Pope Benedict XVI walked out of an ecumenical gathering prematurely in Jerusalem this evening.
Tamimi basically commandeered the microphone and launched into a heated, ten-minute tirade in Arabic.
The speech, as you would expect, was anti-Israeli.
The pope waited until the tirade was over, got up, shook Tamimi's hand, and unceremoniously left the gathering, which was not yet formally over.
Details are still sketchy, but let's look at a few questions that may arise as a result of this:
1) If the pope decided to leave the event, why did he wait until after the tirade was over? Why not walk out in the middle of it?
Several possibilities suggest themselves:
a) So far as I know, the pope does not speak Arabic, and it does not appear that realtime translation was being provided. It may not have been clear to the pope precisely what was being said and whether it justified walking out. After all, it's one thing to walk out on an impassioned and impromptu anti-Israeli tirade. It's another to walk out on an impassioned and impromptu plea for peace. Between the two are a whole host of possibilities, and the bottom line is you want to make sure that sufficiently severe line has been crossed before you walk out. The pope may well have been waiting to find out from an Arabic-speaking aide precisely what had just been said.
Also, the Jerusalem Post notes that the pope "was visibly uncomfortable with the tone of Tamimi's discourse" while it was underway.
b) If you're going to walk out, you do so knowing that your actions will likely call more attention to the incident than it would otherwise have and that they will be portrayed by some as a slap not just against the angry tirader but against the constituency he represents. Given that, if you are trying to be a peacemaker, you want to send a measured message that will make the point without further inflaming the situation. It thus could be prudent to wait until the tirade was over and thus deny pro-Tamimi people the ability to say, "The pope didn't want to hear what was being said; he walked out before the sheikh was even finished; the pope can't handle the truth." In any event, just after the tirade would be a logical point to depart for diplomatic reasons.
c) In the heat of a moment like this, it may have simply taken the pontiff time to decide what to do.
I therefore don't see serious cause from criticism regarding the timing of the pope's departure, though I have seen people in pro-Israel parts of the blogosphere acting indignant that the pope didn't take an ultra-macho stance and walk out sooner.
2) Why did the pope shake Tamimi's hand?
a) Assuming that report is accurate (and I assume it is), see answer (b), above. The pope was trying to send a measured message. He's trying to make a point by leaving but not slam the door shut on dialogue with the Muslim and Palestinian communities. Even if Tamimi has shown himself to be an unacceptable dialogue partner, simultaneously rebuffing him by leaving but also shaking his hand sends two messages to the communities he represents: This kind of behavior isn't acceptable but I'm still trying to be nice to you and want to preserve possibilities for the future.
b) See also reply (c), above, regarding the heat of the moment and trying to figure out what to do.
c) As far as I know, the pope likely also shook the hand of the rabbi who was in attendance, which would create a message of "I'm trying to show respect for both your communities here."
3) Should Tamimi have been stricken off the guest roster due to his past behavior?
I have more sympathy for criticism of the Vatican Secretariate of State on this one. A Google search reveals that Tamimi is a known advocate of terror bombing. Why the Secretariate of State would think he was an appropriate individual to appear alongside the pope, I don't know.
On the other hand, if you're trying to advance the cause of peace via negotiation, you need someone to negotiate with, and it may well be that the Palestian leadership is so dirty with respect to terrorism that there simply are no leaders–religious or secular–who haven't made positive remarks about terror bombing.
On the third hand, Tamimi has a specific history of doing precisely this kind of thing. The Jerusalem Post notes:
Tamimi staged an identical verbal attack against Israel during Pope John Paul II's visit in March 2000.
Good for the Pope! This is even bolder than his address at Regensburg, much more so. Why? This Pope, like his immediate predecesor (and unlike some of his sainted predecesors, such as Pius X), showed that he will not tolerate the kind of rhetoric that passes as normal among Muslims and Middle Eastern Christians. This Pope, like his predecesor, viewed the Holocaust from up close. Unlike his predecessor, he will not engage in an accomodationist, collaborationist policy with Islam. He will confront Islam on his terms — diplomatic, subtle and unapologetically Christian.
