Pope calls for Palestinian homeland

[faceless]

That's great to hear.

[vudu2u2]

..he does look daft in the pointy hat.

Palestinian youths, the Pope said, must not "allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts."

..ok mr pope, itll have to be anger then...

[faceless]

how many other world leaders of any description have spoken out in favour of the Palestinians?

[vudu2u2]

..popes a world leader? dont think so..hes a figurehead..and pretty useless at that.but he has at least said some of the things that others say ..(2 state solution, decrying the seperation wall..)

..and he was a nazi..
..bring back john paul.......

[faceless]

So you're biased against the man and will use the opportunity to attack him rather than support what he's talking about, even though you seem to support it?

That's just peachy.

[VivaGalloway]

I hate how whenever somebody speaks out in favour of the Palestinians they add something pro-Israeli as if the two sides are as bad as each other.

[faceless]

Considering how the pro-Zionist lobby would have reacted if he hadn't done that it's probably the best way. I'm sure they'll condemn it anyway.

And he is a Christian after all - though, of course, not to 'real' Christians like Ken From The Highlands...

[vudu2u2]

..i am completely untouched by the pope, whom i believe is essentially a malign influence on politics and social affairs.
..he has nothing to say that others more genuine than himself and the catholic institution have nt been saying for years and years over and over again.

..exactly what is the purpose of the pope anyway?
..and with what kind of moral authority does a man visit palestine, and not mention the vicious slaughter, perpetrated by the neighbours?..who in fact walks away when a palestinian does raise their voice?..(as happened today or yesterday..cant find the news item now but was probly presstv)

..but, yes im definitely biased against the pope, and lots of other figureheads and leaders who are equally useless..

..pandering to israeli aggression for a trip to bethlehem does not impress me, bit like tony blair being a peace envoy, it is utterly self serving, changing nothing, exposing nothing, helping no one..

you re a better fellow, faceless..youve got an ace website which you seem quite dedicated to, which people benefit from...what did benedict ever do, that wasnt self serving?
.. not sure if he does more harm than good by visiting the region anyway..

[vudu2u2]

this news item...http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94441&sectionid=351020202

[faceless]

ok, which leaders and figureheads aren't you biased against, and would they see the Palestinian situation as one in which anything other than peaceful co-existence is the answer?

The Pope's visit to The Holy Land and his comments will be very important to those people who are devout Catholics. That amounts to a lot of Americans, and with America being the strongest ally of Israel then it must have some political effect in the long term.

[vudu2u2]

[vudu2u2]

..actually when i think about it, benedict has kind of done the job of peace envoy to the middle east, and in doing so has totally eclipsed mr blairs efforts to be that which he clearly is not.. and thats a good thing..

..so i guess im still peachy..

[faceless]

peach on!

From what I've seen about the story in the media, the only people who look bad in this are the Israelis. Of course I'd like to have seen the Pope say a lot more and to be more firm on the matter, but that kind of attitude hasn't changed anything yet.

[luke]

Spiritual journey cannot help but have political overtones

Pope Benedict XVI upset the schedule on his first day in Israel by leaving an interfaith meeting in Jerusalem early on Monday night after a leading Muslim cleric called on him to condemn the “slaughter” of women and children in the recent assault on Gaza.

The pontiff walked out, a spokesman noted, because Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi’s speech was a “direct negation” of dialogue and damaged the Pope’s efforts at “promoting peace”.

Before he arrived in the region, the Pope declared that he was coming as a “pilgrim of peace”, with his staff accentuating that his role would be spiritual rather than political.

In truth, however, Pope Benedict’s visit was mired in politics the moment he agreed, at the invitation of Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, to step into this conflict-torn region.

The two popes who preceded him to the Holy Land appear to have better appreciated that point.

The first, Paul VI, made a hurried 12-hour stop in 1964, before the Vatican and Israel had established diplomatic relations, to conduct a Mass in Nazareth. During that time he did not utter the word “Israel” or formally meet with an Israeli official.

The second, John Paul II, came to the Holy Land in radically different circumstances: for the millennium, when hopes were still bright for the peace process. The Vatican had recognised Israel a few years earlier and the pontiff worked hard to soothe long-standing Jewish grievances against the Catholic church.

But he is also remembered by Palestinians for his bold move in joining Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, on a visit to the Deheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem, where he cited UN resolutions against Israel and graphically described the “degrading conditions” under which Palestinians lived.

A decade on, the degrading conditions of occupation have worsened considerably and hopes of peace have vanished. In the circumstances, some Palestinians question what point a papal visit has served.

“The very act of coming here is a political act that works to the benefit of Israel,” observed Mazin Qumsiyeh, who teaches at the West Bank’s only Catholic university, in Bethlehem.

“This Pope’s visit, unlike his predecessor’s, offers no novelty – apart from his decision to stand next to [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and legitimise an extreme right-wing government.”

Israeli officials too are unpersuaded by the Pope’s claim that he can avoid being dragged into local politics. Or as one government adviser told the Haaretz newspaper: “We have become pariahs in so many places around the globe. Promoting the Pope’s visit to the state is part of changing that.”

Israel has established the largest press centre in the country’s history for this visit, while police have broken up attempts by Palestinian organisations in Jerusalem to present a rival picture to journalists.

The attempts at careful stage management began from the moment the Pope’s plane touched down in Tel Aviv on Monday. At the reception, Pope Benedict stood between Mr Netanyahu and Mr Peres to listen not only to the Israeli national anthem but also to Jerusalem of Gold, a song popularised by soldiers during the capture of East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.

The lyrics – offensive to Palestinians – describe an empty and neglected city before the arrival of Jews.

Similarly, Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barkat, made a point of welcoming him to the “capital of Israel and the Jewish people”, a description of Jerusalem not recognised in international law.

After the Pope failed to object, the Israeli media happily concluded that the country’s occupation of Jerusalem had papal blessing.

In addition, Palestinians, including the 100,000 with ties to Rome, have been angered by the Pope’s official meeting with the parents of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, a humanitarian gesture made political for them by the fact that he has not extended the same courtesy to the parents of any of the thousands of Palestinians in Israeli captivity.

Many Palestinians appreciate that the Pope – with his unfortunate, if apparently involuntary, connections to Nazi Germany – has been especially careful not to offend Israeli sensitivities, even if his speech at Yad Vashem failed to live up to the country’s high expectations.

But some also conclude that he has done too little to let the world know of their own plight.

Under pressure from Israel he has refused to visit Gaza, even at the beseeching of the tiny and besieged community of Catholics there.

Yesterday, to minimise Israel’s embarrassment, Vatican officials tried as best they could to keep him out of view of the oppressive wall that encircles Bethlehem. But he did speak to the press outside a UN school at a refugee camp within metres of the wall.

And today, as he heads to Nazareth to celebrate mass, he will not meet Mazin Ghanaim, mayor of the Galilee town of Sakhnin, after Israel labelled Mr Ghanaim a “supporter of terror” for criticising its offensive in Gaza.

In private at least, some Palestinian Christian leaders admit that there are pressures on the Pope other than his own personal history that may make him wary of antagonising Israel.

Most importantly, the Vatican desperately needs exemption from Israeli taxes levied on the Church’s extensive land holdings. Unpaid property taxes are reported to amount to US$70 million (Dh257m).

The Holy See also wants a reprieve from Israeli policies that deny visas to many church officials and block clerics’ movement in the occupied territories.

As the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, recently complained: “At the roadblocks, even priestly garb doesn’t help.”

And finally, the Vatican has been seeking Israel’s agreement for more than a decade to return to its control major sites of pilgrimage, including Mount Tabor and the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

But Israel could not control the message completely. On his one-day trip to Bethlehem and the Aida refugee camp yesterday, the Pope did acknowledge Palestinian suffering and the destruction of Gaza, even if he blamed it vaguely on “the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades”.

He lamented the difficulties Palestinians face in reaching their holy places in Jerusalem, though he appeared to justify the restrictions on Israel’s “serious security concerns”.

And he criticised the building of a wall around Bethlehem, while attributing its construction to the “stalemate” in relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

from http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090514/FOREIGN/705139822/1002

[faceless]

President Obama tells Israel: stop expanding settlements
Tom Baldwin in Washington

President Obama today embarked on his most daunting diplomatic challenge yet, telling Israel that the "difficult steps" it must take towards peace include the creation of an independent Palestinian state and a halt to settlement expansion on occupied land. His talks with Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's hardline Prime Minster, marked the start of an intensive focus over the coming fortnight on the Middle East in which Mr Obama hopes to kick-start a peace process which has stalled under a succession of US presidents.

After more than two hours of discussions at the White House, Mr Obama said it was in the interests of every country, including the United States, to "achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security". He added: "I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to."

Such obligations "outlined in the road map" agreed with the US in 2003, meant that building work by Jewish settlers on Palestinian land must cease. "We have to make progress on settlements," said Mr Obama firmly, "settlements have to be stopped". Mr Netanyahu has so far refused to endorse full Palestinian statehood, suggested settlements needed to be allowed to grow naturally, and insisted that the first priority must be to deal with the "existential threat" to Israel posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Today, the Prime Minister pointedly side-stepped the issue of Palestinian sovereignty. He favoured a limited form of self-government for Palestinians, he said, and wasted little time in pushing Mr Obama on Iran. But Mr Netanyahu also added: "There'll have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We're ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share as well...We want to move simultaneously and in parallel on two fronts: the front of peace and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability."

Mr Obama, having admitted in March that Mr Netanyahu's return to power did not make peacemaking any "easier", knows that Israel has been rattled by signs he may be adopting a tougher approach towards it than the US has for many years - while also promising an "open hand" towards its enemies in Tehran.

Two weeks ago, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, is said to have met Mr Netanyahu in Jerusalem where he was told Israel was only willing to wait around a year for the US policy of re-engaging Iran to work. There have been regular hints it might consider a military airstrike.

At his meeting with Mr Netanyahu, Mr Obama offered Israel reassurance that there was "deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.”

While refusing to set an artificial deadline for talks with Tehran, he said: "We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good-faith effort to resolve differences."

The White House talks had been billed as a confrontation between two sharply conflicting approaches to resolving the 60-year conflict in the region. Mr Netanyahu, a sometimes abrasive figure who on his first visit to the White House in 1996 so infuriated Bill Clinton the then president vented a stream of profanities once his guest has left, presented Mr Obama with a copy of ‘Pleasure Excursion to the Holy Land,’ from Mark Twain's book ‘The Innocents Abroad". In the Oval Office today, he praised the president as a "great leader for American a great leader for the world and a great friend of Israel".

For his part, Mr Obama expressed confidence that Mr Netanyahu "is going to rise to the occasion".

The White House emphasised that today's meeting should be seen merely as the first step towards reaching a lasting settlement. Although the President is already weighed down by a heavy policy agenda and the burden of his inheritance from the Bush Administration, Mr Obama believes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict holds the key to peace in a region which has dominated US foreign policy for much of the past generation.

Next week he will hold White House talks with Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, and Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority as he prepares to unveil a new peace initiative on possibly in a speech to the Muslim world on June 4.

------------------

With Netenyahu seemingly making it a joint issue with their perceived threat from Iran I doubt that much will change soon.

I think the UN needs to take over control of the territory. That will provide work for many thousands of foreign nationals and boost the global economy!