After vowing to fight antisemitism, but still managing to offend almost everyone with some various so-called gaffes and ill-advised decisions, the Pope’s trip treads a pitfall-riddled path.
There’s plenty of press and internet coverage of a jpost article about the Pope’s hasty exit after an impromptu speech by Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi.
Pope Benedict abruptly got up and left before the end of the event, though not before performing the obligatory ‘handSheikh’
Speculation surrounds the issue, ‘did he or didn’t he?’ that is, walk out deliberately or merely need the gents.
The incident has brought out some virulently anti-Israel bile from readers of the Catholic and other press, supporting the gist of the Sheikh’s rant. These angermongers must be the recipients and consumers of BBC news reporting, simply reacting to tales they have been told.
But on a lighter note, there are also a number of supporters of what the Pope did, if indeed he did it.
So far, on this matter, the BBC remains silent.
Splendid.
Thank you.
And the bias is where precisely?
Anonymous said… 10:44PM
And the bias is where precisely?In the last line. Labeled: Bias by omission. So far, on this matter, the BBC remains silent.The BBC, follows its agenda and fails to report an incident that might make radical Islam look bad.
The papacy is a gift that never stops giving. Pontiff, stop apologising for the historical wrongs of Catholicism and Catholics, stop being sorry for the Holocaust, stop keep saying how much respect you have for Jews and Muslims – they have little or none for you.
Any other mainstream British media organisation covering it?
Like the con man who wishes his potential victims, will trust him enough to part with their cash.
Like the actor who wishes people to believe in his character, but also wishes people to trust him when he is apparently being himself.
Like a police man who wishes the accused to believe, that ‘he is the only nice one.’
Like the politician who wishes for the great mass of the population to forever remain simple minded, or profoundly ignorant. For clearly self-apparent and self-serving reasons.
Like the Public Service Broadcaster who wishes for the same things as the above politician. For again clearly self-apparent and self-serving reasons.
Like the most evil man on the planet, who wishes to hide the fact that he most certainly is, from the great mass of the human population.
Like the concentration camp guard, handing out the bars of soap.
Like very large and old religious corporations, that talk much publicly on the subject of peace, prosperity, freedom, harmony and brotherly love.
They all have this in common.
They all spend an enormous amount of effort appearing to be the exact opposite from what they REALLY are, and think they are being very clever doing so.
Also the more evil, nasty or dishonest they need to be, in order to get their job done, the more effort, lies, and expense they go through hiding their true selves and intentions.
Therefore
Beware those which you are led to believe, must be very good people by definition. Because also by definition these people have then the licence and power to be the most wealthy and evil of them all.
Atlas shrugged
The BBC keep trying to rape the politicians. Fair enough some might say. Are the BBC doing us a favour? A recent interview unedited for your pleasure saw a peer challenging a BBC presenter. Oh the disguise of an unbiased BBC is successful , once again. If BBC reporters are being paid £90,000 for making permanent made up news, for some reason they seem to think if the BBC publically critise them selves it turns their bias to unbias. No sorry it does not work like that. Where is the media holding the media accountable? Is that not the BBC Trust’s job. Maybe they should have their own channel? That should solve the BBC bias. Or maybe a first step should be to rid of names such as “BBC Parlaiment” and “BBC World Service”. BBC is an adjective these days. It has taken 10 days for MP’s Pay to turn into a “BBC scandel”. I cannot understand the people who work for the BBC, surely it is like working for a dictator. For goodness sake! And the problem is the rest of the world still think BBC speak word of the Gods.
Anon 2:16
Of course the BBC is not doing us a favor. It never has and never will.
Doing so is simple not the job of the BBC under any circumstances. The BBC’s job is as always, to make people believe it is on their side, while it robs them blind, lies to them something truly rotten, stabs them in the back, and then when the victim has almost bleed to death in agony, sadistically twists the knife, and then go’s on a nine week all expenses paid, all inclusive 5*+ holiday with the wife and kids, and/or boyfriend.
The establishment are deliberately destroying whats left of the credibility of their own bought and sold parliament, because they have a shiny new FASIST/COMMUNIST one in Brussels.
Therefore be careful what you wish for, because there is a very good chance you may get it.
