In the news

This is such a patently ridiculous thing to say. There is very much a debate over the status of the Palestinian people and whether one could call the whole situation apartheid (with many in Israel struggling with the question).

That is to say, because you think there is "no place in any discussion on Israel/Palestine" for the word apartheid does little to change the fact that it is very much a issue that is often discussed.

Fucking LOL.

Your simplification is as bad as the 'unfounded hyperbole'.

Given all the above is trufax, why do those bloody pesky arabs have a problem- has anyone informed them of the above?

If only they'd listened to @Gandalf, eh? Zero conflict...

I think the problem was his reference to the Haavara agreement between Nazi Germany and the German representatives of Zionism. I mean, it definitely happened but it's probably quite embarrassing for Zionists and their supporters.

I think Ken's mistake was in confusing its factual basis, for relevance in that situation.

Interestingly, the Nazis didn't really have a party manifesto except for an ancient one from 1920 which they almost never updated. It was apparently written by Anton Drexler (some disagreement about this), the founder of the forerunner to the NSDAP. It contained points on stripping Jews of citizenship etc., similar to the later Nürnberg laws, and on deportation of Jews:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/25-Punkte-Programm

As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been a settled party policy relating to Zionism. Several of the articles I've read on this note that Nazi policy (any topic) was mainly understood, in the closing years of the Weimarean Republic, through speeches by Hitler and other Nazis, but was not put into a Parteiprogramm. I imagine that this makes it quite difficult to pin anything down beyond what it said in the original 1920 edition, which some Nazis considered 'outdated'. (There's obviously Hitler's book Mein Kampf, which I haven't read and don't really have any plans to read (despite the new critical edition, which is said to do a good job on exposing its falsehoods, distortions, and inhumanity).)

Concerning the Ha'avara Agreement, this Wikipedia article claims, with Avraham Barkai, that there had been a policy that pre-dated the Nazis' seizure of power, from 1931, officially to limit the transfer of funds abroad in the course of the global economic crisis, but de facto aimed at financially ruining the Jewish population:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara-Abkommen

Nach den deutschen Devisenbestimmungen – beschlossen 1931 im Zuge der Weltwirtschaftskrise, offiziell zur Eindämmung von Kapitalflucht bzw. Devisenspekulation, eigentlich aber, um die jüdische Bevölkerung möglichst flächendeckend finanziell zu ruinieren – wurden von Auslandsüberweisungen hohe Abschläge einbehalten.

No idea if this is true, it's the first time I've heard about it. It isn't claimed in the English Wikipedia article. Whether or not this policy really was mainly aimed at Jewish people, the Ha'avara Agreement then would have represented a financial easing of conditions for people wishing to settle in Palestine (then a British 'protectorate') while transferring their wealth there. There were apparently also fears that international trade restrictions would be strengthened. Barkai's apparent (or implicit) claim that it was mainly Jewish capital that was internationally mobile would certainly require further scrutiny. I haven't read anything he's written.

While I'm sure the agreement is embarrassing for Zionists today, it also has to be borne in mind that by August 1933 the Nazis were still only in the process of taking over the German administrative bureaucracy. Hitler had first been appointed Imperial Chancellor in January 1933; the last free German elections, in which the NSDAP received 33.1% of votes, had been in November 1932 (they had lost votes, down from 37.4% in March 1932), and the next 'elections', in March 1933, held at Hitler's behest, were characterised by massive voter intimidation, political murders and arrests--the NSDAP received 43.9%. The negotiations about the Ha'avara Agreement apparently took three months, so it seems as if they were begun shortly after the elections and may have been an attempt by the Jewish Agency and others to act quickly to enable Jews to flee while retaining some of their possessions before the Nazis abolished the state (which was already clearly apparent at the time).

Anyway, history is always a little more complicated than soundbites.

When you're out on the ground the only thing that sounds better than an Apache is an ice cream van.

I think he's simply saying the bit about Harry being protected is bullshit, not wanting to branch off into a debate about the democracy we may or may not have spread

Ahhh, then pardonne moi also for thinking that Harry being protected.

i've long given up taking sides on the Arab Israeli conflict. Prince Harry however is a certified tosser of the highest order.

zionism is no different to apartheid and should be called out for the blatant fascism it is.

My point is that comments like this are not only divisive but they purposefully aim to simplify huge issues into boxes that those unfamiliar with the issues will relate to. 'Apartheid/facism' etc are words that promote powerful feelings, by highlighting the fact that Israel is neither fascist not an apartheid I am merely exposing hyperbole that is unwarranted and false.

So as long you're not Palestinian, it's all good?

Well that's an irrelevant conclusion, come on now ed! I'm arguing that they aren't fascist and that Israel is not a county that practices apartheid. An unpopular opinion I can see (and I can understand) but one I would (and do) argue is true despite reprehensible actions by the Israeli government. Well actually despite reprehensible actions from both sides.

But anyway, enough. I can't solve a crossword let alone the shit storm over there. Let's hope something gets sorted out fast.

Lest we forget, today is also the 100th anniversary of the end of the Easter Rising.

http://www.irishtimes.com/1916

Must we commemorate all who engage in gross rebellion and detested treason?

actually, yes, completely true.

In Musa Qala at least, no more or less protected than anyone else.

Edit: dunno what happened there, wrong thread.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I hate the constant way that national socialist fascism is dragged into all sorts of controversial debates to which it bears no comparison. ... Whatever people use the Nazi comparison for, it is never appropriate, because nothing that we know of as evil even comes close.

Couldn't disagree more. Your argument, as I understand it, is that "degree of evil" is the only yard stick by which we can compare X to Nazism. With Nazism there are countless interesting little components and dynamics that each contributed to what eventually happened. As much as I'd like to think otherwise, I don't any of these tendencies have been removed from human kind. The various individual facets of Nazism still lives on and has already re-occured in history several times since WWII ended.

But compared to all these other nasty things, Nazism was so meticulously carried out and well documented that it will continue to the most obvious reference point whenever we discuss shit we don't like.

In order to prevent the same thing happening, I think it's right to point out similarities and markers that, if allowed to go unchecked can indicate or contribute to a repeat of Nazism.

Hitler would never have allowed that on a new page.

Loads of Shia protestors have stormed the Iraqi parliament building and parts of the Green Zone

1 Attachment

Got smattered in patriotism, ignoring the misery caused by Rome Rule and selective readings of history during Easter. Great craic.

I could probably Google it but why is it called a rising as opposed to an uprising? Is there a difference?

Up.

Don't bump without a price drop dude. Forum rules.

London stands on the brink of a catastrophe

Zac not scaremongering at all (Daily Fail link)