Hamas that put them in the situation that they are in.

OHIO JOE

Anonymous said...

Ohio Joe,

what are you talking about? by what logic . . . human rights . . . ? Do you believe the Iraq war follows Just War Theory? I'd like to see you defend that one, especially considering no Iraqi attacked America---you do remember 9/11 right? No Iraqis were on those planes. Can you twist an interpretation to fit?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the four conditions for determining the justice of a war as:

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

REPLY: Iraq did not attack, the event was a one-time criminal act perpetrated by individuals (or a group of individuals)

2)all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

REPLY: UN Inspectors said there were no WMD, diplomats were not sent, no negotiations took place

3) there must be serious prospects of success

REPLY: we're going on six years and there are no serious prospects--Bush, the lap-dog Petraeus and McCain all have said we need to be there for an indeterminate amount of time. (Now with Petraeus in command---expect an attack on Iran---Another clear violation of Just War Theory--In fact Iran hasn't attacked anyone for well over one hundred years.)


4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
These are hard conditions to fulfill; the Church teaches that war should always be the last resort.

REPLY: the use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah, the use of Depleted Uranium-tipped shells. DU will be in that area for thousands of years and birth defects have been occuring for the past few years.

Wake up to the evil that is trying to jam their culture of death down America's throats. It's not a matter of left or right---it's a matter of wrong or right. Catholics should follow the Good Shepherd, Vicar of Christ who is JPII and Benedict XVI who have repeatedly spoken out against this aggression. The Church stands up for the innocents who suffer wrongly in this world because of the powerful few who seek to gain the whole world while losing their soul.

NY Catholic Mom said...

Thanks, Anonymous, for the elucidating the Just War doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I can't tell you how nice it is to read something that is so clear and rational.