Thank you so much for writing this, Rod. And for making it shareable. In the wake of the alarming response across the West to the barbarity of Hamas, I am working on a followup piece to one I wrote a while ago regarding "the rhyme of history." I came here looking for a piece from you that I could embed, and this one is perfect. Providence for the win.
Only those on the morally repellant left support the murder of innocent babies. Normal people do not support the torture and murder of children. Unfortunately, the morally repellant left is good at getting on television. Cretins like The Squad.
I do agree the support for such atrocities is only among those morally blinded by ideology. But in the final calculus, when it comes to shaping the outcome, it is only a small degree of difference between them and those who are willing to silently look past or just look away. The fate of Jews amongst the citizens of 1930s Germany comes to mind...
Oct 28, 2023·edited Oct 28, 2023Liked by Rod Dreher
As a Gen-Xer writing on a Gen-Xers' blog I just wanted to point out one difference between the atrocities of the past vs the atrocities of the present and the future:
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the Red Scare and how evil it was to condemn and banish people based on their legitimate political beliefs—and then we've sat by and watched the same phenomenon reappear in the guise of DEI, where rigid ideological litmus tests are now applied for employment (not to mention racial quotas), and where many people have lost their jobs over stating an unapproved thought;
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the evil and stupidity of judging people by the color of their skin, only for another racial classification system to appear a generation or so later, where now the biggest social faux pas is not granting certain peoples extra moral points for being a member of a protected victim class and where we're all judged by skin color for things like employment and college acceptance;
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the evils of Jew hatred, its history and all is barbaric manifestations, only to see so much of our enlightened progressive caste defend (or at least obfuscate and contextualize) a brutal Jewish pogrom out of the Middle Ages, and this by the same people who got years of moralistic mileage out of a handful of fools w tiki torches and the same people who cry "anti-Semite!" if you dislike George Soros.
We've had 50 years of full-spectrum propaganda that claimed to be training us to be more humanitarian and less discriminatory and warning us about the dangers of joining deranged mass movements—and this has all been swept away within a decade and replaced by Who/Whom.
I guess my point is that you can dress the angry tribal ape in fancy clothes and send him to years of academic seminars about tolerance and compassion, but the angry tribal ape is always there, always waiting, and every society is always at risk of being burned down by a return of the angry tribal ape.
This. Also consider that those most ready to signal their virtue turn out to be the least virtuous. Oh, and when confronted about their hypocrisy and evil, they say, "We do not have to tolerate the intolerable." So, in their minds, once you are categorized as an "intolerable/deplorable" or whatever, that means they feel justified to do anything they wish to them/feel they can get away with without consequences.
And when blowback does inevitably come, they appear shocked, SHOCKED, I SAY.
becoming convinced of your own moral and ideological superiority is almost like a drug addiction or some form of brain damage: the True Believer w a heart on fire for Justice can't see anything but their holy Utopia, can't imagine any poss unforseen consequences, and certainly can't see themselves and how they appear to the rest of us.
And this, we must realize, is the very core of wokeism - a firm, narcissistic belief that they are on the "right side of history," that they in fact are the most moral people, the most enlightened, to have ever walked the earth. That alone, in their smug minds, justifies all they do, all their hypocrisies. They represent pinnacle of empathy and virtue, you see; so that gives them latitude to impose whatever they like on those lacking in empathy and virtue.
Those who yammer on the most about "privilege" have, in fact, privileged themselves.
I think that there's a classic projection mechanism in play. One time I read an interesting essay on *Harry Potter* about how the Gryffindors and the Slytherins are actually the same people, except that the Gryffindors are the ego-ideal of how they see themselves and the Slytherins are the objective reality of who they are. It's sort of like that.
I'm not sure if I agree on the premise that they actually are the same people, but there certainly is the theme throughout the whole series where Harry struggles with the knowledge that he could have been "great" in Slytherin. It's a scary thought to Harry in large part because he knows how terrible some Slytherins have been and he wonders if these terrible things are part of his heart as well. Later, it's explained to Harry in some detail that although he could have been "great" in Slytherin, it's his disposition and choices that made him a true Gryffindor. The series comes back around to that at the very end of the series when young Albus is nervous about where he will be sorted, and Harry assures him that even in Slytherin, he's still capable of working toward the good.
Oh, sorry—I should have clarified that the essay was a sort of psychoanalytic spoof. (It also made jokes about how Harry Potter grows up to be a cop, to give you an idea.) They are definitely not the same people in the books nor in any way intended to be so.
One of my neighbors has a daughter in her 20s who popped onto social media a week ago to lecture all of us about not supporting "genocide" in Gaza and how evil we were if we were not 100% pro-Palestinian in all matters. A day later, she went back to posting photos...from her boyfriend's polo matches! You can't make this stuff up.
True, but I have more than 30 more years of accrued social capital, none of her crippling student loan debt, a resume that lends me some credibility when I write to, say, a college alumni office, and a better understanding of how our social and political systems actually work. Voting isn't the only way to get things done.
Oh yeah. One of the things that cracks me up the most is when one of these cretins tells me his "right side of history" nonsense, with the clear belief he/she is on said side. And they try to laugh it off or fly into a rage when reminded history is only the amalgam of known facts of events past and has no "side". It is just history.
Just recently, George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame, who has come out wokest of woke, posted on his Facebook account a quote from Isaac Asimov about needing to get rid of national borders, etc.
Hey. George. Bet you live in a house whose doors have locks. In a well-heeled neighborhood surrounded by a wall. With entrances protected by armed security.
Dude. Don't even get me started on the "In this house we believe..." signs in gated communities. "No human is illegal" - but God forbid anyone try to build affordable housing next door.
He lives in an adobe house without walls and presumably with locks. I know, I've seen it. (I get your metaphor, I'm just bragging about knowing George.) There was once no greater GOT fangirl that me.
Well....George posted "There are no nations, there is only humanity. And if we don't come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity - Isaac Amisov".
Wouldn't you agree that can be taken a lot of ways other than "no borders". I take it as "Stop fighting. It is OK to have nations but it is not OK to fight to bring advantage to your nation because others are just as human as you - there are no nations of the heart even though there are physical nations". I mean..."there will be no nations" has to be seen as something Amisov wants to avoid in that quote.
It is hippie nonsense, Linda. And I refuse to squint and do the hokie pokie to try to see it any other way. He live a life of wealth, privilege and safety and has taken on the views of someone decadent and sheltered, like many in his strata. No more complicated or nuanced than that.
I'm a GoT fan. I like his writing. I'm also a fan of other artists who suffer from the same malady, talented, but completely disconnected cretins. Just because you are a talented artist doesn't mean you have a damn thing to offer as far as real world insight goes.
To check it's value, you actually compare it to the real world.
PS: I agree with you 95% of the time, Tee, but did have to disagree here.
More about George - I could talk about his faults, but he is not here and I would feel a bit disloyal to say what I think they are.
For virtues - the chief is the character of Dany, in other words, George warned us about Regime Change before we ever went to Iraq (Dany and the slavers). He served in 'Nam. He knew all along. He did specifically talk about his beliefs, it was not just a coindidence that regime change did not work out for Dany. George is a very good student of history.
