The persecution of Benedict XVI in the Israeli press could result in far greater reputational costs for the Jewish state than those incurred by "Operation Cast Lead." This is because it fundamentally contradicts the principles of common sense, which, in the eyes of many, justify the operation in Gaza, writes Dmitry Bavyrin, an analyst for the "Actual Comments" portal.
The Pope in Israel
The persecution of Benedict XVI in the Israeli press could cost the Jewish state far greater reputational losses than "Operation Cast Lead." It fundamentally contradicts the principles of common sense, which, in the eyes of many, justify the operation in Gaza.
Israel was built on common sense and the resulting policy of effective rigidity. A state established after the Holocaust, that developed its economy on barren rocks, and thrived under constant threats of annihilation, could not afford the luxury of stupidity. In Israel, very few oppose the state; rather, a sense of personal responsibility—from IDF officers to retirees inspecting grocery bags at airports—has seemingly shielded the country from ill-considered actions and destructive insanity.
Yet, insanity is exactly what we are witnessing. The media is awash with interviews of former concentration camp prisoners questioning whether it is ethical to shake the Pope's hand. Some politicians, primarily ultra-Orthodox ones, are boycotting the pontiff. The Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin and the director of the Yad Vashem memorial demand personal repentance from the Holy Father, who is sinless in the eyes of Catholics.
The Accusations Against the Pope
The accusations against Benedict XVI revolve around three main points:
a) his membership in the Hitler Youth,
b) his support for the canonization of Pius XII, accused of complicity in the Holocaust,
c) his decision to reintegrate revisionist Bishop Williamson into the Church.
Each case deserves to be examined individually, if only because what initially seem like convincing reasons often turn out to be a mix of distortions, misunderstandings, and outright lies. For instance, the fact that the Reich’s 1939 "Youth Service Duty" law made membership in the Hitler Youth mandatory and automatic for all German youth is well-known to anyone who has looked into the matter. Given this, the accusation against Benedict XVI is equivalent to reproaching him for being German rather than Jewish or Polish, like the previous Pope—an absurdity that goes beyond mere foolishness to become something far more insidious.
Key details about the case involving revisionist Williamson have either been omitted or obscured. The Pope did not lift the excommunication specifically for Williamson but for four Lefebvrist bishops as a group. Moreover, the Pope was unaware of Williamson's views on the Holocaust and could not have known, as the infamous interview in which Williamson referred to the Shoah as a "fabrication" was given on the very day the "pardon" was announced. It is also worth noting that this act of forgiveness did not restore Williamson's canonical functions within the Church. However, most of the accusers either do not know or choose not to acknowledge these facts, just as they refuse to heed the Vatican’s explanations and its assurances that "Monsignor Williamson’s position is absolutely unacceptable and is firmly rejected by the Holy Father."
Finally, while Pius XII remained silent at an official level during the Holocaust, he saved thousands of Jews through Vatican channels. Similarly, industrialist Oskar Schindler and nurse Irena Sendler also remained silent in an official capacity, saving 4,000 lives precisely through such "official silence." There is a view that a more "outspoken stance" could have complicated rescue operations—leading to barbed wire, armed guards, and German shepherds.
Fortunately, neither Pope has yet been held personally responsible for the sins of individual clergy members—ranging from associations with Nazi officials to direct involvement in the genocide of Serbs and Jews in Croatia, acts so extreme even Himmler considered them excessive. However, given the fervor of recent accusations, this leniency may only be temporary. The campaign has certainly started with unsettling enthusiasm.
Naturally, there are many purely political differences between the Vatican and Israel (for example, the status and role of Jerusalem are understandably interpreted differently). However, such a shift to personal attacks forces the Jewish state to endure reputational costs under "Godwin's Law" and in the best traditions of Usenet: whoever first mentions Hitler or Nazism in a debate—loses.
This is not just, or even primarily, about a conflict between Jews and Catholics. Far worse is the fact that frequent and often inappropriate references to the Holocaust devalue the very tragedy that underpins Israel’s statehood. Phantom pains, the urge to find the specter of antisemitism in every shadow, and discussions of "Germany’s eternal guilt" generate backlash that serves the interests of antisemites, Holocaust revisionists, and European leftists—many of whom already accuse Israel of pursuing a "fascist, intolerant policy."
It seems that years of prosperity, military strength, and a robust economy have simply relaxed Israel, dulling its sense of self-preservation and nurturing petty political factions. In those years when the very existence of the Jewish state hung by a thread, and pragmatism, alongside Judaism, served as its civil religion, such behavior would have been unthinkable. But then again, that era was shaped by leaders of a different caliber than Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin.
It is enough to recall that the government of Germany’s first Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer—a man who openly despised the ideology of "superhumans" and opposed Hitler himself—included former Nazis. Among them was Hans Globke, a commentator on the Nuremberg Laws, the author of the idea of yellow stars, and the directive banning marriages between Jews and Aryans.
Yet, at Adenauer’s funeral, the great David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel, was present. Leaders of such stature understood each other’s motives profoundly.
However, in times of prosperity, there are ample resources for petty politics—insignificant yet noisy. While official Jerusalem does not support the baseless persecution of the Pope, no loud rebuke against the accusers has been heard from its side either.
The "third party" benefiting from this entire situation is obvious. Islamic radicals have their sights set on both Europe and the Pope, who has already been the target of several terrorist attacks and was even compared to Hitler. This comparison arose after the pontiff quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II, who once stated that Muhammad had brought "evil and inhuman things, such as spreading faith by the sword." The resulting riots and casualties ironically and vividly illustrated the validity of the original statement.
As for their intentions toward Israel, no reminder is necessary.
It is equally clear that with such neighbors, the focus should be on unifying rather than divisive issues. Regardless of how Jewish Orthodox communities view their role in the global order, Israel today is a typical Western state, with a corresponding set of rights and freedoms. It serves as a stronghold in the Middle East for the very civilization that was also nurtured by Christianity.
This is primarily because Israel was founded by people of Western culture. And if Catholic nuns are considered the brides of Christ, then the Jewish people are, at the very least, relatives on the groom's side.
Source: Information website "Actual Comments."
Photo: Ratzinger-Inform.