It’s about time somebody in the Church (besides Fr. James Schall) showed some guts when it comes to Islam.
Jimmy, you are trying to read tea leaves and miniscule details. Look at the bigger picture — and, remember, that the Muslims who which to destroy Israel also wish to destroy Middle Eastern Christians.
They invented chess, you know.
“Well if he did that, why on earth would they invite him back?” was the question that immediately raised itself to me.
Because the Vatican has historically been anti-Semitic, even in “modern” times. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote the following in Monday’s Los Angeles Times:
When Theodor Herzl came to the Vatican in 1904 to plead with Pope Pius X to alleviate the suffering of European Jews, the pope bluntly told him that the “Jews have not recognized our lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.” Herzl countered that perhaps terror and persecution were not the right means by which to enlighten them, but the pope rebuffed him: “They had ample time to acknowledge Christ’s divinity without pressure, but they didn’t.”
The Jews’ rejection of Christ remained the dominant guiding principle of church policy toward the Jews through most of the 20th century.
At the height of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, for example, the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Myron C. Taylor, wrote to the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Luigi Maglione, on Sept. 26, 1942, informing him that the United States had received a report of mass executions and deportations of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Poland, Belgium, Holland, France and Slovakia. Taylor wrote that he would appreciate it if the Vatican could verify the report, and added, “I should like to know whether the Holy Father has any suggestions … in which the forces of civilized public opinion could be utilized … to prevent a continuation of these barbarities.”
Three weeks later, the Vatican replied in an unsigned statement to Harold Tittman, an American diplomat at the Holy See, that the church had also heard such reports from other sources but had yet to verify them. Tittman forwarded the information to the State Department, commenting that he regretted that “the Holy See was not more helpful” and that he “received the impression … that the Vatican had no practical suggestions to make.”
Although the Vatican had no suggestions on how to save the Jews, it did have strong opinions about keeping European Jews out of Palestine. On June 22, 1943, the Vatican sent these points to its apostolic delegation in Washington: “If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachments of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.”
Even after Israel was founded in 1948, the Vatican’s official newspaper insisted: “Modern Israel is not the true heir of biblical Israel. … Therefore, the Holy Land and its sacred sites belong to Christianity, the true Israel.”
more to come…
So what does that have to do with today? Well, such noted bishops as Martino, Poupard and Etchegaray were part of the pro-Arab faction during JPII’s papacy. Some of them actually said some rather stupid things:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000594.php
http://www.national-anthems.net/forum/article/misc.immigration.canada/244841
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14658
In addition, L’Osservatore Romano has accused Israelis of “exterminating” Palestinians — a grotesque insult, given what the Jews experienced 60-70 years ago.
All this backround makes Pope Benedict’s walkout truly inspiring.
When it comes to ecumenicalism and interreligious dialogue you can’t win for losing. I see the pope is under attack.
I can see John Paul the Naive not understanding what the real goal of (many) Jews and Moslems ecumaniacs is (non-prostelytism, dual or triple covenant bullology), but I thought Benedict had a more reasonable view of things.
-J. Prot.
I watched it last night. Everyone got up and left together with him. And yes he took his hand ….a gesture of Christian humanity. But the whole room was uncomfortable!
Thank you Jimmy. Reading regular media reports on this kind of stuff is like eating rice cakes. Reading your take on it is like eating a well balanced meal (with pie for dessert).
Joseph D’Hippolito: We are not going to have “the Vatican is anti-Semitic” language on this blog.
Jeb Protestant: We are not going to have “John Paul the Naive” language on this blog.
These kinds of blanket statements are snide and thus Rule 1 violations.
Rule 1 is just a way to say —Don’t say anything about The Pope or The Church unless its “NICE”.
Way to go Jimmy.
Klaus.
The Rooster.
This all sounds like security is not paramount. Thankfully terrorist leaders don’t actually seem prone to suicide bombings done by themselves. Let’s hope Benedict makes it back to Rome and that this trip suffices for that part of the world. The man at 81 has to sit through so many long meetings, you can see the tiredness often on his face. I remember his face a month or so ago when again far from Rome, native dancers were hitting primitive drums and dancing as he sat through the whole thing and looked like he wanted to be somewhere else in a hurry. This is a man who long ago saw rock music as antithetical to Christianity (I’ll grant him the lyrics often are) and here he was sitting through primitive drumming at 81 years of age. We all get some of purgatory early.
Allow me to translate Klaus’ post: “Waaah!”
My question is how can the Pope even appear anti-Semitic when he is meeting with Muslim leaders? The Pope has been losing the PR wars as of late, so would it not be wise to avoid this type of Ecumenical dialog?
I wanted to add that Muslims and Jews are both Semites. So anti-Semitism is a silly statement.
JP II and Pius XII? What the freaking hell do they have to do with this? Oh, I forgot, they ALWAYS have something to do with it.
Allow ME- to translate bill’s post-
Klaus is right–but I need to hide my bias.
Klaus,
Rule 1 means you don’t drop off-topic bombs about past persons/events into the middle of a reasoned discussion of current persons/events. And your comment did sound petulant.
To david b….
Who’s “WAAAING” now?.
Klaus.
The Rooster.
Pay him no mind, David; he proved us both right.
Okay, enough.
Everyone free to make substantial contributions to the discussion. Klaus, within that context, feel free to express a critical point of view concerning the Pope or the Church, if you can do so without being gratuitously offensive or provocative.
Here is Benedict’s address during his visit to the Dome of the Rock:
________________
Dear Muslim friends,
As-salámu ‘aláikum! Peace upon you!
I cordially thank the Grand Mufti, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, together with the director of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, Sheikh Mohammed Azzam al-Khatib al-Tamimi, and the head of the Awquaf Council, Sheikh Abdel Azim Salhab, for the welcome they have extended to me on your behalf. I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place, and I willingly pay my respects to you and the leaders of the Islamic community in Jerusalem.
The Dome of the Rock draws our hearts and minds to reflect upon the mystery of creation and the faith of Abraham. Here the paths of the world’s three great monotheistic religions meet, reminding us what they share in common. Each believes in One God, creator and ruler of all. Each recognizes Abraham as a forefather, a man of faith upon whom God bestowed a special blessing. Each has gained a large following throughout the centuries and inspired a rich spiritual, intellectual and cultural patrimony.
In a world sadly torn by divisions, this sacred place serves as a stimulus, and also challenges men and women of goodwill to work to overcome misunderstandings and conflicts of the past and to set out on the path of a sincere dialogue aimed at building a world of justice and peace for coming generations.
Since the teachings of religious traditions ultimately concern the reality of God, the meaning of life, and the common destiny of mankind –- that is to say, all that is most sacred and dear to us –- there may be a temptation to engage in such dialogue with reluctance or ambivalence about its possibilities for success. Yet we can begin with the belief that the One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy, since in him the two exist in perfect unity. Those who confess his name are entrusted with the task of striving tirelessly for righteousness while imitating his forgiveness, for both are intrinsically oriented to the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of the human family.
For this reason, it is paramount that those who adore the One God should show themselves to be both grounded in and directed towards the unity of the entire human family. In other words, fidelity to the One God, the Creator, the Most High, leads to the recognition that human beings are fundamentally interrelated, since all owe their very existence to a single source and are pointed towards a common goal. Imprinted with the indelible image of the divine, they are called to play an active role in mending divisions and promoting human solidarity.
This places a grave responsibility upon us. Those who honor the One God believe that he will hold human beings accountable for their actions. Christians assert that the divine gifts of reason and freedom stand at the basis of this accountability. Reason opens the mind to grasp the shared nature and common destiny of the human family, while freedom moves the heart to accept the other and serve him in charity. Undivided love for the One God and charity towards ones neighbor thus become the fulcrum around which all else turns. This is why we work untiringly to safeguard human hearts from hatred, anger or vengeance.
