I live in a society deprived of humanity where the Fanatic “Democratic” Totalitarian State (“Genocidal Racist, Secular, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Liberal, Common Purpose, Freemasonic, Judean, Transgender, Homosexual, Satanic”, ...all in one!) is the biggest criminal wieldng degenerate power of the land!
That same State kept me in an open prison for the past 20 years, and my own never understood what I suffered all those years without freedom while witnessing the daily satanic activities of Western Anti Civilisation!
As for justice, I never encountered it in y entire life, God having been removed at the highest institutional levels of government!
The pain never stops, but soon I will be gone! My only hope is that I will have left behind enough evidence of my humanity that will touch the hearts of my own, and make them aware that at least one of their own did in fact bravely and unrelentlessly stand up to oppression and tyranny all his adult life. And, there are many like me, although not enough to make a difference!
My religion of always: FIGHTING for freedom, truth, justice, and the Moral Way! A LOST BATTLE IN ADVANCE, BUT THE FIGHT MUST GO ON NO MATTER WHAT!
I THANK GOD, IT WAS NEVER ABOUT, ME, ME, ME!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJB7cv97Dg
Zain
Ramadan 2018
31,895,529 views
Published on 16 May 2018
Agency: Joy Productions كلمات: هبه مشاري حماده الحان: بشار الشطي توزيع مكس وماستر: ربيع الصيداوي وتريات: اسماعيل تونش بلاك اخراج: سمير عبود
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsVt6-PgdNc
Published on 7 Mar 2017
Nuno Rocha deals with the theme of homelessness.
Bulgarie : le marché aux épouses Roms | ARTE
Published on 22 May 2019
[Disponible jusqu'au 07/08/2019] En Bulgarie, le premier endroit où se rend un Rom de la communauté kalaidzhi cherchant une femme, c’est au marché aux épouses situé près du monastère de Batchkovo. Depuis plusieurs générations, des jeunes filles roms y rencontrent leur futur mari. Les kalaidzhi – "rétameurs" en français – se marient exclusivement entre eux, excluant d’autres Roms et surtout les Bulgares. Dans cette tradition controversée, l’argent joue aussi un rôle. Si un homme trouve la femme de ses rêves, il doit faire une offre à ses parents. Le mariage ne pourra avoir lieu que si les deux parties se mettent d’accord sur un prix. Pour les jeunes kalaidzhi, le marché aux épouses constitue la seule possibilité de rencontrer un partenaire. La foi orthodoxe et les coutumes les empêchent de sortir, de flirter ou même d’avoir des relations avant le mariage. Mais de plus en plus de jeunes Roms se rebellent contre cet état de fait. Elles veulent décider elles-mêmes de leur destin, aimer et convoler quand bon leur semble. Surtout celles qui se marient à l'âge de 15 ans, pour qui cette union signifie la fin de leur autonomie, car une vie de mère au foyer les attend. Reportage complet (Allemagne, 2017, 30mn) #Roms #Bulgarie Abonnez-vous à la chaîne ARTE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwI-... Suivez-nous sur les réseaux ! Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/artetv Twitter : http://www.twitter.com/artefr Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/artefr
GENOCIDAL RACIST AND SLAVE TRADING US AMERICA WAS NEVER GREAT AT ALL DESPITE ALL THE GREAT THINGS IT ACHIEVED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c
Why America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore.
Published on 18 Sep 2012
The opening scene of HBO's "The Newsroom".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML3qYHWRIZk
The Most Honest Three Minutes In Television History
Published on 1 Feb 2013
Brutally Honest trump supporter tells it like it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra7dD...
Take a moment and think about it. Remember it, Share it and maybe, just maybe, we can be great again!
The point of this video? Not to create animosity nor give an audience to hateful statements from people who, because of their own apathy, in part created the world we now live.
The point of this video is to make anyone who cares to pull together and stop the down fall as best as they can. To be good to one another and stop blaming everybody else for our own short comings. To heal ourselves so that we can heal others. Not as separate parts, but as a whole sum of Humanity!
This video has now been seen in 190+ countries! Still people don't seem to be getting the point.
