From the Vatican: Science and Human Life

In September of 2008, the Holy Catholic Church released a document entitled Dignitas Personae, or The Dignity of the Person in English. (To read it, follow this link: http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf.) This document provides the Church’s moral assessments of recent trends in the science of human procreation. Addressing everything from in vitro fertilization, freezing embryos, and Introcyptoplasmic Sperm Implantation (ICSI) (when doctors inject a single, pre-selected and highly evaluated sperm into one egg in a laboratory) to gene therapy, cloning, and the use of stem cells, Dignitas Personae categorically affirms the Church’s dedication to preserving human dignity in the face of science.

According to the document, humans comprise a human and divine element. Humanly, we physically symbolize the Trinity. As such, our mere existence presupposes and reflects the relationship that God the Father shares with his Son and the Holy Spirit: a relationship based upon love that produces incomprehensible wonders. Spiritually, we exist to commune with God. Granted souls, God means us to live for and eternally worship Him. When these two purposes meet, according to the Church, they provide all forms of human life with a dignity that none can deny. In other words, as God’s children made specifically to reflect and worship Him, all stages of human life have been specifically designed by God to best meet his purposes for us.

The document confirms this by observing that the Incarnation gives every stage of human life – from the pre-nascent period of gestation to the honorable stoicisms of old age – meaning. This implies that because Christ gestated in his mother’s womb, God intended all life to gestate in their mother’s womb. Two implications rise from this. First, going through the human process – i.e. being conceived and developed in the womb – is an inherent part of the human process and is therefore inherent to what it means to be a human and made in God’s image. Secondly, God’s plan and means for conception are the only way to procreate honorably and with dignity. It is this with this second implication that Dignitas Personae struggles for the majority of its text.

The Vatican makes it terribly clear that unless a scientific procedure aids procreation via the act of sexual intercourse between a man and wife, it is morally prohibited. It says this because God intends procreation to only occur within the realm of marriage and via an act that represents Christ’s love for the Church and His promise that through this love it will grow and prosper. Because the physical acts of procreation represent something so sacred, the Church concludes that to permit procreation through any other means than the physical act of intercourse would be to offend God’s intentions for human life in general. While the Church acknowledges the painful realities inherent to this decree for the men and women of this world who cannot physically make their own child, it states that this is why adoption exists.

To put this ruling into plain terms, here is an example. When it comes to fertility assistance the Church states that men and women may undergo any treatments they want that will either increase their virility or increase their chances of conception via sex. Unless the physical act of sex occurs and creates life, any medical action, whether it be in vitro, artificial insemination, etc., is prohibited. This is a stark ruling, but the Church believes in it wholeheartedly.

The Church rules the way it does because of fear. It concludes (rightly so) that the vast majority of scientific fertility aids lead more to the destruction of life than its creation. Take embryo freezing or in vitro for example. What do you think happens to all the fertilized eggs that doctors do not place in the mothers? They are either destroyed or permanently frozen, sentenced to eternity on pause. The Church concludes that such procedures are neither fair nor moral. It continues and states that by permitting such actions, we have inadvertently opened the door to eugenics. Why not, it asks, permit mothers to then select the best traits in their child if they are already in a test tube under a microscope? Why not use the “best” sperm, the one that will make their child taller, faster, or stronger? The Church finds such propositions disgusting. God did not give us the right to engineer humans. How do we actually know what characteristics are best? Maybe eugenics will simply be another avenue to strip God of His sovereignty over our lives in the pursuit of physical materialism as manifested by our children.

I write all of this not to question the policies in Dignitas Personae (because, honestly, some of them need to be questioned), but to point out two things: (1) the Church, in its role as God’s voice, has undertaken a daunting challenge in taking on the liberal, scientific establishment that views human life as merely another play toy and (2) it does not condemn anyone. Instead, it merely asks all of us to evaluate our reproductive behaviors to see whether or not they coincide with God’s intentions. Morality is ultimately an individual choice. Unless we begin to choose life, we will undermine everything it means to be human. Christ called us to live for Him. It is time that we began doing that in all things – even in situations where it might break our hearts to acknowledge that we might not be able to have children. They are not a right. They are a privilege.

A Sad Day For Women In the Workforce

Obama sign into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act today, a law that reverses a Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to sue for pay discrimination.

