In undisclosed call, Pope Francis warned Israeli president against committing ‘terror’

[essentialsaltes]

It is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror,” Francis said, according to a senior Israeli official familiar with the call, which has not been previously reported.

Herzog protested, repeating the position that the Israeli government was doing what was needed in Gaza to defend its own people. The pope continued, saying those responsible should indeed be held accountable, but not civilians.

That private call would inform Israeli interpretations of Francis’s polemic statement, at his Nov. 22 general audience in St. Peter’s Square, that the conflict had “gone beyond war. This is terrorism.” Taken with the diplomatic exchange — deemed so “bad” by the Israelis that they did not make it public — the implication seemed clear: The pope was calling their campaign in Gaza an act of terrorism.

 

[Chesterton]

In even bigger news, an atheist appears to care about what a Roman pope says.

 

[sandman]

Armchair quarterbacks …..Making calls and voicing opinions from the comfort and security of their own abode.
Removing a threat is not terror …it’s prudent and unfortunately necessary, for the preservation of Israel and its inhabitants.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Removing a threat is not terror

That goal is not terror. But the tactics used to achieve it may be illegal under the accepted rules of warfare. (Or 'terror' in the eyes of a religious figure.)

 

[sandman]

Separating the wheat from the chaff has got to be difficult, since Hamas tactic is to imbed within the community. That is a warfare constraint I would not want to deal with. I have heard Israel is making every attempt to ensure the safety of innocent civilians …. Which I have a tendency to believe based on their culture …. But I don’t know. …

What I do know is…. everybody has an opinion and most of them are based on emotional, religious, or political influences…. not on the firsthand experience of having your homeland invade and suffer the atrocities that Israel experienced. It doesn’t matter if you like Israel or not …. If you jack with me, my friends, my neighbors, my country …. all bets are off….and the only way to ensure the safety and security in the future…. is to clean house. …….. It’s war, and it’s never pretty, and it’s not won by kowtowing to those in castles.

 

[eleos1954]

It is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror,” Francis said, according to a senior Israeli official familiar with the call, which has not been previously reported.

Herzog protested, repeating the position that the Israeli government was doing what was needed in Gaza to defend its own people. The pope continued, saying those responsible should indeed be held accountable, but not civilians.

That private call would inform Israeli interpretations of Francis’s polemic statement, at his Nov. 22 general audience in St. Peter’s Square, that the conflict had “gone beyond war. This is terrorism.” Taken with the diplomatic exchange — deemed so “bad” by the Israelis that they did not make it public — the implication seemed clear: The pope was calling their campaign in Gaza an act of terrorism.

War and terrorism are two different things. In war terrorism might occur. In war there are unwanted causalities (of the innocents) .... the casualties can be limited but not exclusively eliminated. War is extremely violent ... and most people don't condone wars ... however we accept that a country has a right to protect itself.

Hamas did attack Israel and committed terrorist acts (butchery),heinous acts of violence against Israel and invaded their borders ... this is what started the war. Because Hamas uses the Palestine citizens as human shields it makes it difficult for Israel to proceed without some collateral damage. Certainly not to make light of this ... nobody wants innocents to die ... but we know this occurs during all wars, it's just an unfortunate fact.

Israels response to being attacked and invaded is not unwarranted .... Hamas invaded their country. The pope now calling Israels response a terrorist act is completely unwarranted ... the intent of Israel is not genocide of the Palestine people but the elimination of Hamas of who IS a terrorist group of people within Palestine ... as seen by their heinous acts against innocent people who were attending a dance festival and then progressed forward from there.

Bottom line .... it's really nobodies business but Israels and how they proceed is up to them. If indeed Israel wanted to totally obliviate the Palestinian people they could certainly do that .... but they have and are providing ways people can escape the fall out from the war.

War is ugly and unfortunately unwanted casualties do occur.

It seems the pope is not taking into consideration the complexity that is involved to eliminate Hamas (a terrorist group) that is mixed in with the Palestinian population.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Bottom line .... it's really nobodies business but Israels and how they proceed is up to them.

If they proceed in a way that violates international law, we should know about it.

 

[eleos1954]

If they proceed in a way that violates international law, we should know about it.

and what would that be exactly?

 

[Chesterton]

If they proceed in a way that violates international law, we should know about it.

Not if they're protesting. Although it's hard to actually find, I've been told that there's an international "right to protest". Israel is just engaging in a "mostly peaceful protest" of Hamas.

 

[Bradskii]

Bottom line .... it's really nobodies business but Israels and how they proceed is up to them.

So if you're not involved in something it's none of your business? That's an abbrogation of basic humanity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Call me crazy, but I would think that constructive criticism would likely be taken into consideration a little more coming from leaders that are within the same religion. Perhaps maybe some higher ranking Rabbis and Jewish leaders?

Not sure why anyone would expect the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to have any clout or influence over a nation of Jewish people.

Do you think he wrapped up the call with telling him to remember WWJD?

 

[eleos1954]

So if you're not involved in something it's none of your business? That's an abbrogation of basic humanity.

Each country establishes how it will protect itself ... and in that regard it's up to them.

 

[Bradskii]

Each country establishes how it will protect itself ... and in that regard it's up to them.

How they do it affects us all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How they do it affects us all.

Only if we keep paying for it...

