On what do you base your assertion that "many of the Palestinians whose houses are indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians?" Do you have any numbers to support that claim? How many is "many?" And how many Christian suicide bombers have there been? Can you provide any names?
If there are Christians who are being ill-treated by Israel, then yes, it is appalling and Jerusalem ought to stop it at once. But if there are Christians who would rejoice in the destruction of the Jewish state or who support or would participate in terrorist acts, then their fates are their own faults. As the Lord put it, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
I have a friend who works for a relief agency. He personally know Palestinian Christians whose houses have been bulldozed.
Sorry, in 1900 30% of all Syrians were Christian. In 2000, only 3% are Christians. Those Christians went somewhere and for some reason..... It's not all sunshine and roses for Christians in Syria or ANYWHERE there is a Moslem majority.
"That's one strategy for not having to deal with substantive criticism."
So is creating a straw man, Mark.
I've rarely, if ever, met anyone who believes "Israel simply cannot possibly do anything wrong ever and that all criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians is anti-semitism".
You've not read some of my mail, Rich. 
Recall the article by the Orthodox guy from the Knesset who said Israel can either become a democracy and abandon being Jewish or remain (ethnically) Jewish at the cost of betraying both democracy and Judaism's committment to the alien and indeed, treating the alien with oppression. Some of my readers have no problem opting for the latter.
It's a devil's dilemma. The problem for not a few of my readers is that it's *not* a dilemma. They really do have no problem with the proposition that *anything* is justified so long as Israel does it.
Whatever Israel's faults may be, if I could only live there or in any Islamic country, I'd choose Israel any day of the week. John Simmons wrote: " in 1900 30% of all Syrians were Christian. In 2000, only 3% are Christians. Those Christians went somewhere and for some reason..... It's not all sunshine and roses for Christians in Syria or ANYWHERE there is a Moslem majority." Exactly. I'd rather take my chances if I was a minority Christian in Israel than any any and all Islamic countries. In saying this I am not saying that Israel's leaders are always right now and forevermore in everything they do.
I can attest to having met "Israel can do no wrong"-ers in the flesh. The syllogism is simple:
1) God promised a Big Chunk of Land™ to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's descendants
2) The modern State of Israel is on that land, and it's composed of Jews.
3) Therefore, the existance of the modern State of Israel is a fulfillment of God's promise.
4) And therefore, the State of Israel can Do No Wrong™ if it's in the name of "security", since God wants it to be there By Any Means Necessary.
This "reasoning" is, unfortunately, not unknown in Evangelical circles, although thankfully it's only a small fringe who really do follow it through uncritically -- most Evangelicals really don't believe that *anything* Israel could do is justified, although they trend very very pro-Israel.
peace,
If a Christian is guilty of a secular crime, he will have to answer to secular authority. Bulldozing the house of a man (Christian, Moslem, or Jew) who is using his house in active support of terrorism is hardly the same species of anti-Christian persecution we've been discussing regarding the Islamic states. Mark's argument is either disingenuous or it is an unintentional echo of the Islamic plea that because the violence is being done against Muslims it must therefore be against Islam.
One can debate whether destroying a house used by terrorists (e.g., in the manufacture or import of weapons) is a just response, just as one can argue whether government seizure of houses used in drug traffiking in this country is just. But the charge that one can defend Israeli action against terrorist organizations while deploring Islamic persecution of Christians qua Christians is entirely without merit.
Just going on conversations with people who have actually been there.
I agree with Mark that some people think Israel can do nothing wrong. The real question is whether it could be morally acceptable for Israel to peaceably expell its Muslim minority. If it could be, Israel may survive; if it couldn't be, Israel should throw in the towel. Not an easy matter. In this situtation, I'm not sure that it is helpful for one to say that one believes Israel has a right to exist. If the only way Israel can continue to exist is to do something immoral, then Israel really doesn't have a right to exist. That's how I see it anyway.
