Talk:Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

Untitled
Fire in The Church It is my opinion that the IDF started the fire using one of thier flares. Two reasons.

First I dont belive the occupants of the church would have any reason to start the fire. The priests wouldn't have started the fire becasue it is thier holy site. The palistineans recognize christ as a prophet. So the church of the nativity would be somewaht sacred to them. Plus it wouldn't make much sense trying to burn down the building you are curently hiding in.

Second I belive the the Isrelis had the means and the oppertunity to start the fire. They were preforming phychlogical warfare on the occupants by playing loud noises, setting of pyrotechnics, launching flares, and rolling a Merkava tank into the complex. This kind of tactic is normal procedure during any siege, but the fact that the fire was started durring this siege leads me to belive the IDF was responsible. The most convincing piece of evidence is the Frontline video. Thre is a part when the IDF officer is asking some of his soldiers if they could hae started the fire. The soldiers are smiling at first and denying that they evan shot any flares off. The soldiers say "100% it was the palistineans." The IDF officer expalins that the whole world is watching them burn the church. And that this is a very serious affair. Only then do the soldiers stop smiling and the officer walks out looking very irate.

Reason for Importance Wikipedia has a great oppertunity to make itself know as one of the most complete guides to the Palistinean-Isreli conflict. All we need to do is show objectivity and keep lots of infromation on this topic. Somone had deleted my origional post early on June 28th less than a week later a user with the ip 88.107.79.134 deleted my post. If we are ever to raise Wikipedia to the high standards of printed encylopedias, we must stop this loss of infromation, and hold those who delete infromation accountable. I would really like to open up discussion on this very important topic.

On some articles, it is claimed that militants seized the 200 occupants of the church as hostages. on other articles, it is claimed that civilians fled into the church seeking refuge, and that IDF besiged it. this stark discrepency means that all articles with these statements are biased and need to be checked for their neutrality. therefore, i'm adding npov tag to this article, and also on the defensive shield operation article. please also add npov tag on similar articles you find and allocate a centralized place to discuss this. 132.66.201.142 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias--Renner8592 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This article and even the descussion page is incredably biased. I'm not sure how long this post will last since I've posted before and the author then deletes even the descussion. As a former editor myself who no longer bothers, wiki has become a lost cause because of blatent bias like this. I won't even bother to point out why this article is biased, everyone knows what happened some like the author just don't want other to find out. They seem afraid of the truth and WIKI is failing because they fail to do anything about it. Editors should be accredited by wiki and held responsible for their content but wiki feels that would place limits on free speech. NEWSWEEK 2015: the web based incyclopedia was just taken off the web bue to a lack of funding due to a lack of interest due to a lack of control on who the editors were.

Just Propaganda
Added a POV tag, for obvious reasons. Why is there no picture of the fire the occupiers deliberately set? Why is the fire not even mentioned? Why is there no picture of the vandalism the occupiers committed inside the church.

Why don't pro-Palestinian propagandists start their own encyclopedia?68.5.46.193 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I still do not see any credible sources for the taking of hostages, an opinion article in the nation review does not constitute nutrality. I recommend that that information be removed or more credible sources added. I am Palestinian, which is why i initially looked into this claim, i will be happy to keep it there if it can be substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.156.15 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two different sources and one of them cites Yediot Ahronot (let alone I was there at the time, but is not good enough I guess). Ori (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while some claim they were hostages, others claim they were not. Even this article mentions the claim the people inside were offered sanctuary, e.g.   . Definitely an opinion piece by NRO hardly seems sufficient to make such a bold claim as fact. If the propoderence of RS support the claim people were held hostage but this doesn't seem to be established in the article and my searches don't seem to show any different. I'm not quite sure what you mean you were there, but unless you mean you were held hostage or holding people hostage, I'm not sure your opinion counts any more then this random person (who it sounds like may have been there at some stage during the drama)  even ignoring WP:OR being forbidden. Funnily enough this source  which isn't exactly unbiased seems to be claiming they were hostages (I think, I didn't read it throughly) then later says there was no water, food or medical problems for the priests but only the Palestinians which seems a bit strange for hostages. (Hostages or not, that source also seems to make it clear many likely didn't want to leave.) P.S. As another nail in the NRO, it claims the hostages were 'half starving' whereas as I've demonstrated other sources including those who claim they were hostages say there were limited or no food problems, and ironically the quotation added by Ori at the time they added the 'hostages' claim says the site was chosen at least partially because it had a lot of food. P.P.S. I'm not suggesting the hostages claim be removed, rather that it be presented as one of the contested claims which from what I've seen so far, it appears to be and preferably with better RS then the NRO article. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Further more, there were some 200 monks and other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons, and were held as hostages by the gunme" with reference number 3 by Ariel Cohen.. Really? I mean, really? this is a very extremely israeli side telling of the story! I am Christian and from Bethlehem and many relatives of mine were there. Israel's claim can be mentioned but not taken as a fact. It is really not true! You are using a crazy and extreme POV source for that!Schmiegestestor (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

POV
"Further more, there were some 200 monks and other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons, and were held as hostages by the gunme" with reference number 3 by Ariel Cohen.. Really? I mean, really? this is a very extremely israeli side telling of the story! I am Christian and from Bethlehem and many relatives of mine were there. Israel's claim can be mentioned but not taken as a fact. It is really not true! You are using a crazy and extreme POV source for that!Schmiegestestor (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110817045355/http://old.nationalreview.com:80/comment/comment-cohen042402.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-cohen042402.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818233943/http://jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm to http://jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag since 2012
Any objections if I remove it? Having the tag for half a decade seems excessive. El_C 21:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed it. El_C 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reinhard Lauth
Reinhard Lauth, deeply moved by compassion for the sufferings of Palestinians, has devoted his book about Abraham and the children of his Covenant with God to the "defenders of the Church of the Nativity in spring 2002". He hopes that Ishmael — the "wild ass", whose "hand [shall be] against every man, and every man's hand against him" (Genesis&#8239;16:12) — is led to the point in the fight against the atheist Leviathan, whose beginning we are currently experiencing, where — again in the words of Genesis — the hand of Hagar–Mary leads him to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Divine Savior (Genesis&#8239;21:18).
 * ISBN 3-935990-14-6 (paperback). ISBN 3-935990-15-4 (hardback). "God promises Abraham on his departure from Mesopotamia, that he will become a people. But this specific people should not be a people like all other peoples, but a unique people in which all others will be blessed. NB. Nowhere is it said that the peoples living in the Promised Land should be expelled or destroyed." "Gott verspricht Abraham beim Auszug aus Mesopotamien, daß aus ihm ein Volk werden wird. Doch dies spezifische Volk soll nicht ein Volk wie alle anderen Völker, sondern ein einzigartiges Volk sein, in dem alle anderen gesegnet sein werden. NB. Es ist dabei nirgendwo gesagt, daß die im versprochenen Land lebenden Völker vertrieben oder vernichtet werden sollen."

Tobias Epos (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)