Palestine in the Pope's Visit

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Before his papacy, the pope of the Vatican was known for his support of the Jews’ right to Palestine, and for regarding Arabs as latecomers to what is called the “land of Israel.” He was also known for a hostility toward Muslims, on the premise that they had fallen under the sway of a man ingenious in deception — the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The pope never concealed this position, speaking of it openly, in a manner provocative to all Muslims. Perhaps he now saw the necessity of repairing his relationship with Arabs and Muslims, and so undertook his recent tour of the region. And although he offered some gestures here and there that could be considered a starting point for good relations with Arabs and Muslims, he nonetheless showed a great deal of bias in favor of Jews and Israel. Here I record the following observations:

There are observations that count in the visit’s favor, and can be accepted as steps toward establishing good relations:

First: his visit to Jordan and the West Bank, and his meeting with Palestinian and Jordanian officials, is a positive step toward mutual understanding, and visits in general are a good mechanism for building shared understanding between nations and peoples.

Second: the pope’s meeting with clerics in Palestine and Jordan constitutes a good step for exchanging religious ideas, and offers a good opportunity for the Muslims who met with him to clarify many religious matters, foremost among them the attacks the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has faced in recent years.

Third: his visit to the Husseini Mosque in Amman and to Al-Aqsa Mosque breaks some of the ice, and may have affected his own psyche and the ideas he traditionally carries about Muslims and Islam. His visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque carries special meaning, because it took place in broad daylight despite Israel’s displeasure with it. Through this visit, the pope acknowledged the site’s sanctity and its importance to Muslims, despite objections from Jews who say the site is sacred to Jews as well.

By contrast, the pope made statements and took actions that confirm his failure to strike a balance, including:

First: he declared, in Jordan, that his visit affirms the historical ties between Jews and Christians, and affirmed the unity of the Old and New Testaments. This is a statement outside diplomatic norms, particularly since it was made from an Arab state. It would have been more fitting for the pope to affirm relations between Arabs and Christians, or between Muslims and Christians, rather than stepping outside that context to address other people who were not part of the visit at all.

Second: the pope did not apologize for the criticisms he directed at the Prophet, peace be upon him, despite many in the Islamic world demanding such an apology. The pope decided to keep his visit within official frameworks that could bypass the matter of the offense against the noble Prophet’s person, leaving the door closed to Islamic movements and to the masses of people upset by his statements. This is what led non-“sultanized” clerics to boycott him and direct criticism at him, at the Vatican, and at the visit as a whole.

Third: the pope’s visit to the family of the Zionist soldier held by Hamas provoked the Palestinian public, which suffers the captivity of more than 11,000 Palestinians in Zionist detention. The pope was disrespectfully biased, showing a lack of respect for the pain and grief of the Palestinian people.

Fourth: the pope visited the memorial to what is known as the Holocaust, speaking with pain of the suffering of Jews, but never spoke of the conflagrations the Palestinian people has suffered, and never attempted to visit stricken Gaza, whose people suffer the harshest kind of siege known to history.

Fifth: the pope never mentioned the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, at a time when the Christian religion does not accept the scattering of people, the seizure of their property, and the violation of their homes. The suffering of Jews in Europe moved him deeply, but the suffering of millions of Palestinians across decades found no consideration with him.

Sixth: the pope preferred to align himself with those who describe Palestinian resistance as terrorist, when he asked people not to be swept along by what he called “terrorist acts.” He does not recognize the Palestinians’ right to resist, and has added himself to the list of those opposing the people’s right to freedom and liberation.

Seventh: the pope spoke of a “homeland” for the Palestinians, and this is not enough. There are peoples on earth who have a homeland but no state. It ought to have been clear on this point, and the matter should not have been left mixed up between the idea of a homeland and the idea of a state with genuine sovereignty.

Eighth: the pope did not explicitly and clearly call for the immediate lifting of the siege on Gaza, contenting himself with expressing his hope that the siege be lifted and people’s suffering ended. One would have expected a clergyman at the head of the Catholic Church to separate politics from humanitarian matters, and not to hesitate in rebuking states that use people’s suffering to pressure the Hamas movement.

Ninth: the pope visited the Buraq Wall (the “Wailing Wall,” per the Jewish name), located within land Israel seized control of in 1967. Had the pope believed that land must not be occupied by force, and been committed to the UN Charter, he would never have made this visit, which amounts to recognition of the aggression and the occupation.

Overall, the visit offered no solutions to the outstanding issues between Muslims and the Vatican, and did not constitute a turning point in the Vatican’s position on the Palestinian cause. It was hoped the pope would be balanced in his rhetoric, but he was, overall, biased in Israel’s favor. This bias is not surprising, particularly since the Vatican gave no attention, even verbal attention, to the humanitarian issues tied to the Palestinian cause, foremost among them the return of the refugees and the inviolability of citizens’ properties.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “فلسطين في زيارة البابا” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.