And are these Christians that your friend knows involved with terrorist groups? Or did the Israeli army just go over to the West Bank one day and bulldoze the first house they saw?
Anyone who feels that "Israel can do no wrong" is as antsemitic as someone who says "Israel/Jews can only do wrong".
Most Christian Zionists are not of that opinion. In the greater scheme of things I would give Israel the benefit of a doubt over any other country in the reagion. Certainly no ones hand's are stainless, butin my experience most of the "relief workers" are more than willing to overlook the egregious bigotry and corruption in the palestinian areas, and to ignore the fact that there is a war going on there.
Besides, Mark, you cheated. The linked article has precious little to do with Israeli policy. What we should be debating is whether the Islamic apologist was quite honest in his Days of Wine and Roses portrayal of the wonderfully tolerant world of historical Islam. Reading this article in the light of the recently linked piece from La Civilta Cattolica makes one wonder about the motivations of the author. Obviously these good hearted Syrians are suffering the Christians to actually live and work right next to them - God forbid we rock that boat. Heck, they treat us almost like people, so we should forgive their massive support for Hamas and other terrorists.
Please.
-BF
JanJan:
I quite agree that there are also those (many such people) who believe Israel, like the US, can do nothing right. However, they don't read my blog.
Chris:
My friend said his Palestinian friends were not involved in terrorism. This event took place over a decade ago, not recently.
BF:
Newsie piece often spark trains of thought with me. One reason for this blog is for me to mull over ideas. That's why I warned readers not to suppose I have some grand strategy here. I don't. I'm just chewing over ideas.
Christians make up no more than 1-3% of all Palestinians. In fact, there are more Christians living in Israel now than in Palestinian territories. Israel bulldozes the houses of those involved in terrorist and suicide attacks. To the best of my knowledge, there are almost no Christians involved in such activity, especially the suicide attacks, since the motivation is based on Islam. The Christians chiefly lie low and try to survive.
Mark,
I guess my point is that charicaturing one's opponents by identifying them with an extreme minority isn't a very persuasive method of argumentation. (And if it's not a straw man, it's a whisker away.)
Regarding the article, the reporter describes Christianity in "Eastern Turkey" as a "secretive affair". Isn't that the location of historic Armenia, the place where 1 million Christians were murdered by Turks in the Armenian genocide during WWI?
The Christians chiefly lie low and try to survive
When they are not getting blown to bits in the restaurant they own....
(the Maxim was owned by the Catholic Matar family who lost 5 members when a woman blew herself up just before Yom Kipur).
Make that "caricature" above. Mercy!
But I'm not caricaturing all Israel supporters. I'm accurately portraying the notions of real people who have actually written me (and real people Zach Frey has also encountered). I never said they are a majority. But they are real.
Mark,
You entitled your post "the paradox of conservative christian enthusiasm . . " I think it's fair to say that you were painting with a broader brush then than you are immediately above.
In any event, I get your point, and I hope you get mine.
I certainly agree with Mark (and everyone else?) that the idea Israel can do no wrong is obviously not correct. However, just as a point of perspective: Based on one large terrorist attack, the United States government just whacked two whole countries. Boom! Whole governments, and sadly, significant chunks of population and infrastucture: gone in a matter of weeks from engagement. If an attack of similar magnitude happens again, we have every reason to believe the response of our fellow Americans will be swift and even more devastating.
I'm not commenting here on whether that's right or wrong, just that it is. Now, when you contrast that to the seemingly endless stream of terrorist attacks on Israel, I can't help but put it in that context. These people go whole weeks where every single day some monster walks into a bus stop or coffee shop or dance club and murders a bunch of innocent people. In a population that small, I'm guessing hardly anyone exists there who hasn't lost a friend or family member or classmate's kid. Would Americans be more or less restrained in such circumstances?
