Posted on 07/25/2005 3:39:13 PM PDT by anotherview
By Diana Bahur-Nir
JERUSALEM - Papal envoy to Israel Archbishop Pietro Sambi was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where officials registered their displeasure at the statements of Pope Benedict XXVI.
Pope condemns terror everywhere except in Israel
Photo: AFP
The pope on Sunday condemned terrorism in Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and Britain, but leaves out the suicide bombing in Netanya.
Foreign Ministry officials expressed outrage over the exclusion: "The evasion of the pope begs a response. Besides the assault on morality, the matter cannot be interpreted as anything but the justification as terror against Jews."
The sources also said that the pope's words would strengthen the hands of radicals.
"We hoped the new Pope, who talked about relations between the church and the Jewish people," said the officials.
"We expected that the pope would call for dialogue among the three religions that recognize Abraham as their father and would criticize terror that has brutally struck Jews when criticizing terror that has affected others."
Sambi met with Nimrod Barkan for a few hours; the papal envoy did not say how the Vatican answered or planned to answer the charge
(07.25.05, 22:08)
It seems explaining yourself is too much for your sesame-seed-sized brain.
I won't bother answering anymore of your posts. I gotta go to sleep. I have to work tomorrow.
I couldn't agree with you more! And I intend to do the same.
Priceless! Good luck at the boutique tomorrow.
Shut it. Just shut it. The Pope, who has already been more of a friend than almost ANY other world leader, was answering a question about if he thought the Islamist attacks were due to anti-Christian sentiment. How exactly does that apply to the Jews? Pope Benedict XVI is a great friend of Israel and will remain such and you darned well know it, so drop the idiotic complaint. Deal with the fact that this had nothing to do with Israel Mr. Foreign Minister.
He has never pretended to be. He will, in my opinion be as great or greater. He's a very great man and not to be belittled.
He comes to the position too late in life, he comes from an entirely different background and he does not have the drive or energy that Pope John Paul II brought to the position (and age has a great deal to do with that).
There is also a difference in style and approach, where Pope John Paul II immediately started reaching out to the world, in words and travel, this Pope will not; it isn't his style.
Through the efforts of John Paul II, again travel, words and deeds, the Catholic Church enjoyed major expansions in other parts of the world while it retreated in it's more traditional locations.
There is a world of difference between the two men.
He's belittled by insipid little maggots on here out of spite. In other words, belittled by people who amount to precisely nil. I'd love to know what the naysayers have done for Israel lately, you know, other than talking big on an internet messageboard.
Yeah, sure. You didn't want to belittle him /sarc
He comes to the position too late in life, he comes from an entirely different background and he does not have the drive or energy that Pope John Paul II brought to the position (and age has a great deal to do with that).
But he was the most qualified for the position, and that's what matters now.
There is also a difference in style and approach, where Pope John Paul II immediately started reaching out to the world, in words and travel, this Pope will not; it isn't his style.
I'll grant you the fact that he's not as charismatic and personable as JP II, but he's a good man nonetheless. Popes are not elected to be divas. They're elected to lead the largest single religious denomination on Earth.
Through the efforts of John Paul II, again travel, words and deeds, the Catholic Church enjoyed major expansions in other parts of the world while it retreated in it's more traditional locations.
If charisma, personability and amount of travel were requirements to be a good pope, the Bill Cli(n)t(on) would be the best Pope ever.
There is a world of difference between the two men.
Weak arguments, overall... as expected from you.
I posted this article. I am Israeli. My home is in Netanya. I see a lot of reaction without much thought. Here is my take on the article.
The Pope gave a sermon. In it he condemned every major terrorist attack which had occurred in the previous two weeks save one: the suicide bomb attack in Netanya. Those of us who live here have to ask why and point out the effect, perhaps unintended, of the Pope's omission.
The Catholic Church has a long history of taking the Palestinian's side in the conflict. Yes, Pope John Paul II took some courageous steps to heal rifts between the Catholic and Jewish communities and I, for one, do appreciate that. However, his statements against Israeli government actions to defend our people were troubling.
Now we have a new Pope. His views on the Middle East are, so far, unknown. Nobody, not the Foreign Ministry, not the writers at Yediot Ahranot, none except a few overreacting here on FR, are calling the Pope and anti-Semite. He has done nothing to deserve that. The real problem is that he made what, in my view is a serious omission with serious consequences. This can be corrected and that is all the Foreign Ministry wants. That is all I, as a Jew and as an Israeli, want. Asking that does NOT make us anti-Catholic or bigots.
All we want is acknowledgement that our dead and injured are as valuable all all the other dead and injured. All terrorism is evil and should be treated as such.
