Catholic teaching on Israel and Palestine

The claim that Catholics believe all the people of Israel should move to the land and replace the people of Palestine is false. This is not Catholic teaching.

What Catholics do NOT believe

The Catholic Church does not teach that:

• Jews are religiously obligated to return to the land of Israel

• Modern Israel fulfills biblical prophecy

• Palestinians should be displaced or replaced

• Catholics must support a political Zionist project

These ideas do not come from Catholic doctrine.

---

Why the confusion exists

The confusion comes from conflating Catholic theology with Evangelical Christian Zionism, which the Catholic Church has always rejected.

Christian Zionism teaches that:

• The modern State of Israel is divinely mandated

• Land possession is part of end-times prophecy

• Palestinian claims are secondary or irrelevant

Catholicism does not teach this.

---

Official Catholic teaching

The Catholic Church teaches that:

• God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ, not in a modern nation-state

• The Kingdom of God is not territorial or ethnic (John 18:36)

• Political claims must be judged by justice, human dignity, and international law, not theology

---

The Church and the Palestinian people

The Catholic Church:

• Explicitly recognizes Palestinians as a real people with legitimate rights

• Supports a two-state solution

• Opposes forced displacement, occupation, and collective punishment

This position has been affirmed by multiple popes.

---

To reiterate:

Catholic teaching:

• Respects the Jewish people and their historic covenant

• Rejects using Scripture to justify political displacement

• Upholds the dignity and rights of both Jews and Palestinians

Any claim that Catholicism teaches the replacement of Palestinians is incorrect and contrary to Church doctrine.

Mike Huckabee is ignorant or is lying to label Pope John Paul II a Zionist.

Mike Huckabee is wrong to label Pope John Paul II a Zionist. He's either ignorant or he's lying.  He stated in an aggressive interview with Tucker Carlson that Pope John Paul II was a Zionist to back up his point with Tucker. R

Pope John Paul II recognized the State of Israel under international law, but he explicitly rejected Zionism as theology. Diplomatic recognition is not ideological endorsement. The Catholic Church does not teach that modern Israel fulfills biblical prophecy, nor that Christians are theologically obligated to support a Jewish state.

John Paul II consistently upheld Catholic doctrine: God’s covenant is fulfilled in Christ, Scripture is not a political land deed, and the Kingdom of God is not territorial or nationalist. He supported Palestinian rights, a two-state solution, and international law over biblical nationalism.

What Pope John Paul II did believe

✅ He recognized the State of Israel

• In 1993, under John Paul II, the Vatican formally recognized Israel through the Fundamental Agreement.

• He affirmed that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security within internationally recognized borders.

• He visited Israel in 2000, prayed at the Western Wall, and condemned antisemitism unequivocally.

All of that is diplomatic recognition, not Zionist ideology.

---

What Pope John Paul II did NOT believe

❌ He rejected Zionism as theology

John Paul II did not believe:

• That modern Israel fulfills biblical prophecy

• That land promises in the Old Testament justify modern political sovereignty

• That Christians are theologically obligated to support a Jewish state

• That Christianity depends on Israel’s political expansion or permanence

That puts him firmly outside Christian Zionism.

The Catholic Church has repeatedly taught that:

• God’s covenant is fulfilled in Christ

• Biblical land promises are not political blueprints

• The Kingdom of God is not territorial or nationalist

John Paul II fully upheld this teaching.

---

His actual position (Catholic teaching)

John Paul II consistently supported:

• Two-state coexistence

• Palestinian rights

• International law over biblical literalism

• Jerusalem having a special international status, not exclusive sovereignty

That stance is incompatible with Zionism as an ideology, which is a modern nationalist movement.

---

Why Huckabee’s claim is misleading

Huckabee collapses two very different things into one word:

• Diplomatic recognition → “Zionism”

• Christian eschatology → “Zionism”

• Basic international norms → “Zionism”

That’s not how history, theology, or Catholic teaching works.

If recognizing a country’s existence makes someone a Zionist, then:

• The UN

• The Vatican

• Most Arab states today

…would all be “Zionist,” which is obviously absurd.

The Catholic Church also does not recognize Zionism as a religious or theological doctrine. While the Vatican acknowledges the State of Israel under international law, it explicitly rejects the idea that modern political states fulfill biblical prophecy or carry divine mandate. Catholic teaching holds that God’s covenant is fulfilled in Christ, that Scripture is not a political land claim, and that the Kingdom of God is spiritual and universal, not nationalist. For this reason, the Church rejects Christian Zionism and does not endorse Zionism as an ideology.

