If i hear the pontiff correctly Hes calling for a Palstnian State.Not neccsarly in Isreal.Or the west bank etc.Hes saying the Palstnian people need to reexamine there history and the current objectives and prevaling ideals.And beyond that the Pontiff pushes no Peace plan.I guess i could venture to further interpret the articale.But out of caution and trust to the fellow reders ill leave it there.What do you think is that what the Pontiff is saying.Is that the correct tone.

Posted by: Rench at April 16, 2006 2:41 PM

He appears to be appealing to his huge, invisible pal in the sky to repeal the laws of nature. So far, 2,000 years of praying by various groups have failed to get those laws changed.

Posted by: tc399 at April 16, 2006 3:19 PM

Lose the Army of Davids !!!

Now Please!

Anyone reading this thread should go immediately to Atlas Shrugs and see this plea from an Iranian girl in the comment thread that has more collective wisdom than all of the LL and MSM combined!

RBT

Posted by: rocketsbrain at April 16, 2006 3:59 PM

"May the international community, which reaffirms Israel's just right to exist in peace, assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live and to rebuild their future, moving towards the constitution of a state that is truly their own."
-- from the article above

If he means this, he's been misinformed not only about the historic, legal, and moral claims of Israel, and of the phoniness of the "Palestinian people" (invented after the Six-Day War, entirely for propagandistic reasons), but about the nature of Islam. There is no end to the Jihad, not in the world, and not specifcially in the MIddle East. If one wishes Israel to survive, then it requires, as an absolute minimum, control of the Judean heights and of the traditioonal invasion routes from the south (through Gaza) and right through to the sea from Jordan. This is not a theoretical matter, not something that can be plucked from the air. Anyone can say "we want an Israel that can live side-by-side in peace with the state of Palestine." Go ahead -- all kinds of big shots make this pronouncement, a thousand times a month. It means nothing. It is meaningless. It cannot be. You cannot have, in the tiny space between the Jordan and the sea, two states, one of them merely the local representative of 300 million members of the Arab League, which in turn has behind it another 700 million or more (if we count the non-Muslims within Muslim states) Muslims, all of whom will not accept the permanence of an Infidel sovereign state on land once ruled by Muslims. The only thing that can prevent open warfare is if Israel is overwhelmingly more powerful, so that the concwept of Darura, or necessity, can be invoked by Arab and other Muslim rulers to explain their failure to attack -- even their lack of enthusiasm for preparing to attack.

Were there to be a state of "Palestine" this would, on a map, show an Israel deprived of control of the heights of Judea, deprived of control of the aquifers necessary for Israel's population to survive. And above all, the size of Israel on the map would, to an Arab or a Muslim eye, seem so tiny, and so impossible to defend, that Darura as an explanation for failure by this or that Muslim state to attack Israel would no longer be plausible.

The local Arabs called "Palestinians" are, on the list of those in this world requiring our sympathetic attention, including those within the Arab-controlled lands (such as Maronites, Kurds, Berbers, black Africans in the Sudan) are surely, in their fabricated history, in their intent (which is entirely the negative intent to deny the Israelis the right to exist as a free people, not Jews either killed, driven out, or for a handful who might remain, re-subjugated to the onerousness state of dhimmi).

Possibly this was simply what remains, said cautiously, of Vatican boilerplate about the "Palestinian people." One hopes that, little by little, that fabrication will be undone, as it can be so easily -- if people simply refuse to use that phrase, or endorse what it implies.

You can choose Israel, or you can choose one more Arab Muslim state, which will inexorably be the vehicle for constant pressure, until victory of the Muslims, on Israel. But you cannot simply call for both to live in peace. Islam won't permit it. It can't be done. Not permanently.

Posted by: Hugh at April 16, 2006 5:04 PM

"Earlier yesterday, Benedict told worshippers at the Easter mass that Christ's resurrection sent a message "contrary to all ideologies of violence"..."

Well done buddy. Had to sneak that one in there, didnt you? All that Dhimmi talk was probably making you sick, so the odd factual statement will creep in there, against policy.

