Getting an earful ... loudspeakers held up near the Nativity Church pump out the noise. Photo: AFP,
Posted on 04/16/2002 1:49:54 PM PDT by history_matters
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
April 16 2002
Daily Telegraph, London
|
|
Getting an earful ... loudspeakers held up near the Nativity Church pump out the noise. Photo: AFP, |
The Israeli Army is broadcasting ear-splitting screeches and wails at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, traditional site of Jesus' birth, to force out 200 Palestinians besieged there.
Troops brought in a crane to hoist loudspeakers over the ancient basilica, one of the holiest shrines in Christendom, as part of what one person inside called "psycho terror". One of the noises sounds like a car alarm.
Camped outside the church, the army estimates there are about 50 wanted Palestinian militants inside, with clergy and civilians.
The Israeli Government offered a deal on Sunday under which the wanted men would be given a choice between permanent exile and trial before a military court. "If they leave, it's for good but, if they stay, then they will have to stand trial in Israel," said a spokesman for the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. The offer was put by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, during talks on Sunday.
Palestinian negotiators immediately rejected it, saying the men would not accept exile, and if they were to be judged it should be before a Palestinian court. But they would accept any deal that Mr Arafat approved.
In an appeal on Friday the trapped Palestinians called for United Nations intervention to save them from "a slow death".
They have been deprived of food for almost two weeks, and the army has shot at Palestinian youths lobbing bags of bread into the compound.
"We are hearing loud whistles and screeches in the daytime and now at night," said the Governor of Bethlehem, Mahmoud Madani, who is inside the church. "They want to destroy our morale, but the only solution is a negotiated settlement."
The church has responded to the caterwauling by ringing its bells.
In a major blow to the Palestinian resistance, Israel last night arrested Marwan Barghouthi, a leader of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction in the West Bank and regarded by Israel as the top militant in the area, Israeli security sources said.
Barghouthi, sought by Israel since it launched a West Bank offensive on March 29, was arrested in the city of Ramallah, the sources said.
OK. The Hitler bit was over the top. You don't know me or anything about my ancestry or the members of my family slaughtered by various cults. I did not suggest anything at all favoring crusades, crusaders, or the history of religious homicide about which the ancient Middle East established its own record in spades. You missed an obvious joke about a Christian organization which has no military function. Find someone else to blame for your problems. I did not cause them.
For the record, you might want to try heckling someone other than a descendant of individuals whose anti-Nazi heroism is part of the historical record. That's the problem with slash and burn defamation. I have nothing to apologize to you for. And your self-righteousness directed at me is out of line.
The question I asked and which you avoided --- despite an otherwise detailed and informative reply --- is this: were you appalled when the Palestinians were shooting from inside the church on Manger Square? Have you written any letters then, and to whom?
Whatever charges Israel may have against these men, the question remains, does the PA exist or not. If it does, then Israel has no jurisdiction in Bethlehem. That is the crux of the matter. Despite being a conservative, you appear to be paralyzed by the same misconception that is slowly killing the West, namely: terrorism is not a crime, it is a war.
The idea of a nation-state is so entrenched in our psyche that we can no longer think in other terms. Yet, it is a modern, short-lived (so far) idea: as you know in mid-1800s neither Germany nor Italy existed, for instance. In international relations, we are used to dealing with nation-states and their governments, however, and this is how you frame the current events.
What has emerged in the 1960s is a new kind of warfare, wherein the governments both tolerate and tacitly support groups of individuals whom they use for their respective ends. The Soviet Union could not play such a game for obvious reasons, but other countries, especially in the Middle East did. Arafat perfected it fully (read an account of a former Romanian KGB officer who defected to the West): with one hand he keeps an army of killers (well before the territories became disputed), and then pretends not knowing about that or unable to reign it in.
The foregoing is a separate point; regarding the issue at hand, here are several points.
To begin, even if one frames the problem in terms of the nation-states, the nation-state is responsible for the (international) behavior of its citizens. If children are unruly, parents are held responsible: when your child is hauled to the police station, you can scream all you want, "I am the father, I have the authority." Why? You failed to exercise your authority over your child, now another authority steps in.
The same is true with respect to the Palestinians. For 18 months, the PA has had a revolving door: only when the West looses patience (which did happen a few times), they arrest the killers, and within a few weeks set them free. All this is documented: from the release a few weeks ago, to the infamous "march" of civilians who simply opened the doors and let the killers go free. Again, poor PA just could not do anything. I am sorry: you are clearly an intelligent, well-informed person, but why do we even have to talk about it, given that in the first intifada, Palestinians killed without any due process 800 of alleged collaborators. What jurisdiction are you talking about? It is the Hobbsian world, where might is right and corruption, especially Arafat's and his inner circle's, is rampant.
Well, if the government fails to reign in its citizens, as I said earlier, the law allows the outside force to come in. The UN tries to perform that function and does so routinely, whenever the government of a nation-state fails. This is why Israel invaded Lebanon (after Arafat's attempt to assassinate the ambassador in London -- a legitimate reason, since times immemorial, to declare war; he HAS assassinated OUR ambassador and his assistant, his voice is recorded by both the CIA and the Mossad). After years of shelling the northern cities, enough was enough.
This is why we invaded Afghanistan: Taliban, the legitimate government of that country, failed to reign in its residents, al Qaeda. We stepped in and did that for them. All of NATO recognized our right to defend ourselves. Note that the situation is exactly the same: Taliban had no part in Sep 11; it was residents of that (and other) country that perpetrated the act. Just like we, Israelis gave the ultimatum. Unlike we did, they did that about 100 times. Finally, they had to do that themselves.
Regardless of what you think about the matters --- like Clinton's and many current European governments you appear to frame these acts as crimes and not war --- what troubles me is the inconsistency. Whatever the principle you subscribe to, it must be at least applied impartially. As I said earlier, the same actions (shooting, etc.) that you hold against the Israelis do not seem to bother you when undertaken by Palestinians. Despite even the fact that the latter initiate them.
No war has been declared, Please read up on this. Since WWII, hardly any war has been declared. We did not declare war in Vietnam, nor the Soviets and Chinese in Korea. Nor did U.K. declare war on Argentina when they went to liberate Falklands. What you refer to is a formality thus.
and in any case they do not have the right to surround the holy site with troops and weapons and blast it with loud noise. I am sorry, you are factually wrong: a party has such a right when acting in self-defense. The legitimate question is whether that principle applies in this case, and you may think that it does not. That is fine.
The IDF's violation of the accord with the Vatican cannot be justified. As I said earlier, this is an extraordinary circumstance, and you know it quite well. It would be nice if Vatican told the terrorists to seek another shelter; there is nothing inhumane or non-Christian in the Israeli offer to leave the country. Or to stand trial (we do exactly the same: the terrorist committed atrocity on our territory, we do not give him away to France to be tried; a terrorist blowing up someone in Haifa, may well stand trial there. too).
This is where the illogic jumps out at you. There are hundreds - thousands - of suicide bombers and gunmen to replace the ones in the Church of the Nativity. Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong.
Those bombers exist precisely because of the West's and Israel's lack of resolve. When fundamentalist Islamists appeared in Syria, Asad killed about 30,000 people in a matter of weeks, and cemented the town: a big parking lot of sorts. With all the countries ablaze with fundamentalism in the Arab Middle East, there is none in Syria since then. Zero. Zilch. Have you heard of any Kurdish u-uprisings in Iraq recently? Probably not, after Hussein gassed tens of thousands there. Incidentally, have you written to anyone about that? Have you urged your clergy to do something about that?
If Israel was interested in their own real security and long-term diplomatic interests, they would pull back and let the Palestinian gunmen in the Church leave without incident. They have done so for six years, when Arafat's thugs were sending rockets into Israel from Lebanon; they have tolerated homicide bombings for 18 months now. Was there ever a case that struck you as incredible restraint on the part of the Israelis?
I am appalled that armed Palestinians are in the Church, but I understand how they got there and how this happened. Do you understand or do you know?
I was horrified by the lynching, and I wrote to the Governor of Bethlehem. My letter may well be in the IDF's possession by now. But I am convinced that when the Franciscans and the Armenians and the Greek Orthodox say they are not hostages, I believe them. That is, of course, you prerogative. It would be wonderful if these people also explained the disappearance of Christians from Bethlehem. Oh, I get it: the are no threats or intimidation: it's just the real estate is cheaper elsewhere. Is that it? I don't think so.