I am a human being just as you. Doing things for the right reasons just as you. If you're not treating your fellow man (Mankind) (Human Beings) with compassion, or at least treating them as you would be treated, then how are you helping the situation. And if you're not helping the situation, then what are you doing? It's not about invisible lines that divide us rather human qualities that unite us. It's a lie to think your not good enough.
There are two entities in the world.
1. Evil This is where one feels Anger, Jealousy, Greed, Resentment, Lies, and Inferiority. (and SUPERIOR! BAFS)
2. Goodness This is where one feels Joy, Peace, Love, Hope, Humility, Kindness, Empathy and Truth. (and FREE! BAFS)
As I read over the comments I see both Evil and Goodness shared. It is not a country that is evil or good. Rather it is a personal choice of the people in any country to be either Good or Evil. And they do so through their actions.
MISPLACED COMPASSION FOR THE MASSMURDERING PERPETRATORS, AND BLASPHEMOUS - WHAT ABOUT THE REAL VICTIMS? (BAFS)
Few of the sins of the father, are visited upon the son
Hearts have been hard, our hands have been clenched in a fist too long
Our sons need never be soldiers, our daughters will never need guns
These are the years between
These are the years that were hard fought and won
Contracts torn at the edges, old signatures stained with tears Seasons of war and peace, these should not be forgotten years
Still it aches like tetanus, it reeks of politics
How many dreams remain?
This is a feeling too strong to contain
The hardest years, the darkest years, the roarin' years, the fallen years
These should not be forgotten years
The hardest years, the wildest years, the desperate and divided years
We will remember, these should not be forgotten years
MISPLACED COMPASSION FOR THE MASSMURDERING PERPETRATORS, AND BLASPHEMOUS - WHAT ABOUT THE REAL VICTIMS? (BAFS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9eap_cKLP4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1wRNA_EW59dOYBaK33eMWtUnjGQeZ9En_smerFqjvt9Fe-qJhQjdF8LF4
Category
Lyrics: (NOT A SINGLE WORD FOR THE REAL VICTIMS?)Few of the sins of the father, are visited upon the son
Hearts have been hard, our hands have been clenched in a fist too long
Our sons need never be soldiers, our daughters will never need guns
These are the years between
These are the years that were hard fought and won
Contracts torn at the edges, old signatures stained with tears Seasons of war and peace, these should not be forgotten years
Still it aches like tetanus, it reeks of politics
How many dreams remain?
This is a feeling too strong to contain
The hardest years, the darkest years, the roarin' years, the fallen years
These should not be forgotten years
The hardest years, the wildest years, the desperate and divided years
We will remember, these should not be forgotten years
THIS IS GREAT "MILLENIAL" AMERICA!
"MEMORIES FOR MY FAMILY",
YET, THE TRUMPIST LOST IT!
EXCITED THANKSGIVING 'CHRISTIAN' TALKING OF GOD AND USING THE F.... WORD PROFUSELY!
(But, she is damn right about BLACK RACISM!)
(But, she is damn right about BLACK RACISM!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra7dDWgGaqI
Brutal Honesty
Thanks Giving message from Donald J Trump supporter
Let's be honest America.. We judge your choices.... we judge your lack of strive..... We judge the amount of hate in your heart..... We judge your actions your temper tantrums... We could care less about the color of your skin💁🏼
Side note: people with food stamps aren't bad people I'm not saying that! We all struggle and need a little help! However people who stay on them years and do nothing to change your situation I'm talking to you💁🏼
Thanks GIving message from Donald J Trump supporter
Let's be honest America..
We judge your choices.... we judge your lack of strive.....
We judge the amount of hate in your heart..... We judge your actions your temper tantrums... We could care less about the color of your skin
💁🏼 Side note: people with food stamps aren't bad people I'm not saying that!
We all struggle and need a little help!
However people who stay on them years and do nothing to change your situation I'm talking to you💁🏼
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY 5.9.2019
Yet, she IS GIVING A HEAP OF SHIT! Even if her uncontrollable anger is legitimate, she is unable to cope with the problem and should keep away from racists of all kinds!
