Analysis: The big picture behind the Vatican spat

Jerusalem Post ^ | 01AUG05 | HERB KEINON

[familyop]

When the Foreign Ministry went very public last week with its protest to the Vatican over Pope Benedict XVI's failure to condemn the July 12 Netanya suicide bombing, it clearly wanted to get the Vatican to stand up and take notice.

Otherwise, the ministry could have done what it had done numerous times in the past when John Paul II also did not condemn terrorism in Israel: protest quietly and through more conventional diplomatic channels – and not alert the press.

But unlike the previous low-profile attempts, this time the ministry got its wish and the Vatican paid attention. And then some.

Senior Foreign Ministry official Nimrod Barkan's comment to The Jerusalem Post last Monday, charging that the late Pope John Paul II had not made it a practice of condemning terrorism in Israel, led to an uncharacteristically strident response by the Vatican on Thursday in which it told Israel to butt out of papal statements. The Vatican explained it couldn't condemn all attacks on Israel, because these attacks were often followed by unlawful Israeli actions.

The Foreign Ministry, since it first summoned the papal envoy last Monday to protest – and since Barkan's comments to the Post that same day – has steadfastly declined to comment on the matter, not wanting to exacerbate tensions with the new Pope.

Nevertheless, one can only assume that the ministry and Barkan, the director of the ministry's World Jewish Affairs Bureau and a seasoned and well-respected diplomat, realized from the outset that their words would anger the Vatican and create friction with Benedict and his staff.

Which leads to the question: What did Israel hope to gain by forcing this issue and, in the words of one news report, create "the biggest challenge yet to face Benedict's 100-day-old papacy?" Like so much else here these days, the answer has to do with disengagement or, more precisely, the day after disengagement.

Barkan, in his candid remarks to the Post last week, said that Israel was trying to create a new modus operandi in the Vatican, which had, up until then, not made it a practice to condemn attacks in Israel.

The Vatican responded by saying that Barkan was making things up and issued a statement that included a two-page document that mentioned the times John Paul spoke out against Middle East violence.

But a careful parsing of that document indicates that – with the exception of a condemnation of the February 2004 bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed eight and wounded over 60 – the incidents mentioned, dating back to 1982, dealt with general condemnations of violence in the region, many of them coming after Israeli military reactions to Palestinian attacks. They did not, however, deal with specific attacks against Israelis.

This accumulated silence on attacks against Israelis has not been lost on Israeli policy makers who believe that the level of Palestinian terrorism is dictated to a large extent by the level of international legitimacy the terrorists feel they have for their actions.

If the world would roundly condemn all attacks in Israel, this argument runs, then the level of terrorism against Israel would decline dramatically.

Which explains Israel's frustration with the Vatican. Israel is trying to shape an unequivocal no-tolerance attitude toward terrorism in Israel in the post-disengagement era, and wants to get the Vatican on board.

Jerusalem is bracing for a situation where, soon after all the Jews are removed from Gaza, the world – including the Vatican – will applaud briefly and then say it is time for Israel to re-enter negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of the road map.

Israel's answer to this will be that negotiations can only take place when the Palestinians dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Jerusalem is then preparing for a state of affairs in which, rather than tackling the terrorist infrastructure, the Palestinians will unleash a wave of terror to "convince" Israel to negotiate. According to this scenario, if the world only offers weak condemnations, the Palestinian extremists will to turn to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and ask why he wants to confront them, when the world is not all that concerned about suicide bombings in Israeli cities.

And it is within this framework that the Vatican's condemnations becomes so important. Israel is concerned about the Vatican – and the world – delegitimizing terrorism around the globe, but continuing to wink at it in Israel. And this is precisely how Benedict's condemnation last week of terror in Turkey, Egypt, Britain and Iraq – but not in Netanya – appeared in Jerusalem.

For the Netanya attack that killed five wasn't an attack in the territories, or against soldiers, which some around the world would seek to justify. Rather, it was an attack in the heart of the country, aimed at killing as many civilians as possible – just like in Turkey, Egypt, Britain and Iraq. Furthermore, this particular attack was not immediately followed up by any Israeli military response.