Bottom line

Pope John Paul II was NOT a Zionist.
He:

• Recognized Israel diplomatically

• Rejected Christian Zionism theologically

• Supported Palestinian rights

• Rejected biblical nationalism

• The Catholic Church does not recognize Zionism 

Calling him a “Christian Zionist” is historically false and theologically incorrect.

White powder mailings prompt closures at GOP offices in Michigan and Maine

Bloomfield Township, MI and Augusta, ME — Feb. 19–20, 2026

Two Republican Party offices, one in Michigan and one in Maine, were temporarily closed after suspicious envelopes containing a white or powdery substance were received, prompting evacuations and ongoing investigations by local authorities.

Michigan incident: Oakland County GOP office

In Bloomfield Township, Michigan, the Oakland County Republican headquarters shut down Friday after staff discovered an envelope with a powdery substance. Police were called around 2 p.m., the scene was secured, and safety procedures were followed.

Bloomfield Township police said they believe the incident is not isolated and may be connected to other suspicious packages sent to GOP affiliated locations across Michigan. Federal law enforcement is also involved in the investigation.

The party’s leadership publicly commented on the situation. Chairman Vance Patrick said the incident is unacceptable and dangerous and warned that heightened political rhetoric can have consequences.

“What happened today is unacceptable and dangerous,” Patrick said. “For months, Democrats and their allies have been recklessly raising the temperature by labeling Republicans ‘Nazis’ and dehumanizing their political opponents. That kind of rhetoric has consequences. When you constantly portray your neighbors as evil, you should not be surprised when unstable individuals act on that poison. We will not be intimidated, and we will continue standing up for the people of Oakland County.”

Senior Advisor Brian Szmytke said the party is treating the matter with the utmost seriousness and cooperating with authorities to identify those responsible.

“Our security contractors and staff are pursuing this matter fully with local and federal authorities to ensure that whoever is responsible is identified and held accountable,” Szmytke said. “No political organization or volunteer should have to face this kind of threat for engaging in the democratic process.”

The headquarters was expected to remain closed through the weekend to protect volunteers and secure the building.

Maine incident: Maine Republican Party headquarters

About a day earlier, in Augusta, Maine, a similar situation unfolded. The Augusta Police Department investigated a suspicious envelope delivered Thursday to the Maine Republican Party headquarters on Higgins Street. Police were called around 1 p.m.

Pictures released by the Maine Republican Party showed a white substance coming from the envelope. When the office manager opened it, 911 was called and the building was evacuated out of caution.

Maine GOP communications director Kristina Parker described the situation as frightening and frustrating.

“It’s terrifying because what if it’s something harmful, or maybe I was the one that opened the mail,” Parker said. “It could have harmed our office manager, so it’s really frustrating in that regard.”

Authorities said they were working to identify the substance but believed it was not harmful. No one in the building was injured or reported feeling sick. Staff were advised not to return to the building while police continued to investigate.

The Maine Republican Party also issued statements about the disruption. In one, they stressed vigilance for safety and noted that the incident would not impede their work.

“These are crazy times, and we must continue to remain diligent for our own and others’ safety,” the party said. “This will not impact the functions or dedication of the Maine Republican Party to elect Republicans and work for a better tomorrow. It’s frustrating to be interrupted and have potential extreme ill intent impacting our operations.”

Parker added that staff were kept from work for hours, hampering their ability to do their jobs.

“I’ve been out here for three hours, and I haven’t done much work,” Parker said. “We are effectively quarantined, and it’s impacting our ability to do our jobs.”

Augusta Police stated the incident remains under investigation.

What is known so far

Both incidents involved envelopes containing a white or powdery substance delivered to Republican Party offices.

In both cases, staff followed safety protocols, involving evacuation or securing the scene, and notified local authorities immediately.

No injuries or sickness were reported in the Maine case. Michigan officials focused on the connection to other suspicious mailings in the state.

Investigations are active in both locations, and authorities are coordinating with federal partners in Michigan.

These back to back incidents in different states underscore ongoing concerns about mail based threats to political offices and remain subject to further official findings as investigations proceed.

Sorry Reverend No — Jesus Was Not a “Zionist.” That Term Didn’t Exist, and the Claim Distorts Scripture.

Online, Reverend Jordan Wells portrays himself as a Christian leader and outspoken Christian Zionist, building a following largely through provocative posts and viral clips on X and Facebook. But despite the clerical title he uses, Wells often does not act like a reverend, particularly in the way he publicly attacks people of other faiths. His social media presence is marked by hostility toward Muslims and Catholics alike, pairing harsh rhetoric with sweeping theological and political claims. Wells has repeatedly promoted an aggressively pro-Zionist ideology, including assertions that Jesus was a Zionist, framing modern geopolitical allegiance as a religious litmus test. Critics argue that this posture abandons Christian teachings of humility and charity in favor of confrontation, division, and ideological warfare—raising serious questions about whether his conduct reflects spiritual leadership or political activism cloaked in religious language.

