Replies

Israel has many sites that are considered religious sites to Jews. Top of the list, obviously, is the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. However, there are any number of religiously symbolic sites, which is why Jews have refused to leave Hebron, for example. This explains why many Orthodox Jews choose to live in Sfat. So the argument that it is the "Temple that counts" is erroneous.

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.

This makes your comparison of the Temple and the Vatican incorrect.

Ah. But I learn from your responses.

It's clear that Israel opposes terrorism in all it's forms.

And, as the article admits, the Vatican has issued many general condemnations of terrorism. Just like any other Western government. Just like Israel.

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 Vatican chose specifically a three-day period immediately preceding its statement. You had to go back much further to get to Netanya. I believe that the Vatican was trying to draw attention to those things which its adherents would have seen and heard about via the media in the last few days, pounding home the injustice of it and the global nature and the fact that living in the First World is no guarantee of safety. In the general cause of opposing terror, any report from Palestine and Israel is another also-ran. But when it strikes in unexpected places (outside Ireland or Israel), then governments and organizations can try to build political support to oppose it. And let's remember, the Vatican is mostly a bully pulpit. They don't have armies these days (thank God).

The Vatican's statement was SPECIFIC in it's LISTING of recent terrorist attacks. It was not a general statement.

So would it then satisfy you if the Vatican in the future only issues general condemnations of terrorism, not mentioning any specific attack? Then will you leave the poor old pope alone? Will that satisfy the Israeli Foreign Ministry too?

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 mean, the Vatican also issued another list of Best Runner-Up Terror Act or something? Is that what this Also-Ran list is? You make it sound like you lost a beauty pageant.

Does the phrase 'current events' mean anything to you? In politics, it means a lot. You have to drive the idea home with people before the memory of the events fade away. And until Israel started beating up the pope, I hadn't even heard about Netanya. Now I could care less after you and others have gone to such lengths to vilify the pope more than you have the terrorists themselves. One would think that the pope planned and directed the attacks himself, given all the wailing and finger-pointing coming from Israel.

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.

But in fact, you are demanding that the Vatican should include a condemnation of terrorism against Israel no matter how much earlier it occurred than those in the current news. So it is clear, you require one standard for everyone except Israel. For Israel, there apparently is no standard, no need to reciprocate terrorism denunciations in any way. Israel can issue these general declarations but everyone else must, if they mention a specific incident, include an Israeli incident however long it has been since it occurred.

So, do you hold all governments to this standard? Did each and every government, say, just in NATO, actually condemn the Netanya incident in the same ways they condemned the later ones in the Vatican statement? Or is this a standard that is being applied only to the Vatican's statements? Seriously, what is it you think you'll get from the Vatican doing what you want? Do you imagine that the suicide bombers will suddenly say, "Ooh, the pope's getting mad, we'd better cancel our schedule of terror bombings" or something? And they won't be saying "The Jews put those words in the pope's mouths following the teachings of their secret Protocols"?

They're terrorists. It's what they do. It's who they are. You have to find them and kill them. And you don't make peace with the Palestinians until you're sure you've got the job done. Pope-bashing isn't a very effective way to fight terrorism though I'm sure it gives you a warm little feeling inside.

To return to the real motives of the Israel Foreign Ministry, now supported by the JP, I still think they are trying to exclude an official Vatican presence in Israel. But why should Israel expect the Vatican to issue such statements on its behalf when Israel is no more welcoming to papal envoys than are its Muslim neighbos? Israel allows Muslims and mosques. But no official Vatican presence.

I still think this all goes back to a mealy-mouthed excuse to keep the Vatican out of Israel via a lame pretext. And Israel knows they're not making any friends by beating up the new pope. So they're simply willing to pay the political price for this in order to continue their stalling tactics, hoping the U.S. will let them get away with failing to meet their treaty obligations. And we probably will.