His second main virtue - he teaches "everyone is the hero of their own story". He has a few psychopath characters of course but other than that, he wants to show how almost everyone **thinks** they are doing right. Yeah, maybe it is self-justification but they think it is right, or at least understandable in the circumstances, when they do it, they don't sit there going "I think I will do something really bad". Hence the incredible Lannisters and Starks, with the former thinking they are good, or at least doing right, not just cardboard villains, and the later usually much more truly good, though paradoxically, unfit to rule at times in an evil world. (yeah, I know...but George sees evil even when people think it they are doing good.)
For me this "they think they are doing right" helps me when I have to see people cheering Hamas. But yes, I want Hamas to no longer exist.
Thanks! Between my asking and your answering, I saw that line quoted in a sample news magazine that came in the mail. I had also seen it quoted on another site last week. That's three times in as many days. Maybe I should read the poem.
Great comment. Sometimes I'll gripe skeptically about government, and someone here in my bright-blue liberal suburb will express shock that I'm expressing unpopular "conservative" thoughts. But I learned all of these things, this old-school liberalism, from old-school liberals! Guys like Norman Lear and his shows like "Good Times," where the local alderman was smarmy and crooked and the government screwed over the poor in public housing.
yes...the last few weeks have lifted the quiet veil to reveal the true face of 'Who/Whom'.
as CP has pointed out, after 50 years of learning about the evils of Red Scares, Terrors Witch Trials and Pogroms, I'll admit I naively thought the West had turned a corner. I remember growing up hearing that black people were lazy, Jews were miserly and greedy and that Arabs/Muslims were a race of violent, evil people and recognizing that for the inhumanity that it is. but now, those same institutions that sought to enlighten us to the horrors of group identity are now saying that black people can't be racist, Jews are colonizers and guilty and that Arabs are an oppressed minority seeking justice. oppressors are all guilty and the oppressed are always justified.
we have turned a corner and now must face the ancient struggle of history.
I suppose the difference is that we think we know better now. We think we are immune, inoculated by our knowledge of history and technology and belief in progress. Maybe this makes the moment more dangerous when our antibodies are so weak.
Dreher's post was brilliant, so much so that I should have taken notes. To start, I don't support torture of any kind. I am fine with public hanging and an end to the twenty year appeal process that has become the norm in America. Two young men who deserved public hanging and even lynching were the Carr brothers of Wichita who raped and murdered four young white adults about twenty years ago. The Carrs might have gotten off free if one of the bullets shot at the skull of one of the young women had not struck a burette in her hair and miraculously bounced off. She played dead, waited for the Carrs to leave, and ran naked for a mile through the Kansas snow to safety. The Carrs still live which shows the lack of justice in the American justice system.
Lynching parties in American history tended to be equal opportunity. I accept Dreher's figure of 4000 blacks lynched since the Civil War but I believe an equal number of whites were also lynched. I don't like the idea of lynching just as the fictional Atticus Finch did not. But life was much more coarse a century ago and justice was not always easily available.
Humans are capable of great evil. Some "great" men have killed millions. Genghis Khan. Tamerlane. Lenin. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. Pol Pot. As rotten as the current system is, the world has seemed to have tamed our evil side except when it comes to the lives of the unborn. The terror raids in Israel by Hamas has horrified most humane people with 1400 butchered. Normal people condemn the murder raids. Yet some morally insane people support the crimes of Hamas.
War is vile and horrible. America after Vietnam developed the idea of the sanitary war, mass bombing from the air, even of civilians. This was around in WW2, of course, culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is embodied in the quest for drones and high -tech warfare.
The truth is war ends up personal and up close. Those that push others to war usually sit comfortably far from the war, like the Hamas leaders in London and Qatar. Obama dropped 27k bombs on 7 countries in 2016 alone, besides drone strikes.
Once the dogs of war are unleashed, hell on earth comes, with the terror and atrocities. Maybe some try to limit those, but others use that as a tool of war.
For all this, we should stop trying to be the world's hegemon. War will happen, but we don't need to cause it to go worse. And should try to avoid it with all efforts.
Anyone, ANYONE, who says something like "Well, I would never do THAT" has never looked into their own heart and mind and hearts and really looked at what is there. We are all capable of anything. It is only through the grace of God that we are able to constrict evil within us as much as we do.
"We have to cross the infinite thickness of time and space – and God has to do it first, because he comes to us first. Of the links between God and man, love is the greatest. It is as great as the distance to be crossed. So that the love may be as great as possible, the distance is as great as possible. That is why evil can extend to the extreme limit beyond which the very possibility of good disappears. Evil is permitted to touch this limit. It sometimes seems as though it overpassed it."
Simone Weil: Gravity and Grace
"Learn the discipline of being surprised not by suffering but by joy. As we grow old . . . there is suffering ahead of us, immense suffering, a suffering that will continue to tempt us to think that we have chosen the wrong road. . . . But don’t be surprised by pain. Be surprised by joy, be surprised by the little flower that shows its beauty in the midst of a barren desert, and be surprised by the immense healing power that keeps bursting forth like springs of fresh water from the depth of our pain."
Okay. But I think he has a good point. Why, after over 5,000 years of recorded history everyone (including me, I am on no pedestal, even in my own mind) is always so surprised - and often affronted - when they have to suffer, is one of the great mysteries of the human mind.
"Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thess. 5:16-17)
She used to walk from her parents' apartment on Riverside Drive to hear Mass at Corpus Christi, which was at the time (still is?) the Columbia Catholic Church. I first entered that church to hear some music, suppose it was 15 years ago. Her spirit was so powerfully present I fully expected her to walk out from behind a pillar. About as close as I've come to a mystical experience.
It was at Corpus Christi as well that the Columbia chaplain said a Mass for the soul of James Joyce, having been browbeaten into it by Mary Colum. He was the only priest in New York willing to do it.
What a wonderful close encounter with such a saintly soul.
And God blessed the chaplain for his charity, I'm sure. After all, Joyce himself said, when asked, "When did you leave the Catholic Church?" He answered, "That's for the Church to say."
When I see angry young men do awful things to people, I think: "I could've been like that. How come I'm not like that?" I'm a young man, and I have been angry—but even at my worst, I have tended toward self-destruction rather than taking it out on others like that. And I have thought: how come? I have always found it mysterious. My best guess is that it's only grace, nothing to my merit.
The starting point for all of us is that we are capable of doing that. As Christians we are are after all part of the mob or at least one of the disciples that disappeared when the going got tough. There but for the grace of God we go.
You are right. Anybody, even a decent person, can do evil things. What would a man do if he was a Pole in 1941 Poland and told by the SS colonel that you were to be a prison guard at a prison camp. A hero would say no, shoot me. But most men would have become prison guards.
Perhaps you are eluding to it but a book was written on that topic discussing German people (it would apply to Poles too).
Here's the brief description........"The shocking account of how a unit of average middle-aged Germans became the cold-blooded murderers of tens of thousands of Jews."
Sadly, true. As Viktor Frankl said in "Man's Search for Meaning", in one of the most bitterly honest things that has probably EVER been said from someone who was there:
“On the average, only those prisoners could keep alive who, after years of trekking from camp to camp, had lost all scruples in their fight for existence; they were prepared to use every means, honest and otherwise, even brutal force, theft, and betrayal of their friends, in order to save themselves. We who have come back, by the aid of many lucky chances or miracles - whatever one may choose to call them - we know: the best of us did not return.”
