After reading your statement in the link, I can't help but ask: "What do you picture in your mind when you use the phrase 'laissez faire capitalism?'"
Aquinas Admirer | 10.31.03 - 3:04 pm | #

Mark,

It is very difficult to engage in political discourse in this land without coming from a defined ideology. Ideologies take one good thing, say freedom, and in their extreme form make this good thing evil by deifying it. That is why faithful Catholics have no real home on the political spectrum as Catholic social teaching is just too nuanced and sophisticated for the monomania so common in American political thinking.
John Hearn | 10.31.03 - 3:11 pm | #

I'm thinking of the sort of 19th century phenom Leo XIII was skeptical of. Some conservative popularizers, such as Rush Limbaugh, tend in this direction and speak at times as though the rights of the corporation trump the common good. I remember him telling one caller, whose husband was laid off by some big corporation just before his retirement after a lifetime of faithful service (in order to "cut costs" doncha know) that the corporation had every right to do this, since, hey! after all, it's a corporation. How could it be accused of doing something unjust?

Sorry, that's bullshit and the gospel condemns it. The common good of the family trumps this sort of unthinking right-wing endorsement of the corporation at the expense of the good of the family.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 3:12 pm | #

Huzzah for the family! Spoken like a true Chestertonian.

My one quibble in your post is your support of Israel, because Jews have a right to a home. Isn't that the sort of thinking that created so much trouble in Kosovo? How do we resolve the claim that Jews are making their home on someone else's land? Resort to the crackpot exegesis of Jerry Fallwell? Should it fall to the US government to decide land disputes 6,000 miles away?

A better idea, I think, is, if Jews want a home, to invite them to settle in the US. It would reduce tensions in the Middle East and would be less expensive for us than our current myopic policy.
Bill | 10.31.03 - 3:14 pm | #

John,

I think part of the difficulty of a politics emerging that is supportive of Catholic social teaching is the run of terrible Catholic bishops we have had. Look at Leo XIII and Pius XI and even JP II. The teaching is there. It just hasn't been taught by the bishops. Instead, the bishops advance organizations like Catholic Charities, which undercut Catholic teaching.
Bill | 10.31.03 - 3:35 pm | #

There may be many reasons for backing Israel, but the "right to a home" concept is a rather slippery idea.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but if that's the general concept, then by Catholic principles it would have to apply to every ethnic group that was ever kicked out of a land, anywhere, at any time. Why Israel but not (fill in the ethnic group of choice)?
The Barrister | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 3:42 pm | #

Bill,

Could you point me to a link or two about Catholic Charites undercutting Catholic Teaching. I've had a gut feeling about it, but never had anything concrete to back it up.

TIA,
Aquinas Admirer | 10.31.03 - 3:47 pm | #

Barrister:

I s'pose you're right. I haven't thought the matter through. But my basic, unreflective instinct is that a people needs a home so that families belonging to that people can have homes. Of course, some peoples prefer to be nomadic and that's up to them. But the Jews have not preferred that. It's been forced on them. So I support their desire for a homeland. I also support a Palestinian state for the same reason.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 3:48 pm | #

Bill, the Jews that are there don't want to be here. Israel is their ancestral home.

50 years from now, when St. Peter's is a giant mosque (stripped clean of "blasphemous" Michelangelos, Berninis, and Raphaels, of course), and Catholics are free of mystical longing to have it back (as the Orthodox are with Hagia Sophia), then I'm sure the Jews will be ready to listen to arguments that they are better off letting go of the dream of Israel.
craig | 10.31.03 - 3:48 pm | #

I agree that Catholic thinking does not fit into today's "left-right" political paradigms. Many "leftist" ideas such as gov't welfare programs or the horribly messed up rent control plans are borne out of the Christian notions of charity and caring for those less fortunate. Yet, at the same time the left has blatant disregard for the weakest among us (eg, babies and Terri S.).

