The first scores are in from the 2014 World Cup!

Pope Francis 1, United States 0.

OK, maybe that’s not a real match result. But in recent Middle East news, the score does reflect the relative success of the papal visit to Israel, particularly in comparison to the United States’ recent misguided confirmation of the unity Palestinian government.

To put it as Haviv Rettig Gur wrote in the online Times of Israel, “the pope didn’t make any mistakes,” while the U.S. zeroed out in its response to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ latest political move.

Some condemned Francis’ visit because of his photo ops, particularly in Bethlehem, and supposed acceptance of the Palestinian narrative of the conflict with Israel.

But that’s a very skewed, one-sided view of the trip. The pope honored Zionism’s icon, Theodor Herzl; denounced the atrocity of the Holocaust; prayed at the Western Wall; and affirmatively acknowledged the right of Israelis to live in peace and free from terrorism. And, of course, given his mission as the leader of Catholics, he recognized the importance of Christianity’s holy sites and the need for peace in the region.

By and large, for a world religious leader stepping into a hotbed of international scrutiny, Pope Francis navigated the minefields fairly deftly. His ability to do so lay in his goal of reaching people more than politicians. Of course, he spoke to the requisite dignitaries; how could a papal visit go otherwise? But his messages were largely directed beyond the leaders.

Contrast that with the recent announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry that America would initially support the unity government of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, headed by the Fatah faction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.

The policy decision by President Barack Obama’s administration could have taken any number of forms. There could have issued a decisive “no” to the combination, given the terrorist history of Hamas and its leaders’ continued refusal to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel. No significant faction in this country, Jewish or otherwise, would have faulted the president for taking this position, especially because the terms of U.S. funding for the PA require that there be no support for any government in which Hamas has “undue influence.”

Alternately, Obama and Kerry could have adopted a “wait and see” approach to determine how much control Hamas would exercise within the coalition government. Four of 17 minister seats in the combined governance structure will come from Gaza (the initial holders of those seats were barred by Israel from attending the kickoff ceremony in Ramallah, West Bank), so it’s at least arguable that Hamas could hold significant sway.

Instead, the U.S. took what seems the more idealistic position, of choosing to work with the combined authority until given reason not to do so. This was pretty much a mistake.

We understand the potential for future benefit. The coordinated Palestinian government holds some potential for bringing Gaza under the PA’s domain and diminishing Hamas’ sway over time. If that happens, it’s a good thing.

Given the absolute intransigence and historic violence from Hamas, though, why the rush? With any governance group that includes Hamas — which has insisted it won’t recognize security arrangements with Israel and which has constantly refused to relinquish terrorism as a tactic, thus branding it a terrorist organization by the West — the presumption has to lean against diplomatic relations unless and until given a constructive basis for a contrary view.

Pope Francis was able to navigate his trip in a respectful and meaningful way by speaking to the respect and peace that all people deserve, not by trying to play politics in the region. While he invited Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to meet with him in the future, it was to provide a symbolic platform, not to cut a deal; he is no doubt well aware that’s beyond his purview.

Obama and Kerry, on the other hand, are not religious leaders, but political and governmental ones. They have an obligation to focus on real-life problems and risks. Assuring the continued security and existence of their allies, in this case Israel, is an absolutely predominant value over symbolic gestures such as those offered by the leader of the Catholic Church.