The big losers here are women because the law increases the probability of a law suit. Law suits cost money. Companies don't like to pay money when they don't need to. Thus, it is possible now for less qualified man to get a job over a women simply because there is a zero percent chance that he will sue for gender discrimination. Men 1, women 0. And, if both are equally qualified, forget about it.

The U.S. economy is another big loser as a result of this bill. Increasing the cost of labor for close to half of the work force is not a good thing. In fact, this bill makes layoffs more likely. Potential lawsuits increase the liability associated with a female employee and thus the margin declines. So, when little kids ask you, "where do layoffs come from?" You can say, among other things, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. (Just say Obama if there under 7)

Nothing here is open for dispute. Economic reality is fairly simple here. Proponents of this bill will say it is worth the cost because it makes everyone equal under the law.

False.

It gives women unequal protection. Consider this. If a man feels he is under paid he can a) ask for more money, b) find a new job where he gets paid what he things he's worth. A women now has a third option, suing. And, like stock options, legal options have value. Therefore, women have more value under the law. This value is not free. They now have additional costs. Companies like to cut costs, especially in a recession.

The Abortion Issue and the Public Debate

The question here is not religious but rather philosophical (because religion informs but not dictates our laws). In addition, it is not about the women's right to choose. After all, no one believes women have the right to kill. Therefore, the primary question is ow do you define a human?

You cannot require independence. Consider a baby 5 minutes into life. It can barely open its eyes. And, if someone is in a coma, they are totally dependent, yet still a human.
For the same reasons, you cannot require the ability to communicate or perform any functions.

The only difference between the unborn and the rest of humanity is their location inside another human. Therefore, in order to strip the unborn of their humanity, you have to conclude location plays a roll in being a human.

Being human transcends location and our laws should reflect that fact.

Flight of the Conchords

Flight of the Conchords kicks off its second season and is faced with very high expections. Season one (clips seen below) was very entertaining and original. The show speaks for itself:

Clip 1: The Humans Are Dead; Clip 2: Band Meeting Clip 3: Lord of the Rings

Why don't Presidents sound like this anymore?

"It seems to me that, for the nation as for the individual, what is most important is to insist on the vital need of combining certain sets of qualities, which separately are common enough, and, alas, useless enough. Practical efficiency is common, and lofty idealism not uncommon; it is the combination which is necessary, and the combination is rare. Love of peace is common among weak, short-sighted, timid, and lazy persons; and on the other hand courage is found among many men of evil temper and bad character. Neither quality shall by itself avail. Justice among the nations of mankind, and the uplifting of humanity, can be brought about only by those strong and daring mean who with wisdom love peace, but who love righteousness more than peace. Facing the immense complexity of modern social and industrial conditions, there is need to use freely and unhestitatingly the collective power of all of us; and yet no exercise of collective power will ever avail if the average individual does not keep his or her sense of personal duty, initiative, and responsibility. There is need to develop all the virtues that have the state for their sphere of action; but these virtues are as dust in a windy street unless back of them lie the strong and tender virtues of a family life based on the love of the one man for the love of the one woman and on their joyous and fearless acceptance of their common obligation to the children that are theirs. There must be the keenest sense of duty, and with it must go the joy of living. There must be shame at the thought of shirking the hard work of the world, and at the same time delight in the many-sided beauty of life. With soul of flame and temper of steel we must act as our coolest judgment bids us. We must exercise the largest charity towards the wrong-doer that is compatible with relentless war against the wrong-doing. We must be just to others, generous to others, and yet we must realize that it is a shameful and wicked thing not to withstand oppression with high heart and ready hand. With gentleness and tenderness there must go dauntlessness bravery and grim acceptance of labor and hardship and peril. All for each, and each for all, is a good motto; but only on condition that each works with might and main to maintain himself as not to be a burden on others."

Theodore Roosevelt (Forward to "An Autobiography," Sagamore Hill, NY, 9/1/1913)

Close Guantanamo, Keep The Principle

Guantanamo Bay is a prison created to hold individuals deemed by the military as "enemy combatants." Human rights groups oppose the prison because they say it violates the civil liberties of the alleged terrorists. The situation has come to head because Barrack Obama takes office on January 20th and has called for the its closing. However, the situation has been complicated by the Pentagon's report that as many as 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates that were released returned to terrorism.