I am a free-marketeer capitalist, but I do not believe that the firm is above or more important than the individual. Most economists believe as I do. We are not for giving license to businesses to behave unethically or immorally to shareholders, competitors, employees or customers. [Politicized economists may believe otherwise.] The government and large businesses, however, are too large and remote to care for each individual or family. I agree they should keep their commitments to employees and should lay off fairly in times of economic contraction. [We cannot escape economic expansions and contractions and cannot reasonably expect firms to continue to employ folks they cannot afford to pay. It is unfortunate, but har to escape entirely.] It sounds like, in the story that Mark relayed, the firm may have broken its commitments to the employee. It is unfortunate. Rush's response was unsympathetic. If the fired man was an older white man, it was probably unjust with regard to race/sex/age as well. Today's large corporations--and government--are de-humanizing to work for. I worked for both and did not like it at all. I am much more comfortable in a small business. It is important to take advantage of 401(k)'s and have savings that one can tap into when such situations arise, as much as one is able. I am not uncompassionate, but my point is that it is unrealistic to expect large (and perhaps some small) businesses to be able to maintain full employment levels as we go through business cycles.

I think that if businesses operated morally and ethically, and the economic environment was one in which they can thrive, their employees (& their families) thrive as well. In that sense, being good to business is being good to families--especially if one is speaking of family businesses that face disproportionate regulatory/tax obstacles vis-a-vis large corporations. Obviously, the ruthless businessman or supra-normal profit motivations are different stories. Firing employees to meet such motivations would likely be considered unethical and immoral.

My firm issued no raises for a few years because we had lousy business and negative cash flow over that time. We probably would have had to let some one go if things continued. By the grace of God, we are having a great year this year. We finally received great raises today.

My point is that, while it is very unfortunate when folks are RIF-ed, perhaps unjustly, businesses are not inherently evil by not sharing with employees what they do not have to give.
Peggy | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 3:55 pm | #

Pravda:

I'm not against an Israeli homeland. If I had to voice an opinion, I'd say that I would love to see Israel have a permanent, safe, peaceful homeland.

That said, I agree with Mark's implicit statement that Israel's use of strongarm tactics is the cause of much of its own woe. One only has to look to the Bible and the works of Josephus and Tacitus to see a similar situation 1,933 years ago.

I'm not ignorant of the tactics of the Palestinians. They have fought and will fight back with what they see as the most effective means of fighting.

I, for one, see no peaceful end no matter how many Wye River Accords are entered into. As long as both sides take the "eye for an eye" approach to each other, one side or the other (or both) will eventually be destroyed. I'm not saying that I desire such a scenario for either side, I'm just saying it's inevitable.

Mark: thanks for your thoughtful response.
The Barrister | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 4:00 pm | #

Hey whoa there Mark, boy, Just because the comment that your ship "lists to the left" came from the same person who commented on you Israel post, (namely, me) doesn't mean it was in response to your position on Israel.

It was in response to the "Wittenburg Door" which was as leftist a Christian mag as there could possibly be. I am sure their take on Gene Robinson, Gay marriage, and the Palestinians/Moslem Issues, would fall squarely down the leftwing party line.

And Bill, it is very generous of youto offer to move the entire population of Israel to the States but they already have a home. You know how the Spaniards took back Spain from the Moors? The Jews took back their country too.
JanJan | 10.31.03 - 4:10 pm | #

Pravda:

I take it this means you were a serious supporter of a Palestinian homeland up until the suicide bombings started, right? Terribly concerned with the suffering of the Palestinians until this violence started? Gave it lots of thought, no doubt?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 4:13 pm | #

The Palestinian homeland was established on the other side of the Jordan. It is called Jordan. See Balfour Declaration.

-Apparently-, and I've only read this, I don't know this for a fact, the "Palastinians" in Judea and Samaria are imports sent by the Arabs to try to drive the Jews, who were previously called Palastinians, into the sea.
Steve | 10.31.03 - 4:13 pm | #

As far as I know the Church doesn't teach the modern post New Testament Jews have Divine or Biblical right to the land of Israel.

In fact Popes in the past have denounced the idea found in some Protestant circles that the Old Testament Church should be restored (ie Temple sacrifices & all that) because it would be an afront to the New Testament Church.

However the Church DOES reconize that Jews have a right to the land based on natural law. So they have a natural right to the land but not a Divine one.

Of course natural law also gives right to the Palestinians.

Of course me personnally I support the State of Israel.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 10.31.03 - 4:14 pm | #

JanJan:

Sorry for assumin'.

