An almost perpetual cultural cringe is a feature of what passes as intellectual life in the West nowadays. If we are “white” we have much to be ashamed of; if we’re elderly males as well we are almost beyond the pale. So in commenting on any current events that touch on matters such as race and gender we have to expect some savage kickback. That’s just too bad.

Regarding the current Middle East crisis, my colleagues and I at the Dawson Centre have tried to speak fairly of Islam. Most of us know and like Muslim people. We recognize that Muslims hold Jesus and Mary in high honor and that they are sometimes quicker than Christians are to defend their honor. Some months ago I wrote about the 13th century Dominican friar William of Tripoli who (incredibly, considering the age in which he wrote) was an active apologist for Islam. It is important to bear in mind, too, that Islam has been and still is riven with sectarian division, as Christianity has been in many periods of its history, and that it is foolish to assume that Hamas and Hezbollah represent the spirit of Islam, any more than the most violent expressions of Christian terrorism are typical of Christianity.

That said, the Dawson Centre recently published a link to the Hamas charter. It throws an entirely different light on the issue, making it quite clear that the goal of Hamas is the complete destruction not only of the state of Israel but of the Jewish people. It should be compulsory reading for anyone who wants to express an opinion on this subject. Celebrities, please note!

Our view of the current conflict must be based on the best available information and must take into consideration the intricacies of historical events leading up to it. The sequence of causes is long and complex. Ideas, even ancient ideas, have enduring consequences. Many people who post on X show little grasp of that continuity.

The popular view of the Crusades as a violent and unprovoked attack against peace-loving Muslims is simply preposterous on many levels. The Muslims (they first appear as saraceni in contemporary manuscripts) overran Italy in the 9th century, sacked and devastated Rome in 846, and retained territory in southern Italy (including all of Sicily) right through into the 13th century. They also held parts of Spain until the 15th century, all of North Africa, and many parts of eastern Europe including Greece (which did not achieve independence till the 19^th century). So far from being innocent victims of “Western colonialism” (the current narrative) they had a long history of aggressive invasion. Europe lived in terror of them, and written records over many centuries make it clear that the saraceni were seen as the most formidable threat of all.

Another important thing to note is that the epicenter of Christianity had always been in what we now call the Middle East. Once Islam had captured all the territory of the Middle East, the epicenter moved westward and the Roman Catholic Church became the most powerful and influential component of Christianity — almost by default. It is true that the bishops of Rome had been regarded as the senior bishops of Christendom, as successors to St. Peter, but the catastrophe of Muslim invasion had thrust upon their shoulders a far greater share of responsibility for the welfare of Christendom than might otherwise have been the case.

The proportion of Christians in Middle Eastern countries has plummeted, particularly in recent decades, from about 15% in 1900 to fewer than 5% today. Those who are left face discrimination and even persecution. The First Things article “Arabic, A Christian Language” (Aug. 2024) is a valuable corrective; its author, Onsi A. Kamel, insists that Arabic deserves recognition as having been a Christian language, with a marvelous literature, long before it became the language of Islam. It’s an interesting angle, well defended.

It was against this background that Pope Urban II summoned the first Crusade in 1095.

When tens of thousands of men go to war, their motives are always varied. It’s the usual human mix: some seek personal advantage, a few are cruel by nature and enjoy bloodletting, but most (we hope and trust) are driven by genuine zeal and loyalty to defend their country and to protect their allies. It was no different for the Crusaders. Simple piety and dutifulness, loyalty to their Faith, concern for the welfare of fellow-Christians in the Holy Land, and a desire to keep the pilgrimage places open were all part of their motivation.

I once spent Christmas as a guest of an evangelical Anglican rector in East Anglia. At dinner somebody made a negative remark about the Crusades. I loved his reply: “Men from this parish served in the Crusades and we still honor them for it.” It was a lovely example of that sense of continuity that survives in some Christian and Western cultures just as it does in Islamic and Jewish ones.

So far I have both defended Islam and condemned Hamas, and also spoken up for the Crusaders (a feat many would think impossible). But what of Israel and the Jews? What a prodigy of continuity is Judaism! Surely, you would think, any reasonable person would acknowledge its right not just to survive but also to thrive. Compared to Judaism, Islam is a newcomer to the world. Could any reasonable person doubt that the Jewish claim on Jerusalem is every bit as strong as the Aboriginal claim on Uluru?

Well yes, plenty of people question that and see no comparison at all. Politics brings together the strangest bedfellows, and activists on the atheistic left seem to be in alliance with the most radical forms of Islam, without coming even close to understanding the deep spirituality at its heart.