Uncategorized
The Pope Benedict I knew: A keeper of his faith with a deep respect for Judaism
(JTA) — I was first introduced to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, in the late 1980s when he was visiting Jerusalem. Teddy Kollek, mayor of Jerusalem, was eager for me to meet with the cardinal, telling me that I would discover a very different person from the image portrayed in the general media. He was so correct.
That image was in no small part the result of Pope John Paul II having made him the head of the Vatican Office for Doctrine and Faith, to enforce orthodox Catholic teaching. In addition, the fact that Ratzinger was a shy man with a professorial background and attitude often led people to see him as aloof and even cold.
He could not have been more different. I discovered a man of warmth and humor whose company was enjoyable and stimulating. Most significant for me was the discovery of the depth of his respect for Judaism and the Jewish people, something that always impressed me in the course of more than a dozen encounters with him when he was Pope, most of which were in my capacity as the American Jewish Committee’s international director of interreligious affairs.
He always reiterated his commitment to continuing the path of his predecessor in advancing Catholic-Jewish relations, and he highlighted the unique relationship between Christianity and Judaism.
Benedict XVI, who died Dec. 31 at age 95, was the first pope to ever invite Jewish leaders both to the funeral of a pontiff, and above all, to the celebration of his own coronation at which I was privileged to be one of those present.
Already during the first year of his pontificate he received many Jewish delegations and notable individuals, including the chief rabbis of Israel and the chief rabbi of Rome. In receiving the latter, he declared, “the Catholic Church is close and is a friend to you. Yes, we love you and we cannot but love you, because of the Fathers: through them you are very dear and beloved brothers to us.”
The last time I met him personally was well after he had demonstrated his genuine and impressive humility in stepping down as pontiff and devoting himself to study and prayer. I visited him at the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican gardens. While he was physically weak his mind was still lucid.
We spoke in particular about the positive treatment of the Jewish scriptures in the work of the Pontifical Theological Commission that dealt with this subject, and which was published under his imprimatur. At that time, I recalled our first conversation in Jerusalem when he said to me, “your duty as a believing Jew is to be true to Torah, and everything that is holy for you must have theological meaning for us.”
I said to him, “You know there are many of us who see religious significance in the return of the Jewish people to its homeland.”
“Of course, I know,” he replied. “We must also view it as a sign of God’s fidelity to His covenant with the Jewish people that has sustained you, even if we cannot attribute to it the same theological meaning as you might.”
Cardinal Ratzinger was a member of the papal commission that ratified the Fundamental Agreement between the State of Israel and the Holy See, establishing full diplomatic relations between the two. It was my great privilege to have been part of the Israeli negotiating team that concluded that agreement.
One of Ratzinger’s closest Israeli friends, the late professor Zvi Werblovsky of Hebrew University, told me that the cardinal phoned him from Rome to express his joy and congratulations on the agreement, declaring it to be a fulfillment of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council declaration of 1965 that revolutionized the Church’s teaching and approach towards Jews and Judaism.
During Benedict’s papacy a couple of serious crises in Jewish-Christian relations emerged relating to the Society of Saint Pius XII and to the wider provision of the Latin Mass and its text. These crises, as much a result of church governance mismanagement as anything else, were followed by clarifications that emphasized the Vatican’s commitment to Nostra Aetate; its unqualified rejection of antisemitism as a sin against God and man, and a complete disavowal of proselytization of Jews.
Unfortunately, they still did not completely repair the damage to Benedict XVI’s papacy. Nevertheless, Benedict explicitly and sincerely strove to continue to advance the paths of his predecessor, especially regarding the relationship between the Church and the Jewish People.
In repeating his predecessor’s dramatic gestures of going to the great synagogue in Rome; of paying homage in Auschwitz to the victims of the Holocaust, and of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he paid respects to the State of Israel’s highest national civic and religious authorities, Pop Benedict institutionalized such steps, demonstrating the sincerity of Catholic-Jewish reconciliation for the Church as a whole.
