The Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from any other authority on the tone and content of its statements.
Muffti is sort of sorry he ever posted the first story on this; why shouldn’t the Vatican condemn or fail to condemn whatever they want? Why should we care what the Vatican has to say?
But the Holy See provided a newer, tougher reason for the omission and Muffti is duty bound to report. Initially the Vatican was inclined to say that they were only interested in ‘recent attacks’ and the attack on Netanya wasn’t quite recent enough. They used tougher words, however, in a press release yesterday:
It’s not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation, and for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law…it would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence
This statement is odd for several reasons. The one Muffti finds most amusing is that, given the Pope really believes that Israeli incursions are illegal and wrong, he preferred to not mention both the terrorists and the incursions rather than mention them both. Don’t worry, though. Papal correspondant Joaquin Navarro-Valls assured us that “…[the Netanya attack] falls under the general and unreserved condemnation of terrorism.”
Muffti wishes he’d never mentioned this in the first place. As he said at the beginning, who cares what the Pope has to say?