Objectively Obama


by Sid (Faisal)
29th December, 2008 at 12:09 pm    

Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada writes:

Diplomatic fronts, such as the US-dominated Quartet, continue to treat occupier and occupied, coloniser and colonised, first-world high-tech army and near-starving refugee population, as if they are on the same footing. Hope is fading that the incoming administration of Barack Obama is going to make any fundamental change to US policies that are hopelessly biased towards Israel.

Some might consider that an unfair assessment, since we are told that every single Palestinian including women and children as young as two, are Jew-hating Hamas terrorists and therefore fair game in a long-range missile attack with F-16s. The Washington Post reports:

President-elect Barack Obama has voiced sympathy for Israel’s predicament. During his visit to Israel last summer, he held a news conference in Sderot, the southern town that has borne the brunt of the Gaza rocket attacks, saying he does not “think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.”

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” Obama said at the time. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Obama chooses not to put himself in Palestinian shoes, chooses not to consider how he would face Israel’s extrajudicial killings, land theft, settler pogroms, kidnappings which never stopped for a day during the truce. Nor does he analyse his reactions if his two beautiful daughters were faced with food shortages, deprived of heating oil, essential medicines, a chance to live a dignified existence or to be regarded as Hamas terrorists and therefore targets for a missile attack.

Now what can we say about Obama’s fairness and objectivity, his high-minded ability to think vicariously as an Israeli but his unwillingness to do the same for Palestinians?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Middle East






39 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Ala — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:20 pm  

    That he’s going to be an AMERICAN president, afterall.

  2. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:33 pm  

    “Some might consider that an unfair assessment, since we are told that every single Palestinian including women and children as young as two, are Jew-hating Hamas terrorists and therefore fair game in a long-range missile attack with F-16s.”

    Well done Sid. More nonsense.

  3. Ravi Naik — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:40 pm  

    Now what can we say about Obama’s fairness and objectivity, his high-minded ability to think vicariously as an Israeli but his unwillingness to do the same for Palestinians?

    Can we wait until he is sworn in to see what he does in the first year? This is ridiculous.

  4. Golam Murtaza — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:41 pm  

    Well done Steve M. Another brilliantly articulated argument.

  5. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:42 pm  

    huh? He’s being reported in the Washington Post. If you have problems with his statements being reported before he’s sworn in, you might want to take it up with them.

  6. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:47 pm  

    Ok Golam

    “Some might consider that an unfair assessment, since we are told that every single Palestinian including women and children as young as two, are Jew-hating Hamas terrorists and therefore fair game in a long-range missile attack with F-16s.”

    Told by whom?
    Not by me. Not by the Israeli government.

    As Sid knows very well, this war has been conducted with highly targeted raids (from the Israeli side) yet his implication is that women and children are being targeted by long range missile attack.

    That’s why I call it nonsense (and I’m referring to Sid’s comment here, not to the articles in the Electronic Intifada or the Washington Post).

  7. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:51 pm  

    Steve M, if you think that statement is “nonsense” and disagree with it, you might want to take it up with people who say that Gazan civilians live in a terrorist enclave and therefore an attack on Gaza is justified, rather than with me. There are many who are making that point very forcefully on this comments thread

  8. Ravi Naik — on 29th December, 2008 at 12:55 pm  

    As PP has shown, the I/P issue is highly polarising and very few voices here seem to strike the right balance. People here seem to either support Israel wholeheartedly or paint them as genocidal maniacs who will not rest until every Palestinian is dead. You, Sid, do not help with your histrionic “holocaust” references. What Israel has done is bad enough without you having to exaggerate it.

    So in this highly polarising climate, I can empathise with Obama as a presidential candidate, where even a moderate tone on this issue, would create panic on a number of Jewish people because of the smears (closeted “Muslim”) or his middle name. Yes, it is pandering, but that’s reality as a political candidate, so live with it.

    My guess is that Obama will continue to publicly support Israel, but will be very fierce with its government in close doors.

  9. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:00 pm  

    Ravi, I used the word “holocaust” because that word was quoted by Gazan citizens and was in the reportage that I read. Not my word, I have not lived through a holocaust but I have lived through a genocide. And I suspect Palestinians might be forgiven for believing they are being subjected to one now. So I reject your claim that I was being “histrionic”, thanks.

    My guess is that Obama will continue to publicly support Israel, but will be very fierce with its government in close doors.

    Well as you say yourslef: “Can we wait until he is sworn in to see what he does in the first year? “

  10. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:02 pm  

    Sid, I would not be interested in talking to anyone who says that Gazan civilians live in a terrorist enclave and therefore an attack on Gaza is justified, if by that they mean an indiscriminate attack on civilians. Such people are as low and lousy as the terrorists who claim that every Israeli is a good target.