Our British Parliament needs radical reform and a restoration of its sovereign authority. Laws already exist to deal with corruption and tax evasion. All we need is a government that actually obeys its own laws.
If this is so hard in the year 2009, it most certainly should not be.
Atlas shrugged
During the Pope’s visit to Israel, especially his visit to the Holocaust memorial, the BBC reports have frequently mentioned possible embarrassment over the controversy surrounding Pope Pius XII’s apparent silence regarding Nazi persecution of Jews during WW2. Later reports mentioned that the current Pope met the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during his visit. Of course, and in the interests of balance, there was no chance of the BBC bringing up the role of an earlier Grand Mufti of Jerusalem; namely, a certain Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (a relative of Yasser Arafat) who held office during WW2. Al-Husayni spent some time in Berlin during WW2, and had the ear of both Adolf Eichmann and Adolf Hitler. By all accounts, he encouraged the Nazis to speed up their genocide of the Jews, and was actively involved in recruiting Arab support for Nazi Germany as well as being involved in the persecution of indigenous Palestine Jews even before the re-establishment of the state of Israel.
I think this is a striking example of the very worst sort of BBC bias by omission; “Bowenization” par excellence. It is also a glaring example of the BBC’s ongoing policy of egg-shell treading and whitewashing when it comes to Islam, past and present.
To some other comments above, I would add that the BBC is by far the most international of the UK broadcasters- put in that position by public money-, commonly reports on the progress of the Pope, and is generally a conduit for such stories to enter the UK MSM.
No reason to leave this story out, I would have thought.
I see “Anons” are still posting to each other ! Daft !
Covered on BBC it transpires, as follows:
“Some embarrassment arose when the Pope attended an inter-faith meeting with Jews and Muslims after his visit to Yad Vashem.
A Palestinian cleric, Taysir Tamimi, commandeered the microphone and gave an unscheduled speech attacking Israel’s recent war in Gaza and its occupation of the West Bank.
Some in the crowd applauded while others appeared visibly uncomfortable. The Pope was not seen to react. “
It seems the JP is exagerating saying he walked out. There’s no evidence he did. And no major media organisation has picked it up as such, according to Google.
You might want to remove this one Sue.
Anon
Where’s the link ? The BBC has certainly not reported this incident – this RANT by the Muslim cleric – on TV or radio. But has repeatedly covered the Hitler Youth thingy.
JohnA – the link to the page containing the text Anonymous quoted is Pope condemns denial of Holocaust – it’s quite a way down a longer-than-average page.
The BbC certainly seems to be reporting the incident in a much more subdued way compared to other outlets (of which, despite Anonymous’s assertions, there are many). But, as Sue noted, there seems to be some confusion as to whether the Pope reacted at all anyway.
All organizations are biased and the BBC is no exception. What matters is that the presence of the Licence Fee means the British public have to pay for the BBC’s bias. You people should divert all your efforts to getting the Licence Fee abolished, rather than debating the finer points of BBC programmes. I for one don’t give a dam about the Pope, Israel or Palestine, etc., etc., but I do care about having to pay to have a TV.
Anonymous,
Why should Sue want to remove it? This isn’t the BBC and Biased-BBC has never been known to remove or stealth edit posts.
Took me a while to find those few paragraphs on Tamimi’s rant, tucked away as they were near the end of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8043113.stm
Yes, you are right, turns out that this was not a sin of omission. It was the BBC’s usual sin of minimising the evil of Islam.
If a right wing settler Rabbi had gone on such a rant in the presence of the Pope (not that it ever would have happened) it would have been headline news on the BBC.
It looks as if this incident has been spun by those who want to suggest the Pope walked out. But the time delay and the handshake show this is entirely speculative. The BBC would have been wrong to say he did, where there is no evidence. You’re right that a few other media organisations have picked this up, but not the reputable ones as far as I can tell. You would need to look at this through a very warped lens to see any bias.
I would take the post down if I were you. A casual reader might see it and conclude that this site is mad as a bag of ferrets.
The BBC tucks away the fact that this very senior Muslim cleric made what they describe as an “unscheduled speech attacking Israel’s recent war in Gaza and its occupation of the West Bank”.
Unscheduled speech ? All the other reports describe it as a rant or a diatribe.
And the BBC report omits what the preacher was really saying – that Muslims and Christians should unite against Israel.
Pure anti-Semitism.
And again – none of this has been reported on TV or radio, including the BBC World Service. Bias by omission as usual.
The BBC NEVER shows us the hatred towards Israel that is displayed day in, day out by Muslim preachers right across the Middle East.
………………..
And I loved the reference in a previous post to the evil actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Has the BBC ever reported that ?
The BBC tucks away the fact that this very senior Muslim cleric made what they describe as an “unscheduled speech attacking Israel’s recent war in Gaza and its occupation of the West Bank”.
Unscheduled speech ? All the other reports describe it as a rant or a diatribe.
And the BBC report omits what the preacher was really saying – that Muslims and Christians should unite against Israel.
Pure anti-Semitism.
And again – none of this has been reported on TV or radio, including the BBC World Service. Bias by omission as usual.
The BBC NEVER shows us the hatred towards Israel that is displayed day in, day out by Muslim preachers right across the Middle East.
………………..
And I loved the reference in a previous post to the evil actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Has the BBC ever reported that ?
If anyone is interested – in the face of the excitement over the MP’s expenses scandal – David Preiser drew my attention to this matter in his comment on another thread a couple of days ago. Since we no can no longer be sure which day a comment was made, I assume it was Monday, the day *IT* happened.
We face an ongoing dilemma, that of keeping topical and up to date, versus jumping in too soon, so I waited before making this post and labelling it bias by omission. At the time I could find no mention of it on the BBC, yet it was in the Telegraph online as well as on websites with a Middle East focus.
It is not unusual to find that posts on the main page are read less carefully than the comments, and as this is a comments-based site I fully accept that this happens.
I would like to stress that as I said in my post, the reports I saw were about the jpost article rather than the walking-out event itself; newsworthy but not controversial, being simply reports about an article as opposed to being a straightforward report about the ‘controversial event’ itself.
The virulently antisemitic comments that I saw though, WERE about the event itself, and ultimately it was seeing them that made me decide to post.
I do realise that in the case of bias by omission there is always a risk that the omission will be temporary. The deciding factor was the antisemitism, a subject, which some of you may have spotted, is one of my favourites.
10:16 am:
You people should divert all your efforts to getting the Licence Fee abolished, rather than debating the finer points of BBC programmes.
They also serve who bleat and whine? IMO you’ve hit the fatal weakness of this site — self-righteous rage now and again, but nothing happens, i.e., all process and no product.
It would help if the biggest blunderbusses would have a go at defining success. Some seem to think that a passing acknowledgement from an anonymous BBC drone is victory of a kind: “Paul Reynolds once posted here.” Wow.
It’ll get you precisely nowhere. Maybe that’s the poing.
“Since we no can no longer be sure which day a comment was made, I assume it was Monday, the day *IT* happened.”
Whoever’s in charge of Biased BBC’s templates ought to able to fix that — it’s a simple configuration setting within the Blogger settings.
Maybe that’s the point.
Anon suggests that no reputable media have picked up this incident.
He lies.
How about the reports in the Irish Times – referring to the speech as “virulent” ? Reuters circulated a report on the incident. CNN’s site carries a very full report of the incident – suggesting that the Pope may not have walked out simply because he did not understand what the Muslim was saying. Others who reported on the incident included the Financial Times, describing a “tirade”, the New York Times and Losa Angeles Times, UPI (which stated that the Pope walked out after the speech, before the meeting ended), Associated Press – etc etc etc.
Just google “Pope Tamimi”, click “News” – and there are hundreds of press stories. It took me just a minute or so to find the examples listed above.
BBC – BIAS BY COMMISSION – as well as bias by omission. In this case, the BBC has flagged up spurious “issues” between the Pope and Israel – on TV and radio as well as on the website – while hiding away at the end of a long article the FACT of a diatribe/rant/vitriolic speech by the top Muslim cleric present.
There’s no point campaigning for the license fee to be abolished; that ain’t gonna happen. What’s needed is a campaign to encourage non-payment.
Scott,
I am not in charge of anything. I wouldn’t know a template if one came along and sat beside me, so maybe it’s just as well.
Knacker,
I’m no blunderbuss, but my idea of success would be a palpable shift away from the assumption that we all automatically agree with Libby Purves, a recognition that respectable people hold all sorts of different political beliefs and that the BBC should not be concerned with ratings wars.
Broadcasters shouldn’t be allowed to get away with subliminal smears and innuendoes, and news anchors like John Sople shouldn’t think they are there to interrogate people they disagree with, or to act as judge and jury on behalf of the viewer.
I would consider it a success if the BBC returned to their original remit, to inform, educate and entertain, as long as the inform was unbiased, the educate was informed, and the ‘entertain’ was ‘quality’, original, and not dumbed down.
To that end, in my view, part of that process should include engaging in dialogue with BBC spokespersons, which you and several others dismiss as pointless.
Not everyone agrees with me, some people would prefer to abolish the BBC altogether and leave it all to market forces.
Posting on B-BBC is just a tiny thing I can do, and so I do it , without even claiming expenses. Part of it is venting the spleen, and part is hoping it plays a small part in the scheme of things.
Poing?
JohnA 11:34 AM
I meant that no reputable media organisation has picked up on this interpretation and reported it as fact(ie that he left as a direct result of what tamimi said). Even the JP’s report hedges its bets (the headline is disingenous). That’s because the Pope doesn’t appear to left as a direct result of the comments. But that the comments was made has been widely reported, including by the BBC.
Heh…I rather like “poing”. Could have fun with that. Poinnnnggggg.
What is your poing? Your poinnnggg?
If the rant was in Arabic the Pope will not have understood it.
He left directly after the rant – before the end of the meeting. Various reports mention that. Which suggests offence was taken once he realised what had been said – or his advisors told him he should leave immediately, which amounts to the same thing – an objection to the rant.
……………..
The BBC has NOT properly reported the rant. I have not heard a word about it on TV or radio, among extensive coverage of the Pope’s tour. Face it – it has been airbrushed out of the BBC’s main coverage – whereas other more responsible media include it directly in their coverage – or actually headline it.
And the only reference the BBC has made to it is tucked away right at the end of a long online article. Once again sanitising what was obviously a bloody rant.
Bias by omission – as usual.
Also, the link posted by David Preiser originally, had a statement by someone who reported being at the meeting and said that the Papal Nuncio had asked the ranter to stop. As a result, he did stop.
So the Papal Nuncio – and the Pope, presumably – must have known that something untoward was going on. Obviously they didn’t like it. Now whether that was because they had an Arab simultaneous translation or an Arab-speaking aide tipping them the wink, or some knowledge of Arabic themselves, or some knowledge that the speaker was some sort of fanatic or whether merely being there was sufficient to know that an unseemly rant was ruining an important diplomatic occasion, I don’t know…
Whatever it was, it seems we can’t rely on the BBC to tell us.
This is what I linked to yesterday.
This is one of the sources, from an Israeli news service.
This is an entirely different account, using several sources, from a Palestinian news service.
Obviously both the Israeli and Palestinian report are biased regarding the content of Tamimi’s speech. However, there are enough consistencies in both accounts to make the following pretty clear:
Tamimi’s rant was out of order, unscheduled, rude (whether one agrees with him or not), and embarrassed the Pope.
The Pope didn’t like the content of Tamimi’s rant, and left.
The BBC didn’t report it.
David Preieser
Exactly.
In your second link, it mentions that the Pope did NOT do the expected exchange of gifts – even though the Muslim cleric had been seated with him originally – at the “top table”. The Pope’s message was of religious tolerance. The Muslim metaphorically spat in his face, claiming to be “host” but acting counter to traditional rules of hospitality. It seems clear that the Pope and his party quite naturally took offence.
But of course none of that is newsworthy in the BBC’s view.
I wonder what would have happened if, instead, the Pope had insulted the Muslim ? Would the BBC have ignored it, sanitised it, airbrushed it away ?
Pure speculation, DP. The BBC reported what is known. Others media organisations have spun it to suit their political outlook. But not the BBC.
Isn’t the Pope in Sue’s picture an ex-Pope?
The BBC have NOT reported it – on TV or radio. And the online report is buried at the end of a long article.
