J T Pawlikowski. Israel Affairs. Volume 16, Issue 4, October 2010.
Pope Benedict XVI came to the papacy with a very limited track record in terms of Catholic-Jewish relations generally speaking and virtually no public perspective on political issues related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since assuming the papacy he has addressed the Middle East political conflict only on a few occasions save for his trip to the region where he spoke to the question at length throughout his visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He was somewhat cautious in his remarks while highlighting several key issues. Pope Benedict affirmed several times during his visit that Christian-Muslim reconciliation was a strongly desired goal on the part of the Vatican. But he also gave his strong endorsement to territorial sovereignty for Israel alongside a Palestinian state. He even implied a direct connection between biblical Israel and the modern state. On numerous occasions he encouraged the local Christian community to stand fast in its faith and not leave the region. For Pope Benedict the continuation of a vibrant Christian community in the Middle East is of the highest priority. The future position of the Pope and the Vatican will no doubt be affected by the reception accorded to the KAIROS Palestine document, the results of the ongoing negotiations between the Holy See and the Israeli government over a host of specific issues such as taxation, clergy permits, etc., the development of a serious peace plan by US President Barack Obama and the conclusions of the Synod on the Middle East in October 2010.
On questions of Catholic-Jewish relations, including Vatican attitudes towards the State of Israel, Joseph Ratzinger clearly entered the papacy in the shadow of his predecessor Pope John Paul II, whose track record in this area was without equal in papal history. For John Paul II establishing a constructive relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish People became a central focus of his long papacy. And this included explicit acknowledgment with an expression of repentance of the church’s long history of theological anti-Judaism which so often led to social and political oppression of Jewish communities as well as recognition of the religious importance and political significance of the State of Israel for world Jewry. In an Apostolic Letter issued on Good Friday 1984 Pope John Paul II wrote the following:
For the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel and who preserve on that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith, we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that is the prerogative of every nation and condition of life and of progress for every society.
John Paul II then went on to speak movingly of Judaism’s spiritual attachment to the city of Jerusalem. And on 15 June 1994, the Holy See and the Israeli government jointly announced the formal establishment of diplomatic relations as a result of ongoing negotiations that began with the signing of a Fundamental Agreement the previous December.
As I wrote in a commemorative volume for the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, this step represented more than merely a diplomatic agreement. It marked the final repudiation of a ‘theology of perpetual wandering’ for the Jewish community on the part of Christianity which argued against the very possibility of a restored, sovereign Jewish state as part of the punishment Jews incurred for rejecting Jesus and supposedly putting him to death.
Clearly the Fundamental Agreement represented a central success for John Paul II, something that from reliable sources he had personally hoped to accomplish earlier in his papacy. But it took some time for him to overcome opposition towards such recognition within his Secretariat of State. The recognition of Israel by several Arab states certainly made such recognition somewhat easier.
It should be noted that negotiations stemming from the 1993 Fundamental Agreement still continue today in matters related to clergy, church property, taxation, etc. Hence they now come under Pope Benedict’s domain though there has been no direct involvement on his part in this process. The ongoing negotiations have proven difficult at times and their successful outcome will certainly impact on any evaluation of Benedict XVI’s papacy with respect to the question of the State of Israel. Such negotiations are of course a two way street and ultimate success depends not merely on the current perspectives of the Holy See under Benedict XVI but also the approach of the Israeli government which has received some criticism for its stance in the negotiations, including criticism from some Jewish leaders involved in the dialogue with Catholicism.
My point in briefly rehearsing the record of John Paul II on the matter of Israel is that real breakthroughs had occurred under his papacy and there was simply no way Benedict XVI could match his predecessor in this area. In Benedict XVI’s initial involvement in Catholic-Jewish relations within the context of meetings with various international Jewish delegations as well as his visit to the Cologne synagogue he repeated his commitment to the perspectives of John Paul II on Catholic-Jewish relations without adding anything really new. But one can assume that his embrace of the perspectives of John Paul II included his predecessor’s views on the meaning of Israel to the Jewish people and the framework and implications of the Fundamental Agreement. Benedict XVI has given no evidence that he in any way wishes to distance himself from the path taken by John Paul II in this area.
Pope Benedict XVI has addressed issues related to peace in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, only on relatively few occasions. His principal reflections thus far have come in his various addresses during his visit to Jordan, Palestine and Israel in May 2009. During that visit he struck a delicate balance in his remarks acknowledging the need for greater justice for the Palestinians including their own state and greater safety and security for Israel, including an end to rocket attacks. One must remember that in addressing political questions such as Middle East peace the Pope is speaking as a religious leader but also as head of the Vatican state which has official bilateral relations with the Israeli government and a formal agreement with the Palestinian Authority. The latter differs from the agreement with Israel because legally the Palestinian Authority does not yet fall into the category of an independent national state. The Holy See does not have any formal agreement with Hamas which controls Gaza. Hence Pope Benedict XVI has never made direct reference to it. This in part, together with serious security concerns, is the likely reason that he did not heed requests made by local and international Christian groups for him to travel to Gaza to witness what these groups regard as horrific conditions there after the Israeli military action in response to the continuing rocket attacks. Had he agreed to these requests he would almost certainly have created tensions not only with the Israeli government but also with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority since he would have been forced to appear publicly with Hamas officials, thereby granting a certain legitimacy to their rule over Gaza.
Pope Benedict XVI began his visit to the Holy Land in Jordan. In his initial address he spoke positively of King Abdullah’s efforts to replace Samuel Huntington’s often quoted phrase ‘the clash of civilizations’ with the term an ‘alliance of civilizations’. Clearly Pope Benedict in this inaugural speech was trying to set a positive tone for the entire visit and more broadly by arguing that Christian-Muslim rapprochement was critical to any positive political developments in the region. Indirectly he was implying that religious reconciliation was integral to political reconciliation. This is a vital point. One of the criticisms heard most strongly from religious leaders in the area such as rabbis Michael Melchior and David Rosen is the failure of political leaders in the Middle East, as well as in Europe and the United States to incorporate local religious groups into the peacemaking process. There has been a local effort to bring religious voices from the area into the picture through the Alexandria process and its declarations. But political leaders in the region and beyond, especially in the United States, have on the whole failed to accord the Alexandria process any overall significance in the ongoing political negotiations. While Pope Benedict XVI did not specifically endorse the Alexandria process during his trip, which some might deem unfortunate, he did make it clear that in his mind religious reconciliation remains a key element in any successful resolution of the political tensions that continue to grip that region. In a way this papal approach set a pattern for the entire visit. Benedict XVI tended throughout the trip to point to directions that needed to be taken by religious and political leaders rather than lay out what he would see as the specifics of a positive resolution of the current conflict. In no way did he come to the Holy Land to dictate a concrete political settlement of the unresolved issues.
During his opening remarks in Jordan, Pope Benedict also made reference to his visit to Mount Nemo where Moses led the Jewish people to a spot where they could see ‘the land that would become their home’, as well as to Bethany beyond the Jordan where John the Baptist preached and baptized. While this papal reference to these important biblical sites was primarily religious in nature, there is little question that it also carried certain political undertones. In the first place his reference to the Jewish People in the present tense as having their ongoing home in this region lays down an important link between biblical Israel and the modern state of Israel. Pope Benedict avoids any in-depth discussion of the link. But by including this statement in his very first speech of the trip and making it in the largely Muslim setting of Jordan I interpret Pope Benedict as insisting that such an understanding remains a bedrock of any comprehensive approach to peace in the region. This comes at a time when some in the Christian community, including some within the Catholic community in the area, have argued that there is no connection between the modern state of Israel and the Israel of the biblical tradition. Pope Benedict seems to signal that any movement in such a direction is not one he would support. In so doing Pope Benedict is sounding a chord found in the writings of his predecessor John Paul II who spoke movingly of the Jewish People’s continuing ties to Jerusalem in the previously mentioned Apostolic Letter Redemptions Anno issued on Good Friday (20 April) 1984. As documents such as the 2010 Kairos Declaration attempt to ‘de-legitimate’ the modern state of Israel and sever it from any positive biblical links implying that the land tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures is rooted in an outdated notion of a ‘tribal God’ the positive words of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI take on added significance.
In this speech Pope Benedict XVI has gone at least part of the way in meeting a concern often voiced by Jewish leaders that discussions of the Christian-Jewish relationship, even very positive ones, avoid mention of a key point of identity for many, if not most, contemporary Jews – a link to contemporary Israel which is grounded in Judaism’s historic attachment to the ‘promised land’. While Pope Benedict XVI certainly needs to deepen his reflections in this regard, as do the vast majority of Christian scholars, he at least gives an indication of significant sensitivity to this linkage in his reference to Mount Nemo in his speech in Amman. And he did send congratulations to the Israeli government on the occasion of the state’s sixtieth anniversary in 2008.
At this point, though, I must strike a note of caution regarding Benedict XVI’s approach to the issue of the Jewish land tradition. Despite the modest sensitivity on the question just described significant questions remain for the future. There are a few signatories to the Kairos Declaration from the Catholic community. In addition, as this document is promoted within the Christian world, will Benedict XVI have anything to say to its very problematic theological assertions which have been strongly criticized even by liberal Jewish groups such as the Central Conference of Jewish Rabbis, long-time dialogue partners with the Catholic community. And if Benedict XVI is to develop a more comprehensive theological statement on Christian-Jewish relations he cannot avoid the land issue as an essential component of Jewish self-identity. The modest sensitivity that can be detected in the statement in Jordan will need to be expanded exponentially. Jews are beginning to raise the matter on two fronts: the political and the religious.
On the political front Jewish leadership continues to raise questions about the general exclusion of the issue of Israel from the official Vatican-Jewish dialogue, due largely to the limited parameters established for the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. But most Jewish groups involved in the dialogue with Catholics on the institutional level insist that Israel falls within the notion of basic Jewish identity, even Jewish religious identity. And following the Vatican’s own assertion in its 1974 Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish relations which urge Catholics to come to understand Jews as they define themselves, they would insist that this guideline is not being observed if Israel is omitted from Vatican-Jewish international discussions. Recently a visit to the Holy See of the leadership of the International Jewish Committee for interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) now headed by Rabbi Richard Marker included visits with Vatican leaders in the Secretariat of State. Whether this was a one time only situation or whether it will now become the pattern in Benedict XVI’s papacy for all such future visits remains to be seen. If the latter, it could signal an important development in Vatican-Jewish international conversations.
On the more specifically religious front, Jewish leaders have emphasized the link between Jewish identity and the land tradition. In the 2005 international conference held at the Gregorian University in Rome with the co-sponsorship of the Catholic Theological Union, Boston College and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven both Michael Kotzin of the Chicago Jewish Federation and Ruth Langer of the theology department at Boston College argued that the exclusion of Israel from the Catholic-Jewish dialogue remains of great concern. Kotzin insisted that such continued exclusion ‘falsifies’ the dialogue because it does not account fully for contemporary Jewish self-identity. Kotzin specifically made reference to Pope Benedict XVI’s first major speech on Catholic-Jewish relations given at the Cologne synagogue in connection with his involvement in World Youth Day as an example of such exclusion of any consideration of the land tradition. This certainly will be an issue that Jewish leaders will continue to monitor in the speeches of Pope Benedict.
To return to Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Jordan, Palestine and Israel we note another important element in the papal vision for the area. In the Mount Nebo speech as well as in his remarks at the Vesper service held at St. George’s Melkite Cathedral in Amman and in the homily during the outdoor celebration of Mass in Amman the Pope emphasized how strongly Christians remain attached to this region of the world because of its deep connections with the ministry of Jesus. Even though the Pope never specifically raised the issue of the exodus of Christians, including Catholics, from the area, we can see his concern about the future of the Christian community coming through. The Christian community in the region must remain a vibrant active community, not merely a dying remnant surrounded by historic Christian sites. He refrains from blaming any particular government for this worrisome exodus that continues to take place. Instead of pointing a finger of blame he encourages younger Catholics to enhance their voice and their place in the societies in which they reside. While he encourages collaboration with Muslims, Christians should not appear as a passive community but rather one that demonstrates inner strength and a willingness to contribute to the shaping of public values in the area. While Benedict XVI never concretely names the exodus problem in his speeches, clearly he is presenting the Catholic community with a contrary message: stay the course in Jordan, Palestine and Israel and make your contribution to societal development in the region.
From Jordan Pope Benedict XVI continued his visit in Israel and Palestine, where his general posture of remaining above the fray of concrete issues while speaking more broadly to overarching issues in the region remained in place. Greeting the political leadership of Israel at Ben Gurion Airport the Pope condemned anti-Semitism, acknowledging it as a problem that continues in today’s global society, and called for religious harmony based on mutual respect. He likewise addressed the suffering of Jews under Nazis, honouring those who lost their lives during that period of darkness. He then turned his attention to the pressing problem of political peace in the region. Without laying specific blame on either Israelis or Palestinians (or the larger Arab world) for the continued conflict he called for genuine respect for the religious identity of all peoples living in the area and guaranteed access for them to their holy sites. He clearly endorsed a two state solution calling for resolution of the conflict that would ensure a homeland for both peoples within secure and internationally recognized borders. As the two state solution comes under intensifying scrutiny as the solution with some increase in voices (even within Israel), taking a new look at a one state model, Pope Benedict definitely chose sides on this divisive issue.
In a meeting with President Shimon Peres on 11 May 2009, Pope Benedict spoke to the effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and offered his reflections on a road to peace. Ultimately, the Pope underlined, peace is a divine gift. But concretely it depends very centrally on creating an atmosphere of genuine trust among the peoples in the region and the security that flows from that sense of trust. In the vision he conveyed in his speech at the presidential residence, security, integrity, justice and peace remain inseparable. While nations certainly have the right to take measures which enhance the security of their population, one cannot justify actions in the name of security which in fact deepen existing divisions and suffering rather than overcome them. ‘A nation’s true interest is always served by the pursuit of justice for all’, he argued. Such true interest is not served by ‘blocks or obstructions’, according to the Pope, a remark that many interpreted as referring to the security barrier/fence that Israel has erected along its border and in some parts of the Palestinian territory.
Two speeches by Benedict XVI during his Holy Land trip resulted in some controversy. The first occurred at Israel’s national memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, Yad Vashem. While the Pope spoke movingly of Jewish victimization under the Nazis he never mentioned Christian complicity in the event, something that was typical of his approach until the January 2010 visit to the synagogue in Rome where he finally acknowledged some Christian responsibility by making his own the words that John Paul II had placed in Jerusalem’s Western Wall, asking for forgiveness for Christian collaboration. While we certainly must see this as a positive move in terms of Pope Benedict’s perspective on the Holocaust, it would have been appropriate for the Pope to use his own words in addressing the complicity issue, both at Yad Vashem (where it was not addressed at all) and in the presentation at the synagogue in Rome, particularly in light of his German heritage. Benedict’s omission of any reference to Christian complicity in the Yad Vashem statement caused considerable media controversy and did not enhance trust in his other addresses during the trip.
The second controversy took place in connection with an interreligious reception held at the Vatican-sponsored Notre Dame Centre in Jerusalem. Here the Pope fared somewhat better than he did at Yad Vashem. His speech on this occasion, a speech that strongly emphasized the need for interreligious harmony despite religious differences, was interrupted by a Muslim cleric from the area who was not a scheduled speaker but who managed to grab the microphone and set out a strong critique of Israeli governmental policies. While the Pope himself abruptly departed the gathering without any specific comment on what had taken place, his chief press officer Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi offered the following statement on the unfortunate incident:
In a meeting dedicated to dialogue, this intervention was a direct negation of what the dialogue should be. We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the pope aiming at promoting peace and also interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed on many occasions.
The fifth day of his visit to the Holy Land found Pope Benedict XVI with a very full schedule. The day began with a visit to the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s holiest sites. Here the Pope encouraged Catholic-Muslim dialogue but also stressed the urgent need to work concretely for what he termed ‘the unity of the entire human family’. In the context of the situation in Jerusalem his words were clearly a call for peaceful negotiations to end the political stalemate and a move away from violence. While Benedict XVI has certainly delivered the same message to Israel his words here addressed the Muslim community and he called upon the Muslim leadership which governs the Dome of the Rock to be instruments of peacemaking in the region, to speak out against the use of violence and to speak for a resolution of the current conflict through political negotiations.
His second stop on this fifth day was at Israel’s Chief Rabbinate. In this meeting he particularly commended the ongoing dialogue between the Chief Rabbinate and the Vatican, a dialogue that is not without some criticism. The criticism which comes from both the Catholic and Jewish sides and is rooted in the view that the Pope is giving excessive legitimacy to the authority of the Chief Rabbinate which frankly is seriously discredited in many Jewish circles (including modern Orthodox Jewish circles) and seemingly equating its role with that of bishops in Catholicism. In so doing he also tends to bestow a certain favoured status on Orthodox Judaism over the Reform and Conservative movements which have been in dialogue with the Catholic community in various parts of the world.
In terms of the context of Jerusalem and its ongoing political tensions, Pope Benedict acknowledged the pain and suffering that many experience in the region and made an urgent appeal for Jerusalem to become a true city of peace. As in his meeting with Muslim leaders earlier, Benedict appears to have encouraged the Rabbis present to become leaders for peace and reconciliation, even though he refrains from any mention of rabbinic groups such as Rabbis for Human Rights which have in fact spoken and acted in the name of peace. He may also have hoped that a constructive visit with the Chief Rabbis might give a positive boost to the ongoing Vatican-Israeli negotiations of particular issues following up on the Fundamental Agreement signed between the Holy See and the Israeli state in late December 1993. While these negotiations which have been marked by occasional tension and very slow progress do not directly involve the Chief Rabbinate, there is little question that it has influence regarding the stance taken by the Israeli governmental negotiators.
I would add here a note of criticism regarding the Vatican’s decision to have the Pope meet only with the Chief Rabbis and their orthodox colleagues. The meeting should have included a much wider group of Jewish religious leaders, including persons who have taken constructive stands on the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Though to an extent his meeting with interreligious communities the previous day was meant as an endorsement of the work of those promoting interreligious peace in the area, the exclusive meeting with the Chief Rabbinate conveyed a false message about its role in contemporary Jewish life. Some Jewish religious leaders, including leaders in Conservative Judaism, have called for the abolition of the Chief Rabbinate. And regrettably Pope Benedict’s support of religious peace advocates at the interreligious meeting became somewhat blurred by the unfortunate unscheduled remarks by a local Imam. If it is argued that the Chief Rabbis would never have approved the inclusion of non-orthodox rabbis in the meeting then my response would be that the Vatican should have indicated that without such inclusion there would be no papal visit to their office.
Pope Benedict’s ‘interreligious’ day concluded with two Catholic events: a meeting with the Catholic bishops of the region and an outdoor Mass in the Josafat valley. In the first of these two events the Pope urged the bishops of the area representing the Latin and various Eastern Catholic rites to work for genuine unity among Catholics in the Holy Land. Though the Pope saw such unity as a religious mandate he also regards it as an important ‘political force’ in terms of the sustainability of the Catholic and wider Christian communities in that part of the world. As he insisted in his Mount Nebo speech referred to earlier, Christianity has deep and abiding roots in the Holy Land and these roots need to be nourished by a vibrant, living Christian community. Once more an implicit papal response to the reality of the Christian exodus from the Holy Land.
The Pope also spoke to the positive contributions that the Christian community continues to make to the region, despite significant difficulties and restrictions caused by harsh political realities. Once again he placed the difficulties on the table without trying to assess blame for these among the contending political factions. He urged the bishops and their communities to become instruments of peace in the Holy Land and gave them a continuing promise of concrete support for their continued viability. He repeated words from his 2006 Christmas message to Catholics in the Middle East:
I express with affection my personal closeness in this situation of human insecurity, daily suffering, fear and hope which you are living. I repeat to your communities the words of the Redeemer: ‘Fear not little flock for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ (The Gospel of Luke 12:32)
The last event on the papal schedule on 12 May 2009 was the outdoor celebration of the Mass where some 5000 people joined the Pope. In his address during the Mass following an opening, quite blunt, statement on the current situation of Catholics in the Holy Land by the current Latin Patriarch, Fouad Twal, the Pope was far more explicit about the current conditions in the region than in his previous, more generic comments. Patriarch Twal told the Pope of the dream of the Palestinian people for a free and independent state while also acknowledging the Israeli desire for peace and security. He then addressed the issue of the shrinking Catholic community due to considerable emigration, a situation he attributed to the unjust occupation of Palestine by Israel and the humiliation now endured by Palestinians under occupation. The Patriarch’s strong language was no doubt due to the ambivalence of the Catholic community when the papal visit was first announced. Prominent Catholics urged the Pope not to travel to the Holy Land after the Gaza war and while the occupation was in force. They argued that the Israeli political leadership would try to manipulate the visit into favourable publicity for Israel.
In light of the concern expressed by the largely Palestinian Catholic community the Pope was obliged to respond in rather more specific terms than in other settings. He assured Palestinian Catholics that his visit was a sign of his continued support and that they were by no means marginalized in the global Catholic community of today. On the contrary, the worldwide Catholic church is quite aware of what is happening beneath the walls of the holy city of Jerusalem as the local Catholic community battles continuously against ‘despair, frustration and cynicism, while the peace which is God’s gift and call continues to be threatened by selfishness, conflict, division and the burden of past wrongs’.
Pope Benedict then continued his address with a strong emphasis on the ‘universality’ of Jerusalem as a city. While he was in no way endorsing the now discredited plan for the political universalization of the city he did argue for its universal vocation. As the spiritual home for Jews, Christians and Muslims the city truly needs to become a ‘city of peace’ for all peoples, a microcosm of our globalized world. It must become a place ‘which teaches universality, respect for others, dialogue and mutual understanding, a place where prejudice, ignorance and the fear which fuels them are overcome by honesty, integrity and the pursuit of peace’. All the religious communities in the area need to work together for the realization of a culture of reconciliation and peace, however slow such a process will likely be in light of the burdensome memories of the past. By implication Pope Benedict here appears to be in support of the role of local religious communities in the overall peace process. The voice and cooperation of local religious leaders cannot be excluded if a peace process is to prove successful. While religion may have contributed to violence in the region, the religious traditions in Jerusalem need to be recognized as constructive partners in any ongoing efforts to achieve a stable political resolution.
The Pope finally turned his attention specifically to the issue of the continuing departure of Christians from the region, especially younger members of the community. The Pope regards their loss as a great cultural and spiritual impoverishment of the city. He once more assured the Christian community that he and the political apparatus of the Holy See stand in solidarity with them. And he called upon the political leaders of the region to respect, support and value the Christian presence in Jerusalem. Some years ago Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed a job creation programme specifically aimed at the Christian community since difficulties in securing employment are a major reason for Christian departures. Political complications never allowed this proposal to be implemented. The Pope may in fact have been thinking of such a concrete action on the part of the region’s governments to stabilize the Christian presence there.
The following day, 13 May 2009, saw the Pope moving to the Palestinian Territories for a Mass in the historic Manger Square in Bethlehem and a visit to the Aida Refugee Camp in the West Bank. During his remarks at the Mass, the Pope continued his theme of the previous day’s Mass in Jerusalem. Stand firm, he urged the Palestinian Christians who had assembled in Bethlehem. But he also called on them ‘to abandon fruitless and sterile ways of thinking, acting and reacting’ and instead to promote justice and respect for the rights of all. Clearly he was sending a message of non-violence to the Catholic community. He likewise presented them with a mandate to build bridges of dialogue and constructive collaboration in the service of a culture of peace in order to replace the present situation that is dominated by fear, aggression and frustration.
At this Mass, Pope Benedict also spoke directly to a group of Catholics who had travelled from Gaza. Singling them out for special attention was no doubt an effort by the Pope to respond to the criticism of his failure to visit Gaza itself. The Pope said: ‘My heart goes out to the pilgrims from war-torn Gaza: I ask you to bring back to your families and your communities my warm embrace and my sorrow for the loss, the hardship and the suffering you have had to endure.’
After the Mass in Bethlehem the Pope went on to the nearby Aida Refugee Camp. Here the Pope reiterated his message of support to all Palestinian refugees, especially those in Gaza who lost homes and loved ones in the recent conflict. He acknowledged family divisions brought about by imprisonment and the restrictions of movement in the area. He described Palestinian aspirations for an independent state as legitimate and necessary. The Palestinian people’s current experience of being trapped in a spiral of violence needed to cease. The whole world, he told the assembled gathering, longed for such a cessation. Reconciliation in the current climate would prove extremely difficult according to Benedict. But peace efforts can succeed if Palestinians and Israelis themselves are willing to free themselves from the cycle of aggression. Once again the Pope seemed to be stressing that blame for the current situation cannot be assigned only to one side. He also renewed his call for international involvement in the peace process. He pointed to the controversial barrier/fence erected by Israel as a stark reminder of the stalemate in peace negotiations though he refrained from any explicit words of condemnation regarding it. He restated his call to non-violence in the region, referring to the famous prayer of peace attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.
In a closing ceremony in the Palestinian Authority Pope Benedict responded to a strong statement by President Mahmoud Abbas in which he used the term ‘apartheid wall’ and spoke of it as a source of siege and asphyxiation of Palestinian towns. He described Gaza as a large prison in which the majority of people have become refugees. The Pope in his response sounded a note of hope saying ‘Although walls can easily be built, we all know that they do not last forever. They can be taken down. First, though, it is necessary to remove the walls that we build around our hearts, the barriers that we set up against our neighbors’. Once more, while speaking negatively of the consequences of the wall, the Pope stepped back from any outright condemnation, even though there was an effort to make the barrier/fence as visible as possible during the Pope’s address as a statement to the global media. This led to some delicate negotiations over the placement of the podium for the speech.
Pope Benedict concluded his visit to the Holy Land with a Mass in Nazareth and a final statement at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv. The focus of his remarks during the Mass in Nazareth was on the strengthening of family life within the Catholic community. He did not address any political issues as he did in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. This is a bit surprising since the Catholic community also faces some of the same problems as their Catholic counterparts in the other two areas, though certainly nowhere to the same degree. But the exodus issue is also apparent in the Galilee and a measure of social discrimination with regard to jobs and housing prevails. The region was the scene of deep-seated Jewish-Arab tensions several years ago after an Israeli police attack that resulted in a number of deaths. While the tensions have subsided considerably they still simmer below the surface. It may be that Pope Benedict was concerned that this would resurface if he spoke to social issues. He also made no effort to connect the Catholic community in the Galilee with the problems affecting their co-religionists in Jerusalem and the West Bank/Gaza. The only social issue mentioned in his speech related to the tensions caused by the proposed building of a large mosque in Nazareth very near the Catholic basilica of the Annunciation. As in several of his other addresses during this trip, he called for reconciliation between Muslims and Catholics in Galilee in light of those tensions.
In his farewell speech at Ben Gurion airport in the presence of the Israeli president and prime minister he reminded those present that he and President Peres had planted an olive tree together upon his arrival. Pope Benedict re-emphasized that the olive tree in the writings of St. Paul represents a deep bond between Jews and Christians, a bond that he hoped was further enhanced by his visit. He also recalled his visit to Yad Vashem and insisted that the Shoah can never be forgotten or denied. But, as so very often in his papacy up to that point, he termed the Nazis a ‘godless’ political regime and never acknowledged any culpability on the part of the Catholic community. It was only later, in his January 2010 visit to the synagogue in Rome, that he deviated from this pattern and admitted a connection between Catholic antisemitism and the Shoah.
Pope Benedict insisted that he had come to the region as a friend of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Hence he was saddened by the continuing political tensions. His words were strong and bold:
Allow me to make this appeal to all the people of these lands: No more bloodshed! No more fighting! No more terrorism! No more war! Instead let us break the vicious cycle of violence. Let there be lasting peace based on justice, let there be genuine reconciliation and healing. Let it be universally recognized that the State of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders. Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland, to live with dignity and to travel freely. Let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream. And let peace spread outwards from these lands, let them serve as a ‘light to the nations’, bringing hope to the many regions that are affected by conflict.
The Pope ended his airport remarks by once more focusing on the issue of the separation fence/barrier. He described it as one of the ‘saddest sights’ he had seen during his visit. He expressed profound hope for the time when it would become history. But he was rather restrained in his language. He called it an instrument of ‘security and separation’, rather mild terminology if compared to the description used by President Abbas in the Pope’s presence earlier.
Overall, then, it can be said that Pope Benedict walked cautiously on a tightrope during his visit, speaking to certain concrete problems facing the Catholic community but using rather restrained language in doing so. Whether this visit changed the political and social landscape in the region is something that the people in the area can best judge. From a distance it does not appear to have brought about any major changes.
Since his 2009 Holy Land trip Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken much to the question of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In March 2010, at a time of increasing tension in the Holy Land, he offered prayers for a de-escalation of the tensions which he called deeply saddening. He called upon political leaders in the Jerusalem area to engage in the pursuit of peace in the region with courage and perseverance. Recalling his own trip to the Holy Land as a pilgrim, he encouraged other Christians to follow his lead in going to the area on pilgrimage, thereby giving support to the local Christian population there. Once more Pope Benedict refrained from a critique of the parties involved in the escalation of tensions, preferring to issue a call to leaders in the Holy Land to develop opportunities for reconciliation. While a few local groups have heeded this call, by and large it has been ignored.
As we look to the future a number of situations appear on the horizon which will likely affect the future perspectives on Israel/Palestine during this papacy. These include the following:
- The very controversial KAIROS Palestine statement which seems to have elicited some sympathy from Latin Patriarch Twal (even though he is not an official signatory). It remains to be seen how the Vatican will react to this, as many Jewish groups, even those from the more liberal side of the Jewish spectrum, have issued strong critiques of the document.
- The ongoing negotiations between the Holy See and the State of Israel which focus on specific issues such as clergy permits, property, taxation, etc., a follow-up to the Fundamental Agreement between the two states, have dragged on for several years and have been marked by periodic tensions. A significant dimension of the problem in this area is due to internal tensions within various offices of the Israeli government. How these negotiations go in the future may well impact on the Holy See’s more general stance towards Israel as these negotiations often attract the interest of the media.
- If and when concrete peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians commence, whether directly or indirectly, as part of US President Barack Obama’s peace initiative, the Holy See will probably be forced to react publicly to the process. How such a reaction is eventually worded will certainly affect attitudes towards the Pope and the Vatican on the part both of Israel and the Palestinian Authority as well as Jewish communities and Palestinian Catholics.
- The planned October 2010 Synod of Catholic bishops in the Middle East will certainly develop a final communiqué which ultimately needs the approval of the Pope. It is hard to imagine such a communiqué not referring specifically to the conditions experienced by Catholics today in the region. It will prove far more difficult in terms of such a document for Pope Benedict to walk the same tightrope he used during his trip to the Holy Land.