As to The Door, it's mutated in the years since Yaconelli was at the helm and has become rather tiresome in its rather predictable leftists pieties. Sort of "Sojourners" with funny articles. But in its heyday there was nothing better.

Anyway, I hope you don't think I thought you were badmouthing me. I didn't think that. I just was sparked by your comment to do a little clarifying since I often mystify people by what they see as wholesale inconsistency on my part and what I regard as a pretty consistent attempt (not always successful) to hold a Catholic social ethic.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 4:17 pm | #

Before the establishment of Isreal, who were the Palestinians? As far as I can tell, they are nothing more than Arabs, either Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc.
They already have homelands in those countries. Their goal is not a Palestinian homeland, but the extermination of Isreal and the Jews.
Brad | 10.31.03 - 4:18 pm | #

AA,

A few years ago (and maybe more recently), there were lots of articles about Catholic Charities in the Wanderer newspaper. Here's one that came up in a search:

http://www.valleycitizen.com/arc...e/ septsa11.html
Bill | 10.31.03 - 4:21 pm | #

Bill says: "A better idea, I think, is, if Jews want a home, to invite them to settle in the US. It would reduce tensions in the Middle East and would be less expensive for us than our current myopic policy."

We could give 'em Massachusetts.
Kath | 10.31.03 - 4:26 pm | #

Mark: Some folks take my criticism of Israel as a "list to the Left".

I am not among them. I have yet to see where you are concerning Israel, though you skirt the line at times on Iraq. Probably normal (however annoying on this issue) since few are true ideologues which is no doubt a blessing most of the time. I myself am a strong supporter of Israel but utterly reject that the Jewish State is to be given carte-blanche in how it conducts its affairs. Not even my own country of the USA which I love deeply gets that in my book. Where Israel is wrong I will stand up and say so and those who disagree and call me "Leftist" or even the ridiculous charge of "anti-Semitic" are very much mistaken.
John | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 4:37 pm | #

Pravda:

As it happens, I'm not disagreeing with the *facts* behind your post. I happen to agree, as well, with BenYachov's points, above.

As a Catholic and as a reader and believer in the Bible and the Magisterium, I do not believe in Israel's *divine* right to occupy that land. Their right is a natural right. The only question is whether their right is subordinate or co-equal with another right.

For the record, I think the Palestinians tactics are absolutely awful - I cried when I saw the photos of the infant lying dead in the street, and I cried again when I saw the video of the men trying to rescusitate him, in vain (following the bus bombing several months ago).

The Israeli tactics, however, aren't much better. The Palestinians and all the arabs have vowed to eradicate the Jews. The Jews have vowed to stay. Bloodshed, and the eradication of one side or the other, is inevitable.

I don't have a solution.
The Barrister | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 4:39 pm | #

Steve,

Why do you think the Balfour Declaration is determinative? Do you think it serves any US interest to get drawn into a debate about the legitimacy of the boundaries drawn up by Europeans in the early 20th century? Or, for that matter, to become entangled in the eschatological fantasies of Pat Robertson?
Bill | 10.31.03 - 4:41 pm | #

JanJan,

My invite was meant as a cost effective alternative to our proppoing up of the Israeli socialist state. If the Jews want to take back land from the Moors, why should we have to pay for it?
Bill | 10.31.03 - 4:51 pm | #

Kath,

As per JanJan above, I was hoping they could take back the Bronx.
Bill | 10.31.03 - 4:57 pm | #

Bill said "Or, for that matter, to become entangled in the eschatological fantasies of Pat Robertson?"

That's a very good observation, and one that goes a long way towards explaining the fundi/evangelical support, support which cannot be explained by any other means, secular or religious.
The Barrister | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 5:02 pm | #

Actually they took it back without our help. Look carefully at the pictures from 1967, those are mirage jets from France.

As for the aid we send, it's mostly loans which get paid back. Most of the rest, the Israelis are treaty bound to spend with US suppliers who charge them the highest retail. I know, because I was just there and saw this with my own eyes...(and not as a tourist).

Frankly for the amount of help we get in terms of intellegence, and actual covert help in the various Middle Easten countries, our aid to Israel is an absolute bargain at the price.

We pump as much into Egypt for alot less value, and they don't even have to spend it here.
JanJan | 10.31.03 - 5:05 pm | #

JanJan,

We waste money in Egypt, so we should waste it in Israel, too? Why not ween both countries?
Bill | 10.31.03 - 5:13 pm | #

Astounding logic being expounded here.

How about the Quebecois go back to France? They have a homeland in France.

How about the Protestants go back to England. Catholics need a Homeland - let them take Ireland.

All you have to do is to raise some bogey, take posession and stay put, and outlast the originals.

Just last week Israel expanded settlements into Arab areas. Are Palestinians justified in attacking those? If not, what should they do?
(I am wrestling with this question
myself - so dont call me names)

History, is a drama played out mostly in terms of the Prince - that of the world. Christians have no permanent alliances or causes in that.

The most common examples I can think of is the right-is-Christian left-is-evil and the West-is- Christian-East-is-pagan-evil classification. Overturning Roe will be a landmark in the US.

As for free-markets how can one justify this on freemarket terms?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/glob.../ 0927cotton.htm

This is where Christians can fully support the freemarketers.

Or try reconciling Security profiling with the very conservative doctrine of personal responsibility.

100,000s of Muslims walking into Europe will definetly obliterate Christianity there. Lets resist that. What if they were Lebanese Christians? Why is 100,000 Catholic Hispanics immigrating into the US such an issue? Forces us to
confront something else does'nt it?

Who are Chritians anyway? People of the world clinging to their mundane identity and just glad that currently it meshes with their Christian identity, or People of God trying to engage the world on Christian terms?
Anonymous | 10.31.03 - 5:30 pm | #

Bill... the article you cited was not a terribly strong support to your generalization.
Steve... what is now Jordan included land west of the river, Judea and Samaria, until the 1967 war.
Barrister, et al... The right to a home (a "fill-in-the-ethnic-blank" nation state) IS a slippery concept and leads to civil war and other terrible things.
Israel’s problematic for American values: it’s a functioning multiparty democracy (of which there are too few in that part of the world) but its internal policies look very much like apartheid and, given projected demographic trends, there may be no way to preserve it as a "Jewish state" without such policies. In fact, the hope put forward by many could be called segregation: Jews in Israel, indigenous Muslims in Palestine. (And what of the indigenous Catholics... ?)
Mark, you’re right that Catholic teaching is neither "Right" nor "Left" -- it supports the good and challenges the problems on both sides.
Peace! (not as the world gives peace...)
Gray Eminence | 10.31.03 - 5:38 pm | #

JanJan said "Frankly for the amount of help we get in terms of intellegence, and actual covert help in the various Middle Easten countries, our aid to Israel is an absolute bargain at the price."

Query whether we would need that intelligence but for our support of Israel.

Again, let me make myself clear - I am not against Israel having a homeland. But the support I've seen for it thus far (at least in these comments) is circular and self-referential.

Let there also be no doubt that the Muslims might hate us for many reasons, but one universal reason is our unfettered support for Israel. I'm not saying that pulling support for Israel would cure those ills, and, if it did, I would wonder whether the cure is worse than the disease.
The Barrister | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 6:05 pm | #

Barrister,

Moreover, I dispute the value JanJan asserts we receive for our buck. It's about as much of a "bargain" as the $87b we are spending in Iraq.
Bill | 10.31.03 - 6:12 pm | #

"Query whether we would need that intelligence but for our support of Israel."

So lets just dump them. Oh ...but wait....

"I'm not saying that pulling support for Israel would cure those ills, and, if it did, I would wonder whether the cure is worse than the disease."

So...what exactly are you saying?

And Bill, you wouldn't see any validity for Israel no matter what logic you are presented with.
JanJan | 10.31.03 - 6:29 pm | #

And Bill also forgets my point about the aid being in the form of loans, which Israel unlike most of the money sent to Latin America etc, pays back, on time. And then there are "loan guarentees" which aren't really loans at all, we just act as "co-signers". And then there is the 80% of the money which is spent right back here in the States ("Sure we'll give you money, as long as you buy our Sikorsky helicopters"). 80% mind you, so we really are not so out of pocket as you might think. But that isn't the story Israel's detractors will tell you.
JanJan | 10.31.03 - 6:34 pm | #

One point: the land that is now Israel was known for its desolation before the Jews moved in.