The BBC have airbrushed this one – whatever the truth about the Pope walking out. It is clear that the Muslim was offensive, was speaking entirely out of tone when the message was meant to be religious reconciliation, that he indulged in a noisy rant. Trying to pretend that the Pope and his party were not offended is ridiculous – just read what they said afterwards. Read the full facts – not the BBC spin/cover-up.
Can i ask why you would expect the BBC to report this incident anyway? Very obscure incident.
The fact that they have (and they have, as you admit, reported it, except where they haven’t reported it) is the real story: namely why have they devoted so much time reporting the Pope’s visit. Frankly most people don’t give a stuff about the old geezer (me included, although i like his shoes). Perhaps this is one of Ampleforth Ed Stourton’s new projects: Pope watching.
Sue:
You seem to believe state-run broadcasting is neither outdated nor fatally dangerous, and that the BBC just needs a good talking to. Good luck with that.
Any beeboid with any authority will likely play you for a fool, which you are not but it won’t make any difference because nothing of substance will happen. Ergo, why bother?
The BBC will respond only to credible threats and the fear of imminent destruction, and then only briefly. Self-preservation trumps all and you can expect ‘normal service will be resumed as soon as possible’. Denial and smugness rule everything else, all day and every day.
Destruction works for me, the more painful and widely publicized the better; good programming will survive in other hands.
But it’s your country, your choice.
going, goinggg…Poinnnnggggg?
The BBC is playing up the Pope’s visit to the Middle East because the BBC itself is fixated on the palestinian problem – with a clear streak of bias. If it is going to give very full coverage – it should be complete coverage, not totally airbrushing out from TV and radio of a significant incident that shows the Muslims in a very bad light. Jeremy Bowen at work in the background, no doubt. Why has the BBC denied us TV footage of the rant, or sound clips of the Muslim preacher shouting his vitriol ? Good dramatic broadcast material, I should have thought – just like the clips of Speaker Martin being attacked in the Commons.
The BBC’s spin today is that the Pope has criticised the protective barriers that Israel has been building. Not so. He has REGRETTED the necessity for the building of the barriers – any criticism is of the hostilities that have caused their erection. His specific words were :
“How earnestly we pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused the wall to be built”.
That to me sounds like a lament for the Palestinian terrorism that made the security barriers necessary. The barriers were not built to prevent Israeli terrorist attacks against the Palestinians !
BBC – spin, spin, spin.
They probably thought an “interfaith dialogue” was too boring to bother filming and are now covering up their embarrassment at having no pictures to show by instructing the website team to pretend it never happened.
Some anon clown here keeps saying that the Pope did not walk out after Tamimi’s remarks.
Here is the CNN footage. Who do you want to believe – Anon, or “your lying eyes” ?
http://tinyurl.com/pc6h9b
Very full coverage of what he said in relation to the wall here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8047134.stm
BBC’s coverage not quite as you paint it.
See CNN’s interpretation of this clip here
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/11/pope.israel/index.html
Key quote:
“It was not clear whether the pope understood Tamimi’s comments, and he did not react.”
So blow that out of your arse, Coco.
Knacker,
I realise that you are not my most ardent supporter, but at least this time you are not calling me a fool. Or are you? I’m not certain.
I hope I have never given the impression that I don’t think the BBC is fatally dangerous.
Destruction works for me,..
Are you some sort of terrorist, I mean militant?
Actually Knacker, what are you getting at with this comment? Ergo, why bother, then ‘destruction?” then “Poinnngggg?”
Have you martyred yourself?
if so, are they virgins, or raisins?
Anon
The BBC report is NOT “very full coverage” of what the Pope said at the barrier. The BBC has doctored what he said, both in the online article and in TV and radio coverage.
Specifically – the BBC omitted the Pope’s remarks regretting the hostilities that caused the barrier to be built. That is – Palestinian terrorism, is it not, or have I somehow missed hundreds of terrorist attacks by Israelis in the West Bank ?
So, the BBC “report” of the Pope’s words gives implicit criticism of Israel for building the barrier – but not of the Palestinians whose terrorism caused it to be built. Bias by deliberate omission, as so often before.
….
re. the Pope and the Muslim’s rant – we already know the Pope did not know what was being said – because it was in Arabic.