The same human rights groups calling for the closing of the prison immediately released statements claiming the Pentagon's statements are false. It is interesting to note that these groups did not investigate these claims before making these statements.

The legal challenge to Guantanamo claims that holding terrorists as "enemy combatants" allows the Pentagon to indefinitely detain people because the "war or terror" is not expected to end in the same way conventional wars do. The alternative offered is to bring the alleged terrorists to the United States and try them specially created courts. These courts would be able to handle the sensitive information that would be released in a trial and be given special jurisdiction in the country where the combatant came from. A more extreme view is to grant the combatants full Constitutional rights and thereby guarantee them a trial in a U.S. court. (Which would not have jurisdiction) This is an absurd position which will likely receive little consideration in the Obama administration.

Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed for PR reasons alone however the combatants must not be given Constitutional rights. The solution to this problem must not prevent the military from taking prisoners who they deem enemy combatants. If each person they capture is guaranteed a U.S. court, they have no reason to divulge potential life saving information. In addition, the military must have the benefit of secrecy because in many cases, it is crucial that the combatants have no communication with the outside world. Many people do not trust the military in this matter which is odd because they trust the military to drop 5 ton bombs.

On January 20th, Barrack Obama will be responsible for defending the United States. Putting hundreds of people deemed enemey combatents on the path to freedom would not be a good start. Trust the military to do there job.

Looking at Guantanamo

President-elect Barak Obama has vowed to issue an executive order on his first day that begins the process of closing the US military base/prison located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?scp=1&sq=obama,%20guantanamo&st=cse

Even though I feel that the US needs some type of prison facility for terrorists that we capture here at home and abroad, the symbolism inherent to the decision to close Gitmo could not please me more. Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Gitmo has been a black hole for men and their rights. At the beginning of the war, our government treated Gitmo as a repository, a place where we sent terrorists (regardless of their citizenship) to indefinitely sit in teeny-tiny little cells complete with yellow painted arrows on the floor pointing toward Mecca. We imprisoned these terrorist without any promise of ever bringing any charges against them (i.e. revoked their right to habeas corpus) and denied them contact with friends, family, and, in general, counsel. Imagine that – being locked indefinitely in a cell, thousands of miles from home, without any inkling of whether or not you’ll ever see the light of day again. Doesn’t sound too American does it? Now, I acknowledge that the fact that our government does not randomly or lightly imprison men in Gitmo must temper my views. Most likely, the government imprisoned the men there because they committed a criminal or terrorist act. Unfortunately, regardless of their dangerousness and the utility of keeping terrorists off the streets, I do not think it is right to revoke the ability to seek counsel and address the charges arrayed against them. The war in which we are engaged is a limited war. It is not being fought on our shores and it has not incapacitated our courts. While some Gitmo residents may rightfully be considered “enemy combatants,” I see nothing against the US permitting them to face the charges arrayed against them.

The US Supreme Court agrees with me. In three recent cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only is Guantanamo legally considered American soil and thus under the jurisdiction of its Constitution and Courts (Rasul v. Bush), but that the trials held at Gitmo by military tribunals were illegal (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) and that prisoners there have habeas corpus rights and the right to access American courts (Boumediane v. Bush). These cases knell the death toll of what it is we have tried to accomplish at Gitmo. Hopefully they will usher in a new era in the War on Terror that stops us from torturing and denying our enemies their basic human rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/14gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=us). By closing Gitmo, Obama seems to be sending this message. Its almost as if he is stating that America is done treating its enemies they way they are treating us; that we, regardless of their hatreds, will honor their humanity and treat them with basic human respect.

Rasul v. Bush (2004): http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334/

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_05_184/

Boumediane v. Bush (2008): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

US Supreme Court to the Rescue! (Think Old-School Batman Music Playing in the Background)

If you are a Law & Order buff like me, you'll appreciate this. Today, in a 5-4 decision (Herring v. US), the US Supreme Court officially declared that in certain instances where the police have mistakenly assumed that they have the authority to arrest someone and do and then later discover their mistake, they are no longer required to simply free the arrestee. Instead, if their mistake was isolated, innocent, and not the result of "systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," their arrest stands. If not, the typical exclusionary rules apply. This decision excites me as a Law & Order fan. Not only will the show's detectives now be able to defend erroneous arrests that they mistakenly and in good faith make, but the show's prosecutors (e.g. Alana De La Garza) will be able to fashion arguments that make all police mistakes things of serendipidous beauty. Can't wait! No more will despicable criminals get released. No more will Jack have to stare in a intensly peeved manner at opposing council's blatant disregard for his moral convictions! Law & Order has been given a gift. Hopefully it will use it responsibly. If you want to read the opinion please go to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf

Woody's Story

Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet..a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evanglelist heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn't for that bullet.