That the pope publicly ignored this attack sent alarm bells ringing in Jerusalem, not only regarding what was, but also what – in the absence of public action – could very well be in the future, after disengagement. This was a mini-crisis the Vatican weighed, approved and – duly – generated.

[familyop]

Ping

[JerseyRepub]

this nonsense again...please, give it up...it's a dead horse

[Mike10542]

To my Christian friends on here, I love you guys, but this statement by the church is ridiculous:

"The Vatican explained it couldn't condemn all attacks on Israel, because these attacks were often followed by unlawful Israeli actions."

Is the church serious with this statement, saying Israel's response to terrorism is unlawful and wrong. Come on!!!! They might be tyring a little to hard to appease Muslims.

[CWOJackson]

"To my Christian friends on here, I love you guys, but this statement by the church..."

Keep in mind that the Catholic church is only one of the many Christian denominations and doesn't speak for the others.

[Prime Choice]

led to an uncharacteristically strident response by the Vatican on Thursday in which it told Israel to butt out of papal statements.

Note to the Vatican: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[CarrotAndStick]

Nonetheless, it is worrisome how Muslim appeasement has apparently crept into the largest Christian denomination in the world.

[Mike10542]

I guess I should have said Catholics, but my point was how outrageous the comment was. The Vatican is kind of like the US; I love Bush and love the new pope, but they each need new State Departments.

[elfman2]

"The Vatican explained it couldn't condemn all attacks on Israel, because these attacks were often followed by unlawful Israeli actions. "

Unless the Vatican can identify an effective “lawful” response to the unlawful terrorist attacks on Israel, I find their refusal to condemn them because of Israel’s supposed unlawful response to be incredibly weak and wrong. I don’t respect pacifism.

This is a very informative article. Thanks.

[CWOJackson]

While I don't pretend to speak for all "Christians" I do believe that any reasonable person recognizes the difference between strapping a bomb on and deliberately detonating it among innocent people and Israeli soldiers bulldozing the home of a murdering terrorist.

Mike, I can disagree with your "State Department" comments. I do respect President Bush and Secretary Rice, but I think there is a time to be a statesman and a time to be a warrior. We could use a little less state craft in Israel.

[sofaman]

To you maybe...some of us look at the Israeli situation very seriously. It isn't only the Vatican that doesn't seem to give a damn about terrorism in Israel.

Condi Rice praised Abbas for tackling terrorism, while rockets are raining down on and killing Israelis (Jews). What exactly has he done? Rather than we in the US, who should after 9/11 know better, understanding why Israel would take strong measures to combat terrorism, we praise a facilitator of that terror.

The Vatican made it clear that they do not regard terrorism against Jews in the same light as terrorism against the British or others. They equated Israel targeting those that would perpetrate terrorism against Jews, with the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Palestinians.

The fact that you see this as a dead horse, indicates that you seem to agree with that stance.

However, to this FReeper who has friends and relatives living in Israel, the Vatican pointedly ignoring terrorism in that state, is a slap in the face to all Jews. It also raises many questions of the Catholic Church, and those questions are likely to ignite a firestorm.

[familyop]

Thank you for the thanks. It was the nicest explanatory article that I could find. Other pieces published during the past few hours show much more anger from hurtful earlier history.

[tbeatty]

I don't mind the church believing that the Israeli repsonse is wrong. After all, it believes the U.S. response to Iraq is wrong.

But that shouldn't deter it from condeming the acts that are wrong. They should condemn Palestinian suicide bombings.

This is like the Vatican justifying murder in the U.S. because it believe the death penalty is unjust. The state imposed penalty does not justify the underlying crime.

Two criminals were crucified next to Jesus. Their crimes were not absolved because of the brutality of the Romans. They stand on their own and they deserve their own condemnation and punishment.

[solitas]

bttt

[Prime Choice]

Nonetheless, it is worrisome how Muslim appeasement has apparently crept into the largest Christian denomination in the world.

Rome has had practice kowtowing to fascists. This is nothing new.

[George W. Bush]

Barkan, in his candid remarks to the Post last week, said that Israel was trying to create a new modus operandi in the Vatican, which had, up until then, not made it a practice to condemn attacks in Israel.