    I post comments on Harry’s Place from time to time and I don’t agree with many of the more loony posters on both sides of the debate. I don’t agree that those who support a Jewish state of Israel are Nazis and I don’t agree with those who believe that Islam is the root of all evil.

  11. comrade — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:06 pm  

    “Some might consider that an unfair assessment, since we are told that every single Palestinian including women and children as young as two, are Jew-hating Hamas terrorists and therefore fair game in a long-range missile attack with F-16s.”

    Sid I coundn’t argree less.

    Can we wait until he is sworn in to see what he does in the first year? This is ridiculous.

    To remain silent is to collude.

    The above coments will prove correct just wait six months.

  12. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:32 pm  

    Sid, I would not be interested in talking to anyone who says that Gazan civilians live in a terrorist enclave and therefore an attack on Gaza is justified, if by that they mean an indiscriminate attack on civilians. Such people are as low and lousy as the terrorists who claim that every Israeli is a good target.

    Steve M, whatever you think of them, that’s what the consensus of opinion on Harry’s Place comments seems to be. And if you intend to post “that’s nonsense” when you see it alluded to here, you’ll have your work cut out for you on HP.

  13. David — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:36 pm  

    Steve M:

    There is no such thing as a highly targeted raid; there will always be civilian casualties and a chinese embassy or two.

  14. Katy Newton — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:39 pm  

    It’s very difficult to judge what the majority of opinion is these days, because newspapers and television stations more and more wear their political colours on their sleeves, and particular bloggers tend to attract particular readerships.

    This is probably why proponents of both sides genuinely believe that they are being reported against.

  15. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 1:39 pm  

    Sid, I’m not sure that that’s the consensus of opinion on HP but I agree that much nonsense is posted there.

    David, Yes, it’s unfortunately true that there will be civilian casualties even in a highly targeted raid.

  16. Roger — on 29th December, 2008 at 2:20 pm  

    “Some might consider that an unfair assessment, since we are told that every single Palestinian including women and children as young as two, are Jew-hating Hamas terrorists and therefore fair game in a long-range missile attack with F-16s”
    …except that Hamas considers every single Israeli including women and children as young as two to be Zionist occupiers and therefore fair game in unaimed rocket attacks. In fact, the Israelis seem to have gone to quite some trouble to attack Hamas members and especially arms bases and to avoid civilians, especially if the reports that they telephoned families near the targets and told them to leave the areas are true. There are a great many reasons to think these attacks wicked. foolish and likely to make things worse, but the Israelis certainly did not seem to regard every Palestinian as fair game, even if they did regard them as potential collateral casualties.

  17. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:31 pm  

    …except that Hamas considers every single Israeli including women and children as young as two to be Zionist occupiers and therefore fair game in unaimed rocket attacks.

    and the obvious retort to that is that not all Gazans, or indeed not all Palestinians, are Hamas! Obvious and a pity that that needs repeating.

  18. AsifB — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:37 pm  

    OK Sid, a good point well made, but the man was electioneering last summer, let’s give Obamba the benefit of a few months in office before labelling him O Bomber and focus on the news in hand.

    Which is that once again Israel is demonstrating its military might at the expense of winning friends and influencing the very people it needs to win over to live in peace – short of wholesale explusion of Palestinians it doesn’t make sense to use overwhelming violence to show superiority – it only creates more enemies for Israel – and if the ultimate raison d’etre of Israel is to be a safe homeland for Jewish people, how can further hammerring and humiliation of Palestininans further that aim?

    If as some demonstrators in Tel Aviv allege, this is all about shock and awe televsion to help win votes in the forthcoming election, then it is as morally repugnant as it is short sighted for people seeking peace. A land with a civil society that produces Waltz with Bashir must deserve better leadership than this surely?

    In the post 911 age of globalised terror, it’s too easy to forget some basic facts about the way demoncracies can beat terrorism , foremost of which is ‘don’t lose the moral high ground if you’re a democracy – after all the RAF never bombed Dublin when the IRA killed UK civilians did it?

    Fisk “Yes, let’s remember Hamas’s cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel’s need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching – come to heel or we will crush you – is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

    Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who’s never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

    We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army’s “research and assessment division” announced that “no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them”. Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn’t want to lower ourselves to the IRA’s level.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-leaders-lie-civilians-die-and-lessons-of-history-are-ignored-1215045.html

  19. soru — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:24 pm  

    ‘the RAF never bombed Dublin when the IRA killed UK civilians did it?’