“ They embrace evil within themselves, and sacralize it.”
That statement hits hard! It’s forces me to ask, how do I do this? So many today speak of our “shared humanity” but only to support their fleeting ideology du jour. Few dare to admit this nagging evil inside in every heart…including their own…unless of course it’s only to be found in “my enemy.”
I’ve been dwelling lately on Dostoyevsky’s Father Zozima and his haunting theme: “There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all.” This only works and makes sense “in Christ” and because of Jesus Christ and from His love. This is a hard teaching but it does draw me to the idea of my “brother’s keeper” or more like, if I’m honest, how I refuse it as did Cain. To live life in such a manner must come from the same vein from which Solzhenitsyn made his famous statement. If these things are indeed true (I believe they are) and we began to humbly act upon them, how might our world be transformed…starting as it must with each one of us.
Continuing in this artery, then I’m seeing this all connected under an umbrella of Sobornost. At least what I know of it. It’s a concept that is difficult to define fully but beautiful nonetheless in what it evokes, in where it beckons us to return. All of this just keeps gnawing at me. I can’t let it go even though I struggle to understand the wisdom and certainly to live in the way. It’s like knowing something true, good and beautiful is at work in you (and in the world) but you just can never quite keep all the cupped water in your hands. I must be satisfied for now with wet hands and counting on God’s new mercies each morning. I know you struggle mightily with many things and fall short like all of us but thank you Rod for pointing us to the higher law and a yearning for God’s wisdom, truth and healing love.
I agree with every word of Rod's here. But if you nonetheless believe the wokesters have already concluded that we the unenlightened are less than human - or less the perfection of humanity, as they believe themselves to be - then it's like: What then.
Those so possessed by a cause would commit atrocities for that cause. Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, might that require us to cross that line of good and evil in our own hearts?
<<Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, doesn't that suggest that only mutually assured destruction might deter it.>>
I think going down that path is unhelpful and destructive. Yes, we have to prepare ourselves for that possibility, but this isn't just an issue of the US, but of the whole world. We frame the argument most of the time in almost Leftist terms, that those who are "woke" are forever irredeemable, and that they can't ever see that there's a different path. At the same time, they're struggling too - some research thing came out this past week saying that today's young adults are, as a group, lonelier than the very old... With God's help, we can reach people with love and friendship and community, but that's a long and hard road. We're also not going to "get" every one, but not every person espousing woke dogma is nearly as convinced as it would seem, not by a long shot.
<<Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, might that require us to cross that line of good and evil in our own hearts?>>
I see you changed the last line a bit, and I think this question is easier. I think the answer is simply no. Say, even, that you're put in a situation where it's kill someone or someone else will be killed - it's not the same as murder. Even self-defense is justifiable (and not just in one's head). In the case of self-defense, the "ideal" may be to let it happen, but it's not the only valid choice. But to hone that really means making those decisions every day in thousands of small ways.
Maybe. But what of the idea of a pre-emptive strike; and to be more specific as to current events -
I think Rod is right, I think this whole episode in Israel/Gaza has ripped away the mask and shown what the left really means when it talks about "decolonization" and such. Ultimately, when push comes to shove - and we're not there yet, thank God, but every day we're a few inches closer - I think they would justify lethal violence on their countrymen. They see themselves as latter-day John Browns.
So if you think that; if in fact you fully expect your political opponent to embrace that sort of violence - what do you do? Wait around for them to do it?
It's a tough question. As a government, I think there's not just a duty to defend, but a right to go after the source of the force that's attacking you. On the other hand, there are a million more things to be considered, and this gets into the realm of politics and international relations and such.
As far as those among us; I think we have to be very careful. I think, in general, we need to be gracious to people that we may not necessarily agree with because a) there are people out there who are less ideological than we think, and there are plenty whom we can "win over" b) in a Christian sense, our default should be welcoming c) not all with whom we disagree are our enemies and d) getting into purity tests of belief will kill us. On the flip side, we've got to put up defenses too, that we not believe that everyone is "like us", that there aren't people who want to do very bad things, that it's not wrong to set boundaries - and defend them - where we must. Especially the idea of defending things takes a lot of courage, and so we need to be exercising that skill, strengthening our souls, and being ready to stand up for "small" things along the way.
This week I've been reading and watching accounts of the living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank.
Can one adequately compare suffering in some kind of "oppression Olympics"? I don't think it's very useful. I guess the best one can say is that there are many ways to treat people with inhumanity. The Inquisition. Chattel generational slavery in the Antebellum South. The Trail of Tears. Wounded Knee. The Warsaw Getto. Auschwitz. An abortion mill. A pediatric gender clinic. Budapest in 1956. The Gulag. Gaza.
All examples of people not treated as fully deserving human beings.
And of course, being a victim does not exempt one from being a victimized. Indeed, in many ways, it makes it even more liekly--nearly inevitable, as the rage that builds in the heart can come flooding forth, destroying all in its path.
Since I came from the Evangelical World, I still have many friends there, who post on social media, nearly always this day in full-throated support of Israel doing whatever it takes to liquidate Hamas. There might be passing "thoughts and prayers" about innocent Palestinians who are victims, but sometimes not even that.
And from Muslims, I see full-throated support of the Palestinians, recounting the numerous injustices inflicted on them by Israel and her allies. Again, occasional "thoughts and prayers" for the innocents, but sometimes not even that.
Another thought...
A few days ago I was reading about Nat Turner's Rebellion and it's aftermath, which resulted in far more death for African Americans (slave and free) than the death they dealt out, as well as a crackdown of rights for African Americans, slave and free, in Virginia and the rest of the south. It was treated as proof positive by many of the animalistic nature of Africans...who rose up little more than half a century after white Americans rose up against what they thought was an intolerable system.
I wonder if afterwords, slaves were asked "Yes, perhaps you have a point about your slavery, but first, do you condemn Nat Turner and his attrocities?"
To see only the evil that Hamas did without seeing anything wrong with what Israel has done for decades, or worse, to justify it, as many in the West do, is basically saying Israeli lives matter more than Palestinian ones.
We have two ethnic groups who have been fighting over the same piece of land since 1948. This is not a question of civilization versus barbarity. Both sides have committed plenty of war crimes over the years. Israel has been more strategic about theirs, while too many Palestinians have chosen to act in ways that are stupid, short-sighted, and do their cause no good.
To ask what might have pushed someone to commit a particular atrocity does not mean one is excusing the atrocity. But consider that many in Israel have wanted to clear out Gaza entirely for a while, and now they have a reason to.
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories myself, but there's definitely a narrative among Muslims that the Israelis are lying about the worst atrocities, and those photos and videos are faked. Or that Netanyahu and Hamas were working together. (They have in the past.) I can't read anyone's mind, but I suspect at least some of the people tearing down hostage posters think they are combating fake news.
Maybe? Honestly, at this point only those who don't know much about any of it are still persuadable. The two sides are even living in parallel information worlds, as Rod wrote about in an earlier piece.
If you only get your news from TikTok you're seeing an overwhelmingly pro-Palestine view. The mainstream media in the West, meanwhile, is very pro-Israel. Meanwhile lot of people worldwide just rely on WhatsApp and Telegram forwards. There are barely even any shared facts and there's not enough mutual trust to create any. I imagine this is what it was like in the medieval era, where literacy was low and everyone got their news from the town crier and people they knew.