The real problem is that he made what, in my view is a serious omission with serious consequences.
What 'serious consequences' could possibly come from having omitted one tragedy in a litany of tragedies on a speech that would have been ignored had not Israeli's complained?
Asking that does NOT make us anti-Catholic or bigots.
Nope, but it does make you look narcissistic and overly sensitive.
All we want is acknowledgement that our dead and injured are as valuable all all the other dead and injured.
Why does the value of Israeli dead require authentication from the Pope?
All terrorism is evil and should be treated as such.
Totally agree. When did the Pope claim, or do otherwise?
I think you know I feel the same.
What 'serious consequences' could possibly come from having omitted one tragedy in a litany of tragedies on a speech that would have been ignored had not Israeli's complained?
I don't think the Pope is often ignored. His influence is immense. By listing all the tragedies save one it gives the appearance that the particular tragedy in question, the suicide bombing in Netanya, is not in the same category. In light of the Catholic Church's longstanding support of the Palestinians and criticism of Israel it makes it seem that the bombing is justified and acceptable. That is what the Foreign Ministry is concerned about. Giving approval to terrorists, even by omission, even unintentionally, encourages more terrorism.
Nope, but it does make you look narcissistic and overly sensitive.
Did you read the Jerusalem Post article which was also posted to Free Republic? That put this in proper historical context. We are most certainly not over sensitive. If anything we were far too quiet during Pope John Paul II's pontificate.
Why does the value of Israeli dead require authentication from the Pope?
Don't be obtuse. By leaving out the Jewish dead the Pope is, perhaps unintentionally, sending the message that Jewish life, Israeli life, isn't as valuable or that the deaths were justified.
Totally agree. When did the Pope claim, or do otherwise?
Pope Benedict XXVI hasn't done yet, except by ommission. I, for one, am willing to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. Correct the ommission and you will see a very different message coming from Israel.
Hardly drama queen.
Me: He comes to the position too late in life, he comes from an entirely different background and he does not have the drive or energy that Pope John Paul II brought to the position (and age has a great deal to do with that).
Your Response: But he was the most qualified for the position, and that's what matters now.
FYI: You are probably correct. It is usually the practise, when a dynamic Pope has passed, to follow them with one who is well up in age and less dynamic. The intention is for to be sort of a Papal place holder and a period of quiet for the next, more dynamic, Pope.
Me: There is also a difference in style and approach, where Pope John Paul II immediately started reaching out to the world, in words and travel, this Pope will not; it isn't his style.
You: I'll grant you the fact that he's not as charismatic and personable as JP II, but he's a good man nonetheless. Popes are not elected to be divas. They're elected to lead the largest single religious denomination on Earth.
FYI: Strange that you should say he's not as charismatic and personable as John Paul II, when the whole time I've been saying he is not a John Paul II. As for the reason he was elected, it wasn't to be dynamic or to compete with the memory of John Paul II. Also, the Pope is not the leader of the largest single religious denomination on Earth.
Me: Through the efforts of John Paul II, again travel, words and deeds, the Catholic Church enjoyed major expansions in other parts of the world while it retreated in it's more traditional locations.
You: If charisma, personability and amount of travel were requirements to be a good pope, the Bill Cli(n)t(on) would be the best Pope ever.
FYI: That is a silly arsed comment but consistent with your over reactions.
OK, let's see:
You do a hit-and-run post an article unfairly critical of the leader of the largest Christian denomination on Earth, having "Anti-Semitism" as one of its headers, which can be interpreted as YA saying "The Pope is an Anti-Semite".
The Netanya events were unfortunately out of the time-frame of events spoken about by the Pope, so I don't think by any stretch of the imagination that he was consciously omitting the events to satisfy a perceived Anti-Semite bias from the Pope's part.
We don't need any reassurances from you, thank you very much.
Next time, try to think about the consequences that posting such ideologically charged articles might bring before posting them, and then not commenting on them (post-and-run).
Are you often embarrassed for other people? Generally I find that people who make the claim "to be embarrassed" for this person or that person are themselves (1) overreaching and brittle (2)uncomfortable to be with, and (3) nasty.
I don't post and run. I live in a very different time zone than most Freepers is all. It is very early morning here right now, on Wednesday, July 27. For most Americans it is the evening of the 26th.
I also stand by the article. You are the one choosing to ignore decades of anti-Israel bias by the church. The article accurately reports the concerns of the Israeli government and many Israelis, myself included. If you don't like my views, well... I though Americans believed in free speech.
Because it's my mission in life to be a thorn in everyone's side?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.