    True, but Ireland arrested and imprisoned military intelligence officers who ran guns to the IRA. Had they instead promoted them, hailed them as heroes on state TV, things might well have been different.

    It wouldn’t have ended well, but you don’t have veto power on bad outcomes unless you have a monopoly on power.

    Way too many people, on both sides, buy into the racist myth that Israelis are a superhuman super-power with such complete freedom of choice, no other actors need to be considered. That is far from true – the Middle East is multi-polar, their client relationship to America is informal fraught and under challenge, just as is US power, wealth and prestige. Most of the Israeli army is more a part-time militia than a professional elite. Without constant active US support, they are one coup and one competent general from some kind of mass naval evacuation…

  20. Golam Murtaza — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:38 pm  

    Fair enough Steve M, fair enough.

  21. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:38 pm  

    My guess is that Obama will continue to publicly support Israel, but will be very fierce with its government in close doors.

    Possibly, but I’ll accept that I have sharp differences with Obama on Israel/Palestine.

    But the problem I have is with the expectation that Obama would be different on this particular issue. He has never indicated he was. And do we expect African Americans to be automatically pro-Palestinian? That seems to be behind why Pilger called him an Uncle Tom… but there’s no indication that African Americans are more Pro-Palestinian than most Americans.

    I love his stance on other issues, I just don’t think Obama will be as pro-Palestinian as we want him to be.

  22. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:58 pm  

    I think that he needs to take an extremely tough line with both sides and should be even-handed. I think that all parties should be bullied and cajoled into participating in serious peace negotiations. I also believe that the Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis and probably (damn it) the French will be needed in attendance, particularly in the latter stages. Heads need to be banged together.

    The hope for me is that Obama will be more capable of seeing through the shit and acting with some clarity than his predecessors. Bush in any case is spoiled goods in this matter.

    I would also hope and pray that there are players in place with the bravery and vision of Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin.

    There is a wonderful neurologist called Jill Bolte Taylor who suffered a brain stroke that knocked out much of her left brain’s functioning. When she had recovered sufficiently to tell her story she spoke of the sense of the interconnectedness of all life that she had experienced in that state and the lack of separation between beings.

    If all Israelis and Palestinians could be targeted by a new super-weapon that knocked out the left hemispheres of their brains for one day, that would be a targeted strike to boast about.

  23. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:05 pm  

    heh, good one Steve M.

  24. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:49 pm  

    well said as usual AsifB.

  25. AsifB — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:51 pm  

    Sunny 21: “And do we expect African Americans to be automatically pro-Palestinian? That seems to be behind why Pilger called him an Uncle Tom… but there’s no indication that African Americans are more Pro-Palestinian than most Americans.”

    An interesting historical question (and I believe Sacha Baron Cohen did a thesis on the relationship between African Americans and Jewish Americans) Simply put, YES they used to be more inclined to be more pro-Palestinian than the general US population – Third World solidairity and all that in the 70s and 80s arose out of the 1960s New Left; gradually more people paid attention to Malcolm’s words on Palestine than MLKs (helped by people like Marlon Brando – who volunteered to fight for Israel in 1948 – changing their mind on Zionism in the sixties)- hence by 1977, you had former MLK aide Andrew Young talking to the PLO (and being hounded out of office for it) – and in the 80s, Jesse Jackson’s two rainbow alliance Prsidential campaigns both had a call for a Palestinian homeland at the radical heart of their platform. (By this stage, you could take for granted that more fringe African American pols like Shrapton and Farrahkhan would support Arabs against Israel.)

    Jackson’s 80s campaigns were not helped by his racist hymietown remarks or flirtations with Farrahkhan – but its clear that by the end of the 70s, support for the Palestinians was associated with empathy for the dispossed and the fight against apartheid – African Americans (and not just Muslims, Panthers, and NoI supporters) deeply felt Young was treated unfairly
    - and could not help noting that Israel was implicated in helping apartheid South Africa build the Bomb – so yes there was a strong sense by the late 80s that African Americans would be more likley to be more pro-Pal than other Americans.

