Information service of the Pontifical Mission Societies since 1927
Hezbollah enters the field on the border between Lebanon and Israel...
The most recent confrontation involving Israel and Lebanon started on Wednesday morning with an attack launched from Lebanese territory on military and civilians in Israel. Difficult to describe Israel’s anger which has united - as never before- government army and people. Israel in fact already in the Spring of 2000, withdrew completely from Lebanese soil to the international frontier and this fact was ascertained and confirmed by the United Nations Organisation so that - people in Israel say - Lebanon had no reason whatsoever to start military action against the Jewish State. Israeli prime minister Olmert has said the attack was an act of war by the Republic of Lebanon which has failed to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 1559. The Resolution ordered Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and resume control of the south which instead is still in the hands of Hezbollah. Hezbollah itself, it is said in Israel, is funded and supplied by Iran, in order to keep the border with Israel a "hot spot". The strategic objective of Israel would be to force Lebanon, which has done so much to reclaim national sovereignty, to rid themselves of the intrusive presence of a hetero-directed armed organisation or -Israel warns - see the destruction of what was reconstructed with such effort in the years since the civil war. Yet, however the crisis develops, it is possible that at some point - as often in the past - a sort of truce may be reached and calm restored, relative calm as always, until the next time... It remains to be seen how much suffering and how much destruction will be inflicted and suffered on both sides of the border, before the always temporary conclusion. This all goes to show the fragility of mere truces and the necessity of a return to serious and supported searching for a lasting peace, negotiated, fair, inserted in the region as a whole.
The Middle East and peace. They talk too much of the process and too little of peace. You have been saying this for a long time what do you mean exactly …
For some years now this is what has been happening: they talk about the peace process, the impact which this or that development could have on the peace process. There seems to be a sort of “theology of the process", like the one which tried some years ago to supplant Christianity. Instead what they should do is to concentrate on peace, on the urgent need to reach a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine in order to put an end to decades of bloody conflict.
The Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 put forward several proposals. Why are these ignored?
The Conference in Madrid, convoked in the Autumn of 1991 by George Bush thanks to the diplomatic ability of the then US Secretary of State James Baker, was to serve as a framework for bilateral peace talks between Israel and its neighbours, Palestine above all naturally. The Conference was accepted by all the participants on the basis of the letter of invitation which specified its binding premises. After the first session, the Conference has never met again and appears to have been forgotten. Seeing the ever greater difficulty for the Israelis and Palestinians today to come together to continue bilateral peace talks, the frame work of the Madrid Conference would appear to offer a suitable meeting place and sufficient rules for negotiations to resume seriously. Why it has been forgotten it is difficult to say, that is something for historians. Instead what statesmen of today should do is precisely this: convoke the meeting again to put the conflicting parties face to face, encourage them and accompany them closely, helping them to sign as soon as possible a peace agreement, the essential traits of which have been known to both sides for several years.
Recently Pope Benedict XVI made repeated appeals for peace in the Holy Land …
In his recent interventions the Pope would appear to want to remind heads of state and government and other statesmen affected by the conflict and its resolution, that to refuse to undertake serious talks and engage in negotiations which aim for peace is morally unacceptable. The Holy Father noted with sadness, in the present situation “there is a need for justice and for a seriousness and credible commitment to peace which, unfortunately, are not to be seen ". The Pope appealed to everyone to feel co-responsible for building peace " may no one shirk the duty of building a peaceful coexistence" in the Holy Land (after the Angelus 2 July). This duty he explained some time before (after the-Angelus on 29 June), belongs not only to "the Israeli and Palestinian leaders", it demands also " the generous contribution of the international community ".
Jews, Muslims and Jerusalem. And Christians?
The question of Jerusalem should be treated within the framework of peace talks with this proper characteristic: its solution depends not only on the two parties in conflict. In fact Israel and the Palestinians do not even have the authority to decide bilaterally the destiny of Jerusalem, seeing that the United Nations Organisation from the beginning stated that it forms an internationally "corpus separatum". To make any change in this juridical situation the United Nations Organisations would first have to ascertain that the ends of its original solution have been reached.
For a long time the Church, the Holy See, has realised that the achievement of the ends of the UN resolution, demands at least the internationally guaranteed safeguarding in "the City of Jerusalem and surroundings" (was the UN wording) of the following values and fundamental rights:
"a) Freedom of religion and conscience for all
"b) The equality before the law of the three monotheistic religions and their institutions and followers in the City
"c) The proper identity and sacred character of the City and its universally significant religious and cultural heritage
"d) The Holy Places, the freedom of access to them and of worship in them
"e) The Regime of 'Status Quo' in those Holy Places where it applies".
All this is formulated in the Preamble of the Basic Agreement signed by the Holy See and the OLP on 15 February 2000. Obviously there is no reason why Israel should not endorse these commitments, which actually correspond to its policies so often announced; nor is there any reason why Israel, which intends to safeguard these values and respect these rights, should not willingly accept that they be internationally guaranteed. If in fact Israel and Palestine were to adhere to the same multilateral mechanism of guarantee for Jerusalem, the political destiny of the City (and the border line between the two states etc) could then be solved with bilateral negotiations. (Fides Service 13/7/2006)