My take would be that, without theological justification otherwise, it's blindingly obvious that the Palestinians are in the right.
However (and it's a big "However"), the Palestinians have picked a particularly nasty ideological vehicle for their just aspirations. Obviously, I disapprove of Islam on a theological level, but, leaving that aside, I think the jury is out on the degree to which Islam can be tolerant, and function on a level playing field in a multireligious society. I hope it can, because I would prefer to see it as just a false religion, like Mormonism, which Christians should argue against, but beside which they can live safely. However, that is somewhat academic, as, in the world today, it is indisputable that Islam is more violent and intolerant than Christianity (unless one considers, say, the USA to have religious motivations for its foreign policy, which is arguable but far from certain). In addition, a sizable minority of Palestinians have latched onto an unusually nasty interpretation of Islam, represented by Hamas.
Even leaving aside their ideology, the recent attacks were largely sadistic. They weren't even, for example, random bombing of a residential area to demoralise the population, in that some of those involved seem to have truly bestial and sexually perverted motives.
After that, I sympathise with the Israeli public to want to take bloody vengeance. However, that does not mean that US and European governments should encourage that. The USA has leverage, as it provides a huge amount of aid to Israel.
Leaving aside the moral issues, in terms of what is to be done, I find it difficult to be other than deeply pessimistic. I think one side or the other, probably the Palestinians, is going to end up getting killed or expelled. Another possibility is a nuclear war, perhaps between Israel and Iran, or perhaps the Samson Option by Israel.
If I try to think of optimistic scenarios, obviously mass (even much less than 100%) conversion of both sides to Christianity would resolve the problem overnight. It's actually quite bizarre how spiritual good coincides with geopolitical and humanitarian benefit in this particular case.
The one-state option, without a massive moral realignment, which is unlikely without religious conversion, looks like a non-starter. If I could dream, I'd want a holy Holy Land, a sort of spiritual homeland for the soul, as a pilgrimage destination, and world centre for religious studies and spiritual arts, showcasing the best of the three religious traditions, and showing that devout religion can be tolerant and humane.
I think the two-state option would still be workable, but would require Israel withdrawing all its troops from the West Bank and Gaza, abandoning all settlements, and putting in a road, rail and pipeline link between the two territories.
And it would require Palestinians to stop screaming “from River to Sea” which is never going to happen. That’s the problem. Israel is rational. They have proven their ability to work with the Palestinian people and anyone else who will work with them. Some Palestinian groups will never accept Israel and reinforce this among their followers. That’s what has to end. That. Until it does a two- state solution will never happen.
It's not one-sided, though. Much of the religious right in Israel wants all Palestinians expelled. Some of the fringe talk about Nile to Euphrates in those terms.
I don’t doubt there are some who feel that way but that’s a handful not the official position of the government. Nor are even the majority of Israelis religious. The hatred of the majority of Palestinians for the Jews is overwhelming and sad. If they could just stop indoctrinating the next generation things could change.
I cannot, with a brief search, find any data about how many also want all Palestinians to be expelled from the West Bank and Gaza. I doubt the position is as marginal as you think.
Keep in mind that the evidence is clear that Israel began a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing in 1948. See Ilan Pape's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" for a good overview if this. They didn't need to expel all Palestinians, of course--but they calculated they didn't want more than 20 percent Arabs in Israel to be a truly "Jewish State".
The current Iaraelis aren't guilty for their parents and grandparents sins, of course...but if they're sincere about undoing those crimes, they could start by recognizing the right of return for those families expelled in the Nakba. They could also stop building settlement that encroach on land that theoretically would be part of a "two State" deal--and stop eliciting Arans from their homes in East Jerusalem.
Thank you again for this article. I was fortunate in college to have professors who taught the truth about human history. One of my professors witnessed a lynching as a small boy in Mississippi and made sure were knew what it was all about.
I still think that Rene Girard is essential to understand the religious significance of our human history of brutality and atrocity. What is frightening is his explanation of why scapegoating persists. It persists because it "works," at least for a time. The devil is banished for a time. A community in which memetic rivalry has pushed it to the edge of anarchic violence identifies a scapegoat. The subsequent lynching provides the catharsis that enables to community to return to balance. It is the Bible that at first little by little, but in the end decisively, exposes the fact that the scapegoat is innocent.
Yesterday in the Pillar's substack, Ed Condon had an excerpt from one of Franz Jagerstatter's letters from prison. Jagerstatter was a conscientious objector who was executed by the Nazi's in World War II. In one of the clips from the movie, A Hidden Life, Franz sought counsel from his priest. However the priest said Franz should consider the consequences of objecting to the war and the priest told him, "your sacrifice will benefit no one". But Franz had to listen to his conscience and was eventually thrown in prison for refusing to fight.
While imprisoned he wrote many letters to his wife and children. I was so moved by Jagerstatter's words, "Out of my own experience, I can say that life is painful when one lives as a lukewarm Christian. To exist in this way is to have more the existence of a vegetable than truly to live. If a person were to possess all of this world’s wisdom and be able to claim half of the earth as his own, he could and would still be less fortunate than a poor person who can claim nothing in this world as his own other than a deep Catholic faith. I would not exchange my small, dirty cell for a king’s palace if I was required to give up even a small part of my faith.”
I pray that I would always choose good over evil. And if subjected to the test that I would have the courage of Franz Jagerstatter.
Thanks Rod, for the two extra newsletters!
Woah. Just…woah.
Thank you so much for writing this, Rod. And for making it shareable. In the wake of the alarming response across the West to the barbarity of Hamas, I am working on a followup piece to one I wrote a while ago regarding "the rhyme of history." I came here looking for a piece from you that I could embed, and this one is perfect. Providence for the win.
Only those on the morally repellant left support the murder of innocent babies. Normal people do not support the torture and murder of children. Unfortunately, the morally repellant left is good at getting on television. Cretins like The Squad.
I do agree the support for such atrocities is only among those morally blinded by ideology. But in the final calculus, when it comes to shaping the outcome, it is only a small degree of difference between them and those who are willing to silently look past or just look away. The fate of Jews amongst the citizens of 1930s Germany comes to mind...
As a Gen-Xer writing on a Gen-Xers' blog I just wanted to point out one difference between the atrocities of the past vs the atrocities of the present and the future:
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the Red Scare and how evil it was to condemn and banish people based on their legitimate political beliefs—and then we've sat by and watched the same phenomenon reappear in the guise of DEI, where rigid ideological litmus tests are now applied for employment (not to mention racial quotas), and where many people have lost their jobs over stating an unapproved thought;
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the evil and stupidity of judging people by the color of their skin, only for another racial classification system to appear a generation or so later, where now the biggest social faux pas is not granting certain peoples extra moral points for being a member of a protected victim class and where we're all judged by skin color for things like employment and college acceptance;
We were subjected to many hours of instruction, multiple plays, TV shows and movies etc about the evils of Jew hatred, its history and all is barbaric manifestations, only to see so much of our enlightened progressive caste defend (or at least obfuscate and contextualize) a brutal Jewish pogrom out of the Middle Ages, and this by the same people who got years of moralistic mileage out of a handful of fools w tiki torches and the same people who cry "anti-Semite!" if you dislike George Soros.
