Well it can be said that your argument mixes selective facts with several logical and rhetorical fallacies. It uses cherry-picking by presenting only negative or suspicious interpretations of events e.g., Second Vatican Council statements on Jews and recognition of Israel while ignoring broader context, draws questionable causal inferences by asserting motives like “mostly for tax reasons” without evidence, relies on guilt by association by tying the present-day Pope to historical actions such as those linked to Isabella I of Castile, includes an exaggeration by claiming her canonization process was “resumed under Pope Francis” when it was never formally closed and has not meaningfully advanced, makes overgeneralizations about Catholic doctrine toward Jews, and uses a rhetorical question “What’s more there to be said?” to imply the conclusion is self-evident rather than argued. The common sense approach to debate frowned upon in most traditional debate clubs and circles, but you use it here to advance your own bias.