Just War: Why Christians Should Not Falter in Support of Israel

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

The Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations has quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying of the conflict in Gaza “that the military options are no solution and that violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.” Naturally, I would expect the pontiff to be praying for peace. However, I am surprised that the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would make such a careless comment so wildly out of line with the Church’s teachings. Such slips only encourage the type of behavior I saw this weekend from a few guests at a wedding who, though totally uneducated on the subject, pronounced their condemnation of both Israel and Palestine while piously declaring that war is always wrong. Such statements are as contemptible as they are intellectually lazy, and I grow weary of listening to them.

While Christianity has perhaps lamented that war is always tragic and unfortunate, it has never declared that war is always wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single mainstream Christian Church so foolish as to make such a declaration. Certainly, Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be called wrong by any rational observer. To fully understand how incredibly imbalanced the ethics of this conflict are in favor of Israel, there is no better teacher than Charles Krauthammer in his last two columns, “Excruciating Moral Clarity,” and, “Ending Hamas Rule.”

However, for those of you who, like me, have an assortment of Christian friends who refuse to sanction any war no matter how powerful the justification or how clear the moral reasoning, I suggest you refer them to the Christian Just War Doctrine. Going all the way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, it predates all the schisms and is a part of every mainstream form of Christianity.

The Just War Doctrine, codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states in §2308 that, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Section 2309 goes on to list the conditions under which a just war may be prosecuted:
· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Considering what we know of Gaza, despite all international effort over the past several decades, no authority has been successful at persuading the Palestinian militants to desist from launching rockets into Israel. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, rocket fire on the Israeli population has continued unabated even after Israel withdrew all settlers and military, and ceded governmental control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005—effectively doing everything the Palestinians had demanded for an end to hostilities. Negotiations have gone on for decades, yet only Israel attempts to abide by any of the agreements reached. There is nothing more Israel can offer save its own annihilation. Thus, I would say negotiation has proved most ineffective.

Israel does have a good chance of permanently ending this conflict, though, if its assault can topple Hamas’ control and demonstrate that Islamic militants will succeed only in bringing greater hardship down on Palestinian people. The hardship endured by the Palestinian people is indeed unfortunate, but Hamas has deliberately orchestrated that hardship by using its own civilian population and humanitarian centers as shields against Israeli counterstrikes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that the problem of proportionality is “aggravated if one side deliberately positions military targets in the midst of a civilian population.” Though Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties, they are inevitable. Nonetheless, after so many decades of failed negotiations, if Israel can succeed in destroying Hamas utterly, the permanent peace to follow will be worth the terrible price.

As the Catechism states in §2304, the peace Israel fights for is “not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” According to Pope John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message of 1982, “Unconditional and effective respect for each one's unprescriptable and inalienable rights is the necessary condition in order that peace may reign in a society.” Currently, only Israel offers such respect—going so far as to offer warnings and aid to enemy noncombatants in its quest for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, is dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. Unless it is clearly defeated, that ideology of hate will remain as an impenetrable barrier to peace for yet more decades to come.

As the USCCB states, “This is why Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.”

Rather than making foolish statements about how all war is evil, if Christendom truly wants to see an end to conflict in the Middle East, they would do well to bring real pressure to bear on Hamas, Palestine, and their Arab allies to prevent the continual flow of weapons and armaments into Gaza, and to enforce real consequences for mortar attacks beyond occasional dispatching another diplomat for talks while the militants rearm. The USCCB reminds us that a true “Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation.”

Anti-Israel Rally In Denver

**Update--Pro-Israel rally draws hundreds; Palestinians wave Nazi flags



Full post at Peoples Press Collective--and don't forget about the pro-Israel rally tomorrow January 11in front of the state capitol at 2pm.