I'll freely admit to not being an expert on Middle East affairs, and I'm willing to be set right if I'm off, but my gut feeling is that we would have taken much stronger measures, long before now. Israel's response may be wrong, but if so, what does it say about us?
I don't buy it, Mark. Maybe those Christian Palestinians weren't involved in terrorism. But did you friend consider the possibility that Israel simply made a mistake? People are known to make those from time to time.
To assert that, "Many of the Palestinians whose houses are indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians," suggests to me that you think Israel, well, indiscriminately bulldozes houses as a matter of policy. So far, you've come up with incident without any specifics other than what your friend told you.
Kyle:
I think Palestinian culture has become toxic (much as German culture in the late 20s had). Israel has to defend itself. But Israel needs to get serious about getting out of the West Bank. The Palestinians, for their part, need to have a real government and not the thuggish kleptocracy that has exploited their misery and turned them into a people full of hate. But we have to face the fact that these people have been treated wretchedly for a very long time too. The notion that a whole people is willing to commit these sort of atrocities for no particular reason other than they're just That Sort doesn't wash.
Chris:
Like I say, all I know is what my friend has told me. Never been to Israel. Only met one Palestinian (an incredibly sweet-souled man in my parish who is here in the States studying medicine so he can go back and work with children traumatized by the bloodshed in his homeland). He doesn't much fit the profile of the Palestinian Animal that I encounter in virtually all the gung ho pro-Israel news sources. But I don't claim those experiences as universal statements about anything, merely data that I take into my cogitations.
I think if we look at the big scheme of things and toss out the outliers, it is disingenuous to link Israeli actions to the Palestinian terror war, which by the way was launched after Israel gave an offer to Arafat of between 95 and 99% of what he supposedly wanted. Are there a vocal minority of the population in Israel who believes as you have stated - no doubt. But what the polls in Israel seem to be saying and what the politicians are responding to is, "we are tired of getting blown up, just because we are on this little sliver of land and are Jewish. We tried to give them most of what they wanted and the terror just got worse. Start shooting back."
That is the crux of it. Mark, you say you are tossing out some things to chew on. That is a good thing to do. I presume you occasionally read the Jerusalem Post. That is what it says the people of Israel are saying. Linking the Israeli response as the moral equivalent of Palestinian terror is quite a stretch. That is what your posts and subsequent comments seem to be implying. I don't know if that was your intent or not.
"The notion that a whole people is willing to commit these sort of atrocities for no particular reason other than they're just That Sort doesn't wash."
They do it because for the last ten years Arafat's thugocracy has infected schools, mosques and public institutions with rabid anti-semitism.
There weren't any Arab suicide bombings during the twenty years of Hashemite occupation that followed Israel's War for Independence; Hashemites weren't Jews.
A commenter in another thread pointed out that minorities are a force for secularization in a society. In the case of Syria and Iraq this appears to be true, considering that Baathism was created by an Arab Christian.
Strong Baathist states like Saddam's Iraq and Syria would be better for Christians than weak Islamist states. OTOH, weak Islamist states would be better for the US and its allies in the Gulf and Israel.
It's not surprising which option Caesar chose.
Rich-
Yes, Arafat and the schools - which by the way were to be "cleaned out" of that racial bile (another Oslo provision never complied with) - are a major problem and that makes it easier for the PLO to get the population to follow it.
In addition to reading the Jerusalem Post, may I suggest, Mark, that you read how beneficial the Maronite Patriarch in Lebanon thinks the Syrian occupation is for Christianity?
http://www.wlo-usa.org/News/
Sfei...ia_3_19_01.html
Anyone notice what's wrong with this picture?
*************************************
Many of the Palestinians whose houses are indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians.
*************************************
I have a friend who works for a relief agency. He personally know Palestinian Christians whose houses have been bulldozed.
*************************************
Just to be clear (and to remind you not to assume implications I'm not making), I don't think the thugs running Syria are swell guys. I'm merely pointing out that allowing secular states in the Islamosphere to get in touch with their Inner Osama bin Laden is likely to be even worse for the Church in the Middle East than the present thugocracies it lives under.
