Inside the Church of the Nativity

[Eli]

The most wanted Hamas man in the Bet Lehem area left the Church of the Nativity and surrendered to the IDF soldiers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, the Austrian ultimatum was quite unreasonable. By demanding Austrian investigators and extradition of the culprits to Austria, the empire was effectively annexing Serbia. The whole point was to establish that Austria could still push its Slavic neighbors around.

If it was so inevitable then why was Serbia ready to concede on ALL points? Only when the Russians said they supported Serbia wholeheartedly did Serbia reject points 6 and 8.

And the point WASN'T to show it could push the Slavs around. Their ****ing Archduke, the heir to the throne died. Something had to be done, and Austria didn't want war, but the Russians made sure of that (which is why I place most blame on the Russians for WW1, though all sides were full of blame).

The more important question is whether the triggers in these two events are comparable. I tend to think that the assassination of royalty is a little more serious than an out of power politician's visit to a holy place. Was Sharon's visit really provocative enough to justify a terror campaign?

You forget he had 1000 soldiers with him. Basically, symbolically claiming it as forever Israel's. If they did nothing it would be a severe loss of face.

This sounds curiously like what's going on in another part of the world right now. I wonder what I'm thinking of

Some major differences.... I think Israel was looking for a fight in Palestine, and its demands were not reasonable (seeing as the Palestinians have rejected those Accords and weren't even close to accepting them). Tell me where Palestine spat in Israel's face?

As for the latest round of terrorism, I'd point out that there were several previous outbreaks of violence after Oslo - the Temple Mount riots of 1996, the riots in 1999. These stopped fairly quickly, even though the "provocation" in the former case was much greater. If Sharon had not visited, then some convenient anniversary (of the signing of the Oslo agreement, of the founding of Fatah, of the founding of Israel, or some similar thing) would have been found for launching the violence. This is not fate, this is Palestinian strategy.

It's nice Israeli propaganda as well.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If it was so inevitable then why was Serbia ready to concede on ALL points? Only when the Russians said they supported Serbia wholeheartedly did Serbia reject points 6 and 8.

The Serbs were willing to give in because they had no hope of defeating Austria on their own. The Czechs gave up the Sudetenland for the same reason, but that hardly proves how reasonable German demands were.

And the point WASN'T to show it could push the Slavs around. Their ****ing Archduke, the heir to the throne died. Something had to be done, and Austria didn't want war, but the Russians made sure of that (which is why I place most blame on the Russians for WW1, though all sides were full of blame).

Austria didn't want war, but it didn't just want to catch the archduke's killers. It wanted to make a point, specifically, that Austria could still stand up to the Slavs and push them around.

You forget he had 1000 soldiers with him. Basically, symbolically claiming it as forever Israel's. If they did nothing it would be a severe loss of face.

Forever? More like for 15 minutes. And they were policemen.

It's nice Israeli propaganda as well.

Um, what? Are you saying that there were no riots in 1996?

[Sirotnikov]

You forget he had 1000 soldiers with him.

And that was because Gibril Rajoub suddenly announced he won't protect him, like he did everyone who came there, being responsible for Preventive Security.

He gave a green light and then suddenly said he won't secure the trip.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Serbs were willing to give in because they had no hope of defeating Austria on their own.

And because the demands were not unreasonable. Hell, the US makes demands like that all the time.

Austria didn't want war, but it didn't just want to catch the archduke's killers. It wanted to make a point, specifically, that Austria could still stand up to the Slavs and push them around.

Bull****! Austria's goal was never to show that it could push the Slavs around. If that was true, it'd never serious consider the 'Halt in Belgrade' Plan. It had no intention of 'pushing the Slavs' around. If it did, it would had an expanded role in the Balkan Wars of 1908 and 1913. Hell, OBL didn't even kill a high level government administration official, and look what we did to Afghanistan.

If Austria wanted to show it could push the Slavs around, it would have invaded ASAP. The fact they didn't shows that they wanted to get restitution for their killed Archduke, and they wouldn't mind diplomacy for it.

Um, what?

The whole idea that the Palestinians would have rioted anyway. Israeli propaganda. It uses that argument so it can just kill more Palestinians, and you know that.

And that was because Gibril Rajoub suddenly announced he won't protect him, like he did everyone who came there, being responsible for Preventive Security.

He gave a green light and then suddenly said he won't secure the trip.

So, instead of bringing some bodyguards, he brings a 1000. That won't stir up anything .

So if Arafat visited the Temple Mount with 1000 Hamas members with guns, Israel would just say ok? Don't think so.

[Eli]

An agreement was reached.

6 "heavy" terrorists will be exiled to Italy, 40 less important ones to the Gaza Strip and all the rest are free to go. The IDF will withdraw from Bet Lehem as soon as all conditions are met.

