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.
Israel is Judaism's religious capital. I don't think that there is any dispute about that.
I totally and completely agree with you that I, as a Jew, am an American. BTW, I emigrated to the US in 1982 from a Commonwealth country, and I am proud to call myself an American.
The Vatican, by ignoring or relegating terrorism in Israel is a slap in the face to me as a Jew, not as an American. It is Jews (and in some instances Israeli Arabs) that are dying in these terrorist attacks. Therefore, I as ta Jew, take very great offense at the Vatican's relegation of terrorism in Israel that somehow doesn't rise to the level of terrorism in, say, Bali or Brirain.
Furthermore, I don't believe that Israel speaks for all Jews at all. Never said that I did. However, since the people dying are predominantly Jews, I see it as a Jewish issue, just as I see the Holocaust as a Jewish issue.
Lastly, based on polls and interviews done in Moslem countries around the world, it appears to me that Iran DOES speak for all Moslems. The Moslem world is hostile to the non-Muslim world. That much I think is obvious. Iran sees us as the great Satan. The Moslem world agrees with that.
Your last paragraph, isn't accurate either. Do I, as a Jew, have loyalty to the State of Israel, of course I do. There are many Christians in FR that feel exactly the same way. I have a loyalty to Israel as my religious capital and as a staunch ally of the US. Many Christians have a loyalty to Israel for very similar reasons. Religiously, they support the State of Israel and also as one of our staunchest allies.
Lastly, religion tends to guide our thoughts and actions. It impacts our lives daily. it strikes me that anyone regardless of religion, will govern their lives, to a great extent, based on their religious principles. How can you be true to yourself and your religion if you do not? Example...abortion is roundly rejected by the Catholic Church. Yet, Catholics such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, support abortion on demand. And many people, myself included find that to be a contradictory position.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. I wanted to clarify this for you. Appreciate the dialog.
Best wishes...
So is the killing of American soldiers in Iraq - mainly Christians - an issue the Pope or the Protestant churches should deal with? Is it an religious issue? No, it´s political.
The Vatican has often condemned attacks on Israel, but it remarks, that some Israeli responses have been inappropriate. This definitely is not a Jewish conflict, but an Israeli one. Wouldn´t you agree, since it´s not about the attacks but Israeli responses?
The Muslims I know would never want Iran to speak for them. They´re integrated and feel like citizens first and Muslims second.
I didn´t deny that you have a loyalty to Israel as an ally. But I wouldn´t want you to be rather loyal to Israel than to the United States. And I wouldn´t want American Catholics to do what the Pope orders when it doesn´t serve American interests.
Religion, from my understanding, is something personal and should not directly affect politics. A religious person is well advised to act in consistance with his religion, but it´s not a must. I mean, it´s ok when you as a Jew don´t stand 100% behind what your religion wants you. A party member doesn´t need to support 100% what his party wants. It´s on your own - and on your religion, party, association, club, etc where to draw the line.
I believe that secularism has prevented many more deads in the judeo-christian world. And it´s something the Muslims should promote. When they allow Christian churches in their countries, when they stop preaching hate against infidelis, when they start to separate church and state and respect other religions, then one of the worst dangers will go down.
It all comes back to politics, and there's two sides to every story. I thought it was an inappropriate attack on Pope Benedict--the attacks he referenced had all occurred within a few days of his public address.
I am very much a sympathizer with Israel, and I see what happens there as affecting all the world (especially in a Biblical/prophetic sense), but we must acknowledge that what has been going on there for years is a war and has become, unfortunately, "old news" to the general public that looks for the "newest" news.
I always try to shop and visit with the Catholics from Jerusalem and Bethlehem who come to our parish a couple times a year to sell their goods, since they have so few tourists going over there. The last one was telling me that most of the Catholics have been forced out, except for maybe 3% of the population that refuses to leave. But they have been left with little or no support. They are protected by no one, and most would prefer they leave, also. Very sad.
What interests me is that you trolls whine that it was okay for France and Germany to do business with Saddam, and then you trot out this stuffto complain about.
Well, if it is okay for France and Germany...
"Did we forgot the harsh treatment orthodox jews give Christians of all faith in Israel, the beating they give them when they go into Palestian camps for humane purposes. " -mike0905
???
Source for this?
"American born-again Christians love Israel but can't stand the jews." -mike0905
What a false and arrogantly anti-semitic statement.
Here, let me ping some friends of mine to you.
You must mean the policy they adopted because of the training they received from the Israeli's...yes, I missed it also.