It's also, by the by, not really what we want as Americans in the long run. In the short run, Iraqis are all fighting each other. If they finally settle on an Islamic fundie regime, we'll be hearing from them again.
Anyone notice what's wrong with this picture?
*************************************
Many of the Palestinians whose houses are indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians.
*************************************
I have a friend who works for a relief agency. He personally know Palestinian Christians whose houses have been bulldozed.
*************************************
My friend said his Palestinian friends were not involved in terrorism. This event took place over a decade ago, not recently.
*************************************
On the basis of something that allegedly happened more than a decade ago, you're asserting that Israel is destroying many Christian homes now? How is this different from the government asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction based on the fact that they used them less than a decade ago? Juat wondering.
(By the way, I apologize for the incomplete post above. I don't normally comment on blogs, and I guess my inexperience shows.)
Sorry, Father. I didn't know there was going to be a quiz on my grammar. I should have written "Many of the Palestinians whose houses *have been* indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians." That makes Israel's actions completely fine and above question.
Sheesh.
Most Evangelicals don't -know- there is a manifestation of the Church in Syria and Iraq.
Most self-described Evangelicals, like most cradle Catholics, haven't read the Bible, don't know the cardinal doctrines of the faith, etc.
I'm sorry, someguy. You still have not received permission to post here again since you have still not given me any indication you have any regrets over the last time you were obnoxious. Changing your handle to "pravda" doesn't fix that.
Emails indicating repentance and firm purpose of amendment are always welcome and your privileges to post here will be restored forthwith.
Bye, someguy/pravda!
Yo Pravda, thanks for the encouragement, but I respected the Holy Father's counsel regarding the war even though I came to a different (and, in accord with just war principles, legitimate) conclusion.
As you correctly point out, the Arabs would interpret a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (which under the original UN resolutions they are *not* obligated to do until their neighbors sign peace agreements with them) as a sign of weakness.
That's exactly what transpired when Israel left the Golan Heights three years ago. And, just like the Golan Heights, a "West Bank" withdrawal would shift the conflict to disputes about borders, e.g., Israel violating red zones, blue zones, etc.
This conflict will not end until one side submits to the other.
Mark: I think Palestinian culture has become toxic (much as German culture in the late 20s had). Israel has to defend itself. But Israel needs to get serious about getting out of the West Bank.
I agree. This is why I believe Israel should withdraw and finish the security fence they are building.
The Palestinians, for their part, need to have a real government and not the thuggish kleptocracy that has exploited their misery and turned them into a people full of hate.
True. I tell you though, I still find it difficult to 'rally' in sympathy for them. I say this not only because as a society they have embraced the evils of terrorism (which every poll shows a majority of Palestinians do), but also because of their celebrations at our expense after 9/11. That still burns me greatly.
But we have to face the fact that these people have been treated wretchedly for a very long time too.
True, yet let's not exaggerate here for some of this misery was returned for what they inflicted on the Israelis and some was convenient for their Arab "brothers" who still exploit them for political purposes.
The notion that a whole people is willing to commit these sort of atrocities for no particular reason other than they're just That Sort doesn't wash.
Perhaps not every single one of them, no. However, they have a culture which does support such tactics by a sizeable majority and celebrates the murderers with parties, posters, trading cards, etc.
Btw, the Syrians and other Arab states have done a remarkable job of slowly exterminating the Church in their countries for over a century without any excuse of the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Ditto for the Jewish communities which once existed there as well.
Rich Leonardi:
"That's exactly what transpired when Israel left the Golan Heights three years ago. And, just like the Golan Heights, a "West Bank" withdrawal would shift the conflict to disputes about borders, e.g., Israel violating red zones, blue zones, etc."
Israel hasn't left the Golan heights.
