Chavez supports Syria against US


by