I have been a constant and steadfast defender of Israel, but this nonsensical criticism of the Vatican is over the top. Coupling this with the idiotic behavior of Sharon lately and arms sales to China, I may have to reconsider my position.
Israel was reestablished as the homeland for the Jews with the British Mandate. The British argued with the various nations to exclude Transjordan (Jordan) from Israel, because the British were making deals with an Arab King there. The British then prevented Jews from immigrating to Israel to the extent that they could by force while allowing huge numbers of Arabs to move to Israel. In the end, the British saw to it that all roads leading to Israel were occupied by Arab forces just before the British pullout. Then the day after the British pulled their army (which was warring against the Jews) out of Israel, the Arab nations attacked the Jews.
Although Israel was reestablished by the Mandate of nations as a "homeland" for Jews, the Jews have given Israel a democratic government with freedom of religious expression (thus, the frequent public messages of hatred against Jews by the generic Arab press there).
That bit of history is only the tip of an iceberg of millenia of distinctly Christian pogroms against Jews and attempts to exterminate them. I would be happy to give links to documents on that if you like.
Israel may not be safe for the Jews now (because of world churches and nations against them). But it is the only country that they can rely on to be free or to fight back from when their rights are violated (as is currently happening in Gaza--an action that anti-Jewish forces throughout the world will be sorry for, IMO).
Another Protestant church joins chorus of Israel critics [Disciples of Christ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450882/posts
The Church Stares Into the Abyss (The dhimmitude of the Church of England)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435084/posts
(Anti-Semitic) Anglican group urges Israel sanctions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430566/posts
United Church of Christ Considering Divestment from Israel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430835/posts
Anglicans Call for Sanction on Investment in Israel to Uphold Justice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430772/posts
THE VATICAN AND THE STANDOFF AT THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp515.htm
Russian Rabbi Investigated for Distributing Book of Jewish Law [Update,
more info.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431369/posts
Russia calls for banning Judaism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431407/posts
Russia probing whether Jewish law constitutes incitement ["first time
since Stalin's regime"]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431367/posts
Russian Orthodox Church Ready to Open up New Ecumenical Relationship with WCC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430815/posts
I love the smell of ozone in the afternoon. It smells like...kitties!
Can't wait to see what sequentially numbered handle he tries to come back with.
*chuckle*
No, over the top is saying that someone who straps explosives on and detonates themself in the middle of a crowd of innocent people is no worse then Israeli soldiers bulldozing the murdering terrorists home.
That is over the top, disgusting and shameful.
No need to "cook" anything up when the Vatican is making such boneheaded statements.
No, they are saying both actions are equal which is ludicrous, assinine and indefensible. Keep in mind, "Cardinal" Ratzinger also claims that wars can be just, but that the United States war on terror is unjust. You are right in one regard, such comments do display a certain mindset.
Oops...redo on that link. This one works.
‘Hundreds of cats will die due to pullout’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1454880/posts
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.Assuming that the Jerusalem Post hasn't fallen into the hands of rabidly antisemitic Catholics, I'll assume we can take this as an accurate description.
This makes your comparison of the Temple and the Vatican incorrect.
It's clear that Israel opposes terrorism in all it's forms. However, since the Vatican CHOSE to make a statement on terrorism and CHOSE to SPECIFICALLY exclude the Netanya bombing, the criticism, I believe, is valid. The contorted reasoning for the ommission, is even more inexplicable. I would think that Israel's attitude towards terrorism is self-evident. Perhaps you should take a look at Israeli statements after terror attacks and regarding terrorism in general.
The Vatican's statement was SPECIFIC in it's LISTING of recent terrorist attacks. It was not a general statement. Nor was it a statement regarding one specific attack. The fact that the Netanya attack didn't rate a mention, but was relegated to the status of an "also ran", is despicable and insulting. You are somehow attempting to connect the ommission of a terror attack in Israel from a list of terror attacks during the same time frame, with a demand for a statement on every terror attack singling out Christians. This makes absolutely no sense.
You will note that I didn't take Christian "organizations" to task for their failure to condemn the terror attack in Netanya. So why would you demand that Jewish organizations apologize for attacks on Christians? I fail to see the connection. That argument seems contentious at best.
I'm amazed, frankly, that you would even TRY and defend the Vatican on this one. If the Vatican had listed terror attacks during the same time frame and had mentioned Netanya but had not mentioned the London bombings, I would have been no less upset, just by the way.
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.