Trying a run at the new pope? Ain't gonna work.

If the world would roundly condemn all attacks in Israel, this argument runs, then the level of terrorism against Israel would decline dramatically.

Considering how smart Israelis are, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Maybe they'll next ask the Saudis and the Iranians and the Syrians to condemn attacks on Israel instead of encouraging them. Maybe the ghost of Arafat will rise from its grave to condemn terrorism. Maybe pigs will, indeed, fly...

[Mike10542]

Well, I didn't mean to refer to just one person, but rather the mentality at the U.S. State Department and the equivalent at the Vatican. Both of their views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict tend to equate Israel self defense and Palestinian terror as being morally equivalent. The problem is that mentality is ingrained at both places and will take some time and house cleaning to bring each view back to common sense. I think Rice is doing a good job starting the trend at our State and that the new Pope should work to do the same at the Vatican.

[The Red Zone]

The Vatican explained it couldn't condemn all attacks on Israel, because these attacks were often followed by unlawful Israeli actions.

DUH?!?!?

[The Red Zone]

Maybe they'll next ask the Saudis and the Iranians and the Syrians to condemn attacks on Israel instead of encouraging them.

If Israel wants to stand up and say "you big hypocrites" to someone, they pays their money and they takes their choice.

[CWOJackson]

Bulldozing the home of a terrorist who strapped on a bomb and detonated themself in the middle of a bunch of innocent people is considered unlawful in some circles apparently. I consider it great restraint.

[The Red Zone]

Unless the Vatican can identify an effective “lawful” response to the unlawful terrorist attacks on Israel,

Were I Mr. Barkan, I'd tell the Vatican that if it would be willing to revive the Knights of the Inquisition and come down and help Jerusalem face off the Muslim infidels with lance and sword once again, it would be welcome.

[The Red Zone]

It's a symbolic move intended to humiliate more than impoverish. (Hamas has the dough to more than re-establish all such homes.) A curse on their house as it were.

[Michael81Dus]

Why is this conflict between the Vatican and Israel a slap into the face of all Jews? Heck, I don´t get that.

A Jew with a US passport is an American, and not an Israeli. A Jew with an Israeli passport is an Israeli. A Jew with a German passport is a German. A Catholic with a US passport is an American, and so on...

So, why claims Israel to speak for all Jews? Because it´s a Jewish state? Puh, can´t remember when Israel allowed all Jews worldwide to vote for its state bodies. Therefore, Israel may speak for its citizens but not for all Jews. Furthermore, I wouldn´t want that the Islamic Republic of Iran claims to speak for all Muslims worldwide.

The claim for loyalty because someone is belong to a religion is a bad idea. Loyalty should be bound to the state and nation. Mixing politics with religion in general is a bad tendency and has lead to many many deads.

[monkapotamus]

The other side...

---

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3824

30 July, 2005

VATICAN - ISRAEL

Fr Jaeger: Israel – Holy See, a very profound crisis which Sharon could resolve

by Bernardo Cervellera

The Israeli Franciscan, an expert in relations between Israel and the Holy See, denounces the cause of the crisis and proposes steps to be taken by Sharon and the Church.

Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) -  As an unprecedented and unexpected  crisis rages in relations between the Catholic Church and the Government of Israel, AsiaNews has obtained an interview with the Israeli Franciscan Father David-Maria A. Jaeger, a well known legal expert on relations between the Catholic Church and the State of Israel.

Father Jaeger, how has this crisis happened all of a sudden?

As sometimes happens, even in international relations, its cause is completely banal, nothing more than a minor functionary in the Israeli Foreign Ministry who had not done his homework for a meeting with the delegation of the Holy See set for 25 July and who desperately needed a last moment excuse to cancel the meeting... nothing more than that.

