In Memory of an American Legend: Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, aged 31, a husband and father of two young children has been assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. Kirk was a devout Christian and founder of the grassroots conservative movement Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and a great once in a generation political talent. He founded TPUSA in 2012, shortly after dropping out of college. Despite his lack of higher education, Kirk brought an abundance of knowledge, skill, and charisma to American conservatism. Fostering that talent, Kirk grew TPUSA from a small organization into one of the most influential political organizations in America. TPUSA today has a presence on 3,500 campuses. 

Kirk and TPUSA stood to defend the traditional Christian values and morals which are the basis of American and Western civilization; courageously and unapologetically, but with much civility. He valiantly spoke out against the great evils of our time, like the murder of the unborn, moral relativism, and an over-reaching government.

Kirk played a pivotal role in steering America back towards traditional values and truth by winning over the hearts and minds of America’s youth. To quote President Trump’s statement on Truth Social, in honor of Charlie, “[n]o one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.” Willing to engage in dialogue with youth, Kirk would famously place himself in college campuses and debate anyone and treat them respectfully even if he disagreed with them, and even if the people he was debating were rude and disrespectful. Kirk was one of the few public political figures to do so and could do it effectively. History has yet to reveal the impact of Kirk’s influence and tact on American political culture; many of his close friends and colleagues had held high hopes for his political aspirations.

Kirk, a stout advocate of civil debate until the moment of his tragic death, is an American patriot and a legend of the conservative movement; a symbol of nonviolent, civil dialogue. Kirk’s horrific assasination is a tragic end to a promising future and a devastating loss to America. There is no way of predicting the shockwaves his death will cause and its presence as an emblem of political violence.

One thing is for sure though, this is an extremely dangerous and volatile moment, no one should be killed on the basis of their speech, we cannot have a nation survive like this. So we are faced with one option as a nation: we have to be like Charlie and engage in respectful civil dialogue, and defend truth with courage and compassion. We cannot intimidate or use violence and assassinations when we disagree. If we go down a path of political violence our nation will cease to exist. As we remember this American legend, let us pray for the repose of his soul, let us pray that his family and friends find solace in the Lord, let us pray that God will bless America, and for an end to political violence.

Clothes Make the Man

“For the apparel oft proclaims the man” ~ Shakespeare

“Domine non sum dignus” ~ Matthew 8:8

If you were to ask any of the students who attended Saint Anthony’s High School to say what made their school special amongst both private and public schools, there is no doubt that the active presence of the Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn would be duly noted. Humble and hard-working men, they have shaped the Faith of the hundreds of thousands of students that have crossed their path. They have fostered in each the image of an unwavering yet tender-hearted Church. There is no wonder that their alumni often find themselves in professions dedicated to upholding Church teachings. 

This would not have been possible had it not been for their religious apparel, the Habit. The Habit is an essential element of what it means to be a Franciscan. It ranges from gray to brown to black depending on the particular community, but it is always fastened by a white waist cord with the Franciscan Crown attached. By wearing it, the Brothers unite their own individuality into a common charism. They place themselves in a paradox: though maintaining full membership in this world, they are engaging in it as citizens of Heaven.

The Habit is not a unique expression of this function. It is a part of what is collectively known as the religious dress. In the Christian world, primarily in the Western and Eastern churches, this refers to the daily clothing we see members of Religious Orders—both male and female—wear. Take the Jesuits on campus for example. Aside from the “S.J.” suffix attached to their names, they are easily discernible by their black attire and Roman collar. For male religious, these “street clothes” vary in appearance based on clerical state, ordination rank, and additional responsibilities; but in general, they are either a black clerical suit or cassock with a white Roman collar [1]. For female religious, the clothes vary based on the community and its particular charism. 

Many religious communities, like the Franciscans, maintain a traditional dress which is worn when with the community, when at work, or when amongst other religious groups. The Jesuits, as a tenet of their religious community and its distinct mission, do not have a special habit; rather, they generally adopt the clerical dress typical of the local diocesan priests [2]. 

The more solemn clothing, the vestments or in layman’s terms the “big guns”, are worn by the priest alone during the performance of the Sacraments. As Catholics, we are most familiar with these because of their primary and extensive usage at the Mass [3]. 

The Mass: it is the axis and pinnacle of a Christian’s life. It is Christ’s gift to the world that serves as both the perpetual renewal and memorial of His monumental sacrifice. This definitive expression of His boundless love lies at the heart of the Eucharist: when the bread and wine are transubstantiated beyond human comprehension into His Body and Blood [4]. It is in part by utilizing the finest adornments at Her disposal that the Church does Her best to both affirm and invite us to partake in this mystical, life-giving event—which yields the gifts of Joy and Hope. 

The Priest’s appearance and attire must, therefore, equally evoke the nature of Christ. His outermost garment, the chasuble, shows the all-encompassing, protective, and definitive Love of Christ; while His innermost, the white amice, serves as the Helmet of Christ’s redemptive blood that cleanses sin and sustains all with Grace even at their lowest points [5]. It was thus the view of Pope Saint John Paul II, one in which I find myself realizing, that such grand things as tiaras, laced trimmings, and jewels that were once members of the vestments, were only ever meant to accentuate, not eclipse this great Truth [6].

Even when away from the altar, the priest remains in Persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Many of us either do not know or properly realize that to be a priest or to be a member of a religious community is not an occupation. It is the occupant's sole identity, an indelible mark made by ordination or final vows that requires voluntary, utter self-surrender to the Will of God [7]. Our Eastern brethren recognize this better than we do, for whenever they greet an Orthodox cleric they are sure to kiss his hand while silently asking for a blessing. This is not a mark of clericalism nor a gesture based solely on cultural modes of respect: rather, it is the most efficacious and humbling reminder to the cleric of the august, yet heavy responsibilities entrusted to him.

Mankind has been made in the image and likeness of God [8]. This is an irrevocable Truth. We are all called, therefore, to certain responsibilities that are equal not in degree, but in bringing greater glory to Him. The clergy and religious communities do this in a highly visible and personal fashion when wearing their dress. They are publicly declaring witness to Christ’s infinite love and mercy which has, at extreme times, culminated in their martyrdom. They truly are the cornerstones of the Church and instruments of Christ. Therefore, their dress serves as an emblem to their mission. It invites all, particularly the struggling and the young, and asks each to seek meaning beyond this world. To accept the offer to be a part of something that demands the whole person. Something that is truly and utterly Divine. That ultimate calling: to be children of the Church.

Endnotes:

[1] Thurston, Herbert. “Clerical Costume.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Clerical

Costume, 1908. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04419b.htm.

[2] Saint Ignatius of Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their

Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts,

(Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996). 

[3] Braun, Joseph. “Vestments.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vestments, 1912.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15388a.htm.

[4] Jungmann, Josef Andreas, and Francis A Brunner. “The Mass Ceremonies in

Detail: Putting on the Liturgical Vestments.” Essay. In The Mass of the Roman Rite:

Its Origins & Development (Missarum Sollemnia), 276–89. Vienna, Austria: Herder

Verlag, 1950. 