    Unlike in Britain where anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian viewpoints appear alongside Friends of Israel views in all political parties, in US politics, anything less than slavish devotion to Israel puts you in the fringe – a lesson that Clinton/Gores centrist campaigning took on board reverting to a tradtional Democratic pro-Israeli postion as part of their platform (to the extent that Arab Americans voted disproportionately for Bush and Nader in the 2000 election)

    Obama has learned Clintons lessons so (excpet on identity where he is unique, thoughtful and an inspiration,) has never risked taking a postion as radical as Jackson’s seemed to many otherwise liberal Americans in the 1980s. Remember Lou Reed’s New York album in 1988 where in “Common Ground” he amongst other things equates talking to the PLO as akin to consorting with Nazis and asserts that a quid pro quo for Jewish support for the Civil Rights Movement should be uncritical support for Israel
    “Jesse you say common ground, does that include the PLO, What about people right here right now, who fought for you not so long ago”

    (dirty dishonest mudslinging, great lyrics)

  26. Indrak — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:19 pm  

    “I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking ‘if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.’”
    ….
    “Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

    As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

    But Obama’s gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. ….”

    -from http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
    -not for the 1st time, but since people here often fail to read what’s in front of them, let alone in links…

    And for those who are comforted in the delusion this is but one issue:

    “…President-elect Barack Obama used a press conference in Chicago Wednesday to name two more members of his cabinet—Colorado Democratic Senator Ken Salazar for secretary of interior and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to be agriculture secretary. Following the naming the day before of Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan as secretary of education, the latest appointments have only underscored the right-wing character of the incoming administration.

    A supporter of the Iraq war, Salazar distinguished himself as a freshman senator in 2003 by personally leading Alberto Gonzales [Torture Cunt - indrak] onto the floor of the Senate and then testifying on his behalf in his attorney general confirmation hearings.

    He likewise enthusiastically backed Bush’s selection of Gale Norton, a right-wing Republican from Colorado, for secretary of the interior.

    Previously Salazar supported the appointment of William Myers III, a former Interior Department solicitor and ranching industry lobbyist, as a federal judge. While the American Bar Association rated Myers as “not qualified,” Salazar praised his “outstanding legal reasoning” on federal land use issues. By contrast, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, called Myers “the most anti-environmental candidate for the bench I have seen in 37 years in the Senate.”

    While in the Senate, Salazar voted: against increased fuel efficiency standards for the US cars, in support of offshore oil drilling on Florida’s coast, against the repeal of tax breaks for Exxon-Mobil, and in support of subsidies to ranchers using public lands. He also fought against attempts to beef up protection for endangered species and the environment in the US Farm Bill.

    Salazar’s appointment was greeted with dismay by environmental groups, which had lobbied against his being named. He is widely seen in the West as a loyal servant of the big ranching, mining and other major corporate interests, which backed his selection.

    Jon Marvel of the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project called the appointment a “travesty.” Salazar, he said, “will completely undermine Obama’s message of change. He will not bring change to the public lands of the western United States.”
    -http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/obam-d18.shtml

    ..Then there are those who would rather give hime 6 months first; later, many will write of their ‘disappointment’;
    10 yrs later, somewhere else, repeat cycle.

  27. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:22 pm  

    There is a wonderful neurologist called Jill Bolte Taylor who suffered a brain stroke that knocked out much of her left brain’s functioning. When she had recovered sufficiently to tell her story she spoke of the sense of the interconnectedness of all life that she had experienced in that state and the lack of separation between beings.

    Steve: I have her book… haven’t read it yet though. I thought her TED talk was amazing. But while you’re right that the US needs to bang heads together, I also wonder why Israel can’t (as the strongest power in the region) take the initiative itself if it really wants peace?

    Basically, you’re admitting Israel is as irresponsible as the Palestinians.

  28. Ravi Naik — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:29 pm  

    But the problem I have is with the expectation that Obama would be different on this particular issue. He has never indicated he was. And do we expect African Americans to be automatically pro-Palestinian? That seems to be behind why Pilger called him an Uncle Tom… but there’s no indication that African Americans are more Pro-Palestinian than most Americans.

    I think Obama is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, but he has shown that it will be according to his own terms: more pragmatic and less ideological. This means he will disappoint a great number of people who stand on either side of the I/P issue. He also shows a great interest (and knowledge) on this issue, and perhaps his African (and Muslim) roots will help him empathise with the Palestinian people in a way that previous presidents didn’t.

    “Objectively Obama” is a a cynical title, considering you cannot objectively judge Obama on this issue when has not become President yet.

  29. Steve M — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:41 pm  

    I also wonder why Israel can’t (as the strongest power in the region) take the initiative itself if it really wants peace?

    Basically, you’re admitting Israel is as irresponsible as the Palestinians.

    Actually, I think that there are many pragmatic, responsible and peace loving people on both sides.

    Many people think that the Arab Israeli conflict is intractable. At the very least considerable mediation is required.

    Yes, the Ted talk was mind blowing. I haven’t read the book yet either but I will.

