The big picture behind the Vatican spat

When the Foreign Ministry went very public last week with its protest to the Vatican over Pope Benedict XVI’s failure to condemn the July 12 Netanya suicide bombing, it clearly wanted to get the Vatican to stand up and take notice.

Otherwise, the ministry could have done what it had done numerous times in the past when John Paul II also did not condemn terrorism in Israel: protest quietly and through more conventional diplomatic channels — and not alert the press.

But unlike the previous low-profile attempts, this time the ministry got its wish and the Vatican paid attention. And then some.

Senior Foreign Ministry official Nimrod Barkan’s comment to The Jerusalem Post last Monday, charging that the late Pope John Paul II had not made it a practice of condemning terrorism in Israel, led to an uncharacteristically strident response by the Vatican on Thursday in which it told Israel to butt out of papal statements. The Vatican explained it couldn’t condemn all attacks on Israel, because these attacks were often followed by unlawful Israeli actions.

The only thing that would make this better is if it stopped raining here:…

(Or maybe I haven’t taken my pills today…)

The Israeli state has long played on the terrible memory of the Holocaust to disarm criticism. Since s11, it’s played on that terrible memory to justify its own illegal and violent acts by arguing that the violence directed at it - and against Israeli citizens - is dehistoricised and decontextualised disdain for “values” - rather than a historical struggle which has been re-ignited by the Sharon government’s scorn for the peace process.

Just assumed you wouldn’t lightly reject a link between manifestations of Israeli sensitivity and the recent murder of 6,000,000 of that people’s forebears.

Just assumed you wouldn’t lightly link all manifestations of Israeli sensitivity to the recent murder of 6,000,000 of that people’s forebears.

Silly me.

In this circumstance, to denounce terrorism in specific geographic locales, omitting Israel, is simply stupid. To later claim that one’s statement had nothing to do with specific geographic locale, is doubly so.

Geoff, I don’t know, you could be right. Or it might be a habit of thought inculcated by Vatican policy.

Occam’s Razor, Mark. I seriously doubt that the Vatican deliberately set out to piss the Israelis off and if I’m right, there’s no other explanation for what has unfolded other than a fuck up.

Support for a Palestinian homeland would not have been compromised by adding the Netanya bombing on to the country-specific list of terrorist bombings - the Palestinian Authority condemned it; why would the Vatican not do so?

As usual, I think Geoff has gone to the real nub of the issue presented here, however, by his reference to nuance. I think the Vatican has tried to be a little too cute and has been caught out. For my part, the balance of sympathy and the balance of understanding vis-a-vis its rigorous self-defence (including offensive self-defence) are still in Israel’s favour. I also suspect that Iran’s policy represents the real politics of sentiment throughout much of the Middle East, however much other nations there have pragmatically accepted the very different orientation we call realpolitic.

I think this was a bad error of judgement, loosely founded on the pro-statist policy of the Vatican but forged in politically correct, media-savvy expediency. The obvious solution would have been to add both Israel and Palestine to the list of places where terrorist organisations have lately caused death, mayhem and discord - as, in the latter location, civil strife indubitably has. The Holy See can rarely take sides in secular affairs. That is a strength in its diplomatic modus operandi. It is a distinct weakness, however, where - as I claim - the balance of moral sympathy is self-evidently to be apportioned to one side.

Yes, I do believe the upshot is the Vatican has given moral impetus and gravitas to the cause of non-state actors taking terrorist action against Israel.

The Vatican did not recognise the State of Israel until 1993.

Pope Paul VI explained why in 1975:

In 1975 Pope Paul VI stated, “we are conscious of the still very recent tragedies which led the Jewish people to search for safe protection in a state of its own, sovereign and independent,” but for this very reason “we would like to ask the sons of this people to recognize the rights and legitimate aspirations of another people who have also suffered for a long time, the Palestinian people.” Recognition of the state of Israel was withheld by the Vatican in part because it saw the legitimacy of the state of Israel as resting on the 1946 U.N. partition plan that also granted to the Palestinians a state of their own on the remaining territory of historic Palestine. The Vatican declined to recognize the state of Israel until a Palestinian state was also recognized.

As to John Paul II’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

During the pope’s visit to Bethlehem March 22, 2000, Pope John Paul II responded to Yasir Arafat’s greetings by declaring his support for Palestinian human and national rights. The Palestinians are said to have a “natural right to a homeland.” The pope reiterated the Vatican’s position that no peace in the area would be possible without “stable guarantees” for the rights of all peoples involved, based on U.N. resolutions. The pope deplored the sufferings of the Palestinian people, rooted in the denial of economic and cultural development, deprived of a “home of their own, their proper place in society and the possibility of a normal working life.” From the Vatican’s perspective, it is clear that “peace” in the area is not simply a matter of stopping exchange of violence on both sides, but, more fundamentally, establishing for Palestinians a just and viable basis for daily life in a homeland of their own.

The article from which I’m quoting has more.

Quite so Geoff. I think the overwrought Vatican response indicates they didn’t like being called out on this. At. all.

First, a communique is issued stating Israel is explicitly not mentioned in such circumstances; then Dr Navarro-Valls says Israel was left off a generalised list for no particular reason. In Washington or Canberra, that’s called ’spin.’ Or ‘lying’ everywhere else.

Not good.

And yes, Mark, I regard as shocking a statement from the Holy See arguing Israel is somehow not worthy of being considered a victim of terrorism. This is he stupidest thing the Vatican has done in tense geopolitical circumstances since Roncalli met Kruschev’s son-in-law as a demonstration of his doomed ‘Ostpolitick.’ That didn’t go down well in the Gulag Archipelago.

Individual non-judicial assassinations, collective punishment (including bulldozing the houses of the families of suicide bombers), mortar and tank attacks and bombings of refugee camps and Palestinian government buildings - all these actions by the Israeli state deserve condemnation in the strongest terms and cannot be justified as legitimate self-defence because they are illegal and/or kill and maim civilians who are not responsible for the attacks.

Of course, attacks against innocent Israeli citizens are equally deserving of the strongest condemnation.