Second point: whatever would have been wise at the time of the founding, the Jews are there now. Many of the Palestinians demanding a "right of return" are the grandchildren of those who actually lived there.
Mary | 10.31.03 - 8:06 pm | #

Well written post Mark. As far as the comments go, that is the first time I've seen "gospel" and "bullshit" in the same sentence.
Zack Flummerfelt | 10.31.03 - 9:48 pm | #

Back to earlier in the thread: I've been laid off 5 times. From my point of view it was unjust, but I wasn't protected from being laid off by a contract so I just accepted it and moved on. I could work for an employer with whom I'd have a contract that would prevent them from laying me off but it's my choice to work without that safety net. I won't quibble with Limbaugh's lack of tact or compassion, but I'll defend a system that can lay off workers and hire workers with the flexibility of the US over something half-socialist and half-feudal that the some EU nations have.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 10:16 pm | #

Patrick:
One of the reasons that Europe has a rigid labour market was due to the exceptional violence and social disruption industralization brought to the continent. As far as I can remember there have been violent strike actions in the States but none match the brutality and savagry that employers unleased on the workers and vice-versa. Also the near constant wars fought between European states or within themselves tend to make people sensitive to labour stability.
These rigid labour protections may may been the appropriate modus vivendi for the 19-20th century but now it's time forthe Europeans to become more flexible in their labour relations or risk stagnating

xavier
xavier | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 10:30 pm | #

For a substantial number of Palestinians and their sponsors, the struggle with Israel is not about acquiring a "home." It is about totally reclaiming land that belongs to Islam. As Osama says,

"We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ w...rans011007.html

Or as the the Civilta Cattolica article which Mark linked to said, "...Muslim land...can never be ceded to anyone, having become, through Muslim conquest, land “sacred” to Allah."

Should the Israelis stop raging against the encroaching dark night? Give up the dream of Zion, pull up their tent stakes, and fan outward in a new diaspora?

Maybe it will come to that.

But that won't end Islamist efforts to recover land "sacred to Allah." And those urging restraint and concessions on Israel should be prepared for where the battle will flare once Israel is lost: Nigeria, Kenya, India, the Philippines, the Spice Islands, and Spain, ie., Andalucia.
Rick | 10.31.03 - 10:39 pm | #

The Vatican has recognized Israel's right to exist. I've posted links to critical declation in my blog.

What's in dispute is the status of Jerusalem and the occupied territories.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 10.31.03 - 10:52 pm | #

Rick:
"But that won't end Islamist efforts to recover land "sacred to Allah." And those urging restraint and concessions on Israel should be prepared for where the battle will flare once Israel is lost: Nigeria, Kenya, India, the Philippines, the Spice Islands, and Spain, ie., Andalucia."

Ooh, a domino theory. Let's disengage our brains and get swept up in it.

We all know how accurate those domino theories are, after all, our withdrawal from Vietnam led to Australia falling to Communism, and Egypt is holding fair elections after we liberated Iraq.

Don't forget about the brave Mujahideen like Osama bin Laden who helped us turn the tide of [as it later turned out -non-existent] Soviet expansion towards the Middle East, by preventing the crucial domino of Afghanistan from falling...
James | 11.01.03 - 3:53 am | #

James,

My observations are not a "theory." They are merely a statement of facts, as you will see if you read any of the writings of the Islamists. (I've posted a few excerpts below, to get you started).

The goal of the Islamists is to recover every square inch of land that was once part of the Dar Al-Islam. Israel represents some of this land. So does a swath of Europe.

And once the traditionally Islamic lands are captured and Sharia is imposed, the project becomes expanding the borders of historic Islam.

Again, concessions on Israel won't end the battle. It will move the battle to new battlefields...some uncomfortably close to where we thread commenters live.