Dear friends, I have come to Jerusalem on a journey of faith. I thank God for this occasion to meet you as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, but also as a child of Abraham, by whom “all the families of the earth find blessing” (Gen 12:3; cf. Rom 4:16-17). I assure you of the church’s ardent desire to cooperate for the well-being of the human family. She firmly believes that the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham is universal in scope, embracing all men and women regardless of provenance or social status.
As Muslims and Christians further the respectful dialogue they have already begun, I pray that they will explore how the oneness of God is inextricably tied to the unity of the human family. In submitting to his loving plan for creation, in studying the law inscribed in the cosmos and implanted in the human heart, in reflecting upon the mysterious gift of God’s self-revelation, may all his followers continue to keep their gaze fixed on his absolute goodness, never losing sight of the way it is reflected in the faces of others.
With these thoughts, I humbly ask the Almighty to grant you peace and to bless all the beloved people of this region. May we strive to live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation, bearing witness to the One God by generously serving one another. Thank you!
________
J. Prot.
I would never use this blog to circumvent politeness and respect—-
having said that, it seems to me that to employ a rule-or set of rules that mean to difuse A PRIORI all negative language aimed at a person or institution, demeans dialogue and debate.
That was all I meant.- Hope I did not offend anyone!.
Klaus.
The Rooster.
“I wanted to add that Muslims and Jews are both Semites.”
While that’s true (well, for Arabs and Jews at least), in my experience you’d have a hard time convincing a significant population on either side that it is true.
For instance, when I was a graduate student (so a couple decades ago) many of the graduate students in my research group with whom I spent a good deal of time were Palestinians/Jordanians, and I had several experiences of being told that such claims were untrue, or even Western propaganda. And these were moderate well-educated men who publicly and privately were opposed to violence and a violent solution to their problem.
Klaus: Happy to clarify. Negative or critical language is not disallowed. Even strongly critical language may be fair game. Just because language such as “John Paul the Naive” is unnecessarily inflammatory and beyond the pale does not mean there is a ban on arguing that, e.g., John Paul II’s approach to Islam, war and other subjects was naive. Hope that helps.
The answer to both question #1 and question #2 is the same, and it should be painfully obvious. What’s painful is that, to some people, it is not obvious.
The Pope, you see, has class.
My question is how can the Pope even appear anti-Semitic when he is meeting with Muslim leaders? The Pope has been losing the PR wars as of late, so would it not be wise to avoid this type of Ecumenical dialog?
And then he doesn’t and not only is the Church still anti-Semitic, but Islamophobic as well. It’s a no-win situation, really, in the eyes of the general population.
Hey, how can you say ecumenical gathering if there are muslims involved.
Shouldn’t taht be called inter-religious gathering or something like that?
Matej
You’re correct. I misspoke.
You know you can be prosecuted for what you’re doing, Joe?
Tim J, that one really was Jimmy.
Ha ha! Joe, aren’t you pleased at the confusion caused by your actions? Perhaps you think God is pleased too, or that other people are so displeasing to God that it’s all right to blow smoke at them. God does not grade on a curve. Live in the light, as he is the light.
Oops! Wrong thread!
Jimmy, well-balanced post, as usual.
I think that the Pope did not really “walk”. It is clear that the J Post jumped on this to portray it this way.
It was the end of the meeting, Tamimi was not scheduled to speak but at the end, he grabbed the podium and did speak.
The Pope did not understand what the guy was saying and as it was ending, people were uncomfortable and yes, everybody got up and left quickly. Tamimi clearly finished his speech and went back to sit down. Then, everyone got up and left. That’s what I got from watching it live and then some later commentary on EWTN.
Ummm… I think it is pretty clear…the Pope was gutless and confused (big surprise there). He should have left right away, but then again…..
Jake, your comment constitutes rash judgment as well as being insulting and inflammatory. You haven’t even addressed the question whether the pope knew what was being said. If you want to argue that the pope failed to act when he clearly should have, you can make that argument (first you will have to show that the pope knew what was being said), but temper your language.