[Natan]

I'm going to drop the WWI issue because it's such a tangent from Bethlehem. Maybe for some other thread.

The whole idea that the Palestinians would have rioted anyway. Israeli propaganda. It uses that argument so it can just kill more Palestinians, and you know that.

Your response to every argument that the Palestinians would have resorted to violence anyway is to murmur "Israeli propaganda" without responding to the point. I could do the same and just dismiss the claim that Sharon's visit caused the violence as "Palestinian propaganda," but it's not very productive.

So, instead of bringing some bodyguards, he brings a 1000. That won't stir up anything .

1) Seeing as violence broke out, I'd say they were necessary
2) Do you think there would have been no problem if he had brought 500? 100? 10?

So if Arafat visited the Temple Mount with 1000 Hamas members with guns, Israel would just say ok? Don't think so.

Well when they ransacked Joseph's tomb, that's exactly what Israeli said.

[Panag]

hi ,

one could wonder , ......why are so many people blind , .........


have a nice day

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So if Arafat visited the Temple Mount with 1000 Hamas members with guns, Israel would just say ok? Don't think so.

Probobly. It would be nice to give lie to the ridiculous notion that he is unconnected from Palestinian terrorism in a public forum.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Tell me where Palestine spat in Israel's face?

I'd consider 18 months of senseless violence directed at Israeli civilians to be the equivalent of "spitting in Israel's face", especially in light of the very reasonable settlement offered by the Israelis. The Pals are the ones who chose a return to violence, not the Israelis.

[Eli]

Saeb Arekat said that today, they would've accepted the Barak proposal. And I thought it's impossible for them to accept it...

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by finkian
Couldn't it be that the palestinians have spent years defending themselves by committing "acts of terror"?

Finkian:

I think I understand your point when you try to present a resistence effort against Israelli ocupation, comprising both terrorists and armed militia. The Israelli troops seem to equate it pretty much like so: if they kill someone from Hamas it's war against terrorism, if they surround some armed militia, it's because all that are holding guns and firing at Israelli soldiers are terrorists; when they destroi houses to catch the "bad guys" it's OK because that area is a warzone (even if some say they used civilians as sheilds).

However, one that looks at the problem from afar can evaluate what happens after a terract occurs and evaluate what really is the reason closest to those acts: the reason is retribution/vengeance/"an eye for an eye"; the effect is more opression. So, I think it is clear that the acts of terror were never meant to be a defence tool (unless you believe that, in this scenario the best defence is to atack, what, by far has been proven to be wrong) and never worked as deterents to the construction of new settlements or the various disrespectfull actions of Israelli Forces and Governement relative to what they signed/agreed or claim to be the fundamental basis of their political/moral superiority. They should be abandoned by the Palestinians and criticized by the International Community. As I often wrote here, the terracts will be the main thing an International Peace Force must fight, with whatever measures necessary (under the respect of Human Rights), if one such Force is allowed to be placed in the area.

[Ecowiz Returns]

About the second Intifada:

It seems clear to everyone here that all the conditions were met for that to happen. If only needed the trigger.

Much like in Northern Ireland nowaday, many, if not all, the conditions exist for the conflict to escalate again and ruin the Peace process. That's why we call it a process: it doesn't happen just because people say they whant it to happen. In many occasions, we Portuguese and our neighbours Spanish had all the conditions to start just another battle, or just another war. After WWII, there war many conditions to start WWIII (with the West allying against the Soviets). So, what's missing in these examples, and why the Northern Ireland Peace process is still alive, the relationship between Portugal is Spain is the best one everor why, after nearly 50 years of Cold War, Russia is now an ally of Nato? My opinion is that all that happened because the trigger never occured (or, when it was to occur, for instance in the Cuban crisis, we had two leveled leaders on both sides of the barricade).

What is bearing the blame on Mr. Sharon is that he is an old enough, mature enough human being to realize that going to the Temple Mount with 1000 soldiers would trigger something like the 2nd Intifada. If he wanted Peace, he would express a strong protest against the lack of security that those who lawfully should provide it, did provide. Then he would not go to the Temple Mount.

And then, something would happen and would trigger the 2nd Intifada. Or maybe not.

[Eli]

The second intifada started few days before Sharon's visit.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Eli
An agreement was reached.

6 "heavy" terrorists will be exiled to Italy, 40 less important ones to the Gaza Strip and all the rest are free to go. The IDF will withdraw from Bet Lehem as soon as all conditions are met.

So, basically, the evil Zionist occupiers are just going to back off and let their enemies go...

Interesting...

I thought they were supposed to be horrible, evil monsters who liked nothing better than a good massacre...