ideally

  Ideological borders are the strongest kind. The imaginary lines drawn on a map mean little when it comes to all that. It is ideology that has driven man's exploration and conquest. It always begins with the noblest on intentions and degenerates from there. Those that believe they are in the right, truly believe, cannot be stopped. Golda Meir said, "you cannot negotiate peace with someone who has come to kill you" The truth in that statement lies in one fact. Those that believe, truly believe in their cause, are willing to die for that cause. That's true whether you are the attacking force or the defending force. It was believed the Japanese people were willing to fight and die to the last man, woman and child. The use of the bomb was thought to be the only means of ending the conflict. There was no negotiating with the Japanese until that willingness to fight was broken. Their ideology didn't include surrender or compromise. Overwhelming force was the only means. It remains a point of contention, a topic of debate to this day whether it was the correct thing to do. In my view that action did save lives in the big picture, there was simply no other option. It was a national thing. It spoke to the Japanese people of honor, respect and loyalty. All very noble ideals. The objective was to create a "new order in east asia" by any and all means. Japan was to be the leader in this new east Asian order, an economic order in essence. 

  It is an ideological border that is being contested in the mid-east today. Israel appears to be attempting to take control of the Gaza strip. The attacks came from that area, and they have little choice. Those attempting to flee the carnage have few choices. Where are they to go? Those fleeing do not subscribe to the same ideology as Hamas, they are simply trying to stay alive, to survive. Support from their neighboring nations doesn't appear to be forthcoming either. More refugees on the world stage, those folks are simply caught in the middle. The only relief has to come by the destruction of Hamas. Hamas whose ideological concepts involve total destruction of the Jewish people. As Golda Meir pointed out, there will be no negotiating. Hamas has come to kill. They are willing to kill to gain what they believe to be their homeland. 

 The scholars and politicians can argue and debate about all of that, and have for centuries, but it won't change that belief. Hamas is willing to fight and die to the last man and kill anyone that impedes them. There is nothing noble in their actions! It has little to do with religious beliefs. That may be the excuse, the reasoning, the justification in their minds, but that has been perverted beyond recognition. It is the same mindset as the missionaries of old. You will be converted even if I have to kill you! It's the same logic. It's true that I may indeed get you to submit, to surrender to, at the very least openly proclaim whatever it is I want to hear, but I'm not going to change your thoughts. The only way to defeat that is to erase history. The problem being, you cannot erase history. And history will always be viewed in two ways, through the lens of the victors and through the lens of the defeated. It is quite a different view. 

 It is ideological borders that sustain and destroy nations. Nations collapse from within when they do not share a common ideological goal. Forces from outside that nation may attack that nation for a variety of reasons. It may be for the acquisition of territory or for the resources that territory can provide. Whatever the reason is there will be some ideology to support that.

  In the case of the United States, we called that manifest destiny. Some embraced that concept while others rejected it. Perhaps most notably Abraham Lincoln rejected the notion of manifest destiny. The desire for more lands, more resources and the promise of wealth won out in the grand scheme of things. Those that had rejected the idea had done so on moral grounds and morality makes for a weak border. Ideology makes the strongest border! 

 The founding fathers created a republic separating the ideological from the spiritual. The reason is simple enough to understand. Spiritual Ideology generally leads to a bitter end involving a violation of both ideals and whatever religious beliefs are incorporated in that. All armies going into battle believe their God will protect them and bring them ultimate victory! The righteous shall prevail. But the spiritual always falls short of the ideal. That is in the Bible and often quoted. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god". Still the founding fathers were aware of all that and prevailed upon "natures god", "the creator", the "supreme judge of the world" and the protection of "divine providence" in those documents. The plea being for help in maintaining the ideal. In his address to the Massachusetts militia president John Adams said, "…we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That is the ideal.