- Woody Allen

Obama Economics

Barack Obama will start his first day as President facing one of if not the deepest recessions in U.S. economic history. Obama's first action as President-elect on this issue was to appoint Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. The move was slammed by liberals because Geithner is seen as being too close to Wall Street (currently the President of the New York Fed) and to conservative in his economic philosophy.

Obama also appointed Geithner's mentor and Clinton's Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as his national economic advisor. Criticism of this pick from the left was muted because of his connection to Clinton while many conservatives were relieved to see an economic moderate be appointed to this crucial post.

Obama's economic address on Thursday revealed view specifics but reflected the moderate economic philosophy of his top economic advisers. While mentioning the importance of the government sector in economic recoveries, Obama state, "the overwhelming majority of the jobs will be created in the private sector." In addition, Obama has increased the size of the tax cut he is offering to "middle class" Americans and has apparently dropped plans to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Response to the speech was mixed.and on the left, NYTs columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Obama's proposed stimulus is not enough. Krugman claims that the domestic output shortfall is $2 trillion and Obama's roughly $850 billion proposal comes up short. Krugman's irresponsible response should come as no surprise considering what he has been writing for decades. He represents the now completely neglected far left side of the economic spectrum.

David Brooks responded to Obama's speech with economic research that shows fiscal (tax cuts, government spending) do not have a major roll in economic recoveries. The obvious problem with this study is that it can only measure what happened and cannot draw conclusions about what would have happened without fiscal stimulation. Brooks concludes that monetary policy (lower interest rates, quantitative easing (printing money)) is the best way to stimulate the economy.

No one would disagree that monetary policy is an important part of pulling an economy out of a recovery. However, with interest rates at close to zero and trillions in new money supply, there is much left to do. And, stimulating economic output by increasing the supply of money only works if the velocity of money is either constant of rising. (Velocity refers to how fast people spend money) Fiscal policy that gives consumers and businesses more money to spend will certainly do that.

Obama's plans for the economy are important, however, as Obama said in his speech, the most important source of economic growth will come from the private sector and the best way to help the private sector is to lower marginal tax rates across the board and improve education. Obama's advisers believe this and I hope Obama chooses to listen.

History: An Apologetic

Modern events are the echoes of past realities. How many of us Westerners realize, for example, that Allied actions act the end of World War II created many of the problems facing the Middle East today? Before World War II, Muslims in the Middle East organized themselves into political units based upon religious, tribal, and/or ethnic identity. They did not see themselves as Iraqis or Saudis or Egyptians but instead as Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Persians, Arabs, Tauregs, etc. This is why when the Allies chopped the Middle East up into a series of nations populated by peoples who had never associated with each other and who lacked religious, ethnic, and tribal homogeneity, they inadvertently created a region of nation-states whose people had no historic reason to want to live and function together. Look at Iraq. Instead of permitting Iraq’s Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to function as parts of the Middle East’s greater Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite communities, the Allies severed them from their historic associations and threw them into one nation expecting them to get along and abandon their historic animosities for the good of a country some white people thought looked nice on a map.

I bring this up not only to point out that the actions of one generation explain the trials of the next, but also to note that a little understanding might go a long way. I am not suggesting that we do away with borders in the Middle East and revert to the theocratic, ethnic, or tribal “governments” of the past. Instead, I want to suggest that if we interact with Middle Eastern nations with the understanding their people still see themselves as members of organic social communities based upon tribe or ethnicity, we might be able to better understand their motives and the ideological and political frameworks within which they function.

