I agree with your views regarding what might be ultimately viewed as hypocrisy. One point, however. Israel, not "Jews", attacked Hezbollah. Israel is a secular, albeit Jewish state, in which both Christians and Arabs are citizens. You have stated that, historicaly, Christians, Muslims, and Jews have attacked other nations for religious reasons. Yet, Israel did not attack Hezbollah for religious reasons. It is all too easy to equate Israel with Jew. Yes, most Israelis are Jews, BUT most Jews are NOT Israelis. Just as most Muslims are not Arabs, and most Christians are not North Americans. The way you have written this makes it sound as if all Jews attacked Hezbollah. Just as if all Muslims had a part to play in 9/11 or the Bali bombings, etc., or all Christians sanctioned the Crusades (btw: anything more recent about what Christians have done to attack others in the name of religion?)
So please make the correction and separate the religion from the nation. This completely throws a hole in your otherwise very fine argument.

You’ve defined a part of the argument well agnostic,

Let’s apply a little critical thinking here. The same can be applied to Blair, Bush and Howard. Whilst all three are self-professed Christians, they have acted in the name ‘State’. We can certainly question their motives as ideologically based – but for an Islamist or any extremist, there is no question nor debate. There is the basis on which we can question all Western leaders; it is also our right to politically disempower or equally, call them also ‘actors’ and hypocrites – without fear or prejudice I might add.

Can there be any other motive apart from hospitality for this, “..Pope Benedict XVI met with representatives from Muslim-majority countries that maintain diplomatic links with the Vatican “in order to strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See and Muslim communities throughout the world.” Benedict said he hoped “to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers.”
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1743

In so many ways Relda I suspect we are not that far apart. Again I do not disagree that Bush, Blair and Howard have acted in the name of 'state', but there is often a rather deliberate and confusing interchange between the two [state and faith] - especially from Bush (who seems as little able to make distinction between the two as any Islamist you refer to). Most of the world seems just as nervous of Rightwing Christian Fundamentalism in America, as it is of Islamic Fundamentilism.

For him [Bush] this is convenient (and I'm sure why, though out of 'usual' character for him to do so [emphasise his Christianity], Blair mimics in-step) as it seeks to garner support from both the patriot and the religious for his policies. Hand on heart; is there therefore really any difference? When we look in the mirror, do we fail to see ourselves? Are his actions any more compatible with his faith than those who would do likewise in the name of Islam? When abused by extremists, of all stripes, religion is a powerful, emotional trigger.

Either way, is it not then beholden to the pope to make the distinction and clarify the 'Christian' (or at least the Catholic) position in such matters?

As violence is not compatible with Christianity, is it not beholden to all Christians to say "not in my name" and especially not, in the name of Christ? Do actions belie words?

I am pleased to see the pope extend hospitality to Muslim representatives. It is indeed a positive step and perhaps, in doing so, he is making that distinction. We will see, I am sure, soon enough.

“Either way, is it not then beholden to the pope to make the distinction and clarify the 'Christian' (or at least the Catholic) position in such matters? … I am pleased to see the pope extend hospitality to Muslim representatives. It is indeed a positive step and perhaps, in doing so, he is making that distinction. We will see, I am sure, soon enough.”

Kevin it should of course be noted that the Pope has (I believe) made that distinction more directly in relation to the Iraq conflict. As a Cardinal he reportedly condemned the war ab initio.

“As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

If you are correct and it is an ambiguous but hopefully developing way of making the distinction it needs to be pointed out (in fairness to the Pope) that it is preceded by his history of being less ambiguous in condemning violence.

“As violence is not compatible with Christianity, is it not beholden to all Christians to say "not in my name" and especially not, in the name of Christ? Do actions belie words?”

A very pertinent comment K£vin – because in one sense it unequivocally separates Christianity from any act of violence. What you, I or the ‘State’ might do in the name of self-defence or justice is perhaps a little more contentious. To illustrate, during WWII, a well known theologian, with pacifistic belief, was a part of the German resistance movement to assassinate Hitler – he considered his action, ‘the lesser of two evils’ and stood up to an 'evil' State.

It needs to be remembered, non-violence can, moreover, breed it own ideology. The many who prefer non-violence, however, will often need the full protection of the State in order to practise this very admirable principle.

Did Christ look to the protection of the state in order to live up to his principals/beliefs? This raises the question, was Christ the ultimate fundamentalist, and/or was there logic to his choices? Is the state relevant if a person's ultimate belief is that Christ is "The Life, The Truth and The Way"?

Personally, I still like the idea of a very public display of feet washing. The energy behind such a symbolic ritual, in my view, could have very far reaching potential. In today's world, humility as part of hospitality, is a quality rarely (if ever) held up by meaningful example.