Some people are putting the screws to the Vatican for what they believe is moral equivalence between terrorism and protection of sovereignty in Israel’s strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. I’m still getting a handle on the whole situation there, and I haven’t been shy about criticizing certain Vatican diplomats’ past embraces of Palestinian terrorists at the expense of Israel, but I think the criticism may be a bit unwarranted here.
If you look at the statement by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the retiring Secretary of State, you’ll see a much more balanced approach. He does start off by condemning terrorist attacks on Israel, but he says that a response to such terrorism must be balanced. Is Israel putting civilians at risk in its attacks on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon? Is Lebanon giving willing safe harbor to Hezbollah or is it being strong-armed by the puppetmasters in Damascus? Plus, the Holy See understands that Israel is sitting on a powder keg. Any military action by Israel against its neighbors could ignite another war that could drag the whole world into it, and this time at least Israel has nukes and maybe some of the other players too. (Recall that some theorists say Saddam’s WMDs were smuggled into Syria.)
I don’t think the Vatican is saying that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself. And those who ask why the Vatican doesn’t speak out when Israel suffers terror attacks just aren’t paying attention. Every time there’s an attack the Holy See issues a telegram of condolences and condemnation of the violence.
After all, what else do they expect the Catholic Church to do, cheerlead for war? (This goes into the whole Iraq War/just war can of worms, which I’m not interested in reopening.)
You can criticize Sodano’s past approaches to dealing with Israel and her enemies, but I think the criticism here may be premature.
Technorati Tags:diplomacy, Israel, Lebanon, terrorism, Vatican, war
bk_keywords:Israel war.
(Recall that some theorists say Saddam’s WMDs were smuggled into Syria.)
Which is why, when the tanks roll into Bekka Valley on Monday, the reaction of Syria will be interesting to watch; if Hezbollah use WMD’s against the IMF, it will mean they were aquired under the watch of the current Damascus regime. If that is so, the war could spiral outward rather quickly—dragging Syria, Iran, and other Arab states into the fray.
We will see, Dennis. I hope it doesn’t turn into a huge tragedy—it certainly could easily enough. The consequences for escalation to a larger number of nations could be horrific. I am one of those who believe that the WMD are hidden but exist. There were too many reports in foreign newspapers to deny this, even though the American news refused to carry it out of bias.
The problem is that even though the whole world doesn’t really care so much about Israel’s problems, an escalation would set off a polarization over a lot of other things, like Korea’s behavior and the emerging Chinese nationalism qua international finances. The world has a lot of raw spots and is heavily leveraged (due to “globalism”—which has multiple definitions). It’s a mess.
Ipsonnen, the pope will not do that. The world has changed in ways that make it impossible; and even if it were possible I’m not sure what it would solve. What’s at stake for the Arab nations is their nationalism qua Arab world which they think has been maligned by the world for 1000 years. Regardless of the fact that it has little or no real basis, many of middle eastern heritage are rabid about it. It is my belief that if/when they ever get their hands on anything really important (nuclear etc) it will only put a finer point on the fact that the tenets of Islam are contradictory and the culture primitive. Not that this will be any surprise or any comfort in the face of a nuclear event. It’s all very sad.
And yes, Domenico, the Vatican is only saying what it makes sense for the Vatican to say and they know it. There is no controversy here.
A new crusade? How about trying to convert them, starting with the thousands here in our own countries?
if Hezbollah use WMD’s against the IMF, it will mean they were aquired under the watch of the current Damascus regime.
..And the Bush administration. If Iraqi WMDs really were smuggled out and used, that’d decimate the GOP.
if Hezbollah use WMD’s against the IMF, it will mean they were aquired under the watch of the current Damascus regime.
..And the Bush administration. If Iraqi WMDs really were smuggled out and used, that’d decimate the GOP.
—Kevin J. Jones
Am I missing something? As written, this makes absolutely no sense.
A number of supporters of the Administration noted that the WMDs were moved out of Iraq into Syria as we (the coalition) started the military action, and the WMDs were moved with the connivance or outright help of the Soviet Un…, I mean, Russia.
Would would think that it made the point that Sadaam had them in the first place.
In the area of diplomacy and foreign relations, I don’t place a lot of trust or faith in whatever Vatican spokesmen say, especially about the war against Israel. The Holy Spirit made simply have forgotten to give them the gift of perception and sense in this area.
Plus, John, they’re supposed to be running the church, not the world’s foreign affairs. And they’d be a lot more credible if the church were running well.
I think in order for me to care what they say a lot, they’d have to show they can get Archbishop Milingo under control first.
Never mind Palestine.
No, John. If it were actually reported, it would mean Bush and Blair were right. You’ll never hear that on NBC.
Joyce: I meant a literal embrace. Various Vatican envoys and even Pope John Paul himself lliterally embraced Yasser Arafat, the now-deceased terrorist. Oh sure, he gained legitimacy in his later years, but he was still responsible for much terrorism and did little to stop terrorist attacks on Israel when he was leading the Palestinians.