I quite agree that Palestinians have been exploited by fellow Muslims. Oldest trick in the book for despots: deflect rage away from you by turning the public's attention to a scapegoat. Jews have been convenient for this role for a long long time.
Mark,
I think you understand that my post had nothing to do with grammar but with standards of evidence. I also hope that you realize that I am not saying that, "That makes Israel's actions completely fine and above question." As a matter of fact, I have serious disagreements with a number of Israel's policies based not only on what I have read but also on the experience of having lived there myself for a semester while I was in seminary.
I have been following the various posts on this blog for some time, and a recurring theme in most of your posts concerning Iraq has concerned your view that the administration falsly claimed that there were, at the time that the decision to invade Iraq was made, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In making this argumemt, you have consistently rejected the arguments of those who claimed that the administration's assertions were justified on the basis of the fact that Iraq demonstrably possessed, and used, both nerve and mustard gasses in the past.
When it comes to the case of allegations of Israeli misconduct, though, your evidentiary standard changes. In this case it is acceptable to use old allegations to sustain the thesis that Israel is currently engaging in oppression of Christians. This isn't merely a matter of grammar because, as you surely recognize, there is a difference between the current and the past conduct of countries, and even of the Church, just as there is a difference between the current and past behavior of people. If there were no such difference, Christians would still be excoriating Paul for the murder of Steven and the arrest and murder of other Christians, and the world would still be treating Germany as a pariah for having practiced genocide.
I guess that what I am saying is that if the point of your comments is, as it seems to be, that Israel's policies are suspect because Israel is currently destroying Christian houses, you should hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that you seek to hold others to. If the point is that Israel has mistreated Christians in the past, you may well be right, but I don't see what that has to do with a consideration of Israel's current policies.
One last thing, I reviewed my first (complete) post and it could be described, in the words of one of the sisters who taught me years ago, as "snippy." I assume that is the reason for the dismissive tone of your response. I apologize, because I really value the kind of discussion that goes on here and I certainly don't want to cheapen that discourse. (That's two apoligies in two complete posts. I think I know why I don't post on blogs very often.)
Those who doubt the plight (or, indeed the very existence) of Christian Palestinians should get a copy of Charles Sennott's "The Body and the Blood: the Middle East's Vanishing Christians and the Possibility for Peace" (see weblink below).
Sennott, a former mideast bureau chief for the Boston Globe, details the plight of Christians in the Holy Land, and why they're leaving. (And its not because they're pushed out by their Muslim neighbors, either.)
By the way, the Maronites - unlike other Christian denomiations in the Holy Land - have long been allied with the Israeli government.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido...glance&
n=507846
"I support Israel's right to exist, just as I support any nation's right to exist". Really? Would you support the right to exist of, say, Aztlan? I think it's simply madness to support ANY nation's right to exist.
I'm ignorant. Educate me about Aztlan.
Aztlan is the mythical name given by the Chicano movement to the land the US won in the Mexican-American War in 1846-48. There is a movement in the Southwest known as 'La Raza' (The Race) which makes clear that people of Mexican descent should try to take over the land and return it to Mexico. Places like WorldNetDaily call them "America's Palestinians", which may or may not be a little reactionary, but reading the literature of La Raza, it is a little disturbing that these people are encouraging mass Mexican immigration to especially California to vote for pro-Mexican policies, given the direct ballot methods in that state. Just a a little primer, I guess.
A little shift of discussion from whether Israel is justified or not in bulldozing houses; allow me to go back to "Israel can do no wrong."
There are plenty of folks in American society who subscribe to this, but probably more percentage-wise in political life. The following is a short list of some prominent folks who are pro-Israel, come what may:
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (who is Jewish, so it's quite understandable);
Former U.S. Rep. Robert Dornan of California;
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh;
Radio talk show and TV show co-host Sean Hannity;
Baltimore area radio talk show host Tom Marr;
Harvard Law School prof and famous attorney Alan Dershowitz (admittedly Jewish);
Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan (Mr. Reagan may not have been that gung-ho over Israel, but it is arguable);
Maybe, just maybe, the neocons over at The Weekly Standard (another debatable selection; my only data is my personal impression from the little I have read of the mag).
Another indicator of the "pro-Israel, all the time" mentality: the politicans of all stripes who pledge to support Israel in order to get the support of AIPAC (or the American-Israeli Political Action Commitee).
To claim that the "pro-Israel, all the time" American is a straw man? You've got to be kidding.
Add Tom DeLay to that list, see the speeches he gave to the Congress and the Knesset this year.
bob_l,
Citing examples of pro-Israel public figures hardly establishes that they are for Israel "no matter what". Ditto for disproving a "straw man" argument.
Sorry Rich,
I can't go through all the different things these people have said over the years that would prove my point. This is a comment box, after all, and I do not wish to search the Net for links. However I stand by my accusation. They are "pro-Israel, no matter what."
None of the folks I listed has ever, to my knowledge, ever said anything critical about the Israelis. You name it: The bulldozers, the new wall separating Israel from the occupied territories, the continuing assassinations of Hamas leaders in retaliation for terrorist attacks (assassin attacks that also kill innocents at the same time), the continued expansion of new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories; each of these is blithely explained away by the Americans on my list as if they were paid officials of the Sharon administration.
Essentially, when an American says that the Palestinians have no right to the land *at all* and that the Palestinians are just a rag-tag people who have no right to be upset that they have no homeland, then I think the American in question can rightly be labeled as I have done.
Mark has said that just because you are oppressed does not mean that you can't do evil things. It works both ways. Just because the Palestinians have resorted to terror attacks that, I wholeheartedly agree, cannot be accepted or condoned, does not mean that their people have no legitimate grievance.
Sorry, Mark, I've been trying to follow the "if you can't say anything nice" rule, but this is simply unbelievable. Fr. Pando has it exactly right. You wrote that "Many of the Palestinians whose houses are indiscriminately bulldozed are Christians." When pressed, your evidence is anecdotal, based on a third party, and a decade old. Sorry, but that's simply shoddy thinking, not unlike that inspired by Andrew Sullivan's Li'l Willy. Father put it much more politely than I am able, so why not consider addressing his substantive point rather than pretending to misunderstand it.
In related fashion, you open your post with this jaw-dropper: "The Paradox of Conservative Christian Enthusiasm for Toppling the Despotisms in Places Like Iraq and Syria ... is that it will very likely result in the destruction of the Church in those places." You have absolutely no basis for this. None. Zero. It's Mark Shea's made-up future.
One would think that such a friendly, pluralistic society would be a prime candidate for incipient democracy. Or maybe you think it is only through brutal repression that Christian rights can be preserved; that's quite a contradiction. It also seems disconcertingly close to a view that has caused a bit of mischief in history: that the Church should be maintained — in a state of near dhimmitude, in this case — at the expense of those who are thrown into plastic shredders by the regime.
If a Church must be maintained by a police state, and if removal of the fascism would ensure the Church's demise, then perhaps the faith perpetuated therein is hollow. Formalistic. You know, the sort of place where "the congregation consists largely of heavily bearded Muslim men and their shrouded wives… [and as] the priest circles the altar, filling the sanctuary with clouds of incense, the men bob up and down on their prayer mats."
And consider this, in your linked article: "For if Syria is a one-party police state, it is a police state that tends to leave its citizens alone as long as they keep out of politics." In other words, only benign Christianity is welcome.
Aren't you the same writer who suggested that they ought to play "God Bless America" as Terri Schiavo died and attacks Republicans for not advancing the Catholic agenda? Hey, maybe the Florida hierarchy has the right idea keeping out of that political hot potato after all...
Once upon a time, Mark, you proved yourself capable of rethinking things when enough people told you that you were off. That's much better than brushing off conflicting arguments.