***

"2nd Issue of 'Voice of Jihad' Al-Qa'ida Online Magazine: Strategy to Avoid Clashes with Saudi Security Forces, Convert the World's Countries to Islam"

From an editorial by Suleiman Al-Dosari:

"Our number one enemy is the Jews and the Christians, and we must free ourselves to invest all our efforts until we annihilate them – and we are able do this if Allah allows us to do it – because they are the main obstacle to establishing the Islamic state.


Sheikh Nasser Al-Najdi: Jihad Must Continue Until All Infidels Convert to Islam or Pay a Poll Tax


"Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah's law, is an enormous sin… and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya.

"That is the religious ruling with regard to infidel countries and all the more so with regard to those who rule Muslim countries by way of the cursed law [i.e. a man-made law]…"

This issue also includes a sequel to an interview with Abd Al-Aziz bin 'Issa bin Abd Al-Mohsen, also known as Abu Hajjer, a name high on Saudi Arabia's most wanted list. Abu Hajjer stated that his goal was "to wave the banner of monotheism… and expel the enemies of Allah – the Jews and the Crusaders – from the land of the two holy places, to conquer the Muslim nations and restore them to their previous state. And may Allah lengthen our days to allow us to infuriate the enemies of Allah, kill them, and strike them by the sword until they either join the religion of Allah or we kill every last one of them. Our model is [the Prophet] Mohammad, who said to the infidels of Qureish: 'I have brought the slaughter upon you.'"

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestn....cgi? ID=SD60103
Rick | 11.01.03 - 8:27 am | #

It is a domino theory, and like most domino theories it ignores complexity, and plays on fear.

Until relatively recently, Islamists were bit players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The idea that a resolution to the conflict will lead to a global Jihad is, frankly, absurd.

I've posted a few excerpts below, to get you started.
Thanks, and I don't dispute the veracity of the al-Qaeda translation you posted here.

I'd also point out that MEMRI is hardly an unbiased source- it's run by an ex-colonel in Israeli military intelligence, but won't, because if I did, I'd probably be called an anti-Semite:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ elsewh...,773258,00.html
James | 11.01.03 - 9:11 am | #

The idea that a resolution to the conflict will lead to a global Jihad is, frankly, absurd.

If the conflict is "resolved" via the creation of two stable states as envisioned by the US roadmap, then yes, this could dampen rather than inflame jihad. I would welcome such a resolution. So would most Israelis.

But - given current realities - how likely is the creation of a stable Palestinian state?

A large majority of Palestinians believe terrorist attacks should continue against Israel, even if a Palestinian state is created in the West Bank and Gaza.

http://middleeastinfo.org/ articl...rticle3560.html

Until such Islamic sentiment is relegated to being a "bit player" once again, the erection of a Palestinian state would mean Israel is simply abandoning the battlefield to its enemy.

The Islamists will have won a major victory. Do you expect them to then retire to the south of France?

Or will they not use their momentum to win new victories in areas where they are already waging jihad?

(And btw, I hardly think the Christians in East Timor, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, the Balkans, the southern Philippines, Lebanon, etc, think the prospects of global jihad are "absurd.")
Rick | 11.01.03 - 10:10 am | #

James, can you provide a better unbiased Arabic translation site than MEMRI? One that provides as many translations of the Jihadst press?
JanJan | 11.01.03 - 10:50 am | #

James also provides the reason we have a "shortage" of Arabic translaters working for us. No Jew/Israelis need apply even though there are hundreds if not thousands of well trained Israeli translaters who could do the job. And these guys won't have mysterious "lost" years spent in madrassas. But no...they'd spy for Israel of course, goes the logic.It's far better for security and PR to hire Syrians and Egyptians who came here to learn to fly planes.....
JanJan | 11.01.03 - 11:11 am | #

Yes JanJan, turning over a vital aspect of US national security to trained agents of a foreign power (Israel) is a brilliant idea.
James | 11.01.03 - 11:21 am | #

James you don't think we already do? You really don't think we're paying the Mossad in Iraq?
JanJan | 11.01.03 - 12:15 pm | #

Allow me to point out that if the Israelis used Palestinian targeting criteria they would dropping cluster munitions throughout the densely populated portions of the occupied territories.

I'm not saying what they're doing is great, because a lot of the time it's not. But it is light-years ahead of PIJ and Hamas.
Ed | 11.01.03 - 11:57 pm | #