slept2long

Way to oversimplify!

From BBC
"On 30th January Hitler was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg. In January 1933 Hindenburg was persuaded by Franz von Papen to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany."

"When he took office, Hitler was leading a coalition government. there were only three Nazis apart from himself. He immediately called a general election to try to win a majority.
* On 27th February, just a week before the election, the Reichstag caught fire and burnt down. A communist, Franz van der Lubbe was arrested inside. Hitler used this as an excuse to arrest many members of the Communist Party, his main opponents.
* the general election took place on 5th March 1933. the Nazis won 288 seats. This was not a majority, but 52 Nationalists supported them. At the first meeting of the Reichstag on 23rd March, the 81 Communists stayed away. Hitler could now do as he liked."

"the Reichstag immediately passed the Enabling Act - this made Hitler dictator of Germany for four years."

" When President Hindenburg died in August 1934, Hitler was finally able to gain total power and combined the posts of chancellor and president, giving himself the title of Fuhrer."

He wasn't elected at all. He was appointed then strongarmed his way to power.
Could you explain EXACTLY what you mean? The way you've said that I could interpret that any number of ways. Remember you can't run in Israel on a anti-Israeli platform. And how would they deal with the IDF? Any plans they had must include eliminating the IDF. How do you propose they'll do that? AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades? Or are the arabs gonna smuggle them some apaches and tanks.

contracycle

I'm afraid this just is not true. Mugabe is exploiuting a long-standing and legitmiate resentment that the land redistribution for which the civil war was has yet to be carried out. It is absurd to think that a people can take control of their own state, and yet not their own land. It was an unsustainable position.

Of course you didn't. No Europeans were dying, it was just "business as usual in afrcia". Thats what makes the whole scenario so rancid - there was no international outcry until colonists started to suffer; Zimbabweans are correct to see this as a continuation of Colonial disregard for African lives and undue value attached to European lives.

Fine., But that then really puts the lie to the idea that these people considered themselves native Zimbabweans, engaged with and within the Zimbabwean state and cooperating as citizens with the rest of local society. It makes it quite clear they felt that this society existed to support them, and now that they have been asked to contribute to everyoines benefit they have taken their ball and gone home.

And its a bit rich to talk about "theft" then that land was itself stolen by colonists at gunpoint. What goes around comes around.

Yes, exactly. It is just plain racist - you are claiming they have a collective mindset, are universally homicidal, and just plain Evil. This is ridiculous and untenable, and to use it as "justification" for Israel is only to demonstrate that the West has totally failed to learn any lessons from tyhe colonisaiton and decolonisation of Africa.

contracycle

In point of fact, I don't really think the US is any more democratic than Israel, or thet either are really democratic. However, it simply is not plausible to me that anyone could get away with arguing with black people cannot handle democracy in the way that some claim Arabs cannot handle democracy. Although I daresay at some point in American history such an argument was made.

I'll concede Israel is not a formal theocracy. OTOH, it is riddled with groups who believe the Torah be law as much as the consitution in, which exert serious political clout. I do not think that Israel can meaningfully be compared to any of the secular western states which are in no doubt as to the supremacy of secular law.

Loren Pechtel

Most of the land wound up in the hands of his cronies. The people didn't benefit from that!