P.S. — Just thought of another link to other stories. In Russia, I think it was, they leveled a Church because a gay union had been blessed therein. In Syria, the congregation prays to Allah.
Hmmm...
...that the Church should be maintained — in a state of near dhimmitude, in this case...
Syria is a secular police state that practices political repression.
Considering that the Syrian government killed more than 10 000 people in Hama, after a Moslem fundamentalist uprising there, if it does practice "dhimmitude", it's a weird kind of dhimmitude indeed.
SJ Tily,
Perhaps I used the term inappropriately, but I'm not so sure.
How would one describe a state of affairs in which the Church must remain silent on political affairs and in which Muslims are free to practice Islam within its walls?
Perhaps I used the term inappropriately, but I'm not so sure.
Syria wipes out 10,000 Moslems after they protest for more political power, has a government dominated by Christians, and it's ruled by a man who's regarded as a Christian by his citizens. That's dhimmitude alright Mr Katz.
Let's invade!
Alright SJ Tily, I was going to just let this one go because — and I want to emphasize this — the term "dhimmitude" was a flourish within an aside, and I don't want it to derail the substance of my comment, which is only somewhat related. But now that I've researched the comments that you make so snidely, I'm not going to cede this point.
First of all, you aren't addressing the content that I was seeking to use "dhimmitude" to describe. Rather than concentrating on a term, why not address the intended meaning? In other words, the apparent status of Christianity in that majority Muslim nation.
Second, Bat Ye'or's Web site says that, "Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad. ... It cannot be judged from the circumstantial position of any one community, at a given time and in a given place."
Most importantly, however, you're playing more than a little loose with your own terminology and facts. In the massacre in Hama, which occurred in 1982, anywhere between 10,000 to 40,000 people died, not all of whom were Muslims, it being a political massacre, not a religious one.
Moreover, Assad is an Alawite — which is an Islamic sect that (with reference to Bat Ye'or above) holds jihad as one of its pillars. Perhaps some among the 74% of Syrians who are Sunni Muslims consider Alawites to be heretical Muslim "Christians" based on their following of some Christian traditions (as well as some Zoroastrian traditions), but that hardly means that the Alawites are not among the other Islamic sects that make up 16% of the population (leaving 10% for Christians).
Moreover, the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and the Sudanese Christian refugees aren't exactly thrilled at Syria's treatment of them. That lack of satisfaction is in marked contrast, I might add, to the Islamic terrorist groups whom Syria supports.
Now, unless you've got more snide comments to make, can we get back to the larger issue of whether submissive Christianity held in place, according to Mark's thesis, by a dictatorship justifies the perpetuation of that dictatorship?
In the massacre in Hama, which occurred in 1982, anywhere between 10,000 to 40,000 people died, not all of whom were Muslims, it being a political massacre, not a religious one.
But, Mr. Katz, I was discussing political participation in Syria, specifically your earlier comment:
"How would one describe a state of affairs in which the Church must remain silent on political affairs and in which Muslims are free to practice Islam within its walls?
You implied that the Church is shut out of the political process as a result of "dhimmitude". I pointed out that political Islam is equally repressed in Syria by using the Hama massacre as an example. My point still stands.
Mr Katz, perhaps I did focus on your "dhimmitude" comment, your larger point is worth exploring, and I apologize for appearing snippy:
"can we get back to the larger issue of whether submissive Christianity held in place, according to Mark's thesis, by a dictatorship justifies the perpetuation of that dictatorship?
My own opinion is that the chaos that would ensue if the Syrian regime was toppled would be far worse than what the Syrians (Christian and Moslem) have had to endure under a Baathist dictatorship, or even worse. I guess that Mark was making the same point.
If you want to argue that a weak Syria would be good for Israel's security, I'm willing to concede that.
You implied that the Church is shut out of the political process as a result of "dhimmitude".