  30. Sid — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:19 pm  

    “Objectively Obama” is a a cynical title, considering you cannot objectively judge Obama on this issue when has not become President yet.

    It could only be regarded as “cynical” to those who have bestowed some kind of quasi-liturgical significance to the man and can’t stand even the slightest criticism of him.

    And as for “cannot objectively judge Obama on this issue”, er, you just have in the paragraph that preceded this one in your comment at #28!

    Personally I’m hoping Obama is not going to shy away from criticism as easily or as cowed by Israel as Bush and will use his considerable skills as the mediator, the Wise Referee, that the Middle East so badly needs.

  31. comrade — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:48 pm  

    Objectively Obama” is a a cynical title, considering you cannot objectively judge Obama on this issue when has not become President yet.

    There’s protest planed outside Obama’s office tomorrow
    lets see what he has to say.

  32. Ravi Naik — on 29th December, 2008 at 9:41 pm  

    And as for “cannot objectively judge Obama on this issue”, er, you just have in the paragraph that preceded this one in your comment at #28!

    Are you kidding me? It is merely an exercise in guessing as I said in #8, and nothing more than that. It is not objective to say the least – it is my interpretation of the guy. It is way too soon to pass judgment, and no one in their right mind can say that they know “objectively” what the Obama presidency would be, specially in regards to the I/P issue.

  33. Ravi Naik — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:27 pm  

    I thought her TED talk was amazing.

    You forgot to link it. ;-)

  34. comrade — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:57 pm  

    Here’s what Obama has said in January 2008, under pressure from the zionist lobby in the US and changed his earlier statement that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people” to “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel”.

  35. Sid — on 30th December, 2008 at 8:55 am  

    Yeah, this article is an “exercise in guessing” as well. As for the title “Objectively Obama”, I wrote it as an ‘alliterative irony’, a comment on the Washington Post article in which Obama is seen to empathise with the Israelis and not with the Palestinians. Sorry to disappoint you, but I always try to avoid titles that are stodgily literal, but there you go.

    As for Obama the man, as opposed to man-god as some people regard him, I will continue to ctiticise and judge him, because he’s a politician. His stance on I/P will be criticised if he turns out to be one-sided (towards Israel) as all previous US presidents have so far been. Obama has come in on the change ticket, I will certainly be looking to him for change on that.

    And I like to think that we here on PP will blog on the I/P issue without fear of being silenced by criticism that it is “polarising”. Which, not surprisingly and true to form, you’ve thrown in as a criticism of my article. The article may not chime with your opinions but that does not make it “polarising”.

  36. Ravi Naik — on 31st December, 2008 at 2:10 am  

    As for Obama the man, as opposed to man-god as some people regard him,

    No one here regards him as a man-god – you are making things up.

    His stance on I/P will be criticised

    Heh. You will criticise him? You already have by saying he does not empathise with Palestinians. Yet, he has talked about their suffering. Next time, try to read more than one source to form an opinion.

    And I like to think that we here on PP will blog on the I/P issue without fear of being silenced by criticism that it is “polarising”

    This is absurd – only Sunny can shut you up. Don’t confuse disagreeing with you with trying to silence you.

    Which, not surprisingly and true to form, you’ve thrown in as a criticism of my article. The article may not chime with your opinions but that does not make it “polarising”.

    Correct – the article does not chime with my opinion, and indeed that is not the reason why you tend to be highly polarising on the I/P issue as I have explained in #8.

  37. Sid — on 31st December, 2008 at 9:00 am  

    Correct – the article does not chime with my opinion, and indeed that is not the reason why you tend to be highly polarising on the I/P issue as I have explained in #8.

    I’ve had good discussions with both sides on this, and support views of both. Polarising is not one I recognise. If you say I tend to be *highly polarising” you would of course have to back that up, but I have long regarded your posts as comically high on the noise to screed ratio, so you needn’t bother.

  38. Ravi Naik — on 31st December, 2008 at 10:56 am  

    If you say I tend to be *highly polarising” you would of course have to back that up

    When you use terms like ‘holocaust’ (I understand now that it must be your “alliterative irony” working) or that Israel will not rest until every Palestinian woman and child is dead, you are not only engaging in unnecessary histrionics, but you are also not conducing a rational debate. Being highly polarising is just one of your problems.

  39. Sid — on 31st December, 2008 at 11:01 am  

    Yeah but I’ve already explained why I used that word, and yes, also why I regretted the useage. It didn’t stop good discussions with Steve M and Katy thankfully.

    Being highly polarising is just one of your problems.

    Being precious, humourless, and unable to get irony are just three of yours.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.