ubiquitin:
“Remember, the spark that set off the second intifada was Sharon’s visit to HHB. If he hadn’t made that visit, things may have ended very differently.”
No that was the excuse used. The intifada was planned for months beforhand if sharon hadnt gone up then there would have been another excuse
Source?
Clarification: I am in no way saying that that Sharon’s visit was responsible for the second intifada, just as I assume nobody will claim the Oslo Accords were responsible. The despicable terrorists who perpetrated it are the one who are responsible.
But both of these events did influence the beginning of the intifada. Without them, it probably would not have been as severe, and it may never even have started.
“ROB, for the umpteenth time, yes, they hate us, yes, sometimes they kill us. With more provocation, though, they do it more.”
Is that true? There was no har habayis excuse in the 50’s yet fedayeen attacks became a routine occurance.
“Does one need a scientific, statistical study to determine that walking up to an armed, anti-Semitic thug and slapping him across the face is more dangerous than just walking by him? Can anybody here honestly tell me that they’d say “hey, walking by him is dangerous anyways, so what’s the difference”?”
YES! If Reuvein walkds by the thug and gets killed, Shimon walks by and gets killed. LEvi doesnt get killed, Yehuda does, Yissachor smacks him and gets killed. I think its hard to argue Yissachar got killed becasue he smacked the thug
True, if this theoretical thug has so far killed 100% of the Jews he’s bumped into. Therefore, things can indeed get no worse.
However, nowhere near 100% of Arabs kill 100% of Jews they bump into. Therefore, practically speaking, things can get much, much worse. So unnecessary provocations are a bad idea.
(Applying this our theoretical thug, if the thug killed only Shimon and Yehuda, and let Reuven, Levi, and Yissachar go, would you advise Zevulen to smack him in the face?)
Avi K:
1. There is no halachic requirement to go without a smoke detector. There is a halachic requirement to assert our sovereignty over all parts of EY.
Name me the Poskim who hold there is chiyuv to conquer all of EY today.
2. Those who blame the architects of Oslo for the second intifada are making the opposite argument. They are saying that appeasement always has the opposite effect. This is not only true regarding Jewish=gentile relations. Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” is the classic example.
So let me get this straight: You do believe that Arab violence can influenced by actions of the Jews. But you think they are only influenced by appeasement, and totally unaffected by provocation?
Once again, I did not write that piece. YWN did. Any issues you have with it must be taken up with them.
Sam2:
DY: That’s because the people in this thread are stupid internet commenters. For 90%+ of the Jews who go up, it’s either for inspiration or an expression of Hoda’ah to HKBH at the ability to be able to go up.
Says you. I think 90% of them are going up to make a political statement and/or to “show sovereignty”, as people here have put it. I doubt more than 10% are going up for purely spiritual reasons.
rabbiofberlin:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/har-habayis-revisited/page/2#post-582938