[5] Jungmann, Josef Andreas, Julian Fernandes, and Mary Ellen Evans. “The

Theology of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Sacrifice of Christ and of the Church.”

Essay. In The Mass: An Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Survey, 111–27.

Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1976.

[6] John Paul II, Pope Saint. “Papal Inauguration Mass of Pope John Paul II.” The Holy See, October 22, 1978. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781022_inizio-pontificato.html.

[7] Mangan, Charles M, and Gerald E Murray. “Why A Priest Should Wear His

Roman Collar: EWTN.” EWTN Global Catholic Television Network, June

1995. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/why-a-priest-should-wear-his-roman

collar-11956
[8] Gen. 1:26-38 (NABRE)

The Hill We Die On

In an article published last Fall, I proposed a serious re-examination of our relationship with the state of Israel. I cited various actions by Israel which were inconsistent with our American ideals—mostly, humanitarian crimes. In that piece, my aim was to make a general, moral critique of our ‘only genuine ally, Israel’ [1], and present a common grievance among our generation. In this piece, I would like to more directly address fellow conservatives. As our political culture continues to progress, a rift has formed between typically older and younger conservatives: one of foreign policy. Younger conservatives desire that we would place America ‘first’, and leave our insoluble foreign concerns abroad. Yet, support for Israel alone continues to receive such unilateral defense among our party elites.

On June 18th, 2025, Tucker Carlson, former journalist for the Fox News Network, posted an interview with Senator Ted Cruz (R) of Texas. Carlson’s main volley of questions for Senator Cruz were simple, ‘why did the US government attack Iran?’ Senator Cruz spent the interview accusing the Iranian government of various acts of war (‘attempting to assassinate the President’, intervening in domestic politics, and developing nuclear weapons against the West), however, failing to properly ground his accusations.

The conversation later became directly focused on our support for Israel. Senator Cruz noted that when he entered Congress in 2012, his stated intention was to be the “leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate.” An odd thing for a Canadian-born, Cuban-American legislator from Texas to aspire to. Senator Cruz deepened his resolve by claiming that Christians have been biblically commanded to defend Israel (citing Genesis 12:3). Leaving aside the absurdity of claiming that biblical Israel is synonymous with the modern state of Israel, it is even further absurd to rationalize that this then lays an impetus on American foreign policy. The warhawk agenda knows no moral stance too sacred to corrupt. However, I only mention this instance to question why many in the old guard are decidedly intent on support for Israel, especially when their rationale seems so flimsy.

Examples abound, but attention and space is limited, so I will only cite some recent prominent examples:

• On August 4th, 2025, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R), made an unofficial visit to the conflicted settlements of the West Bank [2]. Speaker Johnson became the highest ranking American to visit the settlement and used his position to voice unequivocal support for Israeli occupation; stating, “the mountains of Judea and Samaria are the rightful property of the Jewish people”, and that “even if the world thinks otherwise, we stand with you.” Such statements are hardly tactful attempts at peace and misaligned with the will of the American people. With such statements Speaker Johnson not only hinders peace in the region, but also alienates our allies. This heavy-handed, American diplomacy is expressly damaging to our position as peace-keepers, and even more to our identity as moral leaders.

• The United Kingdom and France had moved to propose recognizing Palestinian statehood if Israel will not commit to a cease-fire, a move which President Trump has stated ‘no position on’[3]. However, when Canada joined their proposition, President Trump leveraged our ongoing tariff negotiations with Canada to say this “will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!” [4] If the administration’s intent in raising tariffs was to better our trade deficit, generate revenue for our government, and help American industry, why are we economically punishing an ally for speaking out against Israel’s humanitarian crisis? 

Furthermore, I do not only disagree with the administration because Israel is its object. Tariff policy was likewise misappropriated to punish Brazil for indicting their President, Jair Bolsonaro [5]. 

• Early in his second term, President Trump issued executive order 13899, an order meant to take “forceful and unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism” [6]. Part of the order urged agencies to use all means available to curb antisemitism on campuses and in public life; even to the point of revoking visas and denaturalizing citizens. Denaturalization in itself is a nebulous topic but one with legal precedent. However, it is quite difficult to maintain the moral high ground when we are willing to use extensive measures against legal immigrants, founded on contentious definitions, in favor of a foreign state. The federal government, following the 2016 IHRA Bucharest plenary, defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” [7],which is proper and fitting. Yet, some of the stated examples are difficult to practically adopt. For example, one cannot “deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” But many organizations like Amnesty International [8], The Guardian [9], PBS [10], Georgetown’s Berkeley Center [11], and the Human Rights Watch [12] are quite sure that the state does not maintain a race-neutral perception of Palestinians, even a negative one. Further, one may not “apply double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” But there is clearly a double standard in how our government treats Israel. No other nation in the world would dare to so overtly subjugate two million refugees and assert that the best course would be to involuntarily remove them [13]. Israel demands justice for themselves, but expects leniency which cannot be expected to any other nation.

It is not so much that our nation supports an ally, nor whether the Israelis have a right to statehood, but that our current administration seems to tie every issue into the support of an ever-dismally-favorable nation. Across the board, politically minded Americans, especially our youth, have gained a worse outlook on our support for Israel [14]. Gone are the days where support for Israel was a tepid part of the ‘American Imperial’ ticket, now we can barely find sanity in their conduct of war, and our elections are suffering for it. I hate to beat a dead horse (because it was mentioned in my previous coverage of Israel), but it is nothing short of astounding that in their only debate, the singular issue Trump and Harris shared ground on was Israel. Both candidates raced to the bottom to show unwavering patriotism to their foreign lobby [15]. 

As stark as these points may seem when taken out of context, I wish that these things did not require coverage. To many readers, these kinds of objections span a deep rift between our domestic standards and foreign policy. We cannot maintain consistency abroad and at home, when this is the conduct that our ally chooses to employ; and we especially, cannot continue to allow our government to unilaterally seek their friendship against American popular opinion.

I wish we could leave these concerns and return to America First. To truly focus ourselves on the problems which actually affect Americans. Leave the Saudis and Israelis with the principle of subsidiarity; let them deal with their regional concerns. If our administration is to “Make America Great Again”, then we cannot continue to engage in Middle Eastern affairs. Before Israel is ever brought back into the national conversation, we must first resolve our issues at home. To what concern is Israel to the American family, when cartels plague our southern border and peddle illegal substances to our inner-cities; when a medical procedure can place a man into dire financial straits; when children are continuing to become exposed to sex and pornography at younger and younger ages; when exorbitant student debt is the entrance fee for a chance to make a livable salary; when millions of the unborn are lost every year; or when political violence continues to shock our nation?

It is not whether Israel has a right to statehood, but of what concern that is to us. Moreso, why is this the issue which our party elites will go to such extreme lengths when we are so troubled at home. So why must our representatives and political establishment, especially of my own party, choose this hill to die on?

