This week is Holocaust Day in the Hebrew calendar. Next week is Memorial Day for Israelis killed as soldiers or as civilians on account of Arab violence.

Both are key events in Israel's civil religion. "Civil religion" refers to items of cardinal importance, equivalent to matters of high religious import even though they are not part of traditional ritual. When I was growing up in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s, the American civil religion celebrated participants and events in World War II. When I was at the University of George during the 1960s, the War Between the States was still important in the region's civil religion. Now I'm not sure if the United States has a civil religion, given the prominence of multi-culturalism and personal agendas, and severe criticisms about the country's recent wars.

Here the Holocaust and the IDF are vibrant icons of the civil religion. They are associated with one another insofar as the IDF is widely viewed as the sole means of protecting the society from another Holocaust. Most Israelis serve in the military. We know its faults, but we invest heavily, both economically and emotionally.

Both the Holocaust and the IDF are under attack from outsiders.

We know about the widely criticized Iranian president and his Holocaust deniers and minimizers. More sensitive is an action by a representative of the Vatican.

He initially refused to attend a Holocaust ceremony at Yad Vashem due to an item in the museum. It is a statement about Pope Pius XII. The phrasing appears carefully designed to emphasize unresolved controversies about the Pope's role in the 1940s. The announced boycott of one of the country's most honored ceremonies, at one of its most honored places, provoked a round of accusations and counter-accusations. Examples appear at http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/2006_catalyst/1006_print_pages/essay.htm and http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152780922&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There was potential here for commotion more appropriate to the Middle Ages than to the 21st century. Close to the last minute, the man changed his mind, and attended the ceremony. I hope we have heard the last of this, but I doubt it.

If the Vatican and its minions could present a serious disturbance to Israel's memory of the Holocaust, a somewhat more parochial challenge to the IDF has been occupying the City Council of Olympia, Washington. It is an effort by the parents of Rachel Corrie and others to create a sister city relationship with Rafah in Gaza. There is substantial support for Rachel's mission in her home town. Opponents of the proposal are trying to sidestep the emotional issue of her activity (she was killed by an IDF bulldozer while opposing an operation in Gaza during 2003). They argue that sister cityhood would be taking sides in a complex controversy a long way from Olympia.

Rachel Corrie died while opposing the IDF on an active battlefield. Except for politicians concerned not to offend American sensitivities, and the Israeli left, I doubt that her death is viewed any differently from that of other enemy combatants. She was not wearing a Palestinian uniform, but neither do most of the Palestinian fighters. She may not have been armed, but lots of Arabs seeking to frustrate the IDF are not armed with conventional weapons. The differences between her and them would have been too subtle for an Israeli soldier in the noise and dust of combat.

Occasionally it is necessary to remind myself and others that issues debated elsewhere as in an academic seminar or a conventional political dispute carry the greatest sensitivity here. When Rachel Corrie was challenging the IDF at work, she was standing in the way of soldiers fighting for their country, their families, and themselves. Those soldiers were our children, the children of our friends, or friends of our children.

Southern Lebanon, and Southern Beirut, provide recent examples of how the IDF may react to a threat. Those areas remain largely in ruin. Self-described humanitarians criticize Israel's actions in Lebanon, often without mentioning Hezbollah's initial attacks, and the thousands of rockets it aimed at Israeli cities. There is also dispute here about the IDF's actions. Yet much of our criticism is not that it was too aggressive, but that it was not aggressive enough.

Just last week, we had another indication of what Israel's military might do when the country faces a threat.

As far as I can tell, no major American newspaper carried the story, but Israeli media reported that the airforce came as close to shooting down an airliner as it has in three decades. The plane was a Continental Airlines flight from the US that did not comply with security procedures in its approach to Israeli airspace. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152772518&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The concern is something like 9-11, where a hijacked airliner could be directed at a Tel Aviv high-rise, or another prominent target.

IDF planes caused the airliner to turn away from Israel until it confirmed that it was under appropriate control. Reports are that the prime minister and commander of the airforce were on the line, presumably hoping that they would not have to make a fateful decision. One can imagine the follow-up if an American plane was downed in the sea with 250 passengers. It is not only the stuff of nightmares. The airforce destroyed a Libyan airliner in 1973 that strayed from Cairo too close to Israel, and did not respond to communications.

An approach to Israel is not a place for pilots to fondle the stewardesses, to forget to call in with the right codes, or to ignore queries from air traffic controllers. The crew had what was probably an unpleasant encounter with security personnel on the ground. Israeli and airline officials are saying that inquiries continue.