Posted on 08/01/2005 5:26:46 AM PDT by SJackson
Let us now try to understand the Vatican’s bizarre policy on terrorism. Recently Pope Benedict XVI condemned terrorist attacks against civilians in Great Britain, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey. In a pregnant omission – very pregnant in light of the Vatican’s long history of silence in the face of attacks against Jews – the Pope omitted any mention of the country that has suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks against civilians since 9/11, namely, Israel. When the Israeli government understandably protested the omission, the Vatican’s position became even more troubling. It singled out Israel for criticism, saying that that beleaguered nation’s responses to attacks against its civilians was “not always compatible with the rules of international law.” It then went on to say that the Vatican could not protest every Palestinian attack against Jewish civilians if Israel did not always follow international law.
Let’s try to understand what this means. Unless a country is absolutely flawless in its response to terrorism, the Vatican will not condemn terrorism against its civilian citizens. This seems to justify the killing of civilians as a protest against violation of international law. If that “moral” position is not bizarre enough, let us turn to the actual facts. Egypt’s response to terrorism is far, far more violative of international law than Israel’s. Egypt routinely tortures – I mean really tortures to death – suspected terrorists, to say nothing of mere dissidents. Turkey’s record is not all that much better. The U.S. and Great Britain have killed many more civilians in responding to terrorism in Iraq than Israel has done. So even if the Vatican’s statement of principle were morally acceptable – which it surely is not – that principle would in no way justify leaving Israel off a list that includes many worse violators of international law.
Moreover, the Vatican’s snippy condemnation of Israel for its reprisals is particularly untimely. Israel, unique among nations victimized by terrorism, has refrained from any significant reprisals over the past several months, despite the facts that terrorist attacks against its civilians continue. It has made a point of withholding its right to respond in the interests of facilitating peace.
Why, then, did the Vatican deliberately refuse to condemn terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel? I fear it is for the same reason that the Vatican took too long and did too little in protesting against the mass extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany. I suspect that it also has something to do with the Vatican’s love fest with the godfather of international terrorism, Yasser Arafat. 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 – that he came to be known as “Arafat’s Pope.”
The truth is that the Vatican has always had a Jewish problem. Today that problem focuses more on the Jewish state than on the Jewish religion. But the Vatican’s perverse refusal to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel raises even broader questions of discrimination.
So enough of the Vatican’s arrogant refusal to be scolded on moral grounds. Listen to its recent statement about Israel’s mild criticism: “The Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from other authority on the tone and content of its own statements.” Well, it better learn to start taking such lessons when it makes immoral and bigoted statements. The days are long gone when the Vatican, or any other religious group, is exempt from outside criticism, especially when it makes political pronouncements which can have the effect of encouraging terrorism. Good Catholics should begin apologizing right now for this most recent manifestation of a double standard against Jewish victims by the Vatican.
A recent fatwa issued by American Muslim leaders might serve as an example to the Vatican. It condemned all suicide bombings as in violation of Islamic law. Certainly Catholic morality demands no less.
Far be it for me to try to teach the Pope something about Catholic theology, but I seem to recall that for centuries Catholic teaching has distinguished between the willful targeting of innocent civilians, on the one the hand, and the inadvertent killing of civilians while pursuing appropriate military targets. The former is always morally prohibited, whereas the latter is permitted under the principle of double effect, unless the number of civilians killed is out of proportion to the military benefits obtained. Under this very Catholic principle, the Pope should always condemn all suicide bombings, and should only condemn disproportionate reprisals. If those principles were applied fairly to all nations, then the Vatican would have to include all terrorist attacks that target Israeli civilians. The Vatican should do that now, without equivocation.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Waaah! The Pope didn't mention us, Waaah! Talk about making mountains out of mole hills...
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.
>>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.
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.
Yet another sterling example of Komrade Klinton's "legacy."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450068/posts
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.
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?
The pope knows who you are and where you live: expect Jesuits to visit soon.
BOO!
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.
And his secular Jewish liberal suppoerters didn't mind.
as amatter of fact most would have cared if he met with hamas.
ain't skeered
And his secular Jewish liberal suppoerters didn't mind.
as amatter of fact most would not have cared if he met with hamas.
Exactly! You'll never hear or read Dershowitz calling Clinton "Arafat's President!"
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.
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.