In the meantime, enlightenment occurs:
AsiaNews has learnt that the unprecedented personal attack on Pope Benedict XVI launched by Israel's Foreign Ministry on Monday 25 July was meant as a smokescreen for the Ministry's decision to abandon the negotiations with the Holy See planned for the same day.
These negotiations, explicitly mandated by Israel's 1993 Fundamental Agreement with the Holy See - the international treaty that is the "magna charta" of all relations between the Jewish State and the Catholic Church - have the purpose of achieving a new treaty to confirm the Church's centuries' old tax exemptions and property rights, which have been eroded by the State since its establishment.
The negotiations began officially on 11 March 1999. However, in recent years Israel has been reluctant even to meet the Holy See to negotiate, and on 28 August 2003, the Israeli delegation abandoned the negotiations altogether, and only came back to the table a year later in response to pressure from the Church and the Government of the United States.
After agreeing to very few meetings in 2005, Israel agreed to meet on 19 July, only to cancel the meeting at the last moment, and have it transferred to 25 July.
Apparently Israeli officials feared the consequences of cancelling this meeting too at the very last moment, so they contrived to find fault with the papal Angelus address to cover up their non-compliance with their treaty obligation to negotiate with the Holy See.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3789
"AsiaNews has learnt..."
How exactly have they "learnt" that. They are making an inference, a conclusion. And a biased one.
"Apparently Israeli officials feared the consequences of cancelling this meeting too at the very last moment, so they contrived to find fault with the papal Angelus address to cover up their non-compliance with their treaty obligation to negotiate with the Holy See."
The only thing "apparent" in this article is the blatant attempt to smear Israel's motives. It appears just as likely to me that Israel objected to the Pope's omission of Israeli terror and with a new Pope sought to protest the treatment sooner rather than later.
Considering that moral equivalency between Palestinian terror and Israeli response to terror is rampant around the world, that much of the world sees terror against Israelis as somehow different than other terror, I see that history as a reasonable explanation to Israeli objections early on in this new relationship.