But let us go back to the beginning. The story begins on 28 August 2003, when Israel's Foreign Ministry suddenly withdraws its delegation from the negotiations with the Holy See, cancels all pending appointments and refuses to agree new dates for the talks. This is incompatible with Israel's treaty obligation under Article 10 of the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, which obliges Israel to negotiate in good faith a "comprehensive agreement" on the fiscal regime applicable to the Catholic Church in Israel and on matters concerning Church property. The resulting stalemate spurs into action also elements of the US Congress and the Administration, and, in connection with Prime Minister Sharon's visit to the White House on 14 April 2004, the Prime Minister and his people promise to resume the negotiations with the Holy See and help them along to a successful conclusion. Indeed, the negotiations resume in the summer of 2004, but by the beginning of 2005, certain minor Israeli officials are once more creating difficulties, and making it difficult even to meet. It is no longer possible to understand their policy, if they have one, and by June they are requested to state their policy in writing, so as to enable a response and a proper resumption of the negotiations. At a meeting on 15 June they promise to produce a written document by the next meeting set for 19 July. As this date approaches, they make it clear that they had not yet done their homework and they ask for an extension until 25 July. But they are not even ready for the 25 July. Evidently they are concerned that a resumption of the practice of constantly cancelled meetings and avoidance of negotiations will be incompatible with the promises made in Washington and possibly create difficulties within their government itself. Hence the idea of manufacturing a wholly spurious crisis on 25 July after glancing at the report of the Angelus on the Internet....  Now, in order to escape American criticism, and possibly even internal government criticism, they had to make their attack on the Pope particularly vicious, which they did. It has also been pointed out that it was written in great haste, full of mistakes in Hebrew...

 But why the attack on the memory of John Paul II?

 This is where things really ran out of control. Since the treaty obligations were made to John Paul II, the greatest friend the Jewish People ever had, the only way to justify refusal to comply with them has been to attack the memory of the saintly Pontiff whom only days before they had exalted beyond measure. It will be remembered that the Israeli government had only just issued a postage stamp in his memory, sending a cabinet minister to the Vatican to present it to the reigning Pontiff!

 You say that the attacks on the Popes are the work of minor functionaries, contrary to the stated policy of the Head of the Government. Is this possible?

Of course it is. The Prime Minister has been completely preoccupied these days with his extremely important official visit to the President of France, with the controversies and drama surrounding the impending Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, with the Attorney General's decision to prosecute his son... and I am certain that in no manner could he have been informed of the shocking misbehaviour of some minor functionaries in the Foreign Ministry, who have been trying to demolish one of the most important sectors in the  international relations of the State of Israel. What the Premier will do now, whether he will take the initiative in trying to repair the damage, or give cover to the officials, remains to be seen. Past evidence is that Mr. Sharon has understood very well the importance of the relationship with the Catholic Church. This is shown by his promises to Washington about the negotiations, as well as by his earlier decision, also encouraged by President Bush (as well as by the whole Christian world)  to cancel his predecessor's (Barak's) decision to build a mosque precisely in front of the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth. Mr Sharon has a chance to isolate the offending officials and to rescue the good name of the State of Israel.

 What can the Head of the Government do to end the crisis?

I believe that while the crisis is of truly historic proportions - never has the Government of Israel (or any other civilised Government) launched such a crude, violent attack on the Head of the Catholic Church, both on the reigning Pontiff and on his immediate Predecessor at the same time, and thereby on the whole Church and on every Catholic, in a sense - it could also be repaired without the greatest difficulty. I believe that two contemporaneous steps are necessary from the Head of the Government, on behalf of his Government: (1) A full, explicit, unreserved apology to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, and to the memory of the saintly Pope John Paul II; (2) An unreserved acknowledgement of Israel's treaty obligations to the Holy See under the 1993 Fundamental Agreement, and full compliance with them, including an immediate, full, good-faith resumption of the negotiations mandated by Article 10 of the Fundamental Agreement. These steps are required morally and legally, and should be capable of beginning to reverse the immense, incalculable damage caused almost casually by some people who just tried to cover up their not having done their homework...

 Father Jaeger, it is known that you personally have invested many years of hard work in trying to help build up the relationship between the Catholic Church and the State of Israel - how do you feel about this all?

I cannot even begin to express how I feel...  but let us remain on the objective level.

 Is there anything else we need to bear in mind about this crisis?

