The Vatican & Israel...

The Vatican and Israel: Policy Ordered More to Balance than Impartiality
by Vittorio Emanuele Parsi


Can we really define the Vatican's policy on the Middle East conflict as an impartial one? [...] Even when recognizing that pro-Arab prejudice persists in some noteworthy exponents within Vatican hierarchy, it seems more suitable to use the concept of balance as opposed to impartiality as a basis for such opinion.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Vatican's political stance has been and remains directed by a cornerstone and long-held principle within Church tradition: that is, attention must be given to peoples and not their governments. [...] It is obvious, even to the Holy See, that the current situation is characterized by the existence of a Jewish state and the inexistence of a Palestinian one. This fact, in most people's opinion, is one of the main long-term obstacles to Israel´s very security; in the meantime, it is the source of enormous suffering as well as injustice and humiliation for Palestinians. And it is by the side of this oppressed populace that the Vatican has decided to stand firm, without its choice implying any anti-Israeli discrimination. Nor much less so does this decision implicate any justification of choices often censurable by Palestinian leaders nor, for much higher reasons, the slightest legitimization or tolerance of attacks reeking havoc among the Israeli citizen population.

Even if this position can be used as a partisan instrument, John Paul II himself reaffirmed (at a June 2003 audience with Oded Ben-Hur during his presentation of credentials as new Israeli ambassador to the Holy See) that while it is undeniable that "people have a right to live in safety" this right "carries with it an inherent duty: respect for the rights of others". Thus, after clearly reiterating "terrorist acts must always be condemned as crimes against humanity" and that each state has the "inalienable right to defend herself against terrorism", the pope reminded those in attendance "this right must always be exercised with respect to the moral and legal boundaries of the means" used to achieve the former. He underscored that it is essential that Israelis and Palestinians are able to live in "two independent and sovereign states".

In reality, the cause for division between the Vatican and Israeli positions is not so much a question of reaching a conclusion on a peace process that both parties deem necessary. Not even in Jerusalem does it take much convincing that, sooner or later, a Palestinian state must be installed aside its Jewish neighbor. The disagreement is found in the way in which to achieve the desired result as well as who Israel believes to be "valid" and "cooperative" interlocutors.

RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

Regarding what is precisely meant by a "right to self-defense", the positions of both parties remain rather distant from each other. It is true that for some years now the Holy See has made explicit use of such a term and evidently to Israel's satisfaction; yet when facing agreement on the basis of principle, the divergent opinions that result nearly nullify the basic consensus. [...]

The Vatican´s concept of security is by definition one which refers to the notion of collective safety and multi-lateral ways of its realization. In addition, this notion tends toward a criteria of balance that, from Rome´s perspective, is an irrefutable aspect of middle eastern policy. What´s more, for the Holy See, security must be achieved while respecting the norms of international law.

Israel, on the other hand, holds that security must be a prerequisite for any further step toward achieving a solution to the conflict and can be unilaterally guaranteed with all necessary means. In terms of international law, Jerusalem then is seen to have assumed an increasingly open critical position over the years. Such a position takes its shape by not respecting principles when the latter jeopardize a shield against lethal blows threatening the survival of the Jewish state and its people.

Upon closer look, there could be no two positions that are more different. And their dissimilarity has increased since the Gulf War of 1990-91 during which there was a clear clash between international laws and institutions, on one hand, and the demands of international policy on the other. Since then the Vatican has directed its own political stance toward an ever more uncompromising condemnation of the use of force, even when legitimized by U.N. resolutions, and demonstrating a certain flexibility, as in the Balkans and East Timor. It must not be forgotten that one of the reasons for the Vatican's opposition to the war in 1990-91 (entirely legal and politically legitimate) most likely rested on its deep conviction that the new world order (made possible since the fall of communism) must not be based upon war. In the very same period, Israel intensified unscrupulous activity in terms of its own security policy, striking wherever enemy targets lay hidden and exacerbating retaliatory measures against terrorist attacks.