Calling Jesus a “Zionist” is anachronistic and theologically inaccurate. Zionism is a modern political ideology, emerging in the late 19th century. Jesus lived under Roman occupation nearly 2,000 years earlier and explicitly rejected political-nationalist messianism.

Let’s address the claims point by point.

1. Jesus wept over Jerusalem — but not to endorse political sovereignty.
Jesus wept because Jerusalem rejected justice, mercy, and the way of peace, not because it lacked statehood. In fact, He warned that the city would face destruction because of its leaders’ violence and hypocrisy. That prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. Lament is not political endorsement.

2. “Salvation comes from the Jews” does not equal ethnic or nationalist supremacy.
John 4:22 affirms salvation’s origin, not its limitation. Jesus immediately expands the covenant beyond ethnicity, declaring that true worshipers will worship “in spirit and truth”, not tied to land, temple, or nation. The Gospel abolishes tribal exclusivity, not sanctifies it.

3. Paul’s olive tree destroys nationalist theology — it does not support it.
Romans 11 teaches humility, not triumphalism. Gentiles are grafted in by faith, and Jews are warned they can be broken off by unbelief. The covenant is faith-based, not land-based. Paul explicitly states that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile — a direct rejection of ethnic hierarchy.

4. Peter never preached eternal political land claims.
Peter preached repentance, resurrection, and the Kingdom of God, not territorial entitlement. The New Testament redefines inheritance as the whole world through Christ, not one strip of land through bloodline.

5. The early Church was not “unapologetically Zionist.”
The early Church was often persecuted by both Rome and the Jerusalem authorities. Early Christians did not fight for land, borders, or political dominance. They preached a crucified Messiah whose Kingdom was not of this world.

Jesus rejected violent nationalism outright.
He rebuked Peter for using the sword.
He refused to lead a revolt.
He said the meek—not the powerful—inherit the earth.
He redefined “Israel” around obedience to God, not ancestry.

To conflate Jesus with modern political Zionism is to collapse theology into ideology and turn Christ into a mascot for nation-state power — something He consistently opposed.

Standing with God’s covenant means standing for justice, mercy, humility, and the protection of the innocent, not baptizing modern politics with ancient scripture.

Not politics. Bible — read carefully, not selectively.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs, Delivering Sharp Rebuke of Emergency Power Abuse

WASHINGTON — In a decisive 6–3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under emergency powers, concluding that the White House overstepped its constitutional authority by unilaterally levying taxes that the Constitution squarely assigns to Congress.

The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose tariffs, effectively dismantling a core pillar of Trump’s trade agenda and reinforcing long-standing limits on executive power.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made clear that the issue was not policy preference but constitutional structure. The power to impose tariffs, the Court held, belongs to Congress and Congress alone. The opinion was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, forming a broad ideological coalition that underscored the seriousness of the violation.

Emergency Powers Used as a Workaround

The tariffs at issue were announced on what the Trump administration branded “Liberation Day” on April 2, along with earlier tariffs imposed in February targeting imports from Canada, China, and Mexico. The administration justified the measures by invoking emergency powers, sidestepping Congress entirely.

Lower federal courts had already rejected that legal theory. The Supreme Court’s ruling now cements those decisions, confirming that no declared emergency allows a president to rewrite the Constitution’s allocation of taxing authority.

Ahead of the ruling, Trump publicly attempted to pressure the Court, warning on social media that the country would be “screwed” if the justices ruled against him. The warning failed. The Court ruled anyway.

Billions Collected, Legality Rejected

Trump repeatedly claimed the tariffs were generating billions of dollars for the U.S. economy and suggested the revenue could be used to reduce the national debt or even fund direct payments to Americans. Those proposals never materialized.

Critics, economists, and consumer advocates argued the tariffs functioned as a hidden tax on Americans, a claim supported by numerous companies that said higher import costs forced price increases on consumers.

Studies showed U.S. households bore the overwhelming share of the burden, with estimates indicating Americans absorbed roughly 96 percent of the tariff costs.

According to economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, more than $175 billion in tariff collections could now be at risk if the tariffs are fully unwound, raising serious questions about refunds, liability, and accountability.

Legal and Financial Fallout Ahead

The Court did not address whether businesses or consumers will be refunded for tariffs already paid. That omission leaves a looming legal battle in its wake.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined in dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned that unraveling the tariffs could be a “mess,” though the majority made clear that administrative inconvenience does not justify constitutional violations.

Senator Elizabeth Warren cautioned that if refunds are issued, large corporations—not consumers—are most likely to benefit.

“The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Warren said. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.”

A Constitutional Line Reasserted

At its core, the ruling serves as a stark reminder that emergency powers are not a blank check and that presidents cannot unilaterally impose taxes under the guise of national urgency.

Whether the tariffs were good or bad policy was not the question before the Court. The question was authority. On that point, the Supreme Court’s answer was unequivocal: the president did not have it.

Trump is scheduled to respond publicly to the ruling at a press briefing later today. The legal reality, however, is already settled. The tariffs are blocked, the emergency justification rejected, and the constitutional boundary firmly reasserted.

Iran Warns UN It Will Defend Itself if Attacked, Citing Right to Self-Defense

New York, February 20, 2026 — Iran issued a formal warning to the United Nations on Friday, reaffirming that it does not seek war but will defend itself if subjected to military aggression, citing its inherent right to self-defense under international law.

In a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the U.N. Security Council, Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations stated that Tehran would respond “decisively and proportionately” if attacked. The letter emphasized that any hostile military bases, facilities, or assets used in an attack against Iran would be considered legitimate targets in a defensive response.

The warning comes amid escalating rhetoric and heightened military activity in the Middle East, including increased U.S. troop deployments and public statements from American officials suggesting possible military action if diplomatic negotiations fail.

Iran stressed that it does not intend to initiate hostilities, but will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty. The letter referenced Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which affirms the inherent right of all nations to defend themselves if an armed attack occurs.

Under international law, the right to self-defense is universally recognized and applies equally to all sovereign states. Legal experts note that this principle does not permit the initiation of conflict but affirms a nation’s right to protect its territorial integrity, population, and national security in the event of invasion or external aggression.

Iran’s communication warned that the United States would bear full responsibility for any “unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences” resulting from a military confrontation. The letter framed this language as deterrence rather than escalation, asserting that defensive retaliation would be limited to legitimate military objectives.

Diplomatic efforts continue behind the scenes, with indirect negotiations ongoing over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security concerns. However, tensions remain high, and analysts warn that miscalculations on either side could rapidly escalate into a broader conflict.

Energy markets and regional governments are closely monitoring developments, particularly given Iran’s strategic position near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital corridor for global oil shipments.

As the situation unfolds, Iran’s message to the United Nations underscores a central principle of international law: every nation has the same right to defend itself from invasion or outside aggression, just as any sovereign state would under similar circumstances.

Turning the Other Cheek Does Not Mean Surrendering to Evil

In modern religious discourse, one of the most misunderstood teachings of Jesus Christ is the command to turn the other cheek. Too often, this phrase is reduced to a call for passivity, submission, or moral retreat in the face of oppression. That interpretation is not only shallow, it is historically and theologically incorrect.

Jesus did not teach His followers to bow down to tyrants, enable injustice, or allow the innocent to be crushed. He taught moral discipline, not moral surrender.

When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, He was addressing personal insult, not systemic evil. In the first century Jewish context, a slap on the cheek was an act of humiliation, not a directive to accept abuse, violence, or domination. Christ was teaching restraint of ego, not abandonment of responsibility.

The same is true of the phrase the meek shall inherit the earth. The word meek does not mean weak. In its original Greek meaning, it describes strength under control. It refers to disciplined power, not passivity. A meek person is capable of force but chooses righteousness. This is not cowardice. It is moral courage.

Throughout His ministry, Jesus consistently confronted oppression. He overturned the tables of corrupt money changers who exploited the poor. He publicly rebuked religious leaders who abused their authority. He defended the vulnerable, including women, children, and the outcast. He condemned those who enriched themselves by harming widows and the defenseless. These were not symbolic gestures. They were acts of resistance.

Jesus never instructed the innocent to accept their chains. He called His followers to stand in the gap between evil and the vulnerable.

Scripture reinforces this responsibility. Believers are commanded to rescue the weak and the needy, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and to defend the innocent. Faith is not proven by silence in the face of injustice. It is proven by action grounded in righteousness.

A Jesus follower is not called to seek revenge or respond to evil with evil. But neither are they called to allow evil to flourish unchecked. The distinction matters. Turning the other cheek applies to personal offense. Standing up applies to oppression.

To protect the meek is not a contradiction of Christ’s teaching. It is a fulfillment of it.

Christian faith does not demand submission to injustice. It demands courage, moral clarity, and a willingness to confront darkness without becoming it. That is the balance Jesus taught. That is the responsibility of those who claim to follow Him.