Vatican signs first treaty with 'State of Palestine', Israel angered

The treaty, which made official the Vatican's de facto recognition of Palestine since 2012, angered Israel, which called it "a hasty step (that) damages the prospects for advancing a peace agreement".

Israel also said it could have implications on its future diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

The accord, which concerns the Catholic Church's activities in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, also confirmed the Vatican's increasingly proactive role in foreign policy under Pope Francis. Last year, it brokered the historic resumption of ties between the United States and Cuba.

Vatican signs first treaty with 'State of Palestine', Israel angered

Yeah, so many will say, who cares what the Vatican does. The battle for Jerusalem goes public? So many possible angles on this one.

Me? I find this a very logical and appropriate stance, casting aside all the angles, of course, which would almost certainly and probably go contrary to my thoughts. And a bit amusing that Israel is miffed. The Vatican has certainly been very publicly and geopolitically active since Pope Francis took residence. I don't hold out a lot of hope that this will help with any "peace" proesses with Israel as I don't personally believe controlling factions in the world or Israel want peace.

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country. Oy.

F*** what Israel thinks though, they're only angry because they can't play the victim as usual.

Interesting story though, I recently watched a clip about how Israel treats the 'non-Jewish' African immigrants and it wiped the small bit of sympathy/respect I had for them completely. There's a difference between Jews and Zionists.

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

Unlike the overreach of a bunch of people who were given land that became a recognized state and then proceeded to expand that nation while crying we are defending ourselves right? Even though what they were doing was against international law.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

Unlike the overreach of a bunch of people who were given land that became a recognized state and then proceeded to expand that nation while crying we are defending ourselves right? Even though what they were doing was against international law.

THE UN APPROVED IT back then so your point is moot. ALso the land was shared by jews since biblical days. Also the area was officially annexxed after war into the ottoman empire later ending the ownership of the peoples there. It used to be lawful to expand by war.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

Unlike the overreach of a bunch of people who were given land that became a recognized state and then proceeded to expand that nation while crying we are defending ourselves right? Even though what they were doing was against international law.

THE UN APPROVED IT back then so your point is moot. ALso the land was shared by jews since biblical days. Also the area was officially annexxed after war into the ottoman empire later ending the ownership of the peoples there. It used to be lawful to expand by war.

That's the key words "used to be" even after 67 they have kept expanding their borders. Also if you do some checking the Jews that lived in that area wasn't calling for Israel to be created that was a idea the European Zionist had.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

'The Romans' aren't the Vatican, the Vatican is an independent state in and of itself. The phrase 'The Romans' would apply to the country/state of Italy, not the Vatican. Why is there any over reach? An independent state has recognised another independent state - wouldn't be newsworthy if it wasn't Palestine now would it?

Israel has every right to comment about such a thing, but absolutely zero right to influence it.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The Vatican is a nation with diplomatic relations. The Vatican ambassadors are called papal nuncio.

a reply to: buster2010

The borders expanded when Arab nations attacked and lost - several times now.

Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for recognition and peace treaty.
Jordan did the same with the exception of the west bank, turning it over to Israel to be used in the creation of a Palestinian state.
Syria refused and so Israel retained control of the Golan heights.

Israel even agreed to share Jerusalem, making it an international city with UN status.

Why did the Palestinian government resign? Hamas and their continued use of the Palestinian issue to further their goal of murdering anyone who doesn't share their nazi agenda.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, and let's wait for your sources to back your claims :« Arab nations attacked and lost - several times now.»

Arab nations aren't Palestinians (trapped in their own land); and Israel has more United Nations Security Council Violations than all the world combined! That says a lot about your "several times now" claim.

a reply to: voyger2

My response was to busters comments and my response is valid and based on historical fact.

As for the Palestinians the Arab nations forced them to turn down the creation of a Palestinian state with the goal of a Palestinian state where Israel is.

a reply to: yuppa

It used to be lawful to expand by war.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
- Geneva Convention IV, Article 49.

UNITED NATIONS Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)

The Security Council,
. . .
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
. . .
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
. . .

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

Diplomatic relationships between a church and a country.

The Vatican is it's own nation state so really it's a relationship between nations. So I wonder when the terrorist attack will happen at the Vatican? That's what usually happens when Israel gets upset with someone like France before the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This isnt a surprise to me that the vatican would do this. The ROMANS are the ones who RENAMED the AREA PALESTINE in the first place. More ROMAN over reach.

Unlike the overreach of a bunch of people who were given land that became a recognized state and then proceeded to expand that nation while crying we are defending ourselves right? Even though what they were doing was against international law.

THE UN APPROVED IT back then so your point is moot. ALso the land was shared by jews since biblical days. Also the area was officially annexxed after war into the ottoman empire later ending the ownership of the peoples there. It used to be lawful to expand by war.

I starred your post. It should have a hundred stars. It's so easy to pounce on Israel as we're turning a blind eye here in the US of A. We ourselves expanded by war. Drove those injuns right onto the reservations. Now we're a little more covert. Controlling country by country, destroying governments and civilian's livelihood. Yet we all jump on the anti Israel bandwagon. Aren't we a bunch of hypocrites.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The borders expanded when Arab nations attacked and lost - several times now.

Annexing land by force is against international law. So should the world have one set of laws for the rest of the world and one set for Israel?

Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for recognition and peace treaty.

Not to mention Egypt also getting 1.5 billion a year in aid from America.

Syria refused and so Israel retained control of the Golan heights.

Which the world sees as a illegal occupation.

Israel even agreed to share Jerusalem, making it an international city with UN status.

If this is true then why does Israel try to claim it as their capital? Jerusalem shouldn't belong to anyone and should be under UN control not Israels.

Hamas and their continued use of the Palestinian issue to further their goal of murdering anyone who doesn't share their nazi agenda.

If anyone is acting like Nazis it's Israel they even sound like Hitler. When Hitler was taking over countries he said he was reclaiming land that belonged to Germany. The Israelis are doing the same thing but they are saying God gave them that land.

originally posted by: buster2010


Annexing land by force is against international law. So should the world have one set of laws for the rest of the world and one set for Israel?

So is armed aggression towards another country. Not to mention the goal of wiping Israel off the map.

originally posted by: buster2010
Not to mention Egypt also getting 1.5 billion a year in aid from America.

And how has that peace agreement worked out when compared to the choices other Arab governments made?

originally posted by: buster2010
Which the world sees as a illegal occupation.

And an illegal act of aggression by Syria.

originally posted by: buster2010If this is true then why does Israel try to claim it as their capital? Jerusalem shouldn't belong to anyone and should be under UN control not Israels.

Because the Arabs refused the agreement.

originally posted by: buster2010
If anyone is acting like Nazis it's Israel they even sound like Hitler. When Hitler was taking over countries he said he was reclaiming land that belonged to Germany. The Israelis are doing the same thing but they are saying God gave them that land.

And the excuses the Arabs give is?

a reply to: StoutBroux

We ourselves expanded by war.

But first there was a U.S.A. independent from Europe.

Here goes:
1) Israeli settler-colonists on Palestinian Land declare independence from Israel.
2) Independent Palestinians(former Israeli settler-colonists) renounce Israeli citizenship.
3) Independent Palestinians(former Israeli settler-colonists and natives) form Territorial Congress and Army.
4) Palestinian Territorial Army nationalizes all Israeli military equipment and facilities within Palestinian Territory.
5) Palestinian Army pushes all Israeli Loyalists back to the proposed 1947 border.

That sounds American.

The problem of Palestine will never be solved so long as people think one side is good and right. Both sides have legit cases to make. Both sides have done terrible things to each other. It is the one side is right and just, way of thinking that keeps this thing going. At some point the current realities and what is best for both sides now will have to be the focus not the history of the conflict. Because frankly both sides can point to each others never ending list of atrocities while at the same time playing the victim.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So is armed aggression towards another country. Not to mention the goal of wiping Israel off the map.

Armed aggression against the nation that is illegally occupying your nation is by international law legal.

And how has that peace agreement worked out when compared to the choices other Arab governments made?

When the leader of Egypt does like Mubarak did and line his pockets with that aid of course that peace is going to last.

And an illegal act of aggression by Syria.

Israel annexed the land in 1981 the 67 war was long over by then.

Because the Arabs refused the agreement.

Israel had no legal claim to Jerusalem so why should the Arabs agree to anything Israel proposed?

And the excuses the Arabs give is?

You may have missed this one little fact in your exhaustive studies of the ME but those Arabs were actually LIVING THERE unlike the Europeans that make up the majority of Israels population.

a reply to: MrSpad

It is the one side is right and just, way of thinking that keeps this thing going.

What keeps it going is the meme that has been around that only direct negotiation with Israel will result in a Palestinian state. That meme is false. Israel did not become a state through negotiation with Britain, nor the Palestinian Arabs, nor the League of Nations nor the United Nations.

Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican's foreign minister said,
. . .
He called for peace negotiations held directly between Israelis and Palestinians to resume and lead to a two-state solution.
. . .
Some 135 members of the United Nations recognize Palestine, nearly 70 percent of the total. By comparison, 160 of the UN's 193 members recognize Israel.
. . .
The European Union as a whole does not recognize Palestine, taking the same view as the United States that an independent country can emerge only via negotiations with Israel, not through a process of unilateral recognition.

Why should Israel have any say whatsoever? Only because of the meme that even the Vatican has adopted.