FYI: Support Israel Rally 1/11/09

Event: Pro-Israel Rally at State Capitol

"Support Israel's Right To Self-Defense"

What: Rally
Host: Americans Against Terrorism
Start Time: Sunday, January 11 at 2:00pm
End Time: Sunday, January 11 at 4:00pm
Where: West Steps of the State Capitol

Will Barack Obama Defend Israel? He Is Keeping His Options Open

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

I do not think the latest presidential debate was terribly enlightening for anyone who has been paying any attention over the past few months. However, it did contain one terrible surprise for me: Sen. Obama is not committed to the defense of Israel.

The question from retired Navy Chief Petty Officer Terry Shirey was simple, "If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"

Both candidates rejected the idea of submitting to U.N. rule. Both candidates talked about attempting to use diplomacy, sanctions, and the combined pressure we can exert with our allies to prevent such an attack in the first place. "But, at the end of the day," Sen. McCain concluded, "I have to tell you again, and you know what it's like to serve, and you know what it's like to sacrifice, but we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place."

Sen. Obama's answer was neither as clear, nor as committed. "Now, it is true, though," he stated, "that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies," particularly with Iran in such a situation. So as the president of the United States of America, he would be willing to legitimize the tyrant leader and clerics of Iran with the dignity of his office, but what of actually defending Israel -- one of our strongest allies? Of that, he says only that he is, "not taking military options off the table." In short, he would consider defending them as an option.

This comes from the same man who cannot say enough about how much more our allies need to be doing to help us with our efforts in Afghanistan and other places around the world. He expects them to help us, but seems to think defending them when they come under attack is optional. Last time I checked, mutual defense was the primary purpose of an alliance, and Israel's very existence is almost wholly dependent upon the solid and total commitment of the U.S. to that basic principle.

Sen. Obama's answer here was astonishing in its incompetence. Israel cannot survive such equivocation and hesitancy. Our allies can neither depend upon, nor trust, such inconstancy. Our own country cannot afford such ineptitude. We cannot afford to elect Barack Obama as our next president.

* * * * * * * * * *

P.S. The post debate media analysis alerted me to the astounding fact that some Democrats think Sen. McCain's obsequious use of the term, "my friends," is patronizing. Presumably, they think the same of my customary greetings at the start of every post. If so, I am sorry to cause offense. People may be interested to know that such phrases are fairly standard forms of polite address used in both Congress and the British parliament for centuries. Every student of Political Science will recognize the "honorable friend," of Edmund Burke echoing in the halls of Congress and Parliament to this day. To hear people disparage this ancient custom of civility and respect as patronizing is truly tragic. Personally, I think our politicians, and people in general, need to be more attentive to matters of civility -- not less.

Liveblogging "Why We Want To Kill You"; Update--"Wake Up And Smell The Hummus;" Former MSA Student Removed, Audio Of Event Posted

"Wake up and smell the hummus!"--Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem

**Update 2--former Muslim Student Association president removed by police (scroll for video)

**Update--here are some pics from the Walid Shoebat/Kamal Saleem "Why We Want to Kill You" event:


There was a heavy police presence, with CU-Boulder, Boulder PD and Boulder County Sheriffs out in force


Spring was in the air, and were soon to be joined by the local MSM's broadcast signals


Attendees waited their turn to empty their pockets and get the wanding treatment, as security was tight, including metal barricades


Once inside, placed upon every seat was a "formal warning" flier about disturbances, interference, etc.--it was clear that any moonbattery would be dealt with quickly

Audio--Walid Shoebat (48 minutes) and Kamal Saleem (27 minutes)

Recap from the Daily Camera:

Two ex-terrorists who have caused controversy with their criticisms of Islam told a University of Colorado crowd to "Wake up and smell the hummus" Tuesday night.

Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, whose talk was titled "Why We Want to Kill You," spent 90 minutes in the Glenn Miller Ballroom detailing their terrorist experiences and explaining flaws in American terrorist policy.

"I am standing on (America's) wall, crying out, saying, 'Wake up, wake up,'" Saleem said. "We have a saying that goes, 'Wake up and smell the hummus. If you don't, you'll be smelling it for a long time.'"

They say Americans don't understand the resolve of Islamic fundamentalists and that the public should do more to understand the dangerous aspects of the religion.

The speakers have drawn criticism at many of their tour stops in support of Shoebat's book of the same name. They drew a crowd of roughly 1,000 on Tuesday night.

Striking a tone of urgency, both speakers felt it important to remind the audience of the threats faced by America, Israel, and the West.

But of course, much attention in the MSM and at the event centered around the fees involved:

The College Republicans invited the speakers to CU, and $10,000 in student fees was used to pay for the event.

According to Kathleen Patrick, College Republicans chairwoman, roughly $5,000 of that was paid to the speakers, while the rest went to a large security presence and other logistical costs. The speakers said they spent $20,000 to come to CU.

Shoebat challenged his opponents in the audience to prove that he and Saleem were making a huge profit from the event--essentially marketing fear and cashing in on anti-Muslim sentiment (as they had been accused of in media leading up to the event, and during the Q & A).

Neither Shoebat or Saleem made the kind of broad generalizations that opponents have alleged they make about all Muslims, and in fact, repeated several times the distinctions between radical jihadist elements planning operations in the West to the vast majority of Muslims. They did note, however, that Muslim affinities and opinion polls suggested that in some cases more than a majority of Muslims in a given area supported jihad, terrorist organizations, attacks on the West, etc. These factors could not be denied:

Both claim to have been Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and to have converted from radical Islam to Christianity. They said they are not anti-Islam and that criticizing a religion is not racism.

The discussion was mainly civil until the end of the question-and-answer portion. Several shouts of "What is your message?" came from the back of the hall. Shoebat's response was, "What is my message? My message is, 'Shut up.'"

There were no organized protests, and no one was removed from the room.

Shoebat told the crowd that Islam isn't just a religion but a "constitution" and that Muslims are told to "fight all nations until they all say they are Muslims." He also told a story in which a Muslim man was killed as a suicide bomber and his family held a celebration.

Saleem also criticized moderate Muslims in the United States. He said he wants to see those Muslims "wearing the American flag." But he also said several times that not all Muslims are terrorists.

"Don't go outside and hate Muslims," he said. "Know who's who, and that some are here for propaganda, and some are not."

Note the bolded section--no organized protests or removals. Au contraire--though the students did not have any coordinated efforts, it was clear that the student opposition was intentionally positioned throughout the venue, and offered clear support to the few who managed to ask questions of the speakers. Not to mention the self-proclaimed former Muslim Student Association president who was escorted from the ballroom, and just so happened to be sitting next to yours truly:



Thankfully, both speakers noted that although the university setting should, in theory, provide an open venue for the exchange of ideas, it was in fact these exact places that offered the most in the way of preconceived opposition and a clear disregard for alternative opinions or even an opening of debate:

The speakers' tour hasn't been confined to college campuses, but they criticized the American university structure. Shoebat said, according to statistics he didn't specifically cite, that for every seven leftist professors on campuses, there is one "for America, you know, 'God bless America.'"

Shoebat asked if it was worth risking his life to educate others about the dangers of Islam. His answer was, "Yes, but I'm not so sure on university campuses."

Even the 7-to-1 ratio sounds a bit low. Especially for CU-Boulder.

More at 9NEWS (video), who sat with Shoebat and Saleem for an interview, and have a brief glimpse of one of the hecklers from the Muslim Student Association accusing the speakers of fostering Islamophobia by attacking "one fifth of the world's population."

---

Liveblogging from the BlackBerry--should any "spontaneous" moonbattery
break out.

Got the camera with video ready to catch it all, despite a bright pink
flier on every seat warning that any "interference" will not be
tolerated, violators will be suspended or expelled (students) and
subject to prosecution (everyone).

Geesh!

Walid Shoebat Interview; CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper Rails Against CU Boulder Appearance

"What part of ‘kill’ do you Americans not understand?” he says, adding that sharia “is not a set of religious laws for the sole purpose of spiritual raising, raising people spiritually. No, no, no. It is a set of constitutional laws, and that’s the problem"--Walid Shoebat

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, reached via phone in Washington, D.C., called Shoebat the a darling of the “extreme wing of the pro-Israel lobby” and said Shoebat’s observations appear designed to do nothing more than whip up the post-9/11 hysteria that Muslims are only out to destroy Americans and Jews



We've been tracking the upcoming Walid Shoebat lecture "Why We Want to Kill You"--and the Boulder Weekly now has a featured interview with the ex-jihadist:

And on April 29, likely amid tightened security, Shoebat will speak to the University of Colorado on the invitation of the campus’ College Republicans. He expects to touch on the topic of his book, Why We Want to Kill You: The Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat it.
. . .
Asked if in his mind Muslims have any redeemable qualities, he says, “I think the Muslims are redeemable, but Islam as a principle is not.” He points to Islamic sharia law and says it is used as a justification to kill outsiders.

“What part of ‘kill’ do you Americans not understand?” he says, adding that sharia “is not a set of religious laws for the sole purpose of spiritual raising, raising people spiritually. No, no, no. It is a set of constitutional laws, and that’s the problem.”

Look at the fawning reception CAIR receives in the following description:

Such statements explain why the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, chided the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs for having Shoebat and other self-described “former terrorists” speak at a prestigious conference earlier this year meant to provide recommendations on “dismantling terrorism” to Congress and the military/intelligence community.

CAIR, which seeks to further America’s understanding of roughly seven million Muslims and battle “Islamophobia,” issued statements to the press and school claiming that Shoebat and his associates had made “bigoted and inaccurate” statements in the past. CAIR cited several examples, including Shoebat’s claims to Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader newspaper a year ago that there are “many parallels between the Antichrist and Islam.”

“Islam is not the religion of God — Islam is the devil,” Shoebat told the paper.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, reached via phone in Washington, D.C., called Shoebat the a darling of the “extreme wing of the pro-Israel lobby” and said Shoebat’s observations appear designed to do nothing more than whip up the post-9/11 hysteria that Muslims are only out to destroy Americans and Jews.
. . .
Shoebat’s invitations to lecture at universities disappoint Hooper.

“It’s disturbing that he’s invited to credible events held by credible groups,” Hooper says.

How magnanimous--the event and the hosting group, the College Republicans--are "credible" in the view of CAIR.

Second look at CAIR? Oh, nevermind.

Now for the "cost" of the event, something that is never discussed when Leftist moonbats are invited to campus:

And bringing Shoebat to CU is costly — roughly $30,000. Shoebat says the expenses are largely security-driven because he has weathered past threats for expressing his views, at times fearing for his life.

Some colleges have struggled with Shoebat’s appearances, including Columbia University, which prior to a recent Shoebat lecture revoked at the last minute many of the invitations sent out by the school’s campus Republicans, citing safety concerns.

CU is aware Shoebat’s visit could spark controversy and is ready to address the accompanying security issues, says Bronson Hilliard, university spokesman.

“There are always security concerns for these kinds of visits,” he acknowledges.
. . .
Hilliard added CU’s College Republicans are bringing in Shoebat and CU’s administration is extremely hesitant to play “Big Brother” or “micromanage” student events, except in rare cases where a speaker could pose a high threat to public safety.

There are always safety concerns because the moonbat opposition groups hate any speech that they disagree with--and show up to protest and disrupt the events. A look back at how Columbia "uninvited" guests to Shoebat's lecture two years ago.

While there is no confirmed oppositional strategies, one can be assured the event won't go smoothly:

Jack Anthony Roldan, vice chairman of the College Republicans, has yet to hear any rumblings of a protest. The group, he says, wants to highlight the issue of terrorism.

“We felt this would be a unique opportunity for students and community members to hear from two individuals who not only know terror organizations well, but were also a part of them and, at one point, our adversaries,” Roldan explains. “With the events of Sept. 11, the Madrid bombings, the nightclub bombings in Bali and the London bombings, it is evident this threat is growing and it is important for all of us to understand the roots of terrorism and what we can do to ensure our quality of life sustains.”

