Vatican raps Israel for 'denying disaster'

J Post ^ | 29 dec 04 | Staff

[iconoclast]

I'm not about to wade through 320 posts ... has this been sourced anywhere else?

[SJackson]

It looks like there may have been an error in translation from the Italian that got this whole thing started,

If you read the Catholic News Service coverage in post 31 you'll note that they say this ran in the early version of the Dec 29 edition run in print, not on the internet, the afternoon of Dec 28. IMO bothe Catholic News and the Jerusalem Post are reliable enough to get the content of a print newspaper right, even translating Italian, and any bias they'd show would be in opposition to each other. They both got the story the same way.

[M 91 u2 K]

Has what been sourced?

[SJackson]

Let's not forget that this article also ran in that well-known Zionist moutpiece L'osservatoir Romano (pardon the spelling). If there was any Vatican bashing going on, that's where it started.

Oops, should I have referred the CNS as that well know Zionist mouthpiece Catholic News Service. :>)

[iconoclast]

HAS THIS STORY APPEARED ANYWHERE ELSE?

[SJackson]

Jerusalem Post and Catholic News Service (link in earlier post). It's being picked up by a few other papers now, you could try google, but I suspect based on the JP and CNS news. You might note from earlier posts that CNS reports this appeared in the print copy of the Dec 29 issue released on Dec 28 in the afternoon.

[avital2]

according to Ha'aretz Dec 28/29 English edition the final Israeli delegation sent was smaller than original one intended - mainly medical people without the Defense Ministry people etc. at least they accepted the aid - and i'm glad they were able to find a way to negotiate.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Amen. that is what happens when liberals get into the vatican wood-pile.

[SJackson]

As I understand it from the collection of articles, Israel sent a "delegation" of 4 there to assess the situation, they recommended physical aid and medical/search and recovery personnel of about 150, which Sri Lanka refused saying they had no room for them, but that the supplies which Israel and private groups are sending are welcome.

Ironically the alJezerra article I posted in 277 may have gotten the story the best, presuming personnel from other countries were in fact turned down.

[iconoclast]

Thanks

[iconoclast]

I honestly can't see how the Vatican could have put that spin on it - Sri Lanka was pretty public about refusing Israeli aid.

Yes, and WHY they refused.

[jabotinsky]

yet one more good reason to HATE the vatican and all that it stands for.

f them.
f them all.

[M 91 u2 K]

Why are you asking me?

This story is more Muslim propaganda against Israel without any reliable sources.

[M 91 u2 K]

Oh that story the one about Muslims forcing Christians to leave areas they control in Israel well here it is

[M 91 u2 K]

These are the reasons why Israel includes a military component in their aid as does every nation including the UNITED STATES. Remember we are sending MARINES there.

a/ Israel's combined military/medical teams are renowned in rescue operations.

b/ Because of the continuing war by Muslims against Israel, Israel's economy cannot sustain/export serious humanitarian aid without the assistance of the IDF.

c/ Israel should not be sending top doctors and aid workers anywhere without protection (muslims target the doctors repeatedly).

d/ You can't seriously suggest that all U.S. aid is being flown and/or coordinated by civilians

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"Semitic peoples are not solely made up of Jews."

True. However, today the word "antisemitic" generally refers to Jewish Semite's. How many times have you heard "antisemitic" used in reference to "Arabs" or "Palastinians"?

A Semite is someone descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

A HEBREW is someone descended from Heber (or, "Eber"), one of the great-grandsons of Shem. So all Hebrews are Semites, but not all Semites are Hebrews. (Both Sunnite Arabs and Jews are Semites, and Hebrews.)

Six generations after Heber, Abraham was born to his line, so Abraham was both a Hebrew and a Semite, born of the line of Heber and Shem.

Ishmael was born of Abraham, and (Sunnite) Arabs (and specifically Muslims) consider themselves to be descendants of him, so they are both Semitic and Hebrews. Isaac was born of Abraham, then Jacob of Isaac. Jacob's name was changed to "Israel," and he fathered 12 sons. His sons and their descendants are called Israelites, and they would be both Semitic and Hebrew. However, this would not make either Abraham or Isaac "Israelites." Those who interchange the words "Jew" and Israelite, call Abraham a Jew, even though Abraham was not even an Israelite, and where the word "Jew" is not used in the Bible until 1,000 years AFTER Abraham.

One of Jacob-Israel's children was Judah (Hebrew - Yehudah). His descendants were called Yehudim ("Judahites"). In Greek this reads Ioudaioi ("Judeans"). The confusing thing here is that almost all Bible translations employ the word "Jew," which is a modern, shortened form of the word "Judahite." Every time you come to the word "Jew" in the Old Scriptures, you should read "Judahite;" and every time you come to the word "Jew" in the New Scriptures, you should read it as "Judean."

[CriticalJ]

Amen Brother. It is going insane.

[chemainus]

When has the Vatican NOT been anti-semitic? and not been anti-orthodox Christian?

[saradippity]

Thanks for the information,I have wondered about the origins of the various tribes and persons found in the Old and New Testaments for quite some time.

I think I remember once reading that the word Jew never appeared until the Bible was translated into English.

[xm177e2]

The Vatican paper observed that in what "should be a time for unconditional solidarity," some world leaders seem incapable of escaping a "small-minded approach that restricts their horizons."

AKA, in what should be a time of solidarity, elements within the Vatican take the opportunity to slime Israel...