Endnotes: 

[1] “US Working to End Use of Term West Bank, Mike Johnson Says | The Jerusalem Post.” 2025. The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-863278. 

[2] Luscombe, Richard. 2025. “Speaker Mike Johnson Visits Occupied West Bank to Support Israeli Settlers.” The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/04/mike-johnson-israel-west-bank. 

[3] Bazail-Eimil, Eric, and Esther Webber. 2025. “Trump Administration Keeps Outrage about Palestinian State Limited to Sharp Words.” POLITICO. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/24/trump-administration-punishing-allies-recognizing-palestinian-state-00577873.  

[4] Price, Michelle L. 2025. “Trump Using Canada’s Recognition of Palestinian State in Trade Talks.” AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-palestinians-canada-d5613417c217374352305564c6a96842. 

[5] The White House. “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil.” 2025. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/addressing-threats-to-the-us/. 

[6] The White House. 2025. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism – the White House.” The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-forceful-and-unprecedented-steps-to-combat-anti-semitism/. 

[7] U.S Department of State. 2016. “Defining Antisemitism.” United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/. 

[8] Amnesty International. 2022. “Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: A Cruel System of Domination and a Crime against Humanity.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/. 

[9] Graham-Harrison, Emma, and Quique Kierszenbaum. 2025. “Thousands of Israelis Join Violent, Racist March through Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter.” The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/26/thousands-join-israeli-flag-march-through-muslim-quarter-of-old-city-in-jerusalem. 

[10] Zion, Illan Ben. 2023. “Israeli Crowds Chant Racist Slogans, Taunt Palestinians during Jerusalem Day March.” PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march. 

[11]  Karkabi, Nadeem. 2021. “Jewish Religious Nationalism in Israel and the Racist Exclusion of Palestinians.” Berkleycenter.georgetown.edu. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/jewish-religious-nationalism-in-israel-and-the-racist-exclusion-of-palestinians. 

[12] Human Rights Watch. 2021. “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution. 

[13] Said, Summer, Robbie Gramer, and Omar Abdel-Baqui. 2025. “Israel Is Quietly in Talks to Relocate Palestinians from Gaza.” The Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-is-quietly-in-talks-to-relocate-palestinians-from-gaza-90a7ab23?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAjMJUkNAZzbZv2p30I4LRiZCWnVzV73cgXJglPrmryiPYMKXRGEybu7bhqDnrs%3D&gaa_ts=68a77887&gaa_sig=3iMOoQsRpPc3zaTas-6YxW66DYYDRA3cTLonOP3ihYDrifx4wOI_ZTQOracOl5YnJPgHjq0JWDci7eJOiZkXng%3D%3D. 

[14] Muchnick, Jordan, and William A Galston. 2025. “Support for Israel Continues to Deteriorate, Especially among Democrats and Young People.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/support-for-israel-continues-to-deteriorate-especially-among-democrats-and-young-people/. 

[15] Jakes, Lara. 2024. “Where Do Trump and Harris Stand on Israel-Gaza Conflict?” Nytimes.com. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/world/middleeast/trump-harris-israel-gaza.html.

St. Joseph’s Memorial Chapel: Holy Cross’ Historic Event Hall?

Throughout the history of the Church, the saints have said plenty of things about St. Joseph, a man who said nothing about himself. St. John Henry Newman, a 19th century English literary and theological giant, says of St. Joseph: “His was the title of father of the Son of God, because he was the Spouse of Mary, ever Virgin. He was our Lord’s father, because Jesus ever yielded to him the obedience of a son. He was our Lord’s father, because to him were entrusted, and by him were faithfully fulfilled, the duties of a father, in protecting Him, giving Him a home, sustaining and rearing Him, and providing Him with a trade” [1]. St. Teresa of Avila, a 16th century Spanish mystic, Doctor of the Church, and reformer of the Carmelites, says of St. Joseph: “As [Jesus] was subject to St. Joseph on earth – for since bearing the title of father, being the Lord’s tutor, Joseph could give the Child command – so in heaven God does whatever he commands” [2]. St. Joseph was declared “patron saint of the universal Church” by Pope Pius IX in 1870 [3], a title which was celebrated by Pope Francis in his 2020 Apostolic Letter Patris corde [4], written for the 150th anniversary of the declaration.

The Church affirms time and time again St. Joseph’s crucial role in the Holy Family and subsequently in salvation history. Next to the Blessed Virgin, he is our greatest intercessor and exemplar of everyday virtue. He is also the role model for masculinity and fatherhood, making him the perfect patron saint for the chapel of a Catholic men’s college, which was what St. Joseph’s Chapel was back in 1924, when it was consecrated.

On April 21st, 2024, Holy Cross celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the St. Joseph Memorial Chapel with a celebration of Holy Mass featuring alumni, faculty, staff, and students of the College. President Rougeau gave opening remarks, Bishop McManus was present among the faithful, and three college choirs joined in song to commemorate the event [5]. What better way to celebrate Holy Cross’ stunning, historical chapel dedicated to the father of the Holy Family? A few more events took place to commemorate the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary – on March 23rd, 2024, the College Choir and orchestra performed pieces that were performed at the chapel’s original dedication, and this past November the College held a special Mass for All Saints’ Day featuring the Gospel Choir of St. Augustine’s Church from Washington, DC.

However, on March 19th, the Feast of St. Joseph, the College barricaded the doors of the Chapel, removed the altar from the sanctuary, replaced it with armchairs, and moved the Blessed Sacrament to the downstairs tabernacle. By 5 PM, security was guarding every entrance, and students were prohibited from entering. This was because of a panel event which would take place in the Chapel’s sanctuary. The panel featured Dr. Anthony Fauci and his wife, Dr. Christine Grady, in conversation with President Rougeau and his wife, Dr. Robin Kornegay-Rougeau. The panelists were invited to speak about how they have “navigated their personal and professional paths; how they have balanced demanding careers with family life; and the lessons they have learned along the way.” In the promotion for the panel, the College called it “the culmination of our celebration of the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel.”

At the beginning of the panel event, Michele Murray, the Senior Vice President for Student Development and Mission, remarked that the College was delighted to host the panel “in honor of St. Joseph.” What could be more unrelated to the celebration of a Catholic chapel or St. Joseph than a panel event whose topic had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith, and whose main guest is not a practicing Catholic [6]? A Fenwick Review writer in attendance remarked that only one of the panelists explicitly mentioned God. In fact, in order for the event to occur, the College needed to strip the chapel of the qualities that sacramentally defined it as a Catholic chapel – the Blessed Sacrament and the altar. St. Joseph Chapel was reduced to an event hall, devoid of the sacred.

Is St. Joseph Chapel primarily a beautiful, old, event hall, whose function is to host the College’s most prestigious guests? Does it deserve to be celebrated merely for being a beautiful building, completely stripped of the features which define it as a place of worship? Can the College celebrate a “culminating event of the 100th Anniversary of the Chapel” while completely dismissing its sacred purpose and its patron saint?