The event will also include another “former terrorist,” Kamel Saleem. The university’s cultural events board is providing about $10,000. The Walid Shoebat Foundation, according to Roldan, will provide the remaining amount.

Anti-Israel Islamist GOP Candidate Nominated For Colorado House District?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?!?

Meet Rima Barakat Sinclair, here are her views on Israel--

"Occupation," "land-grabbing," "imprisonment," "baby-killers":



Joshua Sharf broke the news (via Ben DeGrow, Face The State):

The Republicans in State House District 6 in Denver are about to make a terrible mistake. At their Assembly on March 1, they nominated a terror apologist, and an avowed enemy of Israel, with no credible conservative credentials as their candidate to succeed Rep. Andrew Romanoff. Her name is Rima Barakat Sinclair.

Mrs. Barakat Sinclair is a local Muslim activist, who 1) works to discredit Israel and for its destruction, 2) has a stated goal of getting Muslims involved in the political process, and 3) builds alliances with mainline and liberal American churches, and leftist political organizations. When engaged in anti-Israel propaganda, she usually goes by Rima Barakat. When engaged in broader political work, she goes by Rima Sinclair, as she did at the Assembly.

When asked questions about terror, she responds with moral equivalence, and then proceeds to outright fabrications. In order to discredit MEMRI, practically the only English-language source covering Arab Friday sermons broadcast on state media, she magnifies small discrepancies into malicious conspiracies. She claimed, on air, that the Hamas Charter does not call for the destruction of Israel.
. . .
Her activities may not always have been so benign towards America herself. She served as a translator for CNN during the opening weeks of the Iraq War, a time when American and British soldiers and Marines alike were disgusted by the network's coverage ("A Front-Row Seat to the War in Iraq," Rocky Mountain News - April 14, 2003).

So how does a woman with an initial track record like this get nominated by the GOP?

Prevarication, of course:

In order to get the nomination, she represented herself at the District Assembly as pro-life. However, she has been quoted publicly contradicting that, "Sinclair, too, shares concerns about homeland security. She also likes parts of the Democrats' social platform. 'I would like to have a president who is pro-choice,' she says."("Colorado Muslims Aspire to Become a Political Force" - Rocky Mountain News - August 14, 2004)

In fact, a Google search for Mrs. Barakat Sinclair turns up no op-ed, letter to the editor, or press release, on any subject other than Israel or the Middle East. While it may be fine to have a cause, this monomaniacism seems to have precluded her from any public statements on issues likely to be of interest to Colorado voters in a state legislative election. There is simply no public evidence of a conservative mindset, however defined, or any evidence that she has thought deeply or even at all about such issues as education, immigration, water, health care, taxes, energy, regulation, or individual liberty.

The irony is that she probably could have gotten on the crowded Democratic ballot merely by being honest. On the Republican side, she had to travel in cognito.

Sinclair's nomination is not a given, and what is needed now is some publicity--especially blogs, to force her to clarify her positions on Israel and statements about being pro-life:

Republicans deserve a candidate who has a coherent conservative philosophical grounding for his policy views. They deserve a candidate who has spent years thinking and writing about relevant issues and governing approaches. Republicans deserve a candidate who is in step with their party's unwavering opposition to radical Islam and support of our democratic ally Israel.

Fortunately, the nomination is not yet set in stone, and there is still a chance to petition a more appropriate candidate onto the ballot.

Face the State has more on her potential political influences and economic leanings--she is apparently the contact person for an article distributed by Voice of Revolution, a self-described "Publication of the US Marxist-Leninist Organization.

Yep, a real fine Republican candidate.

Exit question: will the local MSM pick up on her candidacy, or will the veil of silence be extended because she is a Muslim?

Joshua has more--"we're not electing an Imam, as the saying goes, we're electing a state representative."

American Higher Ed Supports Israeli Colleagues

Finally a college petition we can get behind (and one that doesn't involve Ward Churchill)--some American college and university presidents (including the Association of American Universities) took out an advertisement that opposed "the United Kingdom's University and College Union's proposed boycott of Israeli universities."

Conspicuously absent? Yale and Harvard.