Word that the Vatican is now charging that the U.S. and British governments suppressed information about the extent of the Holocaust is all at once comic, ironic and tragic. Recently, the Vatican’s official newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano,” declared that Allied governments during World War II deliberately failed to act to stop the systematic murder of European Jewry despite having detailed information about it. The Vatican article also noted that the wartime Pope Pius XII worked quietly to help save Rome’s Jews during the Nazi occupation of the city.

The charges against the Allies, the paper wrote, are evident when one reads the diary of then U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who was Jewish. “The incapacity, indolence and bureaucratic delays of America impeded saving thousands of Hitler’s victims,” wrote Morgenthau. For good measure, he added, “We in Washington [knew that the Nazis] had planned to exterminate all the Jews of Europe” since August 1942 [but] for about 18 months from receiving the first reports of this horrible Nazi plan, the State Department did practically nothing.”

This is neither new nor news. In fact, scholars have poured over such references and in doing so rightly tarnished the reputation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, significant research has shown that protestations that any move against the concentration camps would have taken away from the fight against the Nazis – the best way to stop the Holocaust –rings hollow.

It’s more likely that this article is part of the Vatican’s ongoing campaign to deflect criticism of the wartime Pius XII, who is still on the path to sainthood – a topic extremely emotional and controversial amongst Catholic-Jewish dialogue participants.

In truth, everyone failed when it came to the Holocaust. There are no points to score here, but only profound lessons to learn. That is why trying to place one group’s piety over another is a sad, sad chapter in the ongoing effort to comprehend the massive tragedy of the 20th century.

Stop the presses or hit the “refresh” button on your computer. It’s news when the world is offered a rare moment of fairness from the often anti-Israel biased U.N. decision-making apparatus.

Last week the world body’s Security Council finally agreed that the Lebanese Hezbollah had created a “serious violation” of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. That’s the document that brought a halt to the summer 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Some of the conditions of that resolution called for Hezbollah to disarm and to pull its forces from Southern Lebanon, which would allow the Lebanese Army to patrol in that area. Israel did fulfill its obligations by stopping hostilities and pulling troops from the often violent country on its northern border.

But ever since the conflict’s end, Hezbollah has been stockpiling a massive amount of weapons. What must be further investigated is who else helped to bring these estimated 40,000 or so missiles – more than in Hezbollah’s arsenal before the war itself – to Israel’s northern border. The Iranians have made no secret of their supplying Hezbollah with weapons that usually arrive through Damascus International Airport, implicating the compliancy of the Syrian government as well.

All this caught the world’s attention again after a major explosion on July 14 in Southern Lebanon at a Hezbollah weapon’s cache. The U.N. Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) confirmed that the stockpile belonged to Hezbollah. Even more indicting, Hezbollah sent supporters to block U.N. staff from investigating the incident.

With humor, I note that Hezbollah – responsible for repeated attacks against U.S. forces in the 1980s and Israeli ones since—likes to refer to itself not as a militia, but a political party.

Meanwhile, despite the U.N. resolution, the world must be reminded anew that not only does Hezbollah have these weapons, but that it has already proven that it is willing to use them on Israeli civilians. So the lingering question remains: What will be the next step?

Sadly, it’s not hard to find world leaders far less deserving of recognition than former U.N. Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) head Mary Robinson. Yet that in no way means that she should be among the 16 people rewarded by President Barack Obama with the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There are solid reasons as to why nearly every major Jewish organization is speaking out against this announcement. What did Mrs. Robinson do that offends so many Jews and others in the pro-Israel community?

• For starters, she presided over the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist flavor that permeated the 2001 U.N. World Conference on Racism, the high profile so-called Durban Conference, named for its locale in South Africa. Under the leadership of then Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States and many other civilized nations boycotted the event – after giving months of notice over their concerns.

• During an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation following, despite attempts to pass a “Zionism=Racism” statement in the Durban text, Mrs. Robinson described the event’s outcome as “remarkably good, including on the issues of the Middle East.”

• In 2002, under her leadership the UNHRC tried to condone Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorism as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood. As the German ambassador said in explaining his vote against the measure, “The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence [and] no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism.”

Let’s be clear: I’m not interested in standing in the way of those who wish to criticize the human rights policies of Israel, the U.S. or any other nation. (I’ve been known to do that when I felt it was justified.) However, the pathological obsession with the Jewish state’s alleged negative behavior often comes from serial human rights abusers who are given a big juicy pass over their own well-documented atrocious behavior.

Likewise, no one doubts that Mr. Obama is interested in shining the spotlight on those who promote human rights. However, doing so by honoring an individual who presided over a xenophobic debacle does not advance such a noble cause.

This coming fall Jewish high holiday season, I fear that fewer Jews will be in the pews. It’s already bad enough that the vast majority of American Jews are uninterested in appearing at a house of worship within a week after Yom Kippur’s end.

Now we’re in real trouble if due to the economic turndown, more of those who at least marginally affiliate decide the cost isn’t worthwhile.

You can cite the familiar reasons: cost, boredom, better choices, alienation, etc. All of those excuses come down to two main reasons, one unspoken and one often not discussed: money and the boredom. Fortunately, both can be dealt with and many people are hard at work on just those topics.

When it comes to cost, there are two dynamics at work.

The first is that it is obviously expensive to join most synagogues, particularly larger ones. And if you’re not going to use it, is the $2,000 or so a year worthwhile (sometimes including, sometimes not including a building fund)? An obvious response to people who say no is “Use it more.” The problem is that doesn’t fly with most people.

That brings us to the second factor: In general synagogues do not do such a good job in engaging their members’ many needs. One good effort to change that is the Shleimut program being employed at Beth Israel Congregation in Owings Mills and elsewhere. It brings in a social worker and a nurse on a regular basis on weekdays to be available to congregants who want “wellness counseling.” Obviously, that gives people a powerful message: Your synagogue cares and can change your life.

Now let’s not beat on ourselves (and yes, I’m active in a synagogue). I know that volunteers and professionals are overwhelmed with what they need to do before even thinking about what they could do. Yet, let’s recognize that our synagogues need a “usefulness gut check” from top to bottom, one involving all staff and volunteer leaders in discussions about how realistically more of people’s needs can be reached.

If we don’t do this, I fear that even more current members will leave in the next few years. Thousands have already done so in Baltimore alone. Not sure? Check affiliation rates of today vs. those of 15 years ago.

Finally, we simply have to deal with the boredom factor. You know and I know exactly what’s going to happen at High Holiday services this year. For some, that’s comforting like an old, warm blanket. For others, it’s just boring. We don’t need rabbis popping out of cakes and cantors swinging from the trapeze, but we do need to make it all more fun. And yes, entertaining while delivering profound spiritual messages. And we ought to be offering snacks throughout so that people – particularly with kids – don’t need to run home to grab something to eat … and turn on the TV, and make a few calls, start a project and so on.

We need coffee in the hallways. We need ongoing discussions in other rooms—and we need to end them right before the rabbi’s sermon and make it known that we ask them now to all come in for the big talk.

Most of all, we need to give them new reasons to come back within a few weeks.

Is your synagogue doing any of that? Would it make a difference to you if it did? Is it doing something else that works? What else should we be doing?