Very much so. This crisis calls attention once more to the impossible situation in which the Catholic Church does not have a single structure in Israel that is able and willing to address the Israeli public, and to participate publicly in the national debate. In fact, notwithstanding the manifold physical presence of the Church in the Holy Land, the Church is not publicly present in and to the majority Hebrew-speaking Israeli society at all. Thus, all week, while hate-propaganda was pouring out of the foreign ministry, and those inspired by it, there was no one to answer! No one to answer in Israel, in Hebrew, in the Israeli media, vis-a-vis the Israeli public. The field was completely abandoned.  I do not know of another nation where the Church is so completely without public representation, without even a press officer capable and willing to engage the national debate, the national media, in the national language. For this to be effective, it needs moreover to be done on a continuous basis, so that in time of crisis, a recognised spokesman for the Church is always ready and available, and able to make his way into the public discourse and the national media. So much has been said and written for years now of the need to establish an Ecclesial Subject capable of embodying the Church in the Israeli Nation, just as the Church is present in every Nation, in accordance with the command of the Lord and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. It must be understood that this is of critical importance for every facet of the presence of the Church in the Holy Land, and in the interests of all the national communities present within the wider ecclesial community. But then this is a discourse that must be taken up again and furthered on other occasions.

[The Red Zone]

So, why claims Israel to speak for all Jews? Because it´s a Jewish state?

The modern state of Israel was frankly founded with Zionism (return of Jews to a home land) in mind. The idea was fueled in large part from the fear that Jews might not be able to find ANY other place on earth that would stand up for them against genocidal maniacs. And I can't say I can really blame them for feeling that way, given the callousness from the Western world they sometimes saw during conflicts as recent as WWII. Hence, Jewlandia. Fault that notion as you will (or as you won't) but it has scarcely been a secret.

[The Red Zone]

This is where things really ran out of control. Since the treaty obligations were made to John Paul II, the greatest friend the Jewish People ever had

Well he does sound a little stuck up on the honor of the pope among non-Catholics.

[Michael81Dus]

Yet, Jew are not necessarily Israelis, and that´s something the Israeli government should acknowledge and stop setting both terms equal.

[Michael81Dus]

Interesting theory. Will think of it as this crisis develops.

[hershey]

St. Peter keeps a little black book, even on the Vatican.

[hershey]

There was a sobering ad in Newsweek last week with a map of Israel and the region, showing the range of Russian rockets the Palestinians intend to install in the Gaza Strip as soon as they take over. The rockets would decimate the center of Israel, where 70% of the population resides and 70% of the industrial base is located. There is literally nowhere for Jews in Israel to go if attacked. Their backs are against the sea, and meanwhile the Palestinians are airily discussing the possibility of a few random rocket attacks as if they can't control their own terrorists and it's no big deal if a few Jews die. (The group behind the ad...FLAME...I believe. Fact and Logic about the Middle East.org.)

[hershey]

It's very troubling, and that's a euphemism.

[hershey]

It's unlawful to defend yourself?

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

..........................................

[Cronos]

Keep in mind that the Vatican condemns the attacks on Jews but actions by the Israeli government to flush out the slammic terrorists also affects the Christian Arabs there

[veronica]

I was a fan of Pope John Paul II. But there are Arabist, anti-semitic factions at the Vatican who are apparently testing the waters now that there is a new Pope. It was nice to have such a Pope as John Paul, but we can live very nicely thank you without the friendship of the new German Pope, if that's the way it goes. I am not in favor of Jews/Israel genuflecting before the Vatican, any more than I was that we kiss Mel Gibson's ring.

[ex-snook]

" has steadfastly declined to comment on the matter, not wanting to exacerbate tensions with the new Pope."

Nah. Someone has been writing about it daily and it gets posted here.

[veronica]

Why is this conflict between the Vatican and Israel a slap into the face of all Jews? Heck, I don't get that.

It's very hard explain this notion. Putting aside self-hating leftist Jews and meshugena (crazy) anti-Zionist Jews, Jews everywhere are part of a whole. Whether they live in Israel or not. Israel represents the only true "safe haven" metaphorically, for the "Jewish people." Germany, in which Jews adopted the lifestyle of assimilation, turned out to be anything but safe. Israel is ultimate bulwark against another Holocaust, whether Jews (or Christians) want to admit it or not. This is why Israel is so despised by some. It's a symbol of the refusal of the "Jewish people" as a religion and a race, to take any more harassment from the world.

