Fighting has broken out near Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity

BBC News Ticker ^ | 13th April 2002 | BBC News

[colette_g]

BBC News Ticker reports breaking news "Fighting has broken out near Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity"

[colette_g]

That's all I have for now . . . .

[TheDon]

Fox News ticker also reports the same.

[RamsNo1]

Yesterday it appeared that Israel could claim the upper hand with the palestinian terrorist bombing in Jerusalem. Today, with Arafat calling our bluff and the US blinking, all the pallis have to do now to get more international sympathy is to make it look like the Israelis started this new fighting. Thank you GW Bush.

[TheDon]

I think the Palis could simply torch the Church and blame it on the IDF.

[Democrats are liars]

U.S. Policy in the ME is horrible. Powell meeting with a terrorist is so stupid. Bushbots making excusses for Bush's hypocritical actions is a disgrace.

[The Great Satan]

The latter, of course, assumes that if I were a Pali then I'm also a raging coward and would stoop to any depth.

A safe bet.

[knak]

— BETHLEHEM (Reuters) - Shooting erupted on Saturday in the area of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, where Palestinians, some of them armed, have been surrounded by Israeli troops for 12 days, witnesses said.

Mazen Hussein, a Palestinian policeman inside the church, said a 60-year-old civilian inside had been hit by two gunshots in the chest.

"They opened fire on us from outside, one Palestinian has been seriously wounded," he told Reuters by telephone, adding that the shooting appeared to have come from Manger Square, where Israeli troops have taken up positions around the church.

A Reuters correspondent at the scene said she heard five or six shots, apparently coming from the direction of the church, which Christians believe stands on the site of Christ's birthplace.

An Israeli army spokesmen said he was not aware of any incident but would check the report. He said Israeli soldiers were instructed not to fire at the church even if shots came from inside.

[sobieski]

Or vice versa. Isn't the IDF "protecting holy sites" by having a sniper kill a monk?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It appears that Arafat is going for the PR KO with this little action (does anyone doubt that he ordered those in the church to start this the moment he heard that Powell had accepted his little half-statement/feint?)

Now he can get the giant PR boost (especially in fortifying his status amongst his own people) from the U.S. playing supplicant to him plus he can get the European Roman Catholics stirred up against Israel by torching the church (and Europe is already blaming Israel for Palestinian murders holing up there). Beautiful. Master of the Big Lie.

He's playing us like a Stradivarius.

[browardchad]

Please, who's winning the PR war here? The Vatican is on the gunmen's side; the press in on the gunmen's side -- and who's to contradict this "Palestinian" who is conveniently reporting everything to the media from inside the church as it happens. It's definitely not in the IDF's interest to kill anyone in the church, but it's definitely in the Palis interest to have an "innocent civilian" shot, no matter how it happens, and instantly blame it on the IDF.

[vbmoneyspender]

Do you think the IDF did that intentionally?

[sobieski]

Huh? I said that the journalists are being kept out and that a sniper killed a monk. IDF has admitted both. You don't have anything to say about these facts?

[sobieski]

PS How do you know what's in the IDF's interest? They are on a rampage.

[Thud]

The US would have turned the Church of the Nativity into a smoking hole in the ground a week ago.

The following is from "THIS KIND OF WAR: The classic Korean War History," by T.R. Fehrenbach, page 151-152:

"The American war of street and town fighting did not resemble that of other armies. To Americans, flesh and blood and lives have always been more precious than sticks and stones, however assembled. An American commander, faced with taking the Louvre from a defending enemy, unquestionably would blow it apart or burn it down without hesitation if such would save the life of one of his men. And he would be acting in complete accord with American ideals and ethics in doing so. already, in the Korean War, American units were proceeding to destroy utterly enemy-held towns and villages rather than engage in the costly business of reducing them block by block with men and bayonets as did European armies. If bombing and artillery would save lives, even though they destroyed sites of beauty and history, saving lives obviously has preference. And already foreign observers with the United States Army -- not ROK's -- were beginning to criticize such tactics.

Observers from France and Britain, realizing that war was also highly possible in their own part of the world, were disturbed at the thought of a ground defense of their homelands. For the United states Army, according to its history and doctrine, would choose the lives of its men over continued existance of storied cathedrals. These observers wrote news releases --"

[sobieski]

Sure, why not. There's no other explanation for killing a monk.

[sobieski]

Who knows what the U.S. would do, and what's the relevance? We are not there. Our disobedient client is running the show.

[WOSG]

You can support Bush and not agree with 101% of what his administration is doing. I thought Bush's statement THursday week ago was FABULOUS. He challenged Arafat, Arab leaders and Israelis *all* to pursue peace. Somehow the media igrnores all the challenges to the Arab side. ... And somehow Powell wants to bend over backward with his state-dept buddies to protect Arafat. I disagree with this. ... the Arafat fans are Clintonite holdovers and are wrong. Sooner or later arafat's irrelevence to creating peace will be obvious to all. Certainly israel will never negotiate with him again. he is a liar.

That all being said, Bush is navigating quite well, trying by both highlighting Arab hypocrisy on this matter and ensuring that Israel doesnt totally make themselves international pariah. On this, Powell is one "wing" and Sharon is the "bad-cop". Bush likes this routine. it gives a 'middle ground' for Aarabs to reach towards while showing them the stick (IDF actions). it will frustrate conservatives because it looks like waffling sometimes (and partly it is pargramitc compromise), but it is how Bush operates.