Mike jokes that, with the media reporting that Pope Francis has recognized a Palestinian state, his defenders might as usual say the media got it wrong — and yet, as he notes, they did. John Allen Jr., a very well respected Vatican reporter, explains on Crux (as Mike later noted) that the Vatican has been referring to the “State of Palestine” in official communications since Palestine got non-member observer-state status at the U.N. (the same status the Vatican has). Wednesday’s news was the announcement of a treaty between the two quasi-states, the details of which have not been made public, not the first instance of recognition. So, what to make of the situation?
Mike writes that recognizing the Palestinian state (the establishment of which is out of step with the Oslo accords, supposed to undergird negotiations toward a two-state solution) is “an action that I believe will only encourage the Palestinians in their habitual rejectionism and their unwillingness to negotiate in good faith toward a two-state solution.” He’s right.
But the Vatican is not a normal state — its moral authority may seem significant, but its ability to encourage Israel or the Palestinians to do anything is surely very limited. Its first duty is to ensure the freedom of Catholics lay and religious to worship and serve, and the treaty is apparently intended to secure the rights (religious, legal, and otherwise) of the numerous Catholic institutions — churches, hospitals, schools, other charities — in Palestinian territory. Since the Vatican is a state and the Church has responsibility for so many institutions, it cannot afford to ignore these kinds of questions altogether, as apparently some congressional Republicans think the pope should. You could still argue that the relationship with the Palestinians is on balance unwise (or that making any kind of deal with the PA is unwise, too), but it is hardly radical.