Analysis: The big picture behind the Vatican spat

Jerusalem Post ^ | 01AUG05 | HERB KEINON

[George W. Bush]

Can you give me the date this article was written?

Several Jewish websites have printed it.

Google hits for 'volunteer medic with Magen David Adom'

I don't think this account of the bombing was picked up by any major media.

At the bottom of the Aish.com version, they list it as published August 11, 2002.

[CWOJackson]

Article? Do you mean the description of the victims of the terrorist bomber?

The date is pretty much unimportant, the carnage is always the same.

[sofaman]

okay..I'll make your day. Israel was wrong, I was wrong..the world is wrong. You are right. I'm sure that makes you feel much better.

You resort to veiled insults such as "until you learn to use a calender". Since I mentioned specific dates, I apparently do know how to use one.

Your agenda is clear. The fact that you "couldn't care less" about the Netanya attack speaks volumes.

The fact is that neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict has been critical of terrorism aimed at Israel. According to the Vatican's own spokesman, they object to Israel's methods of retaliation. I guess the Israelis should turn the other cheek, and lie down and die because the Vatican has a problem with the Israelis retaliatory tactics. God forbid, the Vatican should acknowledge that the problem sems from palestinian terror.

You can parse and nitpick all you want about 3 days and attempted attacks (such as the attempted attacks in Britain and Israel). The FACT is that the Vatican has for years, studiously avoided condemning terrorist attacks in Israel. That's fact. You can play your word games and show us how brilliant you are by levelling thinly veiled (but childish) insults to illustrate your debating skills.

Simple fact: Jews are dying and Jewish blood, as usual, is not as important as non-Jewish blood. Israelis have endured attacks for almost 60 years. Which other country would accept this? Which other country would be told that reprisals are "not helpful"? Thousand of Jews have died over the past 50+ years and you are wrapped up in snide little nonsenses, word parsing and timeline nitpicking.

Excuse the Vatican's statement all you want. I am disgusted by it. I'm sick and tired of terrorist attacks in Israel that are "ho hummed" by the media, by world governments and by people such as yourself who look to excuse the lacksadaisical attitude that the world has adopted to the spilling of Jewish blood. All terrorism is wrong. All terrorism should be condemned, not just certain attacks.

Nobody tried to vilify the Pope. I watched the installation of Benedict and was so impressed by the dignity of the man and the reverence with which he was viewed. His words carry tremendous weight and, whatever your belief system, we pay attention to his pronouncements.

The fact is that once again, a sitting Pope has failed to specifically denounce terrorism against Israel, and attempt to mitigate the ommission with some cockamamie story about it being included in the general statement against terrorism and that they object to Israel's reprisal tactics, which the Vatican views as contrary to international law. I guess blowing up kids in a pizza parlor conforms to international law.

Your excuses notwithstanding, it is very sad indeed to see the position taken by the Holy See on terrorism in Israel.

You evidently believe that Israel was out of line. It is my belief that they weren't pointed enough. The planet is prancing through this WOT, afraid to step on the eggshells that might offend Moslems. And I, for one, am sick and tired of this. It is way past time to confront this cancer with all means at the civilised world's disposal. And the Pope can either take a stand or not. As far as I am concerned, my respect for this Pope and the Holy See as the conscience of the world, has been greatly diminished.

I will no longer involve myself in this tortured discussion. I haven't seen a single quote from anyone at the Vatican that indicates that they were only referring to a 3 day period, which forms the basis of your argument. The fact is that the Vatican's reaction to terrorism in Israel is, historically, lukewarm, at best. And this instance clearly illustrates this. And your defense of this policy, is pretty darn disgusting.

[George W. Bush]

okay..I'll make your day. Israel was wrong, I was wrong..the world is wrong. You are right.

Well, it's rare for people in such pointed disagreement to readiliy admit to a shortcoming in their factual premise.

Your agenda is clear. The fact that you "couldn't care less" about the Netanya attack speaks volumes.

Your prior admission is obviously merely a pretext to launch into another attack, this time personal since you failed to prevail by twisting the actual facts.

The fact is that neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict has been critical of terrorism aimed at Israel. According to the Vatican's own spokesman, they object to Israel's methods of retaliation.

I really don't see how anyone thinks that pursuing your desired goal (change of Vatican foreign policy in an enduring way) by attacking the current-events portion of a pope's little sermonette during Mass can actually be considered a serious pursuit of a foreign policy objective. Using the foreign ministry and press of Israel to bash on the pope over the contents of a tiny weekly sermon is lunacy.

You can parse and nitpick all you want about 3 days and attempted attacks (such as the attempted attacks in Britain and Israel). The FACT is that the Vatican has for years, studiously avoided condemning terrorist attacks in Israel.

No, the fact is that you were wrong. You were entirely wrong and either made up your facts to lynch this pope with or you went on the attack ignorant of the actual facts. Your posts make this quite evident.

Simple fact: Jews are dying and Jewish blood, as usual, is not as important as non-Jewish blood. Israelis have endured attacks for almost 60 years. Which other country would accept this?

Then stop accepting it. If it were me, I would have expelled the Palis long ago, established a firm and immutable border and made it clear that any breach of that border by neighboring countries would be an act of war. This endless negotiation and allowing Labor and foreigners to keep negotiating is exactly what invites these attacks. It does more to encourage the terrorists than some little listing of terrorist incidents in a papal sermonette will ever do.

Israel is only safe when it's tough and ruthless about its border and provocation by neighbors. The last 60 years proves it abundantly. And the present path of negotiation with the Palis is what encourages the terrorism, not the pope's little sermonettes.

His words carry tremendous weight and, whatever your belief system, we pay attention to his pronouncements.

Unless his actual words interfere with a willful distortion of the circumstances and timeliness of his little sermonette when trying to make him out as someone whose words actually, perhaps actively, encourage terror attacks against Israel. Then paying attention to his words is pretty much optional.

You evidently believe that Israel was out of line.

Because, quite obviously, they were.

It is my belief that they weren't pointed enough.

Distorting what the pope said and pretending he made some sweeping statement about terrorism, deliberately ignoring Netanya, during the current-events portion of his little sermonette isn't the time to make such a point. Granting your point that the Vatican needs to take a stronger stand against terrorism against Israel, this is one piss-poor way to pursue your foreign policy objectives.

Again, I think they're trying to avoid treaty obligations to the Vatican and this was all a staged pretext to that. And it was half-baked, given that the original press statement by Israel was filled with grammar errors and was poorly worded like a rush job, at least according to all the reporting on the quality of the writing.

Shabby on all counts.

As far as I am concerned, my respect for this Pope and the Holy See as the conscience of the world, has been greatly diminished.

Well, there's your problem. He's not the conscience of the world. This sort of view of the pope is exactly why Protestants object to elevating spiritual dicators. Frankly, I don't grasp how faithful Jews could remotely consider the pope to be their conscience or that of the entire world, nor can I imagine why they would want anyone else to do so. I can't imagine most rabbis being too thrilled that anyone is suggesting that the pope is 'the conscience of the world'.

I haven't seen a single quote from anyone at the Vatican that indicates that they were only referring to a 3 day period, which forms the basis of your argument.

It was printed in many papers around the world. The statements were made by papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls on July 25, following the Israeli screed. Naturally, the Jerusalem Post didn't bother to mention it in this article. The same way it kept listing the pope's remarks as a 'papal statement', never mentioning that his remarks were part of his little weekly sermonette.

I keep wondering if you would be willing to apply this same standard to synagogues. Would you, for instance, condemn any rabbi who mentioned the same four items in their weekly remarks to their congregation but neglected, as the pope did, to list those of the previous week? Would such rabbis then be guilty of being soft toward terrorism against Israelis, of encouraging the terrorists to attack Israel?

I don't think so. And I'd bet you could find some rabbis who gave just about the same sermon the pope did on July 25.

The fact is that the Vatican's reaction to terrorism in Israel is, historically, lukewarm, at best.

If true, attacking a weekly sermonette on current events is pretty damned dumb. I still say that Israel is just creating a pretext to avoid discussing, as their treaty with Rome obligates them to do, the legitimate historically-recognized property rights of the Roman church. There are a number of other statements from the Israeli government that deal directly with this, including one in which the foreign ministry has asserted publicly (to the Knesset) that they are actually not bound in any way by that treaty made ten years ago. This has all been on the public record.

And your defense of this policy, is pretty darn disgusting.

You mean, I won on the facts but you want to take cheap shots and pretend I'm some sort of repulsive Nazi because I wouldn't let you skew the facts and vilify the pope. Okay, fine with me.