That silence from Rome was quite deafening.
Where is the condemnation of pallies raghead suicide bombers, and the rightous anger at such tactics?
Peace, peace, peace, is all that is said and it doesn't mention that the only way the arabs are going to settle for peace is upon the dead body of every Israeli, man, woman and child.
Unitl the church can take a stance that is not pro-arab terrorist, then it needs to be quiet and deal with its own messes.
The New York Times editorials at the time praised the Pope for his courageous words and stance in support of the Jews. Romulus, do you have the dates handy so that dreadme can look them up at the library? Only those with an agenda against that particular Pope or the Catholic Church have been repeating the lie that he was silent. Granted he wasn't overtly explicit, but that isn't how diplomacy works and everyone at the time knew exactly what he meant. He was also concerned that if he spoke too forcefully, it would backfire and more Jews would be rounded up. It's too easy to armchair quarterback from 50 or 60 years out. Besides, actions speak louder than words and he did more to save actual Jewish lives during the war than ANYONE else. He even housed them in his papal residences.
Where is the condemnation of pallies raghead suicide bombers, and the rightous anger at such tactics?
If you read my post #91 on another thread, you can see that he does condemn the Arab terrorists. He even "lectures" the Arab representative to the Vatican, but there is no mention of a similar treatment of an Israeli representative.
From Israel President writes to Pope on Bethlehem siege:
The Vatican newspaper condemned the killing of eight bus passengers by a Palestinian suicide bomber and violence in the Jenin refugee camp. "In the Middle East, there appears to be no bottom to the abyss that has been dug by hate," L'Osservatore Romano said in an editorial.