Sparks between the Vatican and Israel
Sorry for my lack of recent posts. I've been busy.
In Drudge, today. I saw a story titled Vatican Denounces Some Israeli Retaliation. Not good, although it may be overblown.
First off, this is the same Vatican that clearly denounced the Iraq War. In general, they denounce anything that involves killing people.
Second, the denunciation was implied, not official. It was part of a reply to a complaint by Israeli diplomats for not including a recent terror attack on Israel in a statement condemning bombings in Egypt, Britain, Iraq, etc. Specifically, the Vatican press office said: "It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation... 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."
According to the AP report, this "had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See."
If that is blistering, then you can blister me all day and I'd never notice it.
I think the AP is trying to stir up trouble in a delicate area.
Now, I wouldn't have made the same call the Vatican did. If the Israelis felt left out, the Vatican should have apologized, condemned the terror attacks against that country, and kept the issue of retaliation wholly separate. Failing that, they should have remained silent. The actions of terrorists fall under a different category from the actions of a democratic government.
I'd say that what came out of the press office was clumsy, maybe even petty. But no more anti-Israeli than was the Vatican's specific and official condemnation of the Iraq War anti-American.
In Drudge, today. I saw a story titled Vatican Denounces Some Israeli Retaliation. Not good, although it may be overblown.
First off, this is the same Vatican that clearly denounced the Iraq War. In general, they denounce anything that involves killing people.
Second, the denunciation was implied, not official. It was part of a reply to a complaint by Israeli diplomats for not including a recent terror attack on Israel in a statement condemning bombings in Egypt, Britain, Iraq, etc. Specifically, the Vatican press office said: "It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation... 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."
According to the AP report, this "had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See."
If that is blistering, then you can blister me all day and I'd never notice it.
I think the AP is trying to stir up trouble in a delicate area.
Now, I wouldn't have made the same call the Vatican did. If the Israelis felt left out, the Vatican should have apologized, condemned the terror attacks against that country, and kept the issue of retaliation wholly separate. Failing that, they should have remained silent. The actions of terrorists fall under a different category from the actions of a democratic government.
I'd say that what came out of the press office was clumsy, maybe even petty. But no more anti-Israeli than was the Vatican's specific and official condemnation of the Iraq War anti-American.
<< Home