PREVENTIVE WAR

The Bush administration's post-September 11 adoption of the preventive war concept is a constitutional element of his national security doctrine. It has, in many respects, radicalized the differences between the two protagonists. For the Holy See, any concession in such a direction indeed risks producing two rather feared consequences.

The first is that of further relativization of the role of international law and multilateral institutions in the architecture of global security - not only in practice of that which is said and done, but also in theory and form.

The second is that of the so-called "clash of civilizations", a scenario which verges upon the apocalyptic and whose coming to be would render in vane decades of the Holy See's work toward emphasizing elements of inherent collaboration between religious faiths. This has not been so easy a task, when for centuries it is improperly used religion that has hoisted its ideological banners in bloody conflicts.

From their own perspective, Israel sees in Bush's doctrine the highest testimony to the fact that when national security is threatened by the vile instrument of terrorism, there is no international law or borderline free from violation. If having observed the facts with reasonable objectivity in recent years after September 11, it is clear that Israel feels justified in accentuating its unilateral and unabashed character in its own fight against terrorism, while seeking constant connection with George W. Bush's proclaimed "war on terror".

Even this year's war against Saddam Hussein's regime has generated tension between the Vatican and Israel, as the former vigorously opposed the conflict while the latter openly supported it. Officially, this difference of opinion has created no major problems - witnessed by the absence of documents of accusation or reciprocal recrimination. On the other hand, it is no small secret that for some time Israel has considered Iraq a potential aggressor; and it was effectively attacked by Iraq during the 1990-91 Gulf War. However, the 2003 conflict in Iraq seems to have strengthened the Vatican party favoring a greater openness to Islamic affairs - the same party objectively weakened by the events of September 11.

CONDEMNATION OF TERRORISM

Development in this direction also jeopardizes the very point on which both parties share deep alliance: the firm and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. As the pontiff himself resoundingly expressed in his January 1, 2002 World Peace Day message (his first after the Twin Towers attack), no case whatsoever of injustice in the world could be used as pretexts for terrorism.

At any rate, the second "intifada", with systematic recourse to suicide attacks, the harsh Israeli retaliations as well as the increasing use of selective elimination of terrorists and their political backers, is endangering substantial agreement on the concept of terrorist activity. Episodes such as when Israeli tanks besieged Bethlehem's Basilica of the Nativity (where Palestinian terrorists took refuge) as well as the very behavior of important local prelates (such as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, believed by some members of the Curia as too close to Hamas and whose words are too little criticized) contribute to the loss of significance of a common condemnation of terrorism. This is crucial when such condemnation still represents a determining factor in the Vatican's middle eastern policy. It is worth repeating that this is ever the more true, as the Vatican views a consensual condemnation of terrorism as the indisputable starting point for the birth of a fully sovereign Palestinian state aside Israel. This objective still appears to be far - much too far - off in the distance.

SYRIA AND LEBANON

Strictly related to the divergence of opinion on the relation between force and law and to a successful "road map" solution to the Middle East crisis is the issue of rapport with regional partners. As is known, Israel has achieved peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, while the same has not been possible with Syria and Lebanon. In fact, recently the latter two countries have been objects of military retaliations by the Jewish army in response to terrorist actions begun in the former security zone north of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Attributed to Hezbollah militia (whose sanctuary lies in the Bekaa valley, currently under Syrian occupation), such actions have managed to escalate burning tensions already felt in the region.

It must be said the Lebanon is considered by Israel simply as a Syrian protectorate, especially because of the openly managerial role Damascus has played for more than two decades in Lebanon. For Israel, once the Syrian issue is resolved, the logical result will be the end of interference in Lebanon. For the Vatican as well, both Lebanon and Syria are connected, but in the sense that its strategy is to consolidate Lebanese integrity and independence in the Arab world with the goal of safeguarding the conspicuous Christian presence in the region. Perhaps it is in this sense that we can understand why the Vatican has maintained particularly prudent relations with Damascus - which, in actual fact, violates Lebanese sovereignty much more than Jerusalem does.