It saddens me the that the leader of the Christian faith would rather not talk about the oppression of his fellow Christians and the hands of Muslims throughout the world, but would rather talk about the propaganda machine known as "Pallywood" and those who arent even in your faith, and dont care for you. You see, thats the difference between the two religions.

And im not Christian.

Posted by: chu - doc at April 16, 2006 5:30 PM

"It saddens me the that the leader of the Christian faith..." ---chu - doc

Uh, chu - doc,

The Pope isn't the leader of the Christian faith. He's the leader of the Roman Catholic Christian faith.

I'm a Protestant, and my leader is Jesus.

But, hey-- Happy Easter to you and yours, and to all of JW's posters and lurkers!

Cindy

Posted by: Abscedere at April 16, 2006 6:10 PM

To Robert, your colleagues, and readers,

Happy Easter, Shalom, and let's pray that the Pope's Urbi et Orbi message gets the right attention paid to it...

Thanks for all you do, R.

The Dumb Ox

Posted by: Dumb Ox at April 16, 2006 6:17 PM

Robert, Hugh, Website Support Group, And To All Who Read And Post,

A Blessed Happy Easter Season and Passover week to all.

Also, B16 did mention the difficult situation in the Dafar region in the Sudan in his Easter greetings message. Is that the region that had seen horrible persecution against the Christians there?

The only thing that I was suprised was that he did not mention the hardships being faced by the Christians in the Middle East. It would have been most helpful if he did mention the problems the Christians faced. But then again he must have to walk a very fine line on that because of concerns that there could be fresh violence against the Christians if he does speak out.

At least in his Easter messages he does take a very hard stand against the terror violence.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 16, 2006 7:06 PM

Forgot to add, B16 must have to walk a very fine balancing act in the delicate problems facing the Christians in the ME.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 16, 2006 7:07 PM

"If he means this, he's been misinformed not only about the historic, legal, and moral claims of Israel, and of the phoniness of the "Palestinian people" (invented after the Six-Day War, entirely for propagandistic reasons), but about the nature of Islam"

I doubt he is misinformed -- that's why he has advisors.

He is bellowing the same PC junk as Bush and Straw; perhaps in elitest circles -- that's just the thing to do.

Beyond that, his whole thesis is bogus -- and the pontiff knows it!

Posted by: witness at April 16, 2006 7:13 PM

"It saddens me the that the leader of the Christian faith..." ---chu - doc

Uh, chu - doc,

The Pope isn't the leader of the Christian faith. He's the leader of the Roman Catholic Christian faith.

I'm a Protestant, and my leader is Jesus." - Cindy

Yes my apoligies, i meant to say most visible leader in Christiandom, but Leader was just easier word - he's certainly the most prominent.
If Pat Robertson is probably the best protestants can get, then thats a bit tragic. At least he calls a spade a spade though, in the case of the perils of islam.

Posted by: chu - doc at April 16, 2006 7:31 PM

l was told that all Christians are called Catholics, and that those following the Pope in Rome are called or referred to as "Roman Catholic". l grew up as a Roman Catholic and did not this till this year talking by a friend who is a church going Protestant of the United Church. being part Irish, l could not understand the fight between the Catholics and Protestants, and later learned it was mostly political, with the Northern Protestant coming from Britian and wanting British rule over the South. anyhow even with this friction of Protestant and Catholic in N.Ireland, it is or has not in my life time been nearly as violent as current killings among Muslims. uneducated people in religions try to lump all relgions together, and are appalled or surprised when l try to tell them the difference with the Christians as apposed to Islam. the later being diffently more violent, thought controlled and
lacking any Western values of human rights.
We are fortunate that we have a Pope to unite most of the Christians,, l would only hope he would not be too subtle as needs to talk plain and say to the muslim countries.. leave non muslims alone, and give them equal status in your countries, etc!\

Posted by: Lulu at April 16, 2006 9:05 PM

Hugh,
You wrote: "he's been misinformed not only about the historic, legal, and moral claims of Israel, and of the phoniness of the "Palestinian people" (invented after the Six-Day War, entirely for propagandistic reasons)"

This is incorrect. The core document that led to the establishment of Israel, the Balfour Declaration, read as follows: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Notice that Lord Balfour wisely referred to the Palestinian communities in the plural, i.e. Christian Palestinians, Catholic and Orthodox, as well as Samaritans and Druzes.

