The Vatican's Terrorism Omission

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | August 1, 2005 | Alan M. Dershowitz

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Nathan Zachary]

Waaah! The Pope didn't mention us, Waaah! Talk about making mountains out of mole hills...

[Sabramerican]

If Dershowitz, a Jew, had the same reaction to this incident as I, a Jew, had, and he likely did, I'll explain it to you.

The original omission triggered something in the Israeli Foreign Ministry that said enough of this crap leaving us out every time, since no one is a target as much as us. The Vatican could have responded with just about anything acknowledging that Israel is the frequent target of terrorism and that would have likely been the end of the matter.

Instead the response equating Israel to terrorists was so over the top disgusting that many Jews- particularly because we thought and hoped things had changed- are absolutely shocked and revolted.

And if Catholics who are friends can't understand that, I'm sorry.

[travlnmn41]

>>Pope Benedict XVI’s good and decent predecessor met with Arafat so often – more often than with almost any other world leader and certainly more often than with any terrorist.<<
Arafat was also the most frequent visitor to the White House during Clinton's administration, as far as "world leaders" go.

[Prime Choice]

Instead the response equating Israel to terrorists was so over the top disgusting that many Jews- particularly because we thought and hoped things had changed- are absolutely shocked and revolted.

You can add this Christian to the group of shocked and revolted. The lack of condemnation of Palestinian terrorism in these condemnations has reduced them from moral pronouncements to nothing but politicized diatribes.

What's even more disturbing is how the Vatican got its knickers in a knot when criticized about it.

Memo to the Vatican: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

[Prime Choice]

Arafat was also the most frequent visitor to the White House during Clinton's administration, as far as "world leaders" go.

Yet another sterling example of Komrade Klinton's "legacy."

[1john2 3and4]

For irony, in other news:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450068/posts

[Alberta's Child]

I think the Vatican formal response to Israel's complaint last week would apply to this article as well:

The Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from any other authority on the tone and content of its statements.

Mr. Dershowitz is full of sh!t, as are most of the people who are complaining about the Vatican's approach to this subject. It's interesting how these folks like to use the Vatican in a selective manner for statements on subjects that they hold dear, but reflexively condemn the Vatican when it makes formal statements that contradict their own political agenda.

It's no accident that Mr. Dershowitz has no love for the Vatican when it formally condemns abortion, for example -- an abomination that has killed far more Israelis than terrorism ever did.

[Tolik]

So, let's see: an Oscar winner names by name 5 people who she thinks were the most helpful in her getting the Oscar and then generally thanks all others. But you were no less crucial than these 5 and must have been named by name among that 5 or 6, are you going to buy an explanation: I named you when I said "I also grateful to all other people..."?

I don't like Oscars show, not very amused by all the stars and see it very boring when they read the long list of people to thank, but they do it for a very human reason. Vatican supposed to be well versed in human nature, no less than spoiled movie stars, don't you think?

[conservonator]

Many, if not most of the early Protestant theologians, including Luther, identified the RCC as the beast of Revelation. Could Islam be the Beast's catspaw (to usher in the time when no one may buy or sell without the mark)?

The pope knows who you are and where you live: expect Jesuits to visit soon.

BOO!

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Vatican never has, is not now, and never will be a true friend of Israel. It can't be because of its theology. That's just the way things are. And the Vatican is hardly alone in this department. Is the Patriarchate of Constantinople a friend of Israel? How about the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem? Of course not; they are implacable foes. Yet Israel doesn't get all out of joint because the Patriarchs don't love them. Why is the blessing of the Pope so desired???

Israel doesn't need the permission of the Vatican or of any one else to defend itself and its citizens. Of course, considering that the current government is about to evict Jews from their homes in `Azzah and Shomeron in order to make room for a "Palestinian state" (and jailing opponents to this policy), all this bluster aimed at the Vatican seems misplaced.

If the Israeli government is so dedicated to its citizens and the Jewish people, then why doesn't it cancel its suicidal eviction policy? Why doesn't it tell the rest of the world that there will be no Palestinian state? Why doesn't it evict the Arabs if it finds it so easy to expel people based on their ethnicity? Why doesn't it claim the Temple Mount, the very heart of 'Eretz Yisra'el? Israel doesn't need the Vatican or the United States or any other power on earth if it will submit to HaShem and the Torah.

My own initial reaction to this flap (surprising even to me) was to sympathize with the Vatican. This was because the whole thing seemed to come from nowhere, because the Vatican and the new Pope have so much more on their plate than the Middle East, and on those other issues the new Pope is such an improvement over his recent predecessors. Israel cannot be approached in isolation from these other issues because G-d is One. There are people who place priority on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality and there are people who want to treat Israel as separate from these issues, but they are both wrong. I have since my initial reaction been disappointed with the Vatican's remarks but what do you expect? The Vatican is what it is, and despite the fact that many conservative Catholics in the United States are sympathetic to Israel, this is not so in the rest of the world. This being the case, Israel should concentrate on settling the Land and defending itself and leave the Vatican to deal with moral issues. And if the Vatican is on the wrong side in the former instance, so be it. They think the Church is the "new Israel" (G-d forbid).

As for Alan Dershowitz, he is a putz and an atheist who believes that support for Israel is the true "radical" position. He is himself a mirror image of the Vatican in that he condemns the PLO and Arafat while remaining silent on all other Communists. Someone needs to mint a coin with his picture on one side and Buchanan's on the other.

Wake up, Israel. The Vatican is never going to love you like John Hagee or Jack Van Impe do. That's just the way it is. But what does it matter? If you would fulfill your Divine mission the Vatican (or anyone else) wouldn't matter in the slightest.

As Rabbi Kahana' (zt"l, Hy"d) said so often, it doesn't matter what the gentiles think; it only matters what the Jews do.

[avile]

And his secular Jewish liberal suppoerters didn't mind.
as amatter of fact most would have cared if he met with hamas.

[1john2 3and4]

ain't skeered

[avile]

And his secular Jewish liberal suppoerters didn't mind.
as amatter of fact most would not have cared if he met with hamas.

[Sabramerican]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1122776414356&p=1078027574097

[Zionist Conspirator]

>>Pope Benedict XVI’s good and decent predecessor met with Arafat so often – more often than with almost any other world leader and certainly more often than with any terrorist.<< Arafat was also the most frequent visitor to the White House during Clinton's administration, as far as "world leaders" go.

Exactly! You'll never hear or read Dershowitz calling Clinton "Arafat's President!"

[veronica]

I do believe Pope John Paul was a friend to Jews, and this was true before he was Pope. In fact as a very little boy he was utterly devoid of anti-semitism, quite the opposite.

But he's gone now, and if the Vatican wants to revert to the old ways, so be it. We don't need it's approval. If it becomes just another institution that thinks Jews will metaphorically walk into the ovens, Israel should treat it as such.