Author Topic: Civil War in Palestine  (Read 2422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Civil War in Palestine
« on: December 20, 2006, 06:15:14 AM »
Quote
Entering the argument over Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's proposal for early elections to resolve the conflict between the Fatah and Hamas parties, al-Zawahri said the only way was armed struggle.

"Any way other than holy war, will lead us only to loss and defeat," al-Zawahri said.

He described Abbas as "America's man in Palestine," and warned that if Palestinians accepted him as their president, it would be "the end of holy war."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16292639/


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Some people just do not "get" the idea of peacefull transfer of power.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2006, 09:09:27 AM »
Boortz says

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

AL-QAEDA'S HOLIDAY MESSAGE

Al-Qaeda's #2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri has made a new tape and is weighing in on possible elections in the Palestinian territories.  He says elections would only lead to defeat and that the only way to really win was armed struggle.  Now you know what goes on inside the mind of an Islamic terrorist.  And Democrats think we should negotiate with these people.  Can't we all just get along?

This is the problem with sitting down and talking with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Al-Assad.  To them, the enemy is not the United States...or even democracy.  The enemy is the non-believers...anyone who is not a Muslim.  To the Islamic extremist, anyone who does not worship Allah must be either converted, subjugated or exterminated.  Zawahiri's tape also exposes another lie:  that the "Palestinians" actually want peace.

They don't now and never have.  Even if Israel was driven into the sea, they would find something else to fight over.  All you need for evidence of this is the Camp David summit in 2000...where Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat everything he wanted, and Arafat still turned him down.  Peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite what Jimmy Carter says.

Don't you think it's rather interesting that NOBODY in the middle east particularly wants to have anything to do with the Palestinians ...except to use them as cannon fodder in their war against the West?

So there you have it....Al-Qaeda's Christmas message.  He sounds upset...maybe we need to send the Iraq Study Group to talk to him.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2006, 09:13:39 AM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w77sLtz754


Zucker video compares Chamberlain to Baker.

domer

  • Guest
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2006, 03:12:55 PM »
The civil strife in Palestine is very troubling for it could blow up into a much larger conflict, drawing outside parties or involving distant sites. Yet, the conflict itself -- not, emphatically, its character as violent -- is just what the Palestinians need to purge their harmful elements. Al-Zawahiri's call for jihad both expresses the potential stakes for the cancerous violent, radical Islamist movement but also proclaims his group's fear of democracy. In saying that, I note that Hamas has been democratically elected, an occurrence which counsels meticulous preparation for the plebiscite. There were "elections" in Saddam's Iraq; Hitler would have (did) win resoundingly in Nazi Germany.

To my way of thinking, the stance we should take to Palestine is heavy diplomacy, military hands off, and consummately skillful (i.e., undetectable) covert support for Abbas.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2006, 03:19:23 PM »
Hitler would have (did) win resoundingly in Nazi Germany.

Then I would have to wonder why Hitler lost every election in which he was a candidate?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

domer

  • Guest
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2006, 03:23:32 PM »
That's interesting and apparently beyond my surface grasp of the particulars. Please explain. Elections aside, are you arguing that there was not popular support for Hitler's regime, to the point that millions of Germans were sent to their deaths to "defend" it?

domer

  • Guest
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2006, 03:35:35 PM »

 History Learning Site > Modern World History > Nazi Germany > Nazi Germany - Dictatorship

Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler soon became a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires one person and one party to be in control of a nation and a climate of fear - this was provided by Himmler's SS. Personal freedom disappeared in Nazi Germany.

When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933, it was at the head of a coalition government. It was very clear in his mind that it would not remain this way for long. By the end of March 1933, he had acquired much greater powers than the former leading politicians of the Weimar Republic could ever have foreseen when they supported his appointment as chancellor. The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, allowed him to combine both chancellor's and president's positions into one when Hitler became the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. 

How did Germany descend so quickly into becoming a dictatorship?

When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats  were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership.

Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians  who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take.

One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?

A known communist - Marianus van der Lubbe - was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him - Nazi officials - claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.

Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the 'communist takeover'. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.

This law gave Hitler what he wanted - a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To 'keep the peace' and maintain law and order, the SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.

The election took place in March - though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag:

Communists 4.8 million votes
Social Democrats 7.2 million votes
Centre party 5.5 million votes
Nationalists 3.1 million votes
Other parties 1.4 million votes
Nazis 17.3 million votes

That 12 million people voted for what were effectively two outlawed parties is remarkable when the intimidation of voters is taken into account.

After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building - perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler's Enabling Law. 

As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler's signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted - dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.

On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.

Germany became a nation of snoops. People were employed in each street, in each building complex etc. with the sole purpose of keeping an eye on others in their 'area' and reporting them to the authorities if they believed that something was amiss. The reputation of the Nazi police and the secret police lead by Himmler was such that no-one wished to cause offence. People kept their thoughts to themselves unless they wished to invite trouble. In this sense, Nazi Germany was a nation run on fear of the government. Hitler had created a one party state within months of being appointed chancellor.

His only remaining problem from his point of view was loyalty within his own party ranks. In June 1934, he overcame this with the Night of the Long Knives.

History Learning Site > Modern World History > Nazi Germany > Nazi Germany - Dictatorship
Search Site: 

If you have any enquiries or notice any problems please contact me at

enquiries@historylearningsite.co.uk

 

 

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2006, 03:59:05 PM »
Elections aside, are you arguing that there was not popular support for Hitler's regime, to the point that millions of Germans were sent to their deaths to "defend" it?

Hitler personally never received more than about 35% of the votes in elections he took part in.

However, some of the ideas that he championed were popular in Germany at the time - the country was suffering through a major depression and they felt victimized by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Massive building projects, new jobs, etc, all led to the popularity of his policies. As my mother once put it, "Hitler was popular because he promised everyone a job and food on the table, and he delivered them." Neither of those promises were kept by the Weimar Republic previously.

Incidently, the results of the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany were forseen by President Woodrow Wilson, who argued stenuously against many of the more abusive terms in the treaty. Had Wilson gotten his way, it's likely Hitler would never have come to power.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

domer

  • Guest
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2006, 04:03:54 PM »
Thank you, Ami.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2006, 08:15:13 PM »
The civil strife in Palestine is very troubling for it could blow up into a much larger conflict, drawing outside parties or involving distant sites. Yet, the conflict itself -- not, emphatically, its character as violent -- is just what the Palestinians need to purge their harmful elements. Al-Zawahiri's call for jihad both expresses the potential stakes for the cancerous violent, radical Islamist movement but also proclaims his group's fear of democracy. In saying that, I note that Hamas has been democratically elected, an occurrence which counsels meticulous preparation for the plebiscite. There were "elections" in Saddam's Iraq; Hitler would have (did) win resoundingly in Nazi Germany.

To my way of thinking, the stance we should take to Palestine is heavy diplomacy, military hands off, and consummately skillful (i.e., undetectable) covert support for Abbas.


The heavy diplomat arrives and his first statement is "My country will take no military action in these questions."

The rest of the diplomats began to laugh at him and invite him diplomaticly to sit in the corner and shut up.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Civil War in Palestine
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2006, 01:41:40 AM »
The heavy diplomat arrives and his first statement is "My country will take no military action in these questions."  The rest of the diplomats began to laugh at him and invite him diplomaticly to sit in the corner and shut up.

 ;D    touche', Plane
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle