RIP.
His speech yesterday (he dictated it I guess) was very very political, not on the usual level, felt like a finally "all out" for me.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/urbi/do...
replies(6):
His speech yesterday (he dictated it I guess) was very very political, not on the usual level, felt like a finally "all out" for me.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/urbi/do...
>> Love has triumphed over hatred, light over darkness and truth over falsehood.
This is interesting since I thought he was displeased about recent world events (e.g. Trump's election, shift towards deglobalization, ...).
and btw, in that little collection of booklets we call the Bible, the story doesn't end all flowery and pink either. Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed, early disciples are martyred in troves and everybody is aware the story of that Jesus guy and Mary and Mary Magdalene and Junia and all the others just has begun.
and it's clear it has to be written by us...
so regarding the recent world events yes PP Francis was heavily displeased (he talks about several of them in the very text we respond to here) but the Jesus thing gives us confidence and hope and justification to actively do something about it and to nudge the world into being a better place, for all of us.
that's how I think PP Francis meant what he said. and it's definitively how I see it.
— Gandalf
The salient parts that support your view:
---
There can be no peace without freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and respect for the views of others.
Nor is peace possible without true disarmament! The requirement that every people provide for its own defence must not turn into a race to rearmament. The light of Easter impels us to break down the barriers that create division and are fraught with grave political and economic consequences. It impels us to care for one another, to increase our mutual solidarity, and to work for the integral development of each human person.
I appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger and to encourage initiatives that promote development. These are the “weapons” of peace: weapons that build the future, instead of sowing seeds of death!
May the principle of humanity never fail to be the hallmark of our daily actions. In the face of the cruelty of conflicts that involve defenceless civilians and attack schools, hospitals and humanitarian workers, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that it is not targets that are struck, but persons, each possessed of a soul and human dignity.
The sentiment sounds great but I think we now see in the real world with Ukraine that if you rely [too much] on others (re: US), you have a real problem if they are no longer there for you. Peace through strength is real.
How long do people imagine Israel survives as a state with a brutally-oppressed population under its care?
It's a rational position to be pro-state-of-Israel and want them to find peace (and integration) with the Gazans because the consequences of perpetual animosity and aggression are the single biggest threat to the state's survival.
Personally, I look to Ireland and England as a potential model. People have been conflating Hamas and Gaza in this thread... At the height of the Troubles, more Irish supported the IRA than Palestinians support Hamas, and I don't think anyone ever suggested the solution was to relocate the Irish.
I'm sure you don't seriously intend to bring up American treatment of the Japanese in its territory as a positive example.
As you are not American, I forgive you your apparent lack of knowledge of the concentration camps, or the theft of property that was never returned to innocent Japanese Americans.
Yes, aggressors in a just war are expected to care for the civilian population in conquered territory. Starvation as a war weapon against civilians is a war crime.
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-11/BSG-WP-...
In fact, the only place it's currently legal (though generally frowned upon) is in the context of a civil war, and if this is a civil war we're back to asking the question: how does Israel expect to find peace when 9 million citizens are oppressing 5 million with brutal military violence?
The destruction of language and culture via Indian schools was completely justified and justifiable?
That's an opinion I and many others disagree with.
Ask the Arabs and Levantine Muslims where all their Jews are. Why Lebanon is Muslim. Why their states are Islamic and why they have issues with religious and cultural states that they aren't a majority of.
How do we know this? Because Israel isn't under sanction for the activities they are undertaking that would be considered war crimes if done to another nation.
It is a long-standing civil war that a couple generations of national leadership have failed to find a long-term resolution to. The current resolution of trying to ghetto the Palestinian people into controlled territories ("reservations," if you will, a common strategy used by colonizers to "handle" the native population) doesn't seem to be bearing fruit other than intergenerational violence.
It's public knowledge.
Also Wikipedia is known for it's progressive stance. Can't trust it for anything that intersects with culture war issues where everything is a conspiracy.