[Michael81Dus]

I understand that these feelings were quite common in 1945, or say even 1975. But today, let´s face it, Jews don´t have to fear a 2nd Holocaust with all the support they get as religious groups within various nations. So for me Israel is a state first, and not a "Jewish Vatican". I can´t see how the Vatican may have insulted a Jew who is not an Israeli.

[veronica]

Jews have learned the futility of saying "it can't happen here." The lesson of the Holocaust is that it can "happen here", unless Jews stay strong, and speak out (along with Christian brothers) when moral equivalency becomes the order of the day for other religious or secular institutions for that matter.

[veronica]

Bulldozing the home of a terrorist who strapped on a bomb and detonated themself in the middle of a bunch of innocent people is considered unlawful in some circles apparently. I consider it great restraint.

Did the Vatican have anything to say about the new "shoot to kill" policy the recently terrorized Brits have adopted? If so, I missed it.

[sofaman]

okay..let me try and explain my reasoning...

Israel is Judaism's religious capital. I don't think that there is any dispute about that.

I totally and completely agree with you that I, as a Jew, am an American. BTW, I emigrated to the US in 1982 from a Commonwealth country, and I am proud to call myself an American.

The Vatican, by ignoring or relegating terrorism in Israel is a slap in the face to me as a Jew, not as an American. It is Jews (and in some instances Israeli Arabs) that are dying in these terrorist attacks. Therefore, I as ta Jew, take very great offense at the Vatican's relegation of terrorism in Israel that somehow doesn't rise to the level of terrorism in, say, Bali or Brirain.

Furthermore, I don't believe that Israel speaks for all Jews at all. Never said that I did. However, since the people dying are predominantly Jews, I see it as a Jewish issue, just as I see the Holocaust as a Jewish issue.

Lastly, based on polls and interviews done in Moslem countries around the world, it appears to me that Iran DOES speak for all Moslems. The Moslem world is hostile to the non-Muslim world. That much I think is obvious. Iran sees us as the great Satan. The Moslem world agrees with that.

Your last paragraph, isn't accurate either. Do I, as a Jew, have loyalty to the State of Israel, of course I do. There are many Christians in FR that feel exactly the same way. I have a loyalty to Israel as my religious capital and as a staunch ally of the US. Many Christians have a loyalty to Israel for very similar reasons. Religiously, they support the State of Israel and also as one of our staunchest allies.

Lastly, religion tends to guide our thoughts and actions. It impacts our lives daily. it strikes me that anyone regardless of religion, will govern their lives, to a great extent, based on their religious principles. How can you be true to yourself and your religion if you do not? Example...abortion is roundly rejected by the Catholic Church. Yet, Catholics such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, support abortion on demand. And many people, myself included find that to be a contradictory position.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I wanted to clarify this for you. Appreciate the dialog.

Best wishes...

[Michael81Dus]

So is the killing of American soldiers in Iraq - mainly Christians - an issue the Pope or the Protestant churches should deal with? Is it an religious issue? No, it´s political.

The Vatican has often condemned attacks on Israel, but it remarks, that some Israeli responses have been inappropriate. This definitely is not a Jewish conflict, but an Israeli one. Wouldn´t you agree, since it´s not about the attacks but Israeli responses?

The Muslims I know would never want Iran to speak for them. They´re integrated and feel like citizens first and Muslims second.

I didn´t deny that you have a loyalty to Israel as an ally. But I wouldn´t want you to be rather loyal to Israel than to the United States. And I wouldn´t want American Catholics to do what the Pope orders when it doesn´t serve American interests.

Religion, from my understanding, is something personal and should not directly affect politics. A religious person is well advised to act in consistance with his religion, but it´s not a must. I mean, it´s ok when you as a Jew don´t stand 100% behind what your religion wants you. A party member doesn´t need to support 100% what his party wants. It´s on your own - and on your religion, party, association, club, etc where to draw the line.