We've had 50 years of full-spectrum propaganda that claimed to be training us to be more humanitarian and less discriminatory and warning us about the dangers of joining deranged mass movements—and this has all been swept away within a decade and replaced by Who/Whom.
I guess my point is that you can dress the angry tribal ape in fancy clothes and send him to years of academic seminars about tolerance and compassion, but the angry tribal ape is always there, always waiting, and every society is always at risk of being burned down by a return of the angry tribal ape.
This. Also consider that those most ready to signal their virtue turn out to be the least virtuous. Oh, and when confronted about their hypocrisy and evil, they say, "We do not have to tolerate the intolerable." So, in their minds, once you are categorized as an "intolerable/deplorable" or whatever, that means they feel justified to do anything they wish to them/feel they can get away with without consequences.
And when blowback does inevitably come, they appear shocked, SHOCKED, I SAY.
becoming convinced of your own moral and ideological superiority is almost like a drug addiction or some form of brain damage: the True Believer w a heart on fire for Justice can't see anything but their holy Utopia, can't imagine any poss unforseen consequences, and certainly can't see themselves and how they appear to the rest of us.
And this, we must realize, is the very core of wokeism - a firm, narcissistic belief that they are on the "right side of history," that they in fact are the most moral people, the most enlightened, to have ever walked the earth. That alone, in their smug minds, justifies all they do, all their hypocrisies. They represent pinnacle of empathy and virtue, you see; so that gives them latitude to impose whatever they like on those lacking in empathy and virtue.
Those who yammer on the most about "privilege" have, in fact, privileged themselves.
I think that there's a classic projection mechanism in play. One time I read an interesting essay on *Harry Potter* about how the Gryffindors and the Slytherins are actually the same people, except that the Gryffindors are the ego-ideal of how they see themselves and the Slytherins are the objective reality of who they are. It's sort of like that.
I'm not sure if I agree on the premise that they actually are the same people, but there certainly is the theme throughout the whole series where Harry struggles with the knowledge that he could have been "great" in Slytherin. It's a scary thought to Harry in large part because he knows how terrible some Slytherins have been and he wonders if these terrible things are part of his heart as well. Later, it's explained to Harry in some detail that although he could have been "great" in Slytherin, it's his disposition and choices that made him a true Gryffindor. The series comes back around to that at the very end of the series when young Albus is nervous about where he will be sorted, and Harry assures him that even in Slytherin, he's still capable of working toward the good.
Oh, sorry—I should have clarified that the essay was a sort of psychoanalytic spoof. (It also made jokes about how Harry Potter grows up to be a cop, to give you an idea.) They are definitely not the same people in the books nor in any way intended to be so.
Kgasmart, you'll get a wry kick out of this.
One of my neighbors has a daughter in her 20s who popped onto social media a week ago to lecture all of us about not supporting "genocide" in Gaza and how evil we were if we were not 100% pro-Palestinian in all matters. A day later, she went back to posting photos...from her boyfriend's polo matches! You can't make this stuff up.
But it's WOKE polo...
These people tend to have about zero self-awareness.
Sad to say, her vote counts as much as yours.
True, but I have more than 30 more years of accrued social capital, none of her crippling student loan debt, a resume that lends me some credibility when I write to, say, a college alumni office, and a better understanding of how our social and political systems actually work. Voting isn't the only way to get things done.
Oh yeah. One of the things that cracks me up the most is when one of these cretins tells me his "right side of history" nonsense, with the clear belief he/she is on said side. And they try to laugh it off or fly into a rage when reminded history is only the amalgam of known facts of events past and has no "side". It is just history.
Just recently, George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame, who has come out wokest of woke, posted on his Facebook account a quote from Isaac Asimov about needing to get rid of national borders, etc.
Hey. George. Bet you live in a house whose doors have locks. In a well-heeled neighborhood surrounded by a wall. With entrances protected by armed security.
Shut up and write Winds of Winter.
Dude. Don't even get me started on the "In this house we believe..." signs in gated communities. "No human is illegal" - but God forbid anyone try to build affordable housing next door.
"LOVE IS LOVE." "NIMBY."
I always wanted a sign that said “In this house, we believe you probably don’t care about what we believe.”
He lives in an adobe house without walls and presumably with locks. I know, I've seen it. (I get your metaphor, I'm just bragging about knowing George.) There was once no greater GOT fangirl that me.
Well....George posted "There are no nations, there is only humanity. And if we don't come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity - Isaac Amisov".
Wouldn't you agree that can be taken a lot of ways other than "no borders". I take it as "Stop fighting. It is OK to have nations but it is not OK to fight to bring advantage to your nation because others are just as human as you - there are no nations of the heart even though there are physical nations". I mean..."there will be no nations" has to be seen as something Amisov wants to avoid in that quote.
(And yes, I know George is a Democrat.)
It is hippie nonsense, Linda. And I refuse to squint and do the hokie pokie to try to see it any other way. He live a life of wealth, privilege and safety and has taken on the views of someone decadent and sheltered, like many in his strata. No more complicated or nuanced than that.
I'm a GoT fan. I like his writing. I'm also a fan of other artists who suffer from the same malady, talented, but completely disconnected cretins. Just because you are a talented artist doesn't mean you have a damn thing to offer as far as real world insight goes.
To check it's value, you actually compare it to the real world.
PS: I agree with you 95% of the time, Tee, but did have to disagree here.
More about George - I could talk about his faults, but he is not here and I would feel a bit disloyal to say what I think they are.
For virtues - the chief is the character of Dany, in other words, George warned us about Regime Change before we ever went to Iraq (Dany and the slavers). He served in 'Nam. He knew all along. He did specifically talk about his beliefs, it was not just a coindidence that regime change did not work out for Dany. George is a very good student of history.
His second main virtue - he teaches "everyone is the hero of their own story". He has a few psychopath characters of course but other than that, he wants to show how almost everyone **thinks** they are doing right. Yeah, maybe it is self-justification but they think it is right, or at least understandable in the circumstances, when they do it, they don't sit there going "I think I will do something really bad". Hence the incredible Lannisters and Starks, with the former thinking they are good, or at least doing right, not just cardboard villains, and the later usually much more truly good, though paradoxically, unfit to rule at times in an evil world. (yeah, I know...but George sees evil even when people think it they are doing good.)
For me this "they think they are doing right" helps me when I have to see people cheering Hamas. But yes, I want Hamas to no longer exist.
George RR Martin did not serve in Vietnam. He was not even ever in the service. He managed to get "alternative" community service. https://www.bing.com/search?q=george+rr+martin+did+not+serve+in+the+military&cvid=d007b74703db40ccad21447ed6d48ac1&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDgyNTlqMGo0qAIAsAIA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=EDGEDSE
He is a good writer. But he is not a wise man. He is no modern sage.
This is the mentality of every cult in the history of the world.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Where is that quote from?
Oh, "The Second Coming", by Yeats.
Thanks! Between my asking and your answering, I saw that line quoted in a sample news magazine that came in the mail. I had also seen it quoted on another site last week. That's three times in as many days. Maybe I should read the poem.
For sure—it’s quite short: < https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming>.