More and more, I'm leaning toward the Glenn Greenwald point of view where we should be staying out of as many foreign entanglements as humanly possible. (that includes both the Israel and Ukraine situations)

Mainly for the reason that it would create more moral clarity about the underlying societal/ideological issues that certain cultures may or may not have that need to be addressed vs. which ones are being artificially created by outside stimuli.

As it stands right now, if a Palestinian American decided to do something violent in an American city, we wouldn't be able to pinpoint the true impetus behind it with 100% confidence.

Is it because there's something specific to Islam that radicalizes people?
Or is it because Israel just dropped a bomb on his uncle's house back home that the US government bought for them?

Take the US foreign funding out of the equation, it removes a confounding variable.

 

[Bradskii]

Only if we keep paying for it...

More and more, I'm leaning toward the Glenn Greenwald point of view where we should be staying out of as many foreign entanglements as humanly possible. (that includes both the Israel and Ukraine situations)

Mainly for the reason that it would create more moral clarity about the underlying societal/ideological issues that certain cultures may or may not have that need to be addressed vs. which ones are being artificially created by outside stimuli.

As it stands right now, if a Palestinian American decided to do something violent in an American city, we wouldn't be able to pinpoint the true impetus behind it with 100% confidence.

Is it because there's something specific to Islam that radicalizes people?
Or is it because Israel just dropped a bomb on his uncle's house back home that the US government bought for them?

Take the US foreign funding out of the equation, it removes a confounding variable.

I'm not saying that we should physically get involved, either directly or indirectly. I'm emphasising the moral considerations. We can't ignore the moral implications of an act because it doesn't directly affect us. If a neighbour is beating his wife you can't say 'Well, it's nothing to do with me.' And if a country is ignoring the safety of non combatants in a war, then we need to call that out as we see fit.

And you'll be aware that here's a huge problem in threads about the current conflict that when anyone does that then there's an immediate response to suggest that you somehow support the opposite side.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not saying that we should physically get involved, either directly or indirectly. I'm emphasising the moral considerations. We can't ignore the moral implications of an act because it doesn't directly affect us. If a neighbour is beating his wife you can't say 'Well, it's nothing to do with me.' And if a country is ignoring the safety of non combatants in a war, then we need to call that out as we see fit.

And you'll be aware that here's a huge problem in threads about the current conflict that when anyone does that then there's an immediate response to suggest that you somehow support the opposite side.

I understand that...but where the situations differ is that in the scenario of a neighbor beating his wife, and I decide to go over there and "intervene", that's a direct action by me, that fully represents me, in which I'm willing to stand by and deal with the consequences.

In the case of military funding via foreign aid, that decision is happening by proxy, without getting a buy-in or consensus from the people who are ultimately paying for it.

What I was referring to is the safety aspect of everyday citizens. If the US government (whether it be by direct involvement, or by funding) is doing something to make more people hate Americans, and that causes Americans to get hurt via terrorism, we can't say whether or not that propensity for terrorism is something inherent in an ideology (at which point, we could address it with moral clarity) or if it's because the US government did something to push them to that point (which means they have culpability).

Time for one of my analogies.

If I pay a guy to spit in "Joe Smith"'s drink and take a nonchalant attitude about it, and Joe Smith ends up punching me in the face, even if everyone has a pretty good idea that there's some underlying problems with Joe Smith that was creating some erratic behavior, I can't definitively blame it on that when I've clearly done something to provoke him.

 

[Bradskii]

What I was referring to is the safety aspect of everyday citizens. If the US government (whether it be by direct involvement, or by funding) is doing something to make more people hate Americans, and that causes Americans to get hurt via terrorism, we can't say whether or not that propensity for terrorism is something inherent in an ideology (at which point, we could address it with moral clarity) or if it's because the US government did something to push them to that point (which means they have culpability).

If we're talking about a more direct involvement then yes, there's a risk that there may be a price to pay. So as regards my neighbour, even if I just call the police then he might, at some point, take his anger out on me. So do I do nothing? I say that I have a moral obligation to do something. Even if someone else has called the police and I make a statement, then there's a risk.

You can't isolate yourself from the world.

 

[Vanellus]

Call me crazy, but I would think that constructive criticism would likely be taken into consideration a little more coming from leaders that are within the same religion. Perhaps maybe some higher ranking Rabbis and Jewish leaders?

Not sure why anyone would expect the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to have any clout or influence over a nation of Jewish people.

Do you think he wrapped up the call with telling him to remember WWJD?

Not quite sure why only "higher ranking" voices count?

 

[eleos1954]

How they do it affects us all.

Yes and No ... the magnitude of wars depends on if NATO gets involved or not. When NATO gets involved then there is more of a global effect.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror,” Francis said, according to a senior Israeli official familiar with the call, which has not been previously reported.

Herzog protested, repeating the position that the Israeli government was doing what was needed in Gaza to defend its own people. The pope continued, saying those responsible should indeed be held accountable, but not civilians.

That private call would inform Israeli interpretations of Francis’s polemic statement, at his Nov. 22 general audience in St. Peter’s Square, that the conflict had “gone beyond war. This is terrorism.” Taken with the diplomatic exchange — deemed so “bad” by the Israelis that they did not make it public — the implication seemed clear: The pope was calling their campaign in Gaza an act of terrorism.

We don't see the Pope calling on Hamas to release the hostages and lay down their arms in order to shorten the war with Israel. We know that the Pope is hand in glove with Islam and therefore would lean towards it rather than Israel.