I wrote at length because I do believe that you have a good heart and will, perhaps, upon seeing some inconsistencies in your position, reconsider some of your positions. I do not mean to turn this discussion into an argument, however, and shuold you choose not to reply, it would be fine.
If you reread my post, you will not find a single word that supports your accusations and hurt feelings.
What I said was that, because we have lived in different realities, you might not realize that not every joke is universally light. As I said, one does not joke, for instance, at the gravesite.
So the following is out of the blue entirely:
You missed an obvious joke about a Christian organization And I explained to you that this is obvious only to Christians, and not all of them. That's all. It is regrettably that you missed that obvious point.
Find someone else to blame for your problems. I did not cause them. Show me one word where I blamed you for anything but lack of tact. Besides, I did not tell you about any of my problems: I told you about the problems my relatives had with the Nazis. Thus, the problems are not with you, and are not mine.
For the record, you might want to try heckling someone other than a descendant of individuals whose anti-Nazi heroism is part of the historical record. This is really heavy: I did not (and have no right to) ask for anyone's record.
That's the problem with slash and burn defamation. Well, friend, if asking you to be more tactful (and perhaps reconsider some of the mythology about the Crusaders) is defamation, you must have suffered a lot in your life. Please accept my apology. I have nothing to apologize to you for. I did not ask, nor expected any apology. And your self-righteousness directed at me is out of line. Once again, reread that post: other than the mention of my family's losses, I did not speak of myself at all.
It well may be that you see some truth in what I said, and this is what actually causes your anger. But if someone points to you another facet of an issue is not necessarily self-righteous -- in fact, this has nothing to do with righteousness of anyone.
Have a good day.
?????? Generalized inferential speculation. How you got from a joke about "the Knights of Malta" ( a charitable, philanthropic organization) to Hitler and Jews being expelled from France...please, PLEASE!. 16th-century Malta had nothing to do with 12th- and 13th-century France and its ethnic conflict.
As you wrote:"The knights, your source of pride, contributed greatly to the atmosphere that ultimately led to the expulsion of Jews from France..."
Nowhere on any post on this thread did I express "pride" about any knights engaged in medieval conflicts and I have no clue why or how you came up with this. "The Knights of Malta" (both the modern philanthropic organization and the actual warriors of 16th-century Malta) had NOTHING to do with this (medieval French-Jewish conflicts). They battled Muslim Turks on Malta. "Knights" as a generalization in either the medieval context or some other hardly justifies equivocation on this order.
So, why don't you urge the Church(es) to intervene: the life of terrorists is no longer in danger, after Israelis offered them safe passage to a third country; their goal is therere is no longer consitent with that of the clergy, which is to give sanctuary. As of now, these "gunmen" have purely political goals.
I appreciate you sympathy for the "gunmen," but they are not "bearing... arms inside the Church:" they stormed it with those guns. One bears arms inside the church when he accidentally forgets to leave the gun at the door upon entering for prayer.
This is a great propaganda photo you posted, but what does it really show? At first glance, it appears that the soldier is pointing his gun at the little child. However, a closer look shows that not to be true.
Is the soldier pointing his weapon at someone on the ground? Who is it and why is he doing that? We don't know. Is he justified? No way to tell from this photo.
Is the soldier even an Israeli? Is that an Israeli helmet he is wearing?
Where and when was this photo taken? Do I see snow on the ground?
were you appalled when the Palestinians were shooting from inside the church on Manger Square?
Yes, I was horrified. I called the Franciscan office in Rome and since then have been repeatedly told by the Franciscans that the Palestinians inside the Church have never fired first but have only returned fire. I called an Anglican priest I know who affirmed that this was the case.
Have you written any letters then, and to whom?
Before I made my phone calls, I wrote a letter to Father Ibrahim -- who I found out later was inside the compound. I wanted to know why the Franciscans had permitted this. Since then every Franciscan I know and trust (and every Carmelite) has told me the same thing regarding weapons fire by the Palestinians i.e., only in response to IDF gunfire.
Despite being a conservative, you appear to be paralyzed by the same misconception that is slowly killing the West, namely: terrorism is not a crime, it is a war.