I did no such thing. Without reference to causation, I suggested that the Church exists "in a state of near dhimmitude," by which I meant to capture the go-along-to-get-along dictate for non-Muslims in much of the jihadi world (and note the word "near"). It isn't merely the government oppression that perpetuates this state of affairs, and indeed, my examples were not particularly related to the government. Would one find, for example, Catholics praying the Rosary in a Syrian mosque?
As for Hama, I'd say more-recent support of Islamic terrorist groups trumps a two-decade old suppression of a political uprising in determining the inclinations of the government there.
And as for your last point, I'm arguing nothing with respect to Israel, mostly because neither the article linked by Mark nor my umbrage to Mark's rhetorical strategy is concerned with that nation except indirectly. I also think you've mistaken the point that Mark made. He said nothing of the relationship between Syria and Israel; rather, he used a wildly biased article about Syria as an excuse to turn scorn on some of his readers, who may or may not be arguing what he claims that they are.
As Mark says, "pay careful attention to what I have actually said, not on what you assume I must be implying."
Would one find, for example, Catholics praying the Rosary in a Syrian mosque?
Sycretism is not at all uncommon among non-Wahabi Moslems, and does not have any sinister implications.
Non-Moslems can, and do, visit shrines run by Moslems (particularly those of Sufis) in different parts of the "jihadi world" as you call it, to worship.
"I also think you've mistaken the point that Mark made. He said nothing of the relationship between Syria and Israel;"
I never implied that Mark said any such thing. You are correct, Mark said nothing about the relationship between Syria and Israel- but you did when you wrote:
"That lack of satisfaction is in marked contrast, I might add, to the Islamic terrorist groups whom Syria supports."
The main country affected by Syria's apparent support of terrorists is Israel. So you, Mr. Katz introduced Israel into the argument, albeit indirectly. I merely concurred that an invasion of Syria would be good for Israel's security.
What I also said in an another point was that the chaos caused by regime change in Syria would do more harm than good to folks in Syria, particlarly Christians, and that it was what I understood Mark to be saying as well (although he can speak for himself). That point had nothing to do with Israel, and I don't understand how you got confused about what I meant.
But since we seem to be getting nowhere, I must invoke the saying:
"Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still retarded", and wish you adieu.
Charming, SJ.
bob_l,
My quibble with Mark was over his critique of a small number of "pro-Israel, no matter what" conservatives under the broad heading "Paradox of Conservative Christian Enthusiasm . . "
You've more or less made my point: it's sloppy to suggest that those on your list of reknowned conservatives hold the views that Mark described in his post. (And to be fair to Mark, in his clarifying comment above, he explains that he doesn't claim they do either.)
> 'Also, bear in mind that not a few Israelis think much the same thing. Of course, some guys just deal with that by declaring any Israeli who disagrees with them "self-hating Jews". That's one strategy for not having to deal with substantive criticism.'
Excellent point. Let's see how widely this principle is applied. Try replacing "Jew" and "Israeli" there with - say ... - "Catholic" and see how far we get...
'Also, bear in mind that not a few Catholics think much the same thing. Of course, some guys just deal with that by declaring any Catholic who disagrees with them "self-hating Catholics". That's one strategy for not having to deal with substantive criticism.'
Russell
I'm confident you had a point. I just don't know what it was.
Mark, my point was that when you criticise Israel's policies, you defend yourself against charges of anti-Semitism by pointing out the various Israelis or other Jews who agree with you; but when other people criticise the Catholic Church's policies, you accuse them of being "anti-Catholic" or "bigots", and if they point to Catholics who agree with them in those criticisms, you dismiss that as having any relevance. All right, the dissidents are not speaking officially for the Vatican, but they can hardly ALL be secret Know-Nothing or KKK agents in disguise. I think it's an illegitimate tactic to try to equate criticism of an institution's policies with prejudice against, or hatred of, the individuals whom it represents, especially when a sizeable number of those individuals agree with those criticisms of the institution.
Is that clearer?
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