This example expresses why the study of history is so important. Without an understanding of what happened in the past, we cannot address present realities. It’s like doctors say: it’s no good treating symptoms; you’ve got to treat the disease. In line with the example above, this means that instead of trying to force democracy down the throats of the Middle Easterners, maybe we should try to find a way to help them create representative governments based upon theocratic rules that work for them. Or, even better, instead of assuming that Iran’s nuclear program has an evil intent (which it might), we remember that (1) in the past, whenever Iran has tried to become politically or energy self-sufficient, the West has undermined those efforts and that (2) maybe its current efforts to go nuclear are really defensive attempts to stand against a West that has always hindered its development. If the West approached Middle Easterners with this type of perspective (and humility?), then it is possible that they would be more willing to dialog with us.

The study of history is also important because mankind is made in the image of God. As such this means that a little bit of his divine nature resides in every human being ever made regardless of era or civilization. To me, the study of history not only provides explanations about why the world is the way it is, but it also functions as a search for the wonder of God. I believe that because we are made in the image of God, that image has manifested itself in every civilization since the beginning of time. This means that regardless of the behaviors or beliefs of the civilization in question, students of history can find some glimmer of God, his truth, or the potential he placed in all of us in it. This explains the pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, the technological innovations of the Indus River Valley civilization, and the art work of the Classical Greeks. While the Church considers these peoples heathens, their accomplishments reflect God’s image – the divine spark he placed in all of us that enables us to go forth and do amazing, earth-stopping things. History captures all such feats and shows that all humans, regardless of what we think of them, are all endowed with wondrous, heroic abilities that reflect the God inside all of us even if we don’t know or honor Him.

Slumdog Millionaire - 5 stars out of 5

Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan, is currently the odds on favorite for winning the Best Picture award at the Oscars. However, given the movie is still under the radar for most casual movie goers despite substantial critical acclaim, the goal of this review is to urge those have not heard of this movie to see it. (disclaimer)

The movie tells an incredible story about a child's journey to adulthood in a rapidly developing India. The movie is incredibly funny at times, startling at others, and ultimately incredibly uplifting.

Based on Rottentomatoes.com, 94% of reviewers from around the country give it a positive review. Praise from movie critiques obviously need to be taken lightly however given their tendency to praise well-crafted but ultimately boring films. In this case, I can assure you Slumdog Millionaire will appeal to movie goers with even the shortest attention spans.

In summary, this film is a masterpiece with universal appeal.

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Breaking News (1/3/09)
Israeli tanks and troops launch an attack on Gaza.
Israel: 'lengthy operation'
Hamas: 'Gaza will be a cemetery for Israeli soilders'
EU president: Israel ground op in Gaza 'defensive not offensive'
Obama: (nothing yet)

Quick take: Israel wants to find the rockets Hamas is shooting at their civilians.
Outlook: Israel will find them but it will take months

Update

Israel recently rejected a 48-hour proposal from international negotiators while commenting that it was open to ways of increasing humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians. Clearly, as in any war where one side has superior resources and fire power, the more powerful side will not give the weaker opponent a chance to regroup. Going forward, the big question will be whether Israel elects to launch a ground invasion.

World Response

Response from Europe has generally been hostile towards Israel and riots with signs labeling Israel a terrorist state are commonly seen. This emotional response reflects a high level of anti-Semitism across Europe given that there is no evidence that Israel is or has ever targeting civilians in their military attacks. And, in addition to launching rockets and suicide bombers at Israeli civilians, Hamas deliberately places women and children in military targets in an effort to sway international opinion against Israel.Iran, like much of the Middle East, has condemned Israel and continues to deny their right to exist. Iran's view is of Israel is extremely important considering they may have nuclear weapons in the near future.

Obama's First Move

Barack Obama takes office January 20th and clearly has a difficult situation to deal with. The first option traditionally has been to bring both parties to the table and try to negotiate a peace treaty. But, this has not worked and will not work because Israel and Palestine have irreconcilable differences. Without the ability to negotiate, Obama has a limited number of options. First, Obama will publicly reiterate the United States support of Israel. Second, he will privately encourage Israel to scale back the air strikes and ask them not to launch a ground assault. In exchange for this concession from Israel, Obama will likely reassure them that the US will help and/or fully support strikes on Iran in the event they acquire nuclear weapon capabilities. Obviously, the United States would help Israel even without the agreement, but Obama has a considerable amount of goodwill and Israel may take the chance to affirm their alliance.

Outlook

Because Hamas either has no desire to or cannot suppress terrorist elements within its society, they have little home of being part of an peace treaty in the near future because treaties depend on the belief that both sides will hold to their side of the bargain. And, Israel has and will continue to have the support of the United States, allowing it to launch fierce counter-strikes on Palestine. This conflict represents a chronic problem that can only be treated and not cured. We should pray that Obama can help lessen the currently painful symptoms in the Middle East.

Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: A Historical View of Palestine

The last I checked, the most recent round of Israeli air strikes has killed 375 Palestinians, injured over 1,600 more, and severely damaged wide swaths of Gaza including portions of the Presidential Palace and Palestinian universities. This attack is a response to a series of 250 Palestinian rockets fired into southern Israel that recently killed one, injured six more, and damaged two buildings. To make the situation worse, yesterday an Israeli patrol vessel "accidentally" ran into a Gibraltar-based boat intent on providing medical aid to the Palestinians. In light of this situation, I thought it might be helpful to provide historical perspective that clarifies why the pesky Palestinians just won't leave the Holy Land.

In AD 135, fed up with continual Jewish revolts, the Romans sacked Jerusalem, exiled the Jews from all of their traditional territories outside of a bare-bones settlement near Galilee, and renamed Israel "Palestina." This was when the Jews formed the Diaspora.

For roughly the next 500 years, the Romans and then the Byzantines excluded the Jews from Palestina and turned it over to its original Arabic inhabitants (think Palestinians), Christians, and the pagans who the Romans and Byzantines settled there to pacify the region. The Jews were forced to look on from afar as the Christians, under the patronage of Constantine the Great and his mother, Helena, "Christianized" Jerusalem.

In the 7th century the Muslims (who by this point included Palestine's Arabic inhabitants – the Palestinians) conquered Palestina. While they were generally more inclusive than the Romans and Christians in that they permitted some Jews to return to portions of former Israel, they seized Palestina as a Muslim holy land because Muhammad named its capitol (Jerusalem) one of Islam's three sacred cities and because Palestina was once the home of one of Islam's patriarchs (Abraham).

From the 7th century on, Muslims (the Seljuks, Fatmids, Mameluks, and Ottomans) controlled Palestina uninterrupted except for a brief period from 1099 to 1187 when European Crusaders conquered and held Jerusalem and the territories immediately surrounding it. By the late 1800s only 24,000 Jews lived in Ottoman occupied Palestina. While this number seems significant it pales in comparison to the millions who lived elsewhere.

World War I broke out in 1914. After the Allies defeated the combined forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, Palestina reverted to British control. Because a Muslim government no longer controlled their Holy Land, Jews began returning to Palestina a at a rate not seen for 900 years. The Palestinian majority did not like the returns and began to riot and kill the Jews. The Jews responded by organizing themselves and fighting back. The Palestinians would have destroyed the vastly outnumbered Jews but for British intervention.

The Jews remained a marginal political body in the Middle East until the outbreak of World War II and the Holocaust. Galvanized by Hitler's acts, the world decided that it was time to return to Jews to their homeland en mass instead of through a previously arranged piecemeal 15,000 Jew per year immigration limit established by the British and the Palestinians. In 1948, the UN acknowledged the creation of the nation of Israel, carving out a small portion of Palestina for the Israelis. In 1967, the Six Day War broke out and the Israelis captured the West Bank and Gaza. Between the creation of Israel and the subsequent wars shoring up its borders, the Israelis and their actions forced over 4 million Palestinians out of their homes and out of the land that their ancestors had held since the Romans forced the Jews of Israel over 1,000 years earlier.

I write all this to ask the following questions:

1. Given that the land that we know as Israel belonged to the Palestinians for over 1,000 years and because that land is just as sacred to them as it is to the Jews, is it really surprising or wrong that the Palestinians want it back?

2. Should Israel be allowed to fight back against Palestinian aggression/terrorism with appallingly disproportionate means while denying Palestinians the basic respite of foreign assistance?

3. How can we balance the need for a Jewish democratic homeland and God's covenantal promise with the fact that by this point the only options we may have to assure that the Jews keep Israel are to either (1) allow the Jews to eradicate the Palestinians, (2) permit them to enforce a highly oppressive military rule upon the Palestinians, or (3) look the other way as the Middle East does what it wishes with Israel? Does a realistic fourth option exist?