But Anon has tried to suggest there was not a walkout as soon as the Pope was told what had been said. Just watch the CNN footage. Who do you believe – Anon – or “your lying eyes”
And it remains the fact that the BBC immediately stuffed the incident down the memory hole as far as TV and radio coverage is concerned (unlike eg CNN), and hid it away at the end of a long online article, santising it in the bargain. Most other media that covered the incident saw it as worthy of an article in its own right – the BBC prefers to smother it, to sanitise it.
The every-lying, ever-twisting, ever-obscuring BBC.
And I should add again – I am not Jewish, I simply can’t trust the BBC to give straight reporting on the Middle East. It utterly fails to tell its audience the fanaticism, the endless anti-Semitism, the indoctrination of children etc, that pervades the Aran states and that poisons any chances of peace. Even when reporting on events ha[ppening right now, the BBC lies either by omission or commission.
Here is an example from just a few days ago of the anti-Semitic filth continually spewed out on Arab TV :
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2106.htm
Perhaps Anon could answer why the BBC never tells us about this ? When does Jeremy Bowen get his staff to cover it ? Or – why does Bowen hide it ? Why do BBC reporters in the Middle East never refer to this sick indoctrination of young kids – the breeding of terrorism ?
Did anyone catch Ed Stourtons piece about Christians in the West Bank a few days ago – i really couldnt believe what i was hearing.
Loads of Christians fleeing – and it was all because of the Israelis and their “wall”.
I dont need to add any more to that.
It speaks for itself.
“Red Lepond said…
The papacy is a gift that never stops giving. Pontiff, stop apologising for the historical wrongs of Catholicism and Catholics, stop being sorry for the Holocaust, stop keep saying how much respect you have for Jews and Muslims – they have little or none for you.
10:54 PM”
Jesus did exactly the same. Thats why they crucified him.
Current pope is doing the right thing. Morally.
Politically , i’m not so sure. Could do with a Templar Knight Crusade revival…
pitcard,
The BBC's standard line is to listen cheerfully and uncritically to Palestinian Christians when they say that all is sweetness and light between them and Muslims and that the only problems they have are a result of the Israeli "occupation."
However, on World Have Your Say on Monday night a human rights oriented guy challenged this standard propaganda quite forcefully at times, so if only for that it's worth a listen:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/on-air-is-the-pope-standing-up-for-an-oppressed-minority-in-the-middle-east/
There's a link to the podcast of the show on the right sidebar. It'll be downloadable for a few more days.
Here's an excellent article on the true state of Palestinian Christians:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242029511696&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I'll try to work out how to post links on this funny blogger, Till then anyone who wants to access them will have to copy them and paste them into his address bar.
Trying those links:
WHYSJPost
Well, they were separated. This Blogger thingy is really mangled.
Wasnt the last Pope shot by a mohamidan?
Haaretz says that after the Pope was informed of the contents of Tamimi’s rant, he left the conference. They had reporters on scene, so no speculation. Now, either Haaretz and CNN are lying, or our little troll is playing fast and loose with the truth just to take a contrary position.
The Palestinian media report I linked to earlier was happy to take Haaretz at their word, and no honest person can say that this is spun to fit the Palestinian agenda. So that’s two strikes for the mendacious anonymous argument.
Here’s someone who claims to be an eyewitness, posting on a US Catholic blog:
I was there, In ND of Jerusalem. It was very evident how Msgr. George got nervous when Tamimi stood up and approached the microphone… He initiated sayin to the Pope: “Welcome to Jerusalem, capital of Palestine”… so you can imagine the rest of the speech. His tone was very strong, not very friendly. At some point some people (I guess the arabic speakers) started to clap hands supporting him. The Pope’s “nunzio”, ambassador, in Israel, when directly to the podium to ask Tamimi to end his speech. He ended and walked in front of the Pope and gave him a very distant hand greeting. After that, the Pope left the place, and in the way he stopped to say something and goodbye to Tamimi.
This doesn’t fit any Catholic agenda one way or the other, so claiming it’s not true for that reason doesn’t hold up.
And finally, let’s see our cowardly anonymous argument machine call these people liars:
Catholic Online: Sheikh Verbally attacks Israel, pope walks out
Strike three. Anybody still want to pretend it didn’t happen, and it was pure speculation on my part?