You can get angry on the spur of the moment, but when you do this on video, it is not anger anymore, it is PSYCHOPATHY!
And she cannot even get her own religion right!
BAFS
Au moment des débats précédant le vote de l’infâme loi Fabius-Gayssot, en 1990, Annie Kriegel, alors journaliste au Figaro, aujourd’hui décédée, avait dénoncé « une insupportable police juive de la pensée ». Ses craintes se sont révélées parfaitement fondées : l’on ne compte plus les personnes qui ont été condamnées à de fortes amendes voire à des peines de prison ferme pour avoir contrevenu à cette législation d’exception. Et ce que nous voyons et entendons depuis quelques semaines montre de manière éclatante que nous vivons en pleine tyrannie juive. Les choses sont très claires : on peut rire de tout en France sauf des juifs et de la sacro-sainte Shoah. On peut donner des spectacles odieusement blasphématoires comme Golgotha Picnic avec le soutien bruyant du ministre de l’Intérieur et de tout le gouvernement ; des lesbiennes ukrainiennes financées par le milliardaire juif Soros peuvent mimer un avortement à l’église de la Madeleine en toute impunité, souiller délibérément des édifices catholiques ; on peut insulter dans des chansons, des sketches, des émissions de radio et de télévision du service public les catholiques, les blancs, les Français sans aucune limite mais en revanche l’on ne saurait se moquer du « peuple sûr de lui et dominateur ».
Tous ces gens-là dont l’impudence et l’hystérie sont proprement effrayantes n’ont aucun humour. Il suffisait pour s’en persuader de voir l’autre jour sur i-télé le débat sur l’affaire Dieudonné entre le dessinateur Plantu et le philosophe autoproclamé Finkielkraut qui suait la haine et était incapable de se contenir : l’on a affaire à de grands malades, à des fous furieux. Heureusement comme toujours Eric Zemmour — accusé par Le Nouvel Obs’ d’être pourvoyeur de haine comme Soral et Dieudonné, telle était la une de l’hebdo jeudi dernier — s’est démarqué de ses coreligionnaires les plus bruyants et les plus excités en dénonçant « le partenariat communautariste » entre Valls et le CRIF, en disant son opposition à la loi Gayssot en en dénonçant fermement la décision du Conseil d’Etat. Honneur à lui !
Selon le processus d’inversion accusatoire les puissants qui nous dirigent projettent sur les autres ce dont ils sont eux-mêmes coupables. Ils dénoncent sans cesse la haine qui serait distillée par Dieudonné mais qui répand la haine à flots continus ? Qui organise la traque, la chasse à l’homme contre le plus génial humoriste français depuis trente ans ? Ce qui se passe actuellement rappelle ce que l’on a vécu en 1999 contre le nonagénaire Maurice Papon qui était alors recherché par toutes les polices et traqué comme une bête sauvage par tous les grands media. Lors de son procès à Bordeaux il n’avait pu trouver à se loger car des dirigeants de la communauté juive avaient menacé les établissements hôteliers qui le recevraient. Cela rappelle la cabale contre les magistrats qui, au début des années 1990, avaient eu le courage en appel de décider d’un non-lieu pour Paul Touvier, arrêt qui fut évidemment cassé par la cour de cassation. Car l’on ne saurait faire la moindre confiance aux institutions judiciaires.
