Inside the Church of the Nativity - Page 3

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2002, 03:14

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 · May 5, 2002, 03:16

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 · May 5, 2002, 03:31

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 03:39

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 · May 5, 2002, 03:47

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

Az · May 5, 2002, 03:54

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 · May 5, 2002, 03:54

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 04:41

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 05:37

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 05:52

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 · May 5, 2002, 05:56

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 06:14

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 · May 5, 2002, 07:36

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 09:56

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.

Eli · May 5, 2002, 14:08

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

Imran Siddiqui · May 5, 2002, 16:15

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 16:23

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

It's nice Israeli propaganda as well.

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

Sirotnikov · May 5, 2002, 16:34

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 17:40

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Bullshit! 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 17:43

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 · May 5, 2002, 19:03

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · May 5, 2002, 19:57

hi ,

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

have a nice day

DinoDoc · May 6, 2002, 00:08

Quote:

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 · May 6, 2002, 00:34

Quote:

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 · May 6, 2002, 03:55

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 · May 6, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

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 · May 6, 2002, 05:35

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 · May 6, 2002, 05:40

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

Guardian · May 6, 2002, 06:57

Quote:

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...