IRAN

An ulterior, related point of friction between Jerusalem and the Vatican is their rapport with Tehran. Israel maintains that the Islamic republic is even a more serious threat than was Saddam Hussein's regime. What is alarming to the Israeli government is not so much Iran's support of Hezbollah militia as much as it is the Iranian nuclear program. The latter, it fears, just might be a cover for military intentions and, if carried out, could well bring about that which was once only a terrible threat: elimination of the "Zionist presence" in the Middle East.

The Holy See appears, however, much more inclined toward Iran. Above all, it is particularly careful to exploit reformist efforts as well as president Khatami's openness to inter-religious dialog. At the same time, the Vatican greatly fears that Israel may opt for a preventive strike against Iranian nuclear reactors, thus provoking widespread conflict arising from unforeseeable consequences.

WHAT DEGREE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION

It is indeed a question over the degree of internationalization needed to resolve the complex Middle East situation that is cause for disagreement between Israel and the Vatican. The support that the two protagonists give to realizing a "road map" solution, albeit for diverse reasons, must not aim at deceiving. Until such solution is deemed vital, both Rome and Jerusalem's motives for sustaining it will be completely different.

In fact, the Vatican sees the quartette (the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations) involved in realizing the "road map" solution as taking a step in the right direction, one which is ever longed for in terms of internationalization of responsibility in the Middle East crisis. Objectively speaking, such a strategy would reduce the weight of Israel's political and military power and would permit a re-shifting of the crisis in favor of the Palestinians (whose temporary governing powers pay poor testimony to themselves).

JERUSALEM

The strategy of international involvement is the same position sought by the Holy See for the city of Jerusalem, whose annexation to the Jewish state continues to be contested. In this regard, particularly significant were the words of then Vatican foreign minister, Jean-Louis Tauran, when he recalled: "The Holy See has always accepted which was set by Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 - which declared that Jerusalem must be the object of special regime under the auspices of the international community". In this way, the Holy See has always taken care to distinguish the territorial aspect (the subject of a bilateral agreement between Israel and Palestine, on the basis of the international resolutions and conferences held in Madrid and Oslo) as well as the multilateral aspect deriving from "the city's religious and cultural dimensions". For the protection of the latter, Vatican opinion is still that "a special internationally guaranteed statute acts as the only valid means for future avoidance that one of the parties take exclusive control over the holy city´s sanctuaries and the related heritage while under pressure of political happenings and changes".

The Israeli government, from its point of view, accuses the Vatican of not ever having made explicit the formalities of its position - by not defining what it means by "holy places", the exact significance of "special statute", and furthermore, whose specific duty it would be to guarantee internationally such a statute and what instrument of power it would use. At its second round of Camp David meetings in the summer of 2000, Israel claims that it requested the Vatican to commence informal dialog so as to better comprehend Rome's position. And yet, it has not obtained any response from her. Beyond the more or less fortuitous or desired misunderstandings, the unilateral proclamation of Jerusalem, on behalf of Israel, as the eternal capital of the Jewish state renders the agreement an extremely difficult one. Moreover, it is the very failure of the second Camp David meetings which defines the insurmountable limit of concessions that any Israeli government could ever impose on the holy city.

THE REFUGEES

The fear that the internationalization of the crisis may conceal more than one trap for Israel´s very survival is reinforced by the fact that the Vatican says a return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland is a veritable "right" from all previous wars since 1948. It appears clear that, if accepted, such a statement would spell doom for the Jewish state, even more so when considering that no reciprocity for millions of Jewish refugees from the region could ever be seriously proposed.

On this specific point, it remains perplexing the Vatican does not take its own impracticability into consideration and appears much less careful than usual of history´s course of events. One must only bear in mind that if the very same principle were applied to all wars (even limitedly to the twentieth century and Europe), it would mean the repatriation of hundreds of millions of human beings to their homelands, with unimaginable consequences for countries not only of historical significance but whose borders have tended to move over time as in Poland, Germany, Italy and the former Republics of Yugoslavia.

[Israel]
[the Vatican]
[Palestine]
[anti-semitism]
[Hezbollah]
[Iraq]
[Iran]