Besieging holy sites: past lessons

As the standoff between US forces and militiamen loyal to the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr at Najaf's Shrine of Imam Ali teeters between a bloody conclusion and a possible truce, analysts say there are lessons in patience to be learned from Israel's handling of its siege of the birthplace of Jesus more than two years ago.

In the evening of April 2, 2002, a small group of Palestinian gunmen, driven out of a nearby mosque by Israeli defense forces, shot open a lock on a side door of the Church of the Nativity and were soon joined by about 150 more men. As the evening progressed, Israeli forces surrounded the site with massive amounts of weaponry and sophisticated surveillance equipment, with remotely controlled machine guns hoisted over the church courtyard. The lightly armed men inside were counting on the religious symbolism of the site to protect them from an all-out assault.

As the weeks dragged on, it was an assault that never came. Instead, the Israeli military, drawing on bitter past experience, deescalated the conflict, kept lines of communication open, and was eventually rewarded six weeks later with a peaceful end to the siege with a negotiated settlement that allowed some of the militants to depart for Cyprus and others simply to go home.

"The siege in Bethlehem "was a unique success,'' says Gerald Steinberg, director of Bar Elon University's Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation, some of whose students led the talks with the militants inside the church. "There was a long discussion inside the military on what to do, and there were pressures from the inside, as there probably are within the US military in Iraq, to hurry up and get it over with. But in the end, patience was the key."

The government sealed off access to the compound, preventing new weapons or militants from getting in. While power was cut (as was in Najaf), Israeli forces made sure that cellphones remained in the hands of the people inside the church, Mr. Steinberg says.

The Israeli government had learned from past mishandlings of conflicts around holy sites, like the October 1990 confrontation between Palestinians and Israeli security forces on the Temple Mount - holy to both Muslims and Jews - that left 21 Palestinians dead and badly inflamed the conflict.

In 1982, when settlements were dismantled on the Sinai Peninsula, thousands of hard-core settlers were allowed to pour into the area to oppose the effort, which gave a political black eye to the government at the time and is somewhat analogous to the thousands of Sadr supporters who have entered Najaf in recent days and are surrounding the shrine.

There are rarely, if ever, direct analogies in conflicts like this. The nativity siege was less fraught for the Israelis and for the Palestinians than the events currently wracking Najaf. While providing brief sanctuary to the Palestinians, the church itself is not an important site to Palestinian Muslims, nor to Israeli Jews. While a small band of gunmen took refuge in this tiny church, it didn't serve as a staging ground for attacks or as the last refuge for an insurgency leader of the status of Sadr. Sadr's national standing has soared thanks to his conflicts with the US.

But in their symbolic importance to millions around the world, the two sites and their sieges parallel each other with the same risks for the governments and soldiers behind them. As in Najaf, the pressure to end quickly the stand-off in Bethlehem was balanced against the major damage an assault could cause the Israeli government if the situation came to a bloody conclusion.

Roman Emperor Constantine built the Church of the Nativity in 326, on what local Christians believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. For the nearly 1,700 years since, the church has been one of the holiest sites in the world for many Christians, with monks leading prayers there every day. It is visited by millions of pilgrims each year.

Page: 1 | 2