—
The post The Pope Benedict I knew: A keeper of his faith with a deep respect for Judaism appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Lebanon Plans UN Complaint Against Israel Over Border Wall
A UN vehicle drives near a concrete wall along Lebanon’s southern border which, according to the Lebanese presidency, extends beyond the “Blue Line”, a U.N.-mapped line separating Lebanon from Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, as seen from northern Israel, November 16, 2025. REUTERS/Shir Torem
Lebanon will file a complaint to the U.N. Security Council against Israel for constructing a concrete wall along Lebanon’s southern border that extends beyond the “Blue Line,” the Lebanese presidency said on Saturday.
The Blue Line is a U.N.-mapped line separating Lebanon from Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israeli forces withdrew to the Blue Line when they left south Lebanon in 2000.
A spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general, Stephane Dujarric, said on Friday the wall has made more than 4,000 square meters (nearly an acre) of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the local population.
The Lebanese presidency echoed his remarks, saying in a statement that Israel’s ongoing construction constituted “a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and an infringement on Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Dujarric said the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had requested that the wall be removed.
An Israeli military spokesperson denied on Friday that the wall crossed the Blue Line.
“The wall is part of a broader IDF plan whose construction began in 2022,” the spokesperson said, referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
“Since the start of the war, and as part of lessons learned from it, the IDF has been advancing a series of measures, including reinforcing the physical barrier along the northern border.”
UNIFIL, established in 1978, operates between the Litani River in the north and the Blue Line in the south. The mission has more than 10,000 troops from 50 countries and about 800 civilian staff, according to its website.
Uncategorized
Iran Says US Is Not Ready for ‘Equal and Fair’ Nuclear Talks
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Washington’s current approach toward Tehran does not indicate any readiness for “equal and fair negotiations,” Iran’s foreign minister said on Sunday, after US President Donald Trump hinted last week at potential discussions.
Following Israel’s attack on Iran in June, which was joined by U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, attempts at renewing dialogue on Tehran’s nuclear program have failed.
The United States, its European allies and Israel accuse Tehran of using its nuclear program as a veil for efforts to develop the capability to produce weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
Tehran and Washington underwent five rounds of indirect nuclear talks prior to the 12-days-war, but faced obstacles such as the issue of domestic uranium enrichment, which the U.S. wants Iran to forego.
“The U.S. cannot expect to gain what it couldn’t in war through negotiations,” Abbas Araqchi said during a Tehran conference named “international law under assault.”
“Iran will always be prepared to engage in diplomacy, but not negotiations meant for dictation,” he added.
During the same conference, deputy foreign minister Saeed Khatibzadeh accused Washington of pursuing its wartime goals with “negotiations as a show.”
Uncategorized
Israeli Government Decides ‘Independent’ Commission to Investigate Oct. 7 Failures
The Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
i24 News – The Israeli government has approved the creation of an “independent” commission of inquiry to examine the failures that enabled the Hamas assault of October 7, 2023.
However, in a move sharply criticized by the opposition and contrary to the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the panel will not be a formal state commission of inquiry. Instead, its mandate, authorities, and scope will be determined directly by government ministers.
According to the decision, the commission will receive full investigative powers and must be composed in a way that ensures “the broadest possible public trust.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will form a special ministerial committee tasked with defining what the inquiry may investigate, the time periods to be reviewed, and the authority it will receive. The committee has 45 days to deliver its recommendations.
For the past year, the government has repeatedly resisted calls to establish a state commission, arguing at first that such a body could not operate during wartime. Later, some ministers accused Supreme Court President Isaac Amit of being incapable of appointing an impartial chairperson.
But on October 15, the High Court of Justice ruled that there was “no substantive argument” against forming a state commission, giving the government 30 days to respond.
Netanyahu maintains that responsibility for the October 7 failures lies primarily with Israel’s security agencies rather than with political leaders.
His critics accuse him of creating a weaker, government-controlled inquiry designed to limit scrutiny of his decisions, undermining the prospect of full accountability for the deadliest attack in Israel’s history.