Inside the Church of the Nativity

[Drake Tungsten]

That's a pretty naive belief. The second intifada was going to happen one way or the other; Sharon's actions were just a convenient excuse.

[Adalbertus]

Sharon by purpose ignited an explosive mixture which was already there. I blame him for igniting rather than trying to disarm. I blame him for doing this "only" to be elected president. I don't blame him for the existence of this mixture.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a pretty naive belief. The second intifada was going to happen one way or the other; Sharon's actions were just a convenient excuse.

That's like saying World War 1 was going to happen one way or another, the shooting of the Archduke was just a convenient excuse (as you can tell, I don't believe that, even though Europe was close to a powderkeg).

[Az]

oh , so you actually believe that the murder of the Austrohungarian Archduke was the reason for WWI? well , I've rest my case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was the spark. Without it, World War 1 probably wouldn't happen, at least the way we remember it.

[Az]

wouldn't happen? I think since all the right components were there ,it was just a matter of time. could happen a few months later or earlier. and anyway if there would be a war , it would be much the same way it was WWI. the war doctrines were the same , and the trenches would still exist in the west, as would the defeat of russia in the east.

[Adalbertus]

so you actually believe that the murder of the Austrohungarian Archduke was the reason for WWI?

I don't believe Austria was interested in a war. They had enough problems on their own which couldn't be resolved by a war. Trying to integrate a slavian minority by a war against slavian countries. On the other hand, India and Pakistan were at the edge of a war beginning of this year due to a terract on an indian parliament. They probably feared the nukes ...

Interested in a war were Russia, Germany and France (ordered in the sequence they joined the war. Of course due to mutual treaties and/or preventive attack). Perhaps Italy to join the right side. I don't know about England.
It's the same thing. I blame the murderer for murder and igniting the thing (probably he didn't realize what he was going to ignite, as opposed to Sharon). I don't blame him for the mixture.

Of course, France and Russia as winners wanted to blame Austria/Germany only, and taking the murder as something else than a convenient excuse, would have weakened their position. Well, that's the stuff the second world war was made of.

[Imran Siddiqui]

wouldn't happen? I think since all the right components were there ,it was just a matter of time. could happen a few months later or earlier. and anyway if there would be a war , it would be much the same way it was WWI. the war doctrines were the same , and the trenches would still exist in the west, as would the defeat of russia in the east.

I disagree totally. A war, a few years later would have been vastly different, and probably not a World War, but a smaller one. And if the Archduke hadn't been shot, I think a WW1 situation wouldn't have happened 'a few months earlier or later', but would need a spark. Might not have happened for another 10-20 years... if at all (wars would occur, but maybe not a WW).

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's like saying World War 1 was going to happen one way or another, the shooting of the Archduke was just a convenient excuse (as you can tell, I don't believe that, even though Europe was close to a powderkeg).

Strangely enough, this was the exact example I considered using to back up my point. The political alliance system in Europe, when combined with British-German and Russian-Austrian animosity did make WWI inevitable. Austria had been worried about Russian influence in the Balkans for a long time; the assassination of Francis Ferdinand provide a convenient excuse for a war with Serbia (Russia's chief ally in the Balkans). The underlying problems in European international relations caused WWI, not the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. The assassination was just the trigger, much like Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The political alliance system in Europe, when combined with British-German and Russian-Austrian animosity did make WWI inevitable.

BS... WW1 was not inevitable. The pieces just fit right on the day the Archduke was shot, provided a spark that caused the whole thing. A few years later, perhaps, the shooting would have resulted in nothing but the invasion of Serbia, with a Russia that didn't want to put it's neck on the line for a tiny Slavic state.

The shooting was the proximate cause, and the alliance system was an underlying cause, but the alliance system did not make the war inevitable... I don't believe events are inevitable, actions determine events, fate doesn't.

Austria had been worried about Russian influence in the Balkans for a long time; the assassination of Francis Ferdinand provide a convenient excuse for a war with Serbia (Russia's chief ally in the Balkans).

No, sorry. Austria wasn't looking to fight a war against Serbia, and even provided demands which weren't that harsh, and even were close to being accepted. It is only when Serbia spat in its face did Austria contemplate war, but even then, Germany could have said, no, we won't back you and it all would have been for naught. Of course, the Brits should have made their intentions clearer, and we'd be talking in an entirely new context now, without a WW1 as we know it.

Saying Austria wanted to go to war with Serbia and the shooting was convenient to do so is not understanding the origins of WW1 that well at all.

The assassination was just the trigger, much like Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

So you are saying the Sharon's visit caused this whole mess. Good, we are getting somewhere.

[Drake Tungsten]

Inevitable was a poor word choice on my part. Extremely, extremely likely would be a better way to put it. Of course it is possible that WWI would never have happened, but I really doubt it. It doesn't really matter, though, as I think we agree on this. The political climate in Europe was the cause of WWI and the assassination of Francis Ferdinand was the trigger. Similarly, the breakdown of the Camp David talks was the cause of the second intifada and Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was the trigger.

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? The Pals are just hurting themselves with this wave of violence. If they would've viewed Sharon's visit as the political stunt it was and ignored it, they might not be in the situation they're in now.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, sorry. Austria wasn't looking to fight a war against Serbia, and even provided demands which weren't that harsh, and even were close to being accepted. It is only when Serbia spat in its face did Austria contemplate war

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

[Eli]

Imran. Do you also believe that the car accident was the thing that caused the first intifada?
Just like Sharon, it was the trigger that caused the inevitable to happen.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by laurentius
Besides israelis have made very clear that they dont negotiate with the "terrorists" inside. There goes your POW-status, more like Al-Qaeda-prisoner status

Yes, because the evil Americans are slaughtering them by the dozens in concentration camps.

[Natan]

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.

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.