I believe that secularism has prevented many more deads in the judeo-christian world. And it´s something the Muslims should promote. When they allow Christian churches in their countries, when they stop preaching hate against infidelis, when they start to separate church and state and respect other religions, then one of the worst dangers will go down.

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

I'm glad you posted this here, as the posts on this thread are incredibly anti-Catholic!!

It all comes back to politics, and there's two sides to every story. I thought it was an inappropriate attack on Pope Benedict--the attacks he referenced had all occurred within a few days of his public address.

I am very much a sympathizer with Israel, and I see what happens there as affecting all the world (especially in a Biblical/prophetic sense), but we must acknowledge that what has been going on there for years is a war and has become, unfortunately, "old news" to the general public that looks for the "newest" news.

I always try to shop and visit with the Catholics from Jerusalem and Bethlehem who come to our parish a couple times a year to sell their goods, since they have so few tourists going over there. The last one was telling me that most of the Catholics have been forced out, except for maybe 3% of the population that refuses to leave. But they have been left with little or no support. They are protected by no one, and most would prefer they leave, also. Very sad.

[Darksheare]

What interests me is that you trolls whine that it was okay for France and Germany to do business with Saddam, and then you trot out this stuffto complain about.
Well, if it is okay for France and Germany...

"Did we forgot the harsh treatment orthodox jews give Christians of all faith in Israel, the beating they give them when they go into Palestian camps for humane purposes. " -mike0905

???
Source for this?


"American born-again Christians love Israel but can't stand the jews." -mike0905

What a false and arrogantly anti-semitic statement.
Here, let me ping some friends of mine to you.

[CWOJackson]

"Did the Vatican have anything to say about the new "shoot to kill" policy the recently terrorized Brits have adopted?"

You must mean the policy they adopted because of the training they received from the Israeli's...yes, I missed it also.

[Antoninus]

I have been a constant and steadfast defender of Israel, but this nonsensical criticism of the Vatican is over the top. Coupling this with the idiotic behavior of Sharon lately and arms sales to China, I may have to reconsider my position.

[familyop]

Israel was reestablished as the homeland for the Jews with the British Mandate. The British argued with the various nations to exclude Transjordan (Jordan) from Israel, because the British were making deals with an Arab King there. The British then prevented Jews from immigrating to Israel to the extent that they could by force while allowing huge numbers of Arabs to move to Israel. In the end, the British saw to it that all roads leading to Israel were occupied by Arab forces just before the British pullout. Then the day after the British pulled their army (which was warring against the Jews) out of Israel, the Arab nations attacked the Jews.

Although Israel was reestablished by the Mandate of nations as a "homeland" for Jews, the Jews have given Israel a democratic government with freedom of religious expression (thus, the frequent public messages of hatred against Jews by the generic Arab press there).

That bit of history is only the tip of an iceberg of millenia of distinctly Christian pogroms against Jews and attempts to exterminate them. I would be happy to give links to documents on that if you like.

Israel may not be safe for the Jews now (because of world churches and nations against them). But it is the only country that they can rely on to be free or to fight back from when their rights are violated (as is currently happening in Gaza--an action that anti-Jewish forces throughout the world will be sorry for, IMO).

Another Protestant church joins chorus of Israel critics [Disciples of Christ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450882/posts

The Church Stares Into the Abyss (The dhimmitude of the Church of England)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435084/posts

(Anti-Semitic) Anglican group urges Israel sanctions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430566/posts

United Church of Christ Considering Divestment from Israel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430835/posts

Anglicans Call for Sanction on Investment in Israel to Uphold Justice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430772/posts

THE VATICAN AND THE STANDOFF AT THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp515.htm

Russian Rabbi Investigated for Distributing Book of Jewish Law [Update,
more info.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431369/posts

Russia calls for banning Judaism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431407/posts

Russia probing whether Jewish law constitutes incitement ["first time
since Stalin's regime"]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431367/posts

Russian Orthodox Church Ready to Open up New Ecumenical Relationship with WCC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430815/posts

[Slings and Arrows]

I love the smell of ozone in the afternoon. It smells like...kitties!

[Darksheare]

Can't wait to see what sequentially numbered handle he tries to come back with.
*chuckle*