Great comment. Sometimes I'll gripe skeptically about government, and someone here in my bright-blue liberal suburb will express shock that I'm expressing unpopular "conservative" thoughts. But I learned all of these things, this old-school liberalism, from old-school liberals! Guys like Norman Lear and his shows like "Good Times," where the local alderman was smarmy and crooked and the government screwed over the poor in public housing.
yes...the last few weeks have lifted the quiet veil to reveal the true face of 'Who/Whom'.
as CP has pointed out, after 50 years of learning about the evils of Red Scares, Terrors Witch Trials and Pogroms, I'll admit I naively thought the West had turned a corner. I remember growing up hearing that black people were lazy, Jews were miserly and greedy and that Arabs/Muslims were a race of violent, evil people and recognizing that for the inhumanity that it is. but now, those same institutions that sought to enlighten us to the horrors of group identity are now saying that black people can't be racist, Jews are colonizers and guilty and that Arabs are an oppressed minority seeking justice. oppressors are all guilty and the oppressed are always justified.
we have turned a corner and now must face the ancient struggle of history.
I suppose the difference is that we think we know better now. We think we are immune, inoculated by our knowledge of history and technology and belief in progress. Maybe this makes the moment more dangerous when our antibodies are so weak.
Dreher's post was brilliant, so much so that I should have taken notes. To start, I don't support torture of any kind. I am fine with public hanging and an end to the twenty year appeal process that has become the norm in America. Two young men who deserved public hanging and even lynching were the Carr brothers of Wichita who raped and murdered four young white adults about twenty years ago. The Carrs might have gotten off free if one of the bullets shot at the skull of one of the young women had not struck a burette in her hair and miraculously bounced off. She played dead, waited for the Carrs to leave, and ran naked for a mile through the Kansas snow to safety. The Carrs still live which shows the lack of justice in the American justice system.
Lynching parties in American history tended to be equal opportunity. I accept Dreher's figure of 4000 blacks lynched since the Civil War but I believe an equal number of whites were also lynched. I don't like the idea of lynching just as the fictional Atticus Finch did not. But life was much more coarse a century ago and justice was not always easily available.
Humans are capable of great evil. Some "great" men have killed millions. Genghis Khan. Tamerlane. Lenin. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. Pol Pot. As rotten as the current system is, the world has seemed to have tamed our evil side except when it comes to the lives of the unborn. The terror raids in Israel by Hamas has horrified most humane people with 1400 butchered. Normal people condemn the murder raids. Yet some morally insane people support the crimes of Hamas.
One hundred and seven years ago the good and wise people of Erwin, Tennessee, in their awe-inspiring ability to discern the greater good and carry out justice speedily, conducted a public lynching that was one for the history books. They are still trying to live it down. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/722236763/the-town-that-hanged-an-elephant-is-now-working-to-save-them
Good for them!
War is vile and horrible. America after Vietnam developed the idea of the sanitary war, mass bombing from the air, even of civilians. This was around in WW2, of course, culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is embodied in the quest for drones and high -tech warfare.
The truth is war ends up personal and up close. Those that push others to war usually sit comfortably far from the war, like the Hamas leaders in London and Qatar. Obama dropped 27k bombs on 7 countries in 2016 alone, besides drone strikes.
Once the dogs of war are unleashed, hell on earth comes, with the terror and atrocities. Maybe some try to limit those, but others use that as a tool of war.
For all this, we should stop trying to be the world's hegemon. War will happen, but we don't need to cause it to go worse. And should try to avoid it with all efforts.
Very moving and insightful. Thank you.
Good post, but not as great as it could have been had it been brought up to date. But then some things are more difficult to confront.
Anyone, ANYONE, who says something like "Well, I would never do THAT" has never looked into their own heart and mind and hearts and really looked at what is there. We are all capable of anything. It is only through the grace of God that we are able to constrict evil within us as much as we do.
"We have to cross the infinite thickness of time and space – and God has to do it first, because he comes to us first. Of the links between God and man, love is the greatest. It is as great as the distance to be crossed. So that the love may be as great as possible, the distance is as great as possible. That is why evil can extend to the extreme limit beyond which the very possibility of good disappears. Evil is permitted to touch this limit. It sometimes seems as though it overpassed it."
Simone Weil: Gravity and Grace
"Learn the discipline of being surprised not by suffering but by joy. As we grow old . . . there is suffering ahead of us, immense suffering, a suffering that will continue to tempt us to think that we have chosen the wrong road. . . . But don’t be surprised by pain. Be surprised by joy, be surprised by the little flower that shows its beauty in the midst of a barren desert, and be surprised by the immense healing power that keeps bursting forth like springs of fresh water from the depth of our pain."
Henri Nouwen
I'm not finding Father Nouwen in the same league as Simone. That's just me.
Okay. But I think he has a good point. Why, after over 5,000 years of recorded history everyone (including me, I am on no pedestal, even in my own mind) is always so surprised - and often affronted - when they have to suffer, is one of the great mysteries of the human mind.
"Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thess. 5:16-17)
She used to walk from her parents' apartment on Riverside Drive to hear Mass at Corpus Christi, which was at the time (still is?) the Columbia Catholic Church. I first entered that church to hear some music, suppose it was 15 years ago. Her spirit was so powerfully present I fully expected her to walk out from behind a pillar. About as close as I've come to a mystical experience.
It was at Corpus Christi as well that the Columbia chaplain said a Mass for the soul of James Joyce, having been browbeaten into it by Mary Colum. He was the only priest in New York willing to do it.
What a wonderful close encounter with such a saintly soul.
And God blessed the chaplain for his charity, I'm sure. After all, Joyce himself said, when asked, "When did you leave the Catholic Church?" He answered, "That's for the Church to say."
He wrote a lot of nonsense, and I disdain him for it, but this was a good quote.
When I see angry young men do awful things to people, I think: "I could've been like that. How come I'm not like that?" I'm a young man, and I have been angry—but even at my worst, I have tended toward self-destruction rather than taking it out on others like that. And I have thought: how come? I have always found it mysterious. My best guess is that it's only grace, nothing to my merit.
It's all grace, always. Thank God.
The starting point for all of us is that we are capable of doing that. As Christians we are are after all part of the mob or at least one of the disciples that disappeared when the going got tough. There but for the grace of God we go.
You are right. Anybody, even a decent person, can do evil things. What would a man do if he was a Pole in 1941 Poland and told by the SS colonel that you were to be a prison guard at a prison camp. A hero would say no, shoot me. But most men would have become prison guards.
Perhaps you are eluding to it but a book was written on that topic discussing German people (it would apply to Poles too).
Here's the brief description........"The shocking account of how a unit of average middle-aged Germans became the cold-blooded murderers of tens of thousands of Jews."
https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068
I read it two summers ago. As a college freshmen nearly 45 years ago I also read "Into the Gas Chambers, Ladies and Gentlemen."
Most of those men remained in the German police after the war.
Sadly, true. As Viktor Frankl said in "Man's Search for Meaning", in one of the most bitterly honest things that has probably EVER been said from someone who was there:
“On the average, only those prisoners could keep alive who, after years of trekking from camp to camp, had lost all scruples in their fight for existence; they were prepared to use every means, honest and otherwise, even brutal force, theft, and betrayal of their friends, in order to save themselves. We who have come back, by the aid of many lucky chances or miracles - whatever one may choose to call them - we know: the best of us did not return.”
That is an excellent book, well worth reading!
Frankl has many fantastic quotes in that book. Here's one that applies to Rod's essay.....
"“No man should judge unless he asks himself in absolute honesty whether in a similar situation he might not have done the same.”"
Here's a website that lists some of Frankl's quotes.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com/stoic-blog/viktor-frankl-greatest-quotes
A pdf version of Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is available in public domain. https://ia801809.us.archive.org/19/items/mans-search-for-meaning_202104/Man%27s%20Search%20For%20Meaning.pdf
I've owned a copy for quite some time. A great book, which I recommend to everyone.
“ They embrace evil within themselves, and sacralize it.”
That statement hits hard! It’s forces me to ask, how do I do this? So many today speak of our “shared humanity” but only to support their fleeting ideology du jour. Few dare to admit this nagging evil inside in every heart…including their own…unless of course it’s only to be found in “my enemy.”
I’ve been dwelling lately on Dostoyevsky’s Father Zozima and his haunting theme: “There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all.” This only works and makes sense “in Christ” and because of Jesus Christ and from His love. This is a hard teaching but it does draw me to the idea of my “brother’s keeper” or more like, if I’m honest, how I refuse it as did Cain. To live life in such a manner must come from the same vein from which Solzhenitsyn made his famous statement. If these things are indeed true (I believe they are) and we began to humbly act upon them, how might our world be transformed…starting as it must with each one of us.
Continuing in this artery, then I’m seeing this all connected under an umbrella of Sobornost. At least what I know of it. It’s a concept that is difficult to define fully but beautiful nonetheless in what it evokes, in where it beckons us to return. All of this just keeps gnawing at me. I can’t let it go even though I struggle to understand the wisdom and certainly to live in the way. It’s like knowing something true, good and beautiful is at work in you (and in the world) but you just can never quite keep all the cupped water in your hands. I must be satisfied for now with wet hands and counting on God’s new mercies each morning. I know you struggle mightily with many things and fall short like all of us but thank you Rod for pointing us to the higher law and a yearning for God’s wisdom, truth and healing love.
"Continuing in this artery..."
Oh, come on Chris, everybody in the English speaking world says, "Continuing in the vein". :)
It looks pretty oxygenated to me.
I agree with every word of Rod's here. But if you nonetheless believe the wokesters have already concluded that we the unenlightened are less than human - or less the perfection of humanity, as they believe themselves to be - then it's like: What then.
Those so possessed by a cause would commit atrocities for that cause. Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, might that require us to cross that line of good and evil in our own hearts?
<<Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, doesn't that suggest that only mutually assured destruction might deter it.>>
I think going down that path is unhelpful and destructive. Yes, we have to prepare ourselves for that possibility, but this isn't just an issue of the US, but of the whole world. We frame the argument most of the time in almost Leftist terms, that those who are "woke" are forever irredeemable, and that they can't ever see that there's a different path. At the same time, they're struggling too - some research thing came out this past week saying that today's young adults are, as a group, lonelier than the very old... With God's help, we can reach people with love and friendship and community, but that's a long and hard road. We're also not going to "get" every one, but not every person espousing woke dogma is nearly as convinced as it would seem, not by a long shot.
<<Does that mean political violence is inevitable in the US; and if it does, might that require us to cross that line of good and evil in our own hearts?>>
I see you changed the last line a bit, and I think this question is easier. I think the answer is simply no. Say, even, that you're put in a situation where it's kill someone or someone else will be killed - it's not the same as murder. Even self-defense is justifiable (and not just in one's head). In the case of self-defense, the "ideal" may be to let it happen, but it's not the only valid choice. But to hone that really means making those decisions every day in thousands of small ways.
Maybe. But what of the idea of a pre-emptive strike; and to be more specific as to current events -
I think Rod is right, I think this whole episode in Israel/Gaza has ripped away the mask and shown what the left really means when it talks about "decolonization" and such. Ultimately, when push comes to shove - and we're not there yet, thank God, but every day we're a few inches closer - I think they would justify lethal violence on their countrymen. They see themselves as latter-day John Browns.
So if you think that; if in fact you fully expect your political opponent to embrace that sort of violence - what do you do? Wait around for them to do it?
It's a tough question. As a government, I think there's not just a duty to defend, but a right to go after the source of the force that's attacking you. On the other hand, there are a million more things to be considered, and this gets into the realm of politics and international relations and such.
As far as those among us; I think we have to be very careful. I think, in general, we need to be gracious to people that we may not necessarily agree with because a) there are people out there who are less ideological than we think, and there are plenty whom we can "win over" b) in a Christian sense, our default should be welcoming c) not all with whom we disagree are our enemies and d) getting into purity tests of belief will kill us. On the flip side, we've got to put up defenses too, that we not believe that everyone is "like us", that there aren't people who want to do very bad things, that it's not wrong to set boundaries - and defend them - where we must. Especially the idea of defending things takes a lot of courage, and so we need to be exercising that skill, strengthening our souls, and being ready to stand up for "small" things along the way.
Thanks for another excellent piece, Rod.
This week I've been reading and watching accounts of the living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank.
Can one adequately compare suffering in some kind of "oppression Olympics"? I don't think it's very useful. I guess the best one can say is that there are many ways to treat people with inhumanity. The Inquisition. Chattel generational slavery in the Antebellum South. The Trail of Tears. Wounded Knee. The Warsaw Getto. Auschwitz. An abortion mill. A pediatric gender clinic. Budapest in 1956. The Gulag. Gaza.
All examples of people not treated as fully deserving human beings.
And of course, being a victim does not exempt one from being a victimized. Indeed, in many ways, it makes it even more liekly--nearly inevitable, as the rage that builds in the heart can come flooding forth, destroying all in its path.
Since I came from the Evangelical World, I still have many friends there, who post on social media, nearly always this day in full-throated support of Israel doing whatever it takes to liquidate Hamas. There might be passing "thoughts and prayers" about innocent Palestinians who are victims, but sometimes not even that.
And from Muslims, I see full-throated support of the Palestinians, recounting the numerous injustices inflicted on them by Israel and her allies. Again, occasional "thoughts and prayers" for the innocents, but sometimes not even that.
Another thought...
A few days ago I was reading about Nat Turner's Rebellion and it's aftermath, which resulted in far more death for African Americans (slave and free) than the death they dealt out, as well as a crackdown of rights for African Americans, slave and free, in Virginia and the rest of the south. It was treated as proof positive by many of the animalistic nature of Africans...who rose up little more than half a century after white Americans rose up against what they thought was an intolerable system.
I wonder if afterwords, slaves were asked "Yes, perhaps you have a point about your slavery, but first, do you condemn Nat Turner and his attrocities?"
How predictable. Set us up with some equivalence then move in for the kill shot.
To see only the evil that Hamas did without seeing anything wrong with what Israel has done for decades, or worse, to justify it, as many in the West do, is basically saying Israeli lives matter more than Palestinian ones.
We have two ethnic groups who have been fighting over the same piece of land since 1948. This is not a question of civilization versus barbarity. Both sides have committed plenty of war crimes over the years. Israel has been more strategic about theirs, while too many Palestinians have chosen to act in ways that are stupid, short-sighted, and do their cause no good.
To ask what might have pushed someone to commit a particular atrocity does not mean one is excusing the atrocity. But consider that many in Israel have wanted to clear out Gaza entirely for a while, and now they have a reason to.
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23933707/israel-palestine-hamas-gaza-nakba-displacement-refugees-history
I don't buy into these conspiracy theories myself, but there's definitely a narrative among Muslims that the Israelis are lying about the worst atrocities, and those photos and videos are faked. Or that Netanyahu and Hamas were working together. (They have in the past.) I can't read anyone's mind, but I suspect at least some of the people tearing down hostage posters think they are combating fake news.
When in the past did Israel work with Hamas?
It's common knowledge. This, from the Times of Israel:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Reread everything you just wrote and ask yourself if a person inclined to support Israel has just had his opinion strengthened?
Maybe? Honestly, at this point only those who don't know much about any of it are still persuadable. The two sides are even living in parallel information worlds, as Rod wrote about in an earlier piece.
If you only get your news from TikTok you're seeing an overwhelmingly pro-Palestine view. The mainstream media in the West, meanwhile, is very pro-Israel. Meanwhile lot of people worldwide just rely on WhatsApp and Telegram forwards. There are barely even any shared facts and there's not enough mutual trust to create any. I imagine this is what it was like in the medieval era, where literacy was low and everyone got their news from the town crier and people they knew.
My take would be that, without theological justification otherwise, it's blindingly obvious that the Palestinians are in the right.
However (and it's a big "However"), the Palestinians have picked a particularly nasty ideological vehicle for their just aspirations. Obviously, I disapprove of Islam on a theological level, but, leaving that aside, I think the jury is out on the degree to which Islam can be tolerant, and function on a level playing field in a multireligious society. I hope it can, because I would prefer to see it as just a false religion, like Mormonism, which Christians should argue against, but beside which they can live safely. However, that is somewhat academic, as, in the world today, it is indisputable that Islam is more violent and intolerant than Christianity (unless one considers, say, the USA to have religious motivations for its foreign policy, which is arguable but far from certain). In addition, a sizable minority of Palestinians have latched onto an unusually nasty interpretation of Islam, represented by Hamas.
Even leaving aside their ideology, the recent attacks were largely sadistic. They weren't even, for example, random bombing of a residential area to demoralise the population, in that some of those involved seem to have truly bestial and sexually perverted motives.
After that, I sympathise with the Israeli public to want to take bloody vengeance. However, that does not mean that US and European governments should encourage that. The USA has leverage, as it provides a huge amount of aid to Israel.
Leaving aside the moral issues, in terms of what is to be done, I find it difficult to be other than deeply pessimistic. I think one side or the other, probably the Palestinians, is going to end up getting killed or expelled. Another possibility is a nuclear war, perhaps between Israel and Iran, or perhaps the Samson Option by Israel.
If I try to think of optimistic scenarios, obviously mass (even much less than 100%) conversion of both sides to Christianity would resolve the problem overnight. It's actually quite bizarre how spiritual good coincides with geopolitical and humanitarian benefit in this particular case.
The one-state option, without a massive moral realignment, which is unlikely without religious conversion, looks like a non-starter. If I could dream, I'd want a holy Holy Land, a sort of spiritual homeland for the soul, as a pilgrimage destination, and world centre for religious studies and spiritual arts, showcasing the best of the three religious traditions, and showing that devout religion can be tolerant and humane.
I think the two-state option would still be workable, but would require Israel withdrawing all its troops from the West Bank and Gaza, abandoning all settlements, and putting in a road, rail and pipeline link between the two territories.
And it would require Palestinians to stop screaming “from River to Sea” which is never going to happen. That’s the problem. Israel is rational. They have proven their ability to work with the Palestinian people and anyone else who will work with them. Some Palestinian groups will never accept Israel and reinforce this among their followers. That’s what has to end. That. Until it does a two- state solution will never happen.
It's not one-sided, though. Much of the religious right in Israel wants all Palestinians expelled. Some of the fringe talk about Nile to Euphrates in those terms.
I don’t doubt there are some who feel that way but that’s a handful not the official position of the government. Nor are even the majority of Israelis religious. The hatred of the majority of Palestinians for the Jews is overwhelming and sad. If they could just stop indoctrinating the next generation things could change.
According to Reuters, almost half of Israeli Jews want all Israeli Arabs (i.e. Palestinian citizens of Israel) expelled, and 79% consider that Jews should be consistently privileged over Arabs. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-survey-idUSKCN0WA1HI
I cannot, with a brief search, find any data about how many also want all Palestinians to be expelled from the West Bank and Gaza. I doubt the position is as marginal as you think.
Keep in mind that the evidence is clear that Israel began a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing in 1948. See Ilan Pape's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" for a good overview if this. They didn't need to expel all Palestinians, of course--but they calculated they didn't want more than 20 percent Arabs in Israel to be a truly "Jewish State".
The current Iaraelis aren't guilty for their parents and grandparents sins, of course...but if they're sincere about undoing those crimes, they could start by recognizing the right of return for those families expelled in the Nakba. They could also stop building settlement that encroach on land that theoretically would be part of a "two State" deal--and stop eliciting Arans from their homes in East Jerusalem.
"being a victim does not exempt one from being a victimizer"
The earth trembles when a slave becomes king (Proverbs 30:22)
Great post. Another link to lev Kopelev. He powerfully describes his own descent into barbarism during ussr terror.
https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/lev-kopelev-on-the-horrors-of-communism
Thank you again for this article. I was fortunate in college to have professors who taught the truth about human history. One of my professors witnessed a lynching as a small boy in Mississippi and made sure were knew what it was all about.
I still think that Rene Girard is essential to understand the religious significance of our human history of brutality and atrocity. What is frightening is his explanation of why scapegoating persists. It persists because it "works," at least for a time. The devil is banished for a time. A community in which memetic rivalry has pushed it to the edge of anarchic violence identifies a scapegoat. The subsequent lynching provides the catharsis that enables to community to return to balance. It is the Bible that at first little by little, but in the end decisively, exposes the fact that the scapegoat is innocent.
Isn't Girard a gem?
It’s a hard thing to admit our humanity and hence complicity in the ugliness of the world. For an effort to grapple with that: https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonyhoward/p/never-should-adults-slaughter-children?r=12sbah&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Yesterday in the Pillar's substack, Ed Condon had an excerpt from one of Franz Jagerstatter's letters from prison. Jagerstatter was a conscientious objector who was executed by the Nazi's in World War II. In one of the clips from the movie, A Hidden Life, Franz sought counsel from his priest. However the priest said Franz should consider the consequences of objecting to the war and the priest told him, "your sacrifice will benefit no one". But Franz had to listen to his conscience and was eventually thrown in prison for refusing to fight.
While imprisoned he wrote many letters to his wife and children. I was so moved by Jagerstatter's words, "Out of my own experience, I can say that life is painful when one lives as a lukewarm Christian. To exist in this way is to have more the existence of a vegetable than truly to live. If a person were to possess all of this world’s wisdom and be able to claim half of the earth as his own, he could and would still be less fortunate than a poor person who can claim nothing in this world as his own other than a deep Catholic faith. I would not exchange my small, dirty cell for a king’s palace if I was required to give up even a small part of my faith.”
I pray that I would always choose good over evil. And if subjected to the test that I would have the courage of Franz Jagerstatter.