Baseless Pretext And Invented Contention
Vatican says the recent accusations by Israel foreign minister official, Nimrod Barkan is baseless. Entire story from Asia News.
“The indefensible accusation against Pope Benedict XVI according to which he failed to mention the July 12 terror attack in Netanya after last Sunday’s Angelus could not but be seen by who made it for what it was: a pretext. Perhaps, this is also the reason why attention shifted to John Paul II’s alleged silence over attacks against Israel in years past, inventing the contention that the Israeli government made numerous protests to the Holy See, and that, under the new Pontificate, the Holy See change its attitude [towards Israel].
For this reason, it is important to point out that:
a) the interventions of John Paul II against every form of terrorism and against every single act of terrorism against Israel have been many and public, as the statement makes clear;
b) it’s not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation and [that is] for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law. It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence;
c) just as the Israeli government understandably doesn’t allow itself to be told by others what it should say, neither can the Holy See accept teachings and directives by some other authority regarding the leaning and content of its own statement.”
“The indefensible accusation against Pope Benedict XVI according to which he failed to mention the July 12 terror attack in Netanya after last Sunday’s Angelus could not but be seen by who made it for what it was: a pretext. Perhaps, this is also the reason why attention shifted to John Paul II’s alleged silence over attacks against Israel in years past, inventing the contention that the Israeli government made numerous protests to the Holy See, and that, under the new Pontificate, the Holy See change its attitude [towards Israel].
For this reason, it is important to point out that:
a) the interventions of John Paul II against every form of terrorism and against every single act of terrorism against Israel have been many and public, as the statement makes clear;
b) it’s not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation and [that is] for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law. It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence;
c) just as the Israeli government understandably doesn’t allow itself to be told by others what it should say, neither can the Holy See accept teachings and directives by some other authority regarding the leaning and content of its own statement.”
2 Comments:
This just doesn't wash! Israelis were upset not for this or that teror attack in the past that did not get a comment from the Vatican but rather that in his most recent statement, afte the terror attack on London, the Pope referred to terrorism all over the globe and did not mention the daily assaults upon Israelis. Totally left out.
If the Vatican is displeased by Israeli reactions to suicide bombings upon its citizens, ils the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killing of some 25 thousand Iraqui civilians accceptable as a part of international guidelines for humanitarian good works?
Dear Fred,
Thank you for your comments.
Because of the long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Vatican has always acted as a mediator between the two nations and can only do so in the best of efforts and discernment, according to the norms of international law.
Moreover, the Vatican raised the issue of the Isreali reactions to the suicide bombings not only as the truthful defense against Mr. Barkan's unfounded accusations against Pope Benedict XVI that he purposely left out the terrorist attacks in Netanya as if he didn't care. This is absured - Benedict loves Israel (after all, he takes on the Judeo-Christian heritage) but also as a serious rebuke on the vicious attacks to the memory of the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II.
A foreign minister official from Isreal is now being dispatched to Washington DC trying to rectify the damage that Mr. Barkan has done to the image of Israel and to relations with US Catholics. He has now to give a reason for breaking the promise of advanced negotiations with the Holy See.
As for the war on Iraq, that is a totally separate issue.
God bless you.
Post a Comment
<< Home