De même qu’avec Hollande et Valls au pouvoir la France devient plus que jamais un territoire occupé par le sionisme et le judaïsme international, de même l’on sait désormais que le Conseil d’Etat est un tribunal rabbinique. La décision rendue de toute urgence le 9 janvier à la demande expresse de Valls marié à une femme juive et clamant son attachement éternel à Israël est une ignominie. Elle rompt radicalement avec la tradition du droit public français et, par un soudain retournement de jurisprudence, place sous étroite surveillance les humoristes mais aussi les hommes politiques qui devront plus que jamais passer sous les fourches caudines du judaïsme politiquement organisé. Faudra-t-il désormais une autorisation préalable du CRIF, de la LICRA, des Klarsfeld et de BHL pour pouvoir s’exprimer en public ? Preuve de l’insupportable impudence du Système qui nous opprime, l’unique magistrat à avoir rendu cette décision scélérate au Conseil d’Etat est un juif, Bernard Stirn, arrière-petit neveu du capitaine Dreyfus (comme quoi depuis cette époque c’est toujours la lutte des mêmes contre les mêmes !), frère d’Olivier Stirn, ce ministricule de Michel Rocard qui, en 1990, avait recruté des auditeurs payés afin de faire nombre dans un colloque sur l’avenir de la gauche (les recrutés avaient tous quitté la salle à 18 heures, heure de fin de leur contrat, pendant un discours d’orateur, laissant la salle quasiment vide hormis les personnalités du Parti socialiste) et qui fut membre du comité France-Israël (cette mention a d’ailleurs curieusement été supprimée de sa fiche Wikipedia en pleine affaire Dieudonné).
Civiltá Cattolica, a newspaper founded with the support of Pope Pius IX, offered one of the first Catholic reactions to Jewish nationalism. A few months before the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the paper invoked the theory of displacement and the preaching of dispersion to support its repudiation of the national aspirations of the Jews. Similarly, as Hebrew University of Jerusalem historian Sergio Minerbi has documented, during the first audience given by a pontiff to a Zionist leader in 1904, Pius X appealed to religious doctrine to deal with the nationalist yearnings of the Jews. The Pope gave a theological answer to a political proposition, thus closing all possibility of a meeting of minds. The Jews had not recognized Jesus Christ, the Pope told Theodor Herzl, ergo the Church could not recognize the Jews.
With the consolidation of Zionism and the Great Powers’ growing international acceptance of it, the Holy See focused its concern on the destiny of the holy places and on the Christian presence in the Holy Land. The Vatican held an unfavorable view of the Balfour Declaration and the creation of the British Mandate in Palestine and instigated diplomatic efforts contrary to the interests of the Zionists. The Papacy viewed the Jewish nationalists as anti-religious Bolsheviks and feared that their way of life would result in the desecration of the Holy Land. There were apprehensions about Zionism’s modernism and liberalism, combined with the possibility that a Hebrew government would be in charge of Christian sacred sites, a position encapsulated in this statement by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Monsignor Luigi Barlassina: “Let Palestine be internationalized rather than some day be the servant of Zionism.”1
The Vatican maintained its rejection of Jewish nationalism even during World War II. Against the background of the ongoing genocide of European Jews and with the countries of the Free World reluctant to receive Jewish refugees, senior officials of the Holy See expressed their opposition to the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. These sentiments are documented in letters sent between 1943 and 1944, when the Papacy was fully aware of the existence of the Holocaust. As a case in point, the Holy See Secretary of State Cardinal Luigi Maglione wrote to the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C.: “If Palestine fell under the power of the Jews, it would create new and grave international problems, it would annoy all the Catholics of the world, it would provoke the justified protests of the Holy See, and it would be a poor response to the charitable concerns that the Holy See has shown and is showing towards non-Aryans.”2
But the most significant symbol of the new Vatican approach to the Jewish people was Vatican recognition of the State of Israel in 1993. With the leadership of John Paul II, this transformational diplomatic event marked a turning point in bilateral relations. Getting to this point was not easy, however. The initial Vatican response to the establishment of Israel was publicized in an article in L’Osservatore Romano, published the day Israel proclaimed its independence, in May 1948. “Modern Zionism is not the true heir of Biblical Israel,” said the Vatican organ, “Christianity [is] the true Israel.” The Vatican made an effort to characterize the Jewish state as a purely political phenomenon, devoid of any religious connotation. This allowed it to recognize the State of Israel diplomatically without having to deal with the associated theological challenge. But this did not please Jews who viewed that as a negation of the spiritual basis of the Zionist movement, as a scholar noted.