With respect, I heartily disagree. This is about two peoples who both desire to be nations. Terrorism is a crime. If war has not been declared, then Israel is engaged in a police action in territory that belongs to the Palestinians. If they are engaged in a police action in a territory not their own, then why are they destroying the homes of Palestinian Christian civilians? If there are fifty suicide bombers, is Israel then justified in destroying the homes of 1000 Christian Palestinians and other civilians in retribution? After such retribution by the IDF, are Palestinian civilians then free to go do the same to the Israeli civilian population? No, this is madness not self-defense.
What jurisdiction are you talking about?
The Palestinian Authority was created by treaty. They have jurisdiction over defined boundaries. The accords with the Vatican were signed by the government of Israel. The Franciscans have jurisdiction to protect the holy sites. What is Israel's jurisdiction with regard to Bethlehem and surrounding the holy site?
I am sorry, you are factually wrong: a party has such a right when acting in self-defense.
Characterizing the invasion of Bethlehem as self-defense is quite wrong. The accords with the Vatican are precise, and the IDF has no right under those accords to be where they are doing what they are doing under any circumstance.
As I said earlier, this is an extraordinary circumstance, and you know it quite well. It would be nice if Vatican told the terrorists to seek another shelter; there is nothing inhumane or non-Christian in the Israeli offer to leave the country.
Bethlehem is not part of Israel. The Vatican's refusal to assist Israel in this matter is because Israel is violating a treaty it signed with the Vatican and the Palestinian Authority protecting the Christian holy sites.
It would be wonderful if these people also explained the disappearance of Christians from Bethlehem.
I really think you are treading on the wrong ground here. The reason Christians were leaving Bethlehem is that before the PA the situation was impossible. After the creation of the PA many Palestinian Christians returned to Bethlehem from the United States. For the first time they could build houses and repair old ones. Before the Israeli incursion Bethlehem was looking more beautiful that I had ever seen it. They didn't have to pay outrageous fees for building permits to Israeli officials -- permits which took years to obtain. And with American-Palestinian Christian money, new life was pumped into Bethlehem.
I'll get the exact context of the photo for you.
In the meantime, I think we can agree that a better posture for holding automatic weapons at the ready in close proximity to civilians, including children, might be that of the Israeli soldier shown here:
A Palestinian boy passes by an Israeli soldier in the West Bank town of Jenin, April 11, 2002.
REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic
The IDF filling this Church where Christ was born, filling it with noise, screaches -- it is a blasphemy just like the bearing of arms inside the Church by the Palestinians.
So, why don't you urge the Church(es) to intervene.
The Church has made it clear that the situation will be resolved when Israel observes its treaty with the Vatican and withdraws from this confrontation.
I appreciate you sympathy for the "gunmen," but they are not "bearing... arms inside the Church:" they stormed it with those guns.
I have no sympathy for them per se. I have no sympathy with armed Muslim Palestinian terrorists. But that is not a precise description of this situation; there are many more people involved than just the armed Muslims. In this situation the IDF is where they are not supposed to be under treaty, and when they withdraw, the the armed Palestinians will leave the Church.
The fact that you received multiple assurances from respectable people whom you personally know about the shooting from the church is disturbing to me. I had received information to the contrary, which now appears in question; I'll seek therefore further information on that incident (contrary to your perception, I am not an apologist --- for Israeli or any other government: what's wrong is wrong).
As for the rest, I shall not elaborate further: we both have expressed our views extensively.
Regards, TQ.
Mostly by other than US news services as yet.
The truth will come out, TopQuark. I suspect it will lie somewhere between the Israeli and other eyewitness accounts as seeping out at present.
For the sake of your continued integrity, I would wait a while before defending what's been happening in Jenin or impugning as hopeless subjective the accounts of devastation.
The Times UK evidently feels confident enough already to be airing accounts along these lines:
A residential area roughly 160,000 square yards about a third of a mile wide has been reduced to dust. Rubble has been shovelled by bulldozers into 30ft piles. The sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies is everywhere, evidence that it is a human tomb. The people, who spent days hiding in basements crowded into single rooms as the rockets pounded in, say there are hundreds of corpses, entombed beneath the dust, under a field of debris, criss-crossed with tank and bulldozer treadmarks.
You will lose what credibility you do have among men of conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.