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?
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).