Once the State of Israel was born, the fate of Jerusalem and the holy places continued to be an issue of Vatican concern, together with the evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the fate of Christian communities in the Middle East, and the question of recognition or non-recognition of the new state. As Vatican expert Henry Bocala pointed out, the Holy See viewed the question of Jerusalem as a religious issue (protection of the holy places) with a political dimension (the legal status of the city). Here, Rome saw itself as a party to the dispute and, consequently, not only asked for a resolution but also demanded a say over the outcome. Initially, it asked for the internationalization of Jerusalem and the holy places, and from 1967 onwards modified its position in pursuit of an internationally guaranteed special status. The Arab-Israeli conflict was seen as a political problem (a clash between two nationalisms) with a religious component (the diminished Christian presence in the Holy Land). Here, Rome saw itself in the role of a conciliator and asked for a resolution without proposing details for it.3
This did not prevent the Papacy from adopting a pro-Palestinian position. The Holy See propagated the idea that the Palestinians were the main victims of the conflict, that the Israelis were responsible for their condition, as well as the notion that without a solution to their cause there could be no peace in the region. Rome’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict was reflected in this phrase by the President of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine, Monsignor John Nolan: “If the Palestinians have no voice, we are their voice.”4
Rome’s endorsement of Palestinian national aspirations did not echo its lack of support for Jewish national yearnings before 1948, and once the Jewish state was established it took the Vatican decades to establish diplomatic ties. An Israeli official based in Rome expressed Jerusalem’s annoyance thus: “Our position was clear: we are always ready. If you truly wish to normalize relations, you have only to say the word. Our address is the same as it was 2,000 years ago.”5
As the first Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, the late Shmuel Hadas, observed, early recognition of Israel could have been a historic opportunity for the Catholic Church to rectify – albeit partially – its past hostility toward Jews and its silence during the Holocaust.6 Rome chose to see things in a different way. Only after the PLO agreed to formally recognize Israel in September 1993 did the Holy See decide to do the same, two months later. By then, the State of Israel had lived through forty-five years of sovereign life.
In December 1993, the Fundamental Agreement was signed between the parties and in June 1994, Israel and the Holy See exchanged ambassadors. A new horizon in relations between the two emerged, and the bond between Rome and Jerusalem was finally normalized.
Le blog politique de Thomas JOLY
Secrétaire général du Parti de la France
« L’insupportable police juive de la pensée » (par Jérôme Bourbon)
Au moment des débats précédant le vote de l’infâme loi Fabius-Gayssot, en 1990, Annie Kriegel, alors journaliste au Figaro, aujourd’hui décédée, avait dénoncé « une insupportable police juive de la pensée ». Ses craintes se sont révélées parfaitement fondées : l’on ne compte plus les personnes qui ont été condamnées à de fortes amendes voire à des peines de prison ferme pour avoir contrevenu à cette législation d’exception. Et ce que nous voyons et entendons depuis quelques semaines montre de manière éclatante que nous vivons en pleine tyrannie juive. Les choses sont très claires : on peut rire de tout en France sauf des juifs et de la sacro-sainte Shoah. On peut donner des spectacles odieusement blasphématoires comme Golgotha Picnic avec le soutien bruyant du ministre de l’Intérieur et de tout le gouvernement ; des lesbiennes ukrainiennes financées par le milliardaire juif Soros peuvent mimer un avortement à l’église de la Madeleine en toute impunité, souiller délibérément des édifices catholiques ; on peut insulter dans des chansons, des sketches, des émissions de radio et de télévision du service public les catholiques, les blancs, les Français sans aucune limite mais en revanche l’on ne saurait se moquer du « peuple sûr de lui et dominateur ». Tous ces gens-là dont l’impudence et l’hystérie sont proprement effrayantes n’ont aucun humour. Il suffisait pour s’en persuader de voir l’autre jour sur i-télé le débat sur l’affaire Dieudonné entre le dessinateur Plantu et le philosophe autoproclamé Finkielkraut qui suait la haine et était incapable de se contenir : l’on a affaire à de grands malades, à des fous furieux. Heureusement comme toujours Eric Zemmour — accusé par Le Nouvel Obs’ d’être pourvoyeur de haine comme Soral et Dieudonné, telle était la une de l’hebdo jeudi dernier — s’est démarqué de ses coreligionnaires les plus bruyants et les plus excités en dénonçant « le partenariat communautariste » entre Valls et le CRIF, en disant son opposition à la loi Gayssot en en dénonçant fermement la décision du Conseil d’Etat. Honneur à lui !Selon le processus d’inversion accusatoire les puissants qui nous dirigent projettent sur les autres ce dont ils sont eux-mêmes coupables. Ils dénoncent sans cesse la haine qui serait distillée par Dieudonné mais qui répand la haine à flots continus ? Qui organise la traque, la chasse à l’homme contre le plus génial humoriste français depuis trente ans ? Ce qui se passe actuellement rappelle ce que l’on a vécu en 1999 contre le nonagénaire Maurice Papon qui était alors recherché par toutes les polices et traqué comme une bête sauvage par tous les grands media. Lors de son procès à Bordeaux il n’avait pu trouver à se loger car des dirigeants de la communauté juive avaient menacé les établissements hôteliers qui le recevraient. Cela rappelle la cabale contre les magistrats qui, au début des années 1990, avaient eu le courage en appel de décider d’un non-lieu pour Paul Touvier, arrêt qui fut évidemment cassé par la cour de cassation. Car l’on ne saurait faire la moindre confiance aux institutions judiciaires.De même qu’avec Hollande et Valls au pouvoir la France devient plus que jamais un territoire occupé par le sionisme et le judaïsme international, de même l’on sait désormais que le Conseil d’Etat est un tribunal rabbinique. La décision rendue de toute urgence le 9 janvier à la demande expresse de Valls marié à une femme juive et clamant son attachement éternel à Israël est une ignominie. Elle rompt radicalement avec la tradition du droit public français et, par un soudain retournement de jurisprudence, place sous étroite surveillance les humoristes mais aussi les hommes politiques qui devront plus que jamais passer sous les fourches caudines du judaïsme politiquement organisé. Faudra-t-il désormais une autorisation préalable du CRIF, de la LICRA, des Klarsfeld et de BHL pour pouvoir s’exprimer en public ? Preuve de l’insupportable impudence du Système qui nous opprime, l’unique magistrat à avoir rendu cette décision scélérate au Conseil d’Etat est un juif, Bernard Stirn, arrière-petit neveu du capitaine Dreyfus (comme quoi depuis cette époque c’est toujours la lutte des mêmes contre les mêmes !), frère d’Olivier Stirn, ce ministricule de Michel Rocard qui, en 1990, avait recruté des auditeurs payés afin de faire nombre dans un colloque sur l’avenir de la gauche (les recrutés avaient tous quitté la salle à 18 heures, heure de fin de leur contrat, pendant un discours d’orateur, laissant la salle quasiment vide hormis les personnalités du Parti socialiste) et qui fut membre du comité France-Israël (cette mention a d’ailleurs curieusement été supprimée de sa fiche Wikipedia en pleine affaire Dieudonné).Partager cet article
WIKIPEDIA
John XXIII was Pope from 28
October 1958 to 3 June 1963. After 1944 as Nuncio to France, he played an
active role in gaining Catholic Church support for the establishment of the state
of Israel.
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law
The Vatican’s Path toward Official Recognition of Israel
The formal
establishment of diplomatic relations in 1993 between the Holy See,
represented by Monsignor Claudio Maria Celli (left), and Israel,
represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin (Andres Lacko/WJC).
Initial Hostility to Zionism
The idea of a Jewish state challenged the Vatican psychologically, theologically and politically. The notion that the Jewish people could have a right to self-determination – and even more so in the Holy Land – was anathema to Vatican understanding of the role of the Jew in history. Arising in the context of emerging nationalisms and in an atmosphere of growing secularism, liberalism, and modernism (all currents that were questioning the established clerical order), Zionism was destined to irritate the Papacy.Civiltá Cattolica, a newspaper founded with the support of Pope Pius IX, offered one of the first Catholic reactions to Jewish nationalism. A few months before the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the paper invoked the theory of displacement and the preaching of dispersion to support its repudiation of the national aspirations of the Jews. Similarly, as Hebrew University of Jerusalem historian Sergio Minerbi has documented, during the first audience given by a pontiff to a Zionist leader in 1904, Pius X appealed to religious doctrine to deal with the nationalist yearnings of the Jews. The Pope gave a theological answer to a political proposition, thus closing all possibility of a meeting of minds. The Jews had not recognized Jesus Christ, the Pope told Theodor Herzl, ergo the Church could not recognize the Jews.
With the consolidation of Zionism and the Great Powers’ growing international acceptance of it, the Holy See focused its concern on the destiny of the holy places and on the Christian presence in the Holy Land. The Vatican held an unfavorable view of the Balfour Declaration and the creation of the British Mandate in Palestine and instigated diplomatic efforts contrary to the interests of the Zionists. The Papacy viewed the Jewish nationalists as anti-religious Bolsheviks and feared that their way of life would result in the desecration of the Holy Land. There were apprehensions about Zionism’s modernism and liberalism, combined with the possibility that a Hebrew government would be in charge of Christian sacred sites, a position encapsulated in this statement by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Monsignor Luigi Barlassina: “Let Palestine be internationalized rather than some day be the servant of Zionism.”1
The Vatican maintained its rejection of Jewish nationalism even during World War II. Against the background of the ongoing genocide of European Jews and with the countries of the Free World reluctant to receive Jewish refugees, senior officials of the Holy See expressed their opposition to the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. These sentiments are documented in letters sent between 1943 and 1944, when the Papacy was fully aware of the existence of the Holocaust. As a case in point, the Holy See Secretary of State Cardinal Luigi Maglione wrote to the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C.: “If Palestine fell under the power of the Jews, it would create new and grave international problems, it would annoy all the Catholics of the world, it would provoke the justified protests of the Holy See, and it would be a poor response to the charitable concerns that the Holy See has shown and is showing towards non-Aryans.”2
A New Era of Reconciliation after World War II
The decades following the end of the Second World War witnessed a very positive change in the attitude of the Papacy toward the Jewish people. Events that would have been unthinkable a short time before became habitual. Popes visited concentration camps and synagogues, a concert in memory of the Holocaust was held in Vatican City, and anti-Semitism was unequivocally condemned. The Catholic Church promoted religious relations with the Jews, papal audiences to Jewish delegations became regular, and an extraordinarily cordial dialogue was adopted. This was possible thanks to the revolutionary dogmatic revision prompted by the Second Vatican Council, called for by John XXIII, continued by Paul VI and honored by all their successors. In particular, the Nostra Aetate Declaration represented the theological turning point for the advent of a new era of reconciliation. It was attacked by ultraconservative Catholic sectors and by Arab delegates, resulting in a minimization of its centrality and a final, less auspicious version than the original draft. Even so, Nostra Aetate was a religious landmark and remains the most important Catholic document regarding church relations with the Jewish people. Subsequently, the Guides (1974) and the Notes (1985) supplemented their positive teachings.But the most significant symbol of the new Vatican approach to the Jewish people was Vatican recognition of the State of Israel in 1993. With the leadership of John Paul II, this transformational diplomatic event marked a turning point in bilateral relations. Getting to this point was not easy, however. The initial Vatican response to the establishment of Israel was publicized in an article in L’Osservatore Romano, published the day Israel proclaimed its independence, in May 1948. “Modern Zionism is not the true heir of Biblical Israel,” said the Vatican organ, “Christianity [is] the true Israel.” The Vatican made an effort to characterize the Jewish state as a purely political phenomenon, devoid of any religious connotation. This allowed it to recognize the State of Israel diplomatically without having to deal with the associated theological challenge. But this did not please Jews who viewed that as a negation of the spiritual basis of the Zionist movement, as a scholar noted.
Once the State of Israel was born, the fate of Jerusalem and the holy places continued to be an issue of Vatican concern, together with the evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the fate of Christian communities in the Middle East, and the question of recognition or non-recognition of the new state. As Vatican expert Henry Bocala pointed out, the Holy See viewed the question of Jerusalem as a religious issue (protection of the holy places) with a political dimension (the legal status of the city). Here, Rome saw itself as a party to the dispute and, consequently, not only asked for a resolution but also demanded a say over the outcome. Initially, it asked for the internationalization of Jerusalem and the holy places, and from 1967 onwards modified its position in pursuit of an internationally guaranteed special status. The Arab-Israeli conflict was seen as a political problem (a clash between two nationalisms) with a religious component (the diminished Christian presence in the Holy Land). Here, Rome saw itself in the role of a conciliator and asked for a resolution without proposing details for it.3
This did not prevent the Papacy from adopting a pro-Palestinian position. The Holy See propagated the idea that the Palestinians were the main victims of the conflict, that the Israelis were responsible for their condition, as well as the notion that without a solution to their cause there could be no peace in the region. Rome’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict was reflected in this phrase by the President of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine, Monsignor John Nolan: “If the Palestinians have no voice, we are their voice.”4
Rome’s endorsement of Palestinian national aspirations did not echo its lack of support for Jewish national yearnings before 1948, and once the Jewish state was established it took the Vatican decades to establish diplomatic ties. An Israeli official based in Rome expressed Jerusalem’s annoyance thus: “Our position was clear: we are always ready. If you truly wish to normalize relations, you have only to say the word. Our address is the same as it was 2,000 years ago.”5
As the first Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, the late Shmuel Hadas, observed, early recognition of Israel could have been a historic opportunity for the Catholic Church to rectify – albeit partially – its past hostility toward Jews and its silence during the Holocaust.6 Rome chose to see things in a different way. Only after the PLO agreed to formally recognize Israel in September 1993 did the Holy See decide to do the same, two months later. By then, the State of Israel had lived through forty-five years of sovereign life.
In December 1993, the Fundamental Agreement was signed between the parties and in June 1994, Israel and the Holy See exchanged ambassadors. A new horizon in relations between the two emerged, and the bond between Rome and Jerusalem was finally normalized.
* * *
Notes
1 Minerbi, Sergio I. The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land 1895-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 141.
2 Conway, John S. “Catholicism and the Jews During the Nazi Period and After”, in Kulka, Otto, Dov. & Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, Judaism and Christianity Under the Impact of National Socialism (Jerusalem: The Historical Society of Israel and the Zalman Shazar Center of Jewish History, 1987), p. 448.
3 Bocala, Henry. Diplomatic Relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel: Policy Basis in the Pontifical Documents, 1948-1997 (Roma: Pontificia Università Della Santa Croce, 2003), pp. 10-11 and 95-97.
4 Kreutz, Andrej. Vatican Policy on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: The Struggle for the Holy Land (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1990), p. 160
5 The quote is attributed to Yitzhak Shoham, attaché to the Israeli embassy in Rome for relations with The Holy See. See Cremonesi, Lorenzo, “The Stages of Diplomatic Negotiations” in Breger, Marshall J. (Editor) The Vatican Israel Accords: Political, Legal and Theological Contexts (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), p. 33.
6 Interview with the author in Jerusalem on August 26, 2008.
2 Conway, John S. “Catholicism and the Jews During the Nazi Period and After”, in Kulka, Otto, Dov. & Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, Judaism and Christianity Under the Impact of National Socialism (Jerusalem: The Historical Society of Israel and the Zalman Shazar Center of Jewish History, 1987), p. 448.
3 Bocala, Henry. Diplomatic Relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel: Policy Basis in the Pontifical Documents, 1948-1997 (Roma: Pontificia Università Della Santa Croce, 2003), pp. 10-11 and 95-97.
4 Kreutz, Andrej. Vatican Policy on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: The Struggle for the Holy Land (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1990), p. 160
5 The quote is attributed to Yitzhak Shoham, attaché to the Israeli embassy in Rome for relations with The Holy See. See Cremonesi, Lorenzo, “The Stages of Diplomatic Negotiations” in Breger, Marshall J. (Editor) The Vatican Israel Accords: Political, Legal and Theological Contexts (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), p. 33.
6 Interview with the author in Jerusalem on August 26, 2008.
