Posted on 07/31/2005 9:43:24 PM PDT by 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.
this nonsense again...please, give it up...it's a dead horse
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.
Keep in mind that the Catholic church is only one of the many Christian denominations and doesn't speak for the others.
Note to the Vatican: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bttt
Rome has had practice kowtowing to fascists. This is nothing new.
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.
DUH?!?!?
If Israel wants to stand up and say "you big hypocrites" to someone, they pays their money and they takes their choice.
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.
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.