The College held no special devotional events for St. Joseph’s feast day, no additional Masses to mark the “culmination” of the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary, and barricaded its entrances as early as 9 AM. By the time I arrived at 4:45 PM, security was blocking every door and prohibiting students from entering, even for personal prayer. The panel event ended at 8:30 PM, and as a result the regular 9:00 PM Mass had to begin late. Students were not allowed to enter the Chapel until minutes before the Mass began. So, even the regular sacramental activities of the day were pushed aside for the panel event.

It is a great privilege to have a beautiful chapel on campus, and an even greater privilege to have St. Joseph as its patron. What can be said of a College which “celebrates” its chapel and its chapel’s patron saint with an event that has to do with neither? Was St. Joseph’s Solemnity just an excuse to host our prestigious guests in the campus’ most beautiful building? What might the College’s attempt to celebrate the Chapel on St. Joseph’s feast day without an emphasis on the sacraments, or any religious element, reveal about its commitment to its Catholic tradition?

Endnotes

[1] John Henry Newman, A Triduo to St. Joseph, “Day 2: Consider the Glorious Titles of St. Joseph.” Newman Reader. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/meditations8.html#triduojoseph

[2] St. Teresa of Avila, The Life of Teresa of Jesus, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez O.C.D. (Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1995), 79-80.

[3] Pope Pius IX, Decree: St. Joseph as Patron of the Universal Church, Dec. 8, 1870, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/quemadmodum-deus-20726 

[4] Pope Francis, Patris Corde, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.html

[5] William McHale, Holy Cross Celebrates the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel, May 3, 2024, https://hcspire.com/2024/05/03/holy-cross-celebrates-the-100th-anniversary-of-st-joseph-memorial-chapel/

[6] “Doctor Anthony Fauci on why he left the US government | BBC,” BBC News, December 1, 2023, YouTube Video, 3:43-4:51, https://youtu.be/3p6N6Lt3fo8?si=UPGSCkVxyzl-Qzyx. 

In Defense of Classics

A lurking sentiment pervades the Classics Department, one which inspires unease and uncertainty for the future of the study at Holy Cross altogether. Classics, many feel, is on the brink of erosion. Well, do such claims have grounds to be made? And if so, is Classics worth keeping alive in its current form?

Several factors may indicate that Classics will undergo further change. Recently introduced changes have raised questions among Classics students as to the trajectory of the department. Hebrew, a language traditionally taught in theological contexts [1], has joined Ancient Greek and Latin as potential languages to satisfy the two-language Major requirement, with a few other languages being floated around as potential additions. Though new languages may bear relevance and cultivate interest, this alteration in the language requirement follows a general trend in the department. Classics is shifting from being a study of the ancients who inspired Western tradition to a study of the ancillary states to the classical tradition, which, although incredibly important and involved, do not define the basis of the tradition. Although it is important for Classicists to be open to various perspectives from the study of Classics, it is also important to ensure that hypercritical viewpoints are not the only ones relayed; otherwise, the study has effectively failed at delivering a variety of perspectives. Many Classics students worry that these new courses are a sign of an eventual “loss of identity” for the department, wherein the focus will no longer be on Greece and Rome and will instead be on the broader ancient world.

Such a shift would not be unheard of. Last semester, a talk was held in Rehm Library in which Classics scholar and President of the American Council of Learned Societies, Joy Connolly, proposed a new way to teach about premodern history: Ancient Studies. Connolly expounds her proposition further in her upcoming book, All the World’s Past, where she sets forth to foster a “decolonized field” [2], a composite of perspectives inspired by Afrofuturist thought [3] The idea of Ancient Studies appears utterly unproblematic on its face—a means of recognizing underappreciated cultures and getting a broad sense of the ancient world is both appealing and admirable. But this is not the complete story—Connolly makes it clear in her speech that Ancient Studies is in some way a substitute for Classics [4]. She presents Classics as a declining field and enumerates her grievances with it. Where she frames her new field as an “epistemic reparation,” she implies that Classics operates as a “vehicle for white supremacy” [5]. While talking about colonialism, she disparages Classics for its supposed “Eurocentrism,” “proto-nationalist origin story,” and value assessment on subjective matters (such as others saying that Greek or Roman art is the best). Connolly claims that “Greeceandroman Studies” (her monolithic term for Classics) was founded on ethnonationalism and racism, designed for nationalism, and informed and animated by white elites [6]. Evidently, Connolly must have had a reason to intertwine her criticisms of “Greeceandroman Studies” in her speech, and it’s difficult to see this as a call to anything other than replacement or redirection.

This speech would not be so notable if there was no likelihood for it to bear any fruits—but there’s good reason to believe that Connolly’s proposals could have consequences. The same aspirations and theories are echoed by scholars throughout the field of Classics. If Connolly’s mission is to bring Ancient Studies to institutions around the country, it would not be unreasonable to assume that faculty or administration at Holy Cross could soon be in favor of phasing the Classics department into Ancient Studies, especially given the department’s new course offerings (regarding the increasingly Near Eastern focus) and the diminishing of the Greek and Latin language requirements. Holy Cross is not a large enough institution to have the diversity of field selection at schools such as Boston University. Were two similar departments to be run in tandem with one another, the scarcity of students and funding would likely cause the dilution of one of the fields, thereby making it more advantageous for the school to prioritize one of the other. Such could be the case were Ancient Studies to be introduced alongside Classics. It’s possible that were it introduced, it may just be a replacement for Classics altogether.

Given the possibility that Connolly’s criticisms of Classics are shared among members of the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and even the student body, I believe it is worth analyzing the criticisms made of Classics in detail and giving the department a fair trial before it is slowly dispensed with. As a student who does not study Classics and bears little attachment to the major, I would like to offer my perspective. I shall divide these claims as such: first, that Classics is used as a proto-nationalist origin story and wherefore a vehicle for ethnonationalism and white supremacy; second, that Classics is a eurocentric field; and third, that value assessments in favor of Greece and Rome are indefensible.

To address Connolly’s thesis, it is necessary to deracinate the core of these beliefs. A recent view that has notably risen to prominence in the last decade is the denial of “the West”: the idea that “Western Civilization” does not exist and never has. Eight years ago, The Guardian’s Kwame Anthony Appiah published an article called “There is no such thing as western civilisation” claiming as much—that Western Civilization is a modern invention that lacks proper reason for any continued usage [7]. Appiah argues that “Western” values are not beholden to any group and are appropriated by modern Europeans for a false identity, yet it is unanimously agreed that values are an aspect of culture. Much of Appiah’s argument is reliant on the blurred lines entailed by the label of “Western,” yet for much of the article, Appiah’s well-read historical recounting makes a rather competent case in favor of Western Civilization, outlining the development of the identity and shift in ideological spread from the time of the ancients through the conflicts between Christendom and Islam. It is certainly the case that the idea of “Western Civilization” is blurred on its borders, has morphed over time, and has been misappropriated—but does that make it a false phrase worth discarding? Or is it still applicable in certain instances? Even if centuries ago the West was not an established enough idea for its distinction to be made, its continuous reassertion has, at this point, manifested itself into existence. Additionally, even if it had not gone by the same name, the sentiments of Western Civilization predate its coining. In Saint Thomas More’s 1516 novel Utopia, the character Raphael represents the West to the Utopians by bringing them the Bible and Ancient Greek philosophy. What More viewed as the undergirding tenets of a broadly Western culture may also be reflected in Jesuit tradition.

When Connolly refers to Greeceandroman Studies as a “proto-nationalist origin story” [8], it seems that she’s expressing support for Appiah’s point of view, believing that Classics have been used to justify nationalism through a sense of having a historic “right” [9]. And, Connolly isn’t wrong—this certainly has occurred (Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, etc.)—but is it the fault of Classics? Or is it the byproduct of nation-states being the dominant form of government in Europe and needing to reach for national credibility? The latter seems far more culpable, and to push such guilt on the study of Classics itself seems rather misdirected. The abuse of knowledge is not the fault of knowledge itself.

In his article, Appiah also asserts that the term “Western” can often be seen as a euphemism for “white,” but I find this to be a case of falsely conflating causation with correlation. Much of Western Civilization happens to be “white,” but only because the idea of the West was most popular in European geographical bounds before colonialism, upon which colonial settlers brought ideas such as the West with them through their relocations. This may be similar to the reason that Connolly calls Classics a “vehicle for white supremacy.” If she believes both that “Western culture” means “white” and that the field makes value assessments on a cultural basis [10], it’s no wonder that she sees Classics as having racist undertones. But Classics today is no longer limited along the lines of race; anyone within and outside of our cultural bounds can live, observe, and learn from the teachings we’ve valued for centuries.

Is the study of Classics Eurocentric? I find this proposition to be rather comical, not because it is incorrect, but because its attention is misdirected. Classics inherently carry with them some degree of Eurocentrism because the study primarily focuses on two largely European powers (albeit ones that are far more focused on the Mediterranean than Europe). Asking whether or not Classics is Eurocentric is the wrong question to ask. Instead, we should be asking: Would it be wrong for Classics to be Eurocentric? Are we to believe, too, that the study of the Ancient Sinosphere is too Asiacentric? Every field is in some way exclusive; every study, by its nature, must focus on one area and exclude many others, as it is impossible for people to learn everything. It’s okay to have a broader study of history where the courses aren’t all concentric on one region of the world and its culture, but that’s no longer Classics and loses the reasons why Classics is taught. The core of Classics is not whiteness, nor is it the European continent—it’s the framework that’s inspired generations of cultural change and intellectual consideration. Its influences and references may be found everywhere, including the country we reside in. James Madison explains in Federalist No. 10 that the American constitution intended to make valuable improvements on the “popular models, both ancient and modern,” implying reference to Athens and Enlightenment thought, which was inspired by Athenian thinkers. Much in the same way studies of Confucious are warranted in East Asia due to their unabashed influence, the same applies to the United States and the Classics.

The final point of Connolly’s I should address is that Classics makes a value assessment on subjective matters [11]. I would counter by saying that value assessments in any field depend on who is informing, and choosing to focus on one topic does not necessarily express its superiority over others as much as its cultural relevance. And, were the department to hold Classical art in higher esteem than art of other civilizations, would it be a problem? Although art is ultimately subjective, there tend to be objective reasons that lead people to enjoy art. The conversation of objectivity in art is complicated enough to render one’s value assessment that Classical art is better than others decently defendable, so why not let such a conversation occur? Drawing out the argument of value assessment in art to imply racial superiority falsely indicates that genetics are the primary determining factor in cultural development. For these two reasons, value assessment is, at its root, not an issue.

In a time of sweeping changes, Classics is not a vestigial relic of the past that warrants overhaul. It is not problematic, showing no sway to ethnonationalism and white supremacy, being more about its tradition than its place of origin, and assessing value no differently than any other study. We should not rebrand Classics, nor should we alter its purpose; we must double down on the tradition of Classics in a time when others brush it aside. Christendom and Classics are the two defining aspects of Jesuit tradition, as mentioned in the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum [12], and to impede on them is to destroy the culture of our esteemed and historical institution.

Endnotes 

[1] See: Ratio Studiorum, rules of the Provincial paragraph 7. https://ia802307.us.archive.org/12/items/ratio-studiorum-1599/ratio-studiorum-1599.pdf. 

[2] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field,” (lecture, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, October 8, 2024), 45:08. https://youtu.be/CZ6MRpg3_a0?si=PuFASPCd5GFcAhmZ. 

[3] Ibid. 47:27 

[4] Ibid. 32:49-33:16, 35:23-35:54

[5] Ibid. 7:28. 

[6] Ibid. 40:25, 42:05

[7] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “There is no Such Thing as Western Civilization,” The Guardian, November 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/09/western-civilisation-appiah-reith-lecture. 

[8] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field”, 36:53. 

[9] Ibid. 41:51 

[10] Ibid. 39:59, 37:51-38:21

[11] Ibid. 35:40-35:54, 37:51

[12] See: Ratio Studiorum

Cover photo: Statue of River Tiber in the Vatican Museums – Photo by Daniel J. Capobianco

The Office of the Presidency: The Dignified & the Efficient

“In such constitutions there are two parts (not indeed separable with microscopic accuracy, for the genius of great affairs abhors nicety of division): first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population–the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts—those by which it, in fact, works and rules.” ~ Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867

The English political analyst Walter Bagehot was correct in his pronouncement that a functioning government is made up of two components: the dignified and the efficient. From this, I shall make a personal assertion: we, as Americans, do not know nor attempt to know what this means. Yes, we always desire an efficient government; we always attempt to elect one and become furious whenever Congress or the President cannot fulfill their promises. But, this desire does not extend to them striving to behave as exemplar models of dignity. The effects this has had on our collective institutional confidence are extraordinary.

Before I continue, I must make a quick note to the reader. I am not advocating for the adoption of a British style of government: we declared independence to attempt a democratic republican experiment. Instead, I am using this particular aspect of the unwritten British constitution to analyze a perceived defect in the American one and to recommend a remedy. It should not, therefore, be dismissed as that of an idealist but reviewed as a part of a wider introspection on the American identity.  

Since the unprecedented turmoils of the 1960s and 1970s—from Vietnam to the Iranian Hostage Crisis—the confidence that Americans have in their nation and her governmental institutions has steeply declined [1]. How did this nation, this “Great Arsenal of Democracy” (as Franklin Roosevelt described it), lose her people’s respect in less than six decades? For us to get a sense of an answer to this question, I believe we must take a look at the evolution of the most visible and controversial position in our nation: that of the Office of the Presidency. 

To understand this Office, we must look at the powers invested in it from the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution empowers the Office of the Presidency in a single clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States” (Article II, section 2, clause 1). No specifications are given as to what these executive powers are, making it a direct contrast to the confining perimeters set for the legislature by Article I. Herein lies our contemporary problem. 

To understand the meaning behind this vagueness, we must turn back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when our founders attempted to rectify the errors of the Articles of Confederation. These Articles—our first constitutional attempt—granted a wide berth of authority to the states and purposefully rejected power separation to avoid any semblance to a European monarchy. These states jealously guarded their autonomy to the extent of ignoring the interests of their citizens. Their local legislatures—that is, the senates of each state—were autonomous to the point of eminence over the federal. This ineptitude culminated in Shays’s Rebellion, which ignited a national desire for a powerful federal legislature and judiciary presided over by a unifying federal executive. Formulating a powerful legislature and judiciary was easy for the Convention; deciding on what an executive would look like was quite another matter altogether. What powers would be entrusted to the individual, how exactly this individual would be chosen, and whether there would only be one individual; these were but a few of the many questions the framers debated over. Their deliberations—influenced heavily by The Federalist Papers [2], co-authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—produced Article II of the Constitution. The point was to ensure that the Office was flexible in times of change but rigid enough to maintain the tenets of the Constitution  [3] [4].

For nearly three centuries, our country has faced an array of unprecedented challenges, both foreign and domestic. Each has required an extraordinary vision, a commanding force, and a persuasive voice from an altruistic figure who is above the fray. The first five presidents—more or less—successfully did this and built our national foundations, from Washington’s two-term precedent and noble bearings to Monroe’s Doctrine that initiated America’s standing in the global theater. Certain presidents after, such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Gerard Ford, imitated them, fortifying the mortar that at times required departures from individual rights and institutional expectations—the termination of habeas corpus, the unparalleled four-term presidency, and the pardon of a disgraced former president—in order to “preserve the principles of democracy for the long-run” [5]. 

All presidents have had these intentions at heart whenever they act; yet, the development of social media, an expansive press, and entrenched partisan views have oriented the importance on the occupant rather than the Office and have distorted and sidelined this focus. 

Permit me to use President Kennedy as an example of this modern, systematic emphasis on the individual. A popular, charismatic leader during the thick of the Cold War, his far-reaching, unrealistic rhetoric, coupled with his Hollywood glamor, aided an undue reverence to the officeholder—the individual—rather than the Office [6]. It inflated the legacy of this tragic young man, who lacked morality and discipline, into a Camelotian figure.

We, the People, expect the President not only to be an administrative fixer but to have the charms of a hero. We would like him to be better than a King, better than a Dei Gratia Rex. We want him to be a demigod. 

We have empowered the presidents to be concerned about their popularity and to proclaim unity in public while behaving depravedly at the same time. We adore their extravagant affirmations and demagogic speeches. We would prefer them to move with the national currents, making promises of restoration and reversing moral decay with very little substance on how they are going to accomplish this. We are quite content—even though we say we aren't—with them simply being puppets on stage, creating policies that react to changes rather than enact any [7]. 

We have played a significant part in expanding this malaise through our ignorance and passive behavior. It is, therefore, not solely the responsibility of the President to make his office respectable again but that of us—the people. Perhaps we would do well to learn from the wisdom of two philosophical politicians—Cicero and Riezler—of two failed republics—the Roman and the Weimar—on what should be expected from a chief executive. The moment he is elected, he is, in essence, transfigured from the politician—who maneuvers from one short-lived smartness to next—into the statesman—who is a skillful and clever politician who actively carries out his laundry list of long and short-term goals [8]. Though the stability of institutions will fluctuate because of the everchanging times, it is the duty of the leader to embody and employ civil and political prudence, to serve as moderator and rector in order to be the source for the polity—the political institution—as a whole [9]. To be rector et gubernator civitatis: the model statesman.

Endnotes: 

[1]“Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024,” Pew Research Center, June 24, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/. 

[2] Melvyn Bragg and Guests, “The Federalist Papers,” October 12, 2023, on BBC Radio 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7sv. 

[3] Joseph A. Pika, John A. Maltese, and Andrew Rudalevige, The Politics of the Presidency, (SAGE Publications Incorporated, 2020). 

[4] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, (University Press of Kansas, 2019).

[5] American Political Thought: The Philosophical Dimension of American Statesmanship, eds. Morton J. Frisch, and Richard G. Stevens, (Transaction Publishers, 2011).

[6] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, passim. 

[7] Kurt Riezler, “The Philosopher of History and the Modern Statesman.” Social Research 13, no. 3 (September): 368-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982156. 

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Walter Nicgorski, “Cicero's Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.” Political Theory 19, no. 2 (May 1991): 230-251. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191663.

In Defense of Israel: A Response to Juan Cortes’s “Reconsidering Israel”

n.b., Prof Emeritus Schaefer sent us this article in November of 2024.

I regret having to observe that Juan Cortes’s essay advocating a cutoff of American support for Israel is sadly misinformed. To begin with, his criticism of Israel’s current war of self-defense against attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran lacks any historical context.

First, one must understand how the state of Israel came to be born. The nations of Israel and Jordan, along with adjacent territories, grew out of what was originally part of the Ottoman Empire. Following World War I, Britain established a “mandate” over these territories (as did France over what later became Lebanon and Syria). pledging in its 1917 Balfour Declaration to establish a Jewish state in part of the land. The Jews, having had a continuous presence in what came to be called “Palestine” since antiquity, migrated to the territory, coming especially from Europe, acquiring land by purchase from its inhabitants, not by force. Yet the Jews were assaulted in a series of violent pogroms by local Arab groups, led by a Mufti who became an ally of Adolf Hitler during World War II (and was unsuccessfully pursued as a war criminal by the Western allies after the war). The land’s Jewish population nonetheless grew, especially as those who were able to flee the Nazis’ endeavor at extermination found refuge there.

In 1947 the Jews were authorized by the United Nations to establish a state of their own on a very small territory. But rather than accept its existence, the surrounding Arab nations launched an attack to destroy the new state as soon as it was declared in 1948.

While Israel won its war of independence, Arab nations never accepted its legitimacy. During the 1950s, Egypt, under its socialist dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser, repeatedly launched irregular “fedayeen” attacks against the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Jordan, which held the historic Old City of Jerusalem, where Jews’ most sacred sites were located, destroyed them, and used the Jewish New City for target practice, compelling its partial depopulation.

In 1956 the nations of Britain, France, and Israel launched the Suez war in order to liberate the Suez Canal, critical to world commerce, from Nasser’s control. But they were compelled to withdraw by the Eisenhower administration, eager to improve its image in the so-called “Third World.” Then in 1967 Nasser and leaders of four other Arab nations prepared to launch a war of total destruction against Israel. But again, Israel won (with no American aid, I add). It was as a result of that war that Israel gained control of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with the “Palestinian” territories of the West Bank of the Jordan River and Gaza, and Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. Rather than wishing to retain those territories, Israel repeatedly sought to surrender them (except for Jerusalem’s Old City), in return for a guarantee of peace from its neighbors. But none of them would agree to recognize the Jewish state. Instead, in 1973 they launched the Yom Kippur War (on Judaism’s holiest day), in which Israel averted destruction only with American assistance. And finally, during the Carter administration, Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, finally agreed to grant peace and recognition to Israel, in return for the return of the Sinai (which had contained the only oil wells in Jewish-controlled territory). (For his pains, Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot.)

In the Oslo Accords of 1992, arranged through negotiations with U.S. representatives, Yasser Arafat, leader of the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization, which governed the West Bank and Gaza (under Israeli supervision), agreed to a “framework” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But instead of leading to actual peace, the Accords culminated in two “intifadas” (violent uprisings), in which Palestinian suicide bombers murdered thousands of Israeli civilians. (In the last days of the Clinton administration, in negotiations at the Israeli town of Taba, Israel agreed to grant Arafat control over all the Palestinian lands (including minor “land swaps”) in return for peace, but the PLO leader refused (doubtless fearing the fate of Sadat had he agreed). President Clinton specifically blamed Arafat for the failure of the negotiations.

In 2006, Israel took another step for peace, withdrawing all its settlers and troops from Gaza, hoping that the Gazans would now devote themselves to peaceful economic development. But PLO rule over Gaza was shortly replaced by that of the even more terroristic Hamas, whose leaders (including over 1,000 violent prisoners released from Israeli jails in return for one young captured Israeli soldier) soon set about plotting what became the attacks of October 7, 2023, in which over 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered – with women raped before being tortured to death; babies decapitated; children murdered in front of their parents, and vice versa; and some 251 civilians (including American and Thai citizens) seized as hostages.

Following the October 7 attacks, Israel has had no choice but to set out to destroy Hamas so as to preserve itself against future attacks – just as the United States or any other nation would have done in a similar situation. It has also sought desperately to rescue the hostages. But it has been hampered in its ability to strike at Hamas by the latter’s devilish strategy – in violation of both international law and elemental morality – of concealing nearly all its military facilities underneath or inside of schools, hospitals, and private houses, giving Israel no choice but to attack those facilities at considerable and deeply regrettable cost in civilian lives (even as it has made every effort to minimize such casualties). All this was by the design of the Hamas leader, ex-Israeli terrorist prisoner Yayah Sinwar, who intended to bring about a massive war of Arab vengeance in which the nation of Israel would finally be obliterated. Hamas is in fact a death cult, whose members taunt Israelis with their slogan, “You want to live, and we want to die.” (Nor is Israel responsible for any shortage of humanitarian assistance in Gaza; instead, much of the arriving goods are confiscated by Hamas before they reach the civilian population.)

But behind Hamas and Hezbollah stands a far more powerful, sworn enemy of Israel, the theocracy of Iran, whose leaders, ever since their 1979 seizure of power, have sworn to destroy the “little Satan” (Israel) before taking on the “big Satan” (the United States) in a final battle for global supremacy. Iran has been the “target” of Israeli strikes, as Mr. Cortes puts it, only because it has funded Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism to the tune of billions, while more recently launching a series of missile attacks directly at Israel (rather than just funding Hezbollah’s rockets). Does Mr. Cortes really expect Israel to remain passive in response to these attacks – any more than the United States would if such attacks were directed at this country? How can he justify Iran’s latest attacks on Israel as “retaliation” – when it is Iran that has been consistently attacking Israel, directly and by proxy, ever since the fanatical mullahs established their rule?

Despite Pope Francis’s equation of all war with terrorism, as cited by Cortes, the Catholic theological tradition has long maintained a distinction between just and unjust wars. What could be more just than a defensive war aimed at national survival? And whereas just-war theory emphasizes the need to minimize civilian casualties in war – a rule with which Israel has taken extraordinary efforts to comply – Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have aimed at the opposite.

Despite Iran’s continued endeavor to develop nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S. as well as Israel – an enterprise which the Obama and Biden administration’s policies of appeasement did nothing to halt – Cortes is for some reason unable to comprehend why it would be in America’s own interest to fortify Israel’s capacity to mitigate that threat. In fact, when he laments how much “American blood” has been drained in the Middle East in recent decades (referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), he seems unaware of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on this country that provoked the former, and the suspicions held by leaders of both American political parties that Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, whose previous nuclear plant in Syria had been destroyed by Israel, was himself engaged in restoring his “unconventional weapons” capacity (including chemical and biological warfare) that led to our overthrow of his bloodthirsty tyranny. Both such attacks were launched for America’s sake, not that of Israel. But it should be noted that in recent decades, America has enjoyed a mutually beneficial economic and military relationship with Israel, in which our own defensive capacities (including missile defense) have been fortified by Israeli technological advancements.

Most distressing to me, as a Jew, is Cortes’s comparison of Israeli’s response to the terrorist attacks against it as “genocide.” We Jews know well – just as other Americans should – what genocide looks like. Its exemplar (and the origin of the term) was Hitler’s slaughter of half the world’s Jewish population, by mass shootings and in gas chambers, for no reason other than sheer hatred. To equate Israel’s endeavor to defend itself with such a crime is, quite simply, obscene.

I urge Mr. Cortes to pursue further education regarding the history of Israel, of the Middle East, and of anti-Semitism before writing further on such topics.

Reconsidering Israel

“Yes, it is war. It is terrorism,” he said. “That is why the Scripture affirms that ‘God stops wars… breaks the bow, splinters the spear’ (Psalm 46:10). Let us pray to the Lord for peace.”

-Pope Francis

As the war in the Middle East continues to escalate, we Americans find ourselves at a point of reflection. The support of ‘our greatest ally in the Middle East’ has been viewed as a defense of democracy, Western values, and justice in a region hostile to us [1]. Yet war has come, and over the last year we have been given the opportunity to analyze the actions this ally would take. 

The greatest issue we must consider is the nature of the conflict. Up until the recent Iranian retaliation on Israel, this war, has been more characteristic of a genocide [2]. Israel, justifying its actions as defense, repeatedly strikes refugee camps [3], has a history of severing humanitarian aid and basic necessities to Gaza [4], and pushed Palestinians to the border of Egypt [5], pressuring refugees between two irreconcilable forces. For all intents and purposes, Israel’s actions are not characteristic of war, and in many instances mirror terrorist measures [6]. In our rules of engagement, the U.S. refuses to use tactics in any way similar to these, even if such precautions risk American lives [7]. As the standing global hegemon, the U.S. has repeatedly criticized such states that use similar, brutal tactics [8]. So if we are to align ourselves with another power, should we not be even more critical, when their actions are seen as American-sponsored ventures?

Even though Israel’s behavior may seem distant and tangential to American politics, our institutional biases are evident through our excessive media support.  When else has the influence of a foreign nation been so blatant in our domestic politics?

It seems like every day another media effort is made to demonstrate how strongly our leadership supports Israel. If it’s not Representative Brian Mast wearing an Israel Defense Force uniform in the halls of Congress [9], then it’s the presumptive nominees for both parties arguing about who is a greater ally to Israel, in their first debate [10], when they cannot agree on virtually any other policy measure. Or if neither of those, it is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) —an organization fighting to not be classified as a foreign influence since the days of JFK [11]—openly bragging about the weight they hold on elections [12]. Or perhaps it is the more than one-thousand police officers from around the country sent to Israel for training [13] [14].There are thousands of other examples like this which  paint an eerie relationship between the U.S. and Israel. What other nation has a bond anything akin to the one Israel maintains with the U.S? Is there an Indian lobby as influential as theirs, a German, British, or even Ukrainian? 

Especially since the October 7th attacks of last year, more has surfaced that rings a strange note; from the persecution of our Ivy League for antisemitism [15], the ambiguous federal redefinition of antisemitism [16], internal pressure on journalists covering the war in Gaza [17], to individual US states dictating foreign policy for Israel.

Though we have had a relationship with Israel since 1948, our country’s increased involvement over this past year  forces us to consider the following: Where is all this pressure coming from? Why have our institutions and leaders doubled down on their commitment to Israel, in the face of rampant humanitarian atrocities? And why Israel specifically?

But we may not have the luxury of time to reconsider our ally. As the war rages on, it is obvious that it has  amped up its harassment campaign against its nemesis in the region: Iran. With the active presence of the U.S., Israel has continued to provoke its neighbors. It claims to be in the interest of rooting out Hezbollah, but it is clearly seeking to escalate the conflict and ultimately neutralize all possible threats in the area—even at the cost of regime change and generations of turmoil. That is why Israel invaded Lebanon, “depopulating villages” as they went [18]. That is why they freely strike Russian airports [19] when Ukraine still has to ask before doing so. And that is why they continue to alternate missile strikes with Iran, escalating the conflict. It seems as though Israel is perpetually in need of defensive systems [20] [21], and the U.S. always has to come to its rescue. Over the past couple of months alone, the U.S. has both mobilized the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system with one-hundred American troops to operate it [22] and  deployed multiple Air Force squadrons and American aircraft carriers with an “additional few thousand” personnel to the Middle East [23].

Iran has always been the target. Even before the Iraq war, Israeli officials had been promoting our involvement in Iraq, and especially in Iran [24]. In recent days, U.S. agencies have leaked that Israel has further plans to attack Iran [25], surely with US aid: their prime weapon. So as we look to the coming days, we must seriously reconsider this ally and the depth of this war. Is a state with so much overt, odd influence in our domestic politics for our benefit? And are we willing to wage war, on behalf of this state, in a region that has already drained American blood and ammunition for the last thirty-three years?

Endnotes: 

[1] The Editorial Board, “Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values,” The New York Times,  Oct. 14, 2023. 

[2] Alene Bouranova, “Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case,” BU Today, Jun. 5, 2024. 

[3] Nidal Al-Mughrabi, “Israeli strikes in northern Gaza cause scores of casualties, doctors say,” Reuters, Oct. 19, 2024. 

[4] Jomana Karadsheh, Lauren Izso, Eyad Kourdi, Kareem Khadder, “Red Cross says at least 22 killed as strike hits displaced civilians in Gaza as Israel expands operations,” CNN, Jun. 22, 2024. 

[5] Patrick Wintour, “Israeli assault on southern Gaza could push 1m refugees to Egypt border, UNRWA chief warns,” The Guardian, Nov. 30, 2023. 

[6] Matt Murphy, “What we know about the Hezbollah device explosions,” BBC, Sept. 20, 2024. 

[7] “The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy- John Brennan,” Woodrow Wilson Center, April 30, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM4mCEXi5v4. See transcript here: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy

[8] The White House. “Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine,” October 20, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine/. 

[9] Sarah Fortinsky, “GOP lawmaker wears Israeli military uniform to Capitol Hill,” The Hill, Oct. 13, 2023. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4254384-brian-mast-israeli-military-uniform-capitol-hill/.

[10] “Trump says Harris ‘hates Israel’ during debate,” NBC News, Sept. 10, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-says-harris-hates-israel-during-debate-219042885646.

[11] The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy. “DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent,” The Israel Lobby Archive, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/.

[12] AIPAC. “The Largest Pro-Israel PAC in America,” AIPAC PAC, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.aipacpac.org. 

[13] Edith Garwood, “With Whom are Many U.S. Police Departments Training? With a Chronic Human Rights Violator - Israel,” (Blog), Amnesty International USA, August 25, 2016. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/. 

[14] “U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation: Joint Police & Law Enforcement Training,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joint-us-israel-police-and-law-enforcement-training. 

[15] “A look at college presidents who have resigned under pressure over their handling of Gaza protests,” The Associated Press, Aug. 15, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/college-president-resign-shafik-magill-gay-59fe4e1ea31c92f6f180a33a02b336e3. 

[16] U.S. Congress, House, Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, H.R. 6090, 118th Cong. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090. 

[17] Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, “Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words ‘Genocide,’ ‘Ethnic Cleansing,’ and ‘Occupied Territory’” The Intercept, Apr. 15, 2024. https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/. 

[18] Nader Durgham and Josephine Deeb, “Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon: What is Happening on the Ground?” Middle East Eye, Oct. 17, 2024. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-invasion-lebanon-what-happening-ground. 

[19] Ronny Reyes “Suspected Israeli airstrike hits near Russian airbase accused of housing weapons in Syria: report” The New York Post, Oct. 3, 2024. https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/world-news/suspected-israeli-airstrike-hits-near-russian-airbase-accused-of-housing-weapons-in-syria-report/. 

[20] “Iron Dome failed to activate during Hezbollah rocket barrage on Kiryat Shmona,” The Cradle.Co, Oct. 9, 2024. https://thecradle.co/articles-id/27214. 

[21] Aamer Madhani and Melanie Lidman, “Iran fires at least 180 missiles into Israel as regionwide conflict grows,” The Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2024. 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-gaza-news-10-01-2024-eb175dff6e46906caea8b9e43dfbd3da. 

[22] David Brennan, “Why America's THAAD missile defense deployment to Israel is a 'gamble' in Iran conflict, analysts say,” ABC News, Oct. 17, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/International/americas-thaad-missile-defense-deployment-israel-gamble-iran/story?id=114845323. 

[23] Chris Gordon, “US Sending More Air Force Fighters to Middle East,”Air and Space Forces Magazine, Sept. 30, 2024. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-sending-more-air-force-fighters-middle-east/.

[24] Jon Hoffman, “Benjamin Netanyahu Is Pushing for War with Iran,” Cato Institute, Apr. 16, 2024. https://www.cato.org/commentary/benjamin-netanyahu-pushing-war-iran. 

[25] Natasha Bertrand and Alex Marquart, “Leaked documents show US intelligence on Israel’s plans to attack Iran, sources say,” CNN, Oct. 20, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/politics/us-israel-iran-intelligence-documents/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc.