Hannah and Papa J

Hannah and Papa J

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Concerning the use of human shields

Dear Hannah,

Nearly every conflict in the world is morally complex -- nearly every conflict except the one between the Israelis and the PLO.  With many conflicts you're forced to dig through decades (and if you're unwise, centuries) of sins and blunders, trying to see who's responsible for starting it.  The PLO makes our decision easy, because they almost remove history from the equation entirely.  They provoke Israelis with violence, and then shield themselves from damage with little children.

If this proves anything, it's that the PLO would never be a good neighbor to anyone, because they're incapable of being good neighbors to their own children.   It's true that in any conflict you're going to endanger your neighbors, but the PLO seems a bit hasty to ensure their cutest neighbors are endangered.  And we've all heard it said that Islam is stuck in the Middle Ages, but I believe the PLO constitutes an insult to the Middle Ages.  In the Middle Ages we had chivalry, which meant that we would treat our enemies with respect because we were too honorable to do otherwise.  The PLO belongs in the Stone Age with the American Indians.   They don't even just torture their vanquished enemies like the Indians did: almost attempting to outdo the atrocities of the serial killer, they mangle the children of their friends and countrymen by placing rocket launchers next to daycare centers.

What the American supporters of the PLO have forgotten isn't only that our humanity proves whether we ought to win or not.  They forget that the protection of life, liberty, and property of our own people is the only reason we could ever want a state in the first place.  We might go so far as to say that psychologically, on some barely conscious level where all our darkest secrets lurk, the American supporters of the PLO know we're in many aspects as uncivilized as the Palestinian terrorists; which is perhaps why they overlook the obvious atrocity of human shields.    

If we begin with John Maynard Keynes saying that in the long run, we are all dead, it might be helpful to imagine him holding a child to shield himself from the oncoming train of a temporary economic hardship.  Keynes was happy to indebt the future generations of children (such as myself) to ensure his own unsustainable economic prosperity.  And so in an uncomfortable way Keynes belongs with the PLO -- and so does everyone who believes that our welfare programs and over-sized military and wasteful deficit spending can be placed on the shoulders of infants.  They ought to don a checkered hood and throw a child in front of an oncoming bus.  It is in essence their philosophy.

It might also be said that if the PLO's matched us in our economic policies, they've outclassed us in the matter of abortions.  For the PLO psychotic, grabbing a child and daring the Israelis to shoot him, isn't really limited in his perspective enough to believe that this is the end for either him or the child, which makes his behaviors (if not excusable, then) more understandable.  If we're really willing to be bold, it almost parallels the madness of Abraham and Isaac on mount Moriah.  A madman who believes in martyrdom also believes in an afterlife, and that the purchase of eternity is worth a moment of suffering -- perhaps for both him and the child.  In this sense he's perfectly logical.  If the religion known as Islam were anything approaching truth, in some parallel universe he might even be considered saintly.  American women on the other hand are very happy to sacrifice their children and brag about it, not because they have a holy war to fight or a nation (however backward) to establish.  The American abortionist kills her children for any reason because she believes it's her right.  And then Planned Parenthood makes money off her child's organs.  

There is a great similarity between the abortionist who shudders at the human shield and the bacon enthusiast who hates videos of slaughterhouses.  Neither of them has any choice but between two very difficult options.  They must support the human shield and the slaughterhouse outright, or they must give up abortions and bacon.  There is no compromise between life and death.  There is no condemning human shields and then enriching yourselves on your child's ruined credit.  We have to find a way to be chivalrous again like the Europeans in the Middle Ages, or we have to admit and regret the fact that we live in the Dark; and instead of condemning people like ISIS and the PLO for harming their children, we ought to do what Jesus commanded and admit the logs in our own eyes first.  And if we admit them, we ought to admit that we hurt children in a far more cowardly and selfish fashion than even the worst of the Islamic terrorists.

Your father,
-J    


2 comments:

  1. God did not ask of Abraham something He Himself would not do. When Allah or Mohammed start sacrificing their own beloved children, then we can talk. Til then, putting your faith in a God Who walks the walk is not all that difficult.

    ReplyDelete