What was "invented after the Six-Day War, entirely for propagandistic reasons" is the idea of a SINGLE Palestinian People. This is Muslim propaganda and must be rejected. A just solution would be an autonomous Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria for Christians, Samaritans, and Jews while humanely transferring the majority of Muslims to Jordan.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 16, 2006 9:41 PM

The Pope's message is exactly as one would expect from a man of faith and a man of letters.

His mandate as a man of faith is to live in witness to his God. I suspect he takes the Gospel very seriously. Peacemaking is thus very much on his agenda, even if it seems foolish and hopeless.

As a man of letters, he is very likely aware of the context in which his efforts lie. Unlike Mr. Bush, this pope was no C-student. He certainly knows his history. Wasn't he calling for Europe to remember its Christian heritage? Wasn't he cautioning the EU about Turkey's application to join the community? He seems balanced and informed in his pronouncements, even for a "big shot."

Posted by: Chatillon at April 16, 2006 9:55 PM

It is staggering the degree to which the fake history of Israel's birth and the cause of the plight of the "Palestinian people" has been established as fact behind the foreheads of those who would believe.

ALLAHU SCHLOCK-TAR ALLAHU TRUTH-TA ALLAHU NUT-BAR ALLAHU DEATH-CAR

May the international community... assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live and to rebuild their future, moving towards the constitution of a state that is truly their own.

The so-called Palestinian People already have a state constituted, it's called Dar al Islam. Let them rattle their cup in the direction of Mecca, and replace shekels with dinars.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 16, 2006 10:27 PM

"a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
-- from a posting above

This is the provision in the Balfour Declaration -- and even more in the work of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations -- that is key. It says nothing about the "political" righs of existing "non-Jewish communities" but only about their "civil and religious rights" which, of course, are fully protected, and have been, within Israel -- as they never were either under the Jordanians, or the Turks, or the Muslims of various kinds who preceded the Turks, or today, in those territories foolishly handed over to the control of the "Palesstinian" Authority. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine never contempated a second political entity in any part of historic Palestine -- i.e., Palestine as it was clearly defined, in Western Christendom, for nearly two millennia (see the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, under "Palestine" --defined in no-nonsense terms as "on both sides of the river Jordan." There should be a removal of the Mulsim Arabs in the West Bank in exchange for a safe haven - under Israel's proteciton, and within an Israeli sovereignty that will cleaarly contain at least all of Western Palestine, even if Eastern Palestine continues, because of the foolish West and the foolish Israelis, lost to the Muslim Arabs of Jordan, a quite unnecessary poltical construct, created by the British for very temporary and silly reasons (in order, in 1922, to offer Abdullah, the older brother of the Hashemite Faisal, who had been given the crown of a newly-minted Iraq, something of his own, and that somethning turned out to be the Emirate of Transjordan, later Jordan, later the Arab Kingdom of Jordan).

The only force ready, willing, and able to protect those Christians who might wish to remain in the Middle East -- such as some of the Assyrians who will not fare well in Iraq, no matter what happens now -- are the Israelis. They, in turn, can work with Christians who supoprt them, in establishing a kind of permanent, though rotating presence, of non-Middle Eastern Christians who would come to live, for periods of one-three years, in Judea and Samaria (no more of this "West Bank" stuff; Judea and Samaria were the placenanmes that Jesus used, and that were used in the Western world up until 1948, and there is no reason to continue the farce of pretending to forget them and employing that tendentious term "West Bank" any more), as a Christian presence that would remaind Muslims that the Holy Land is holy to Christians (and as Eretz Israel to Jews), but it is nothing to the Muslims, whose only purely Muislim site is that based not on any historical connection (both Jews and Christians do not rquire others to share their beliefs to know that Judaism and Christianity both originate in the Holy Land/Israel), but on a belief -- the belief that Muhammad once ascended from "the furthest mosque" (never identified in the Qur'an) to the Seventh Heaven, on his fabulous steed al-Buraq, making the aller et retour within 24 hours -- for that, you need to be a Muslim Believer.

There is no room for another political unit from the Jordan to the sea, no matter how many times some will airily insist that it can be done without fatally injuring the prospects for Israel to survive. It can't. The Israelis, so horribly led, so desperate for peace, so deeply immersed in denial about Islam, cannot face this, cannot articulate the real problem, and lack the ability to make their own case. So others must make it for them, and hope that somehow they, and the rest of the world-wide vicitms of Jihad, come to their senses in time.

It may be too late for Israel, in which case it may be too late for the Holy Land as a Christian site. But one hopes that it isn't.

Posted by: Hugh at April 16, 2006 11:52 PM

Hugh,
I don't disagree with you but do believe that Israel has been very poorly led, especially by corrupt self-serving politicians like Olmert. Without a radical policy change, the quiet genocide that is happening to the indigenous Christians today will be the future of the Jews as well.

It's past time for both Israelis and Palestinian Christians to wake up and realize their very survival is threatened by the Muslim demographic time bomb, both in Israel and in Judea/Samaria.

We must recognize the fact that the Muslim Arabs have no historical roots in the land and are therefore not true Palestinians. Only Christians, Samaritans, and Jews historically claimed that title. An autonomous self-governing Palestinian state for Christians, Samaritans, and Jews, in a federation with Israel is the only just solution. This must include the right of Christians to regain their lands and homes in Judea/Samaria that were lost to both the PA as well as to then mayor Olmert's corrupt land policies.

The first step must be the transfer of the Muslims back across the Jordan and the opening of the doors to Middle Eastern Christians and other persecuted minorities. A Christian Palestine with a substantial Jewish minority in federation with a Jewish Israel with its substantial Christian minority will be much stronger in resisting Muslim aggression than the divided reality that currently exists.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as long as Israel has such poor leadership and remains dependent on the United States.

Posted by: Provoslavni at April 17, 2006 1:43 AM

The first step must be the transfer of the Muslims back across the Jordan and the opening of the doors to Middle Eastern Christians and other persecuted minorities.

And we're headed in the other direction. It'll be fascinating to see what load of crap the corrupt professors and disloyal permanent government officials will feed us after the Moslems take over over the Holy Land altogether.

And then what their successors will feed us 30 years from now, when the Vatican is converted to a mosque.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 17, 2006 6:21 AM

"As a man of letters, he is very likely aware of the context in which his efforts lie."

a grammatical mistake or a Freudian slip?

The Pope, as a champion for peace, is not the man to lead the West in this struggle against Islamofascism anymore than the Pope was the man to lead us against the Nazis. He is out of his league and out of his element. It is time to deport Islam wholesale and fight it with fire where we can not deport it. The Pope ain't the guy for that job.

Posted by: thethinker at April 17, 2006 10:21 AM

Thinker:

I agree with your last paragraph, except for the last sentence, which appears as a non sequitor.

The Pope's role is as a moral and spiritual authority, encouraging those who would lead to act in the interests of justice and civilization. His words are directed to Moslems as much as Westerners. Even if no one is listening, or capable of understanding even if they bother to listen, the Pope will champion peace. He is alos no fool and sees the threat that Islam presents to the world.

The West's response to Islam must be at the same time effective and within the bounds of conscience that make the West worth defending. It is achingly obvious that the West is within its rights to deport those who would subvert it, to fight those who would destroy it. But the West seems to need reminding of exactly what its identity is in the first place.

The Pope is exactly the guy for the job he's doing.

Posted by: Chatillon at April 17, 2006 11:03 AM

The Pope's job is to act as a moral compass. By necessity, you may not be travelling north, but the compass always tells you in which direction it lies. Of course, with the spread of GPS many people have forgotten how to use one.
The former points towards somewhere.
The latter just tells you where you are.
In more than just a literal sense.

Posted by: Eisenhund at April 17, 2006 11:40 AM

The Pope's job is to be a spiritual leader for Catholics, not to give advice as to how this war with Islam should be fought. This war with Islam transcends Catholicism and Christianity. Even atheists are going to be headless if Islam makes more gains.

I do not believe that the West needs to have its response tempered, when we can not respond harshly enough to avoid disaster in the first place.

What makes the West worth defending is our culture, our art, our humanity. But if in defending that humanity, we must become barbarians for a blink of an eye, then it is a small price to pay to stay humame.

Remember, that in order to clean oneself, one must strip naked. We mustn't feel ashamed of our bodies when they are stripped of their civilizing cloth. The Pope naturally wants us to keep our clothes on. It might prove impossible to clean ourselves that way. That is why he is not the man for the job.

Posted by: thethinker at April 17, 2006 5:27 PM

Thinker:

Not to belabor this, but what do you mean by "tempered response?" Surely the rather benign precautions of setting sensible criteria for immigration, such as cultural compatibility, is effective. Repatriation of the recalcitrant to their homeland (actual or spiritual) is, to me at any rate, a tempered response.

Of course you're perfectly right about how thin the veneer of civilizing cloth is. The Moslems make themselves ridiculous with their righteous indignation and pile hypocrisy upon outrage in their twisted "defense" of self. We do not do ourself a favor by succumbing to the same disease.

We must resist. We may have to fight. In such case it's best to do it hard and well, so that the outcome is quick and decisive.

Finally, I think we are talking at cross purposes when it comes to the job this pope is supposedly undertaking. He is, as you say, the leader of Catholic Christians. He is, as has been pointed out, a moral compass. That's his job and he's doing it well enough, in my view.

If the job we're discussing is to reverse Moslem encroachments in the West, then that job clearly belongs to the democratically elected governments of the West. And we all know that democratically elected governments are answerable to the electorate, or one would hope.

Anyway, the electorate: That's us. We're the ones for the job. And my worry is that the greater part of the West is complacent.

Posted by: Chatillon at April 17, 2006 6:42 PM

Dear Pope Benedict:

If you can hear this I'll be thankful.

The only way Islamic terrorism will ever stop is for Islam to cease being practiced and thus disappear into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

You see, what we perceive as Islamic "terrorism" is merely Islamic ideology from the Kuran put into action.

With Islam, the killing itself IS the religion.

I regret that you do not see this because you are likely to be most disappointed that Muslims do NOT stop massacring innocent human beings. Their ideology will not permit them to stop doing so.

The one thing about Islam all people everywhere CAN be sure of is that Islam WILL continue killing and 'terrorizing' human beings.

Happy Easter-

CHRIST IS RISEN-

-and my Yahweh deliver us from Islam.

Pythagoras

Posted by: pythagoras at April 18, 2006 5:05 PM

From above, speaking of the Pope: His mandate as a man of faith is to live in witness to his God. I suspect he takes the Gospel very seriously. Peacemaking is thus very much on his agenda, even if it seems foolish and hopeless.

As a Christian, this strikes me as a bit of a goofy statement. Not to pick on anybody, but Christ's calls for peace were to seek reconciliation and peace where it can be truely secured. Christ did not call for people to embrace foolish ideas, embrace denial of the facts, or to seek peace in the face of obvious hostility from the other side. In short, Christ did not call Christians to be foolish dopes. The fact that the Pope seems to be one scares me.

Put another way, if Muslims truely wanted peace, I would sit down with them to negotiate it. But nothing in their behavior indicates that they do and all the statements in the Koran that basically say that "war is deceit" indicate that we will never be able to trust them. Thus, if they want to fight, as a Christian, I'm more than happy to give them a fight. I have no problem with that morally or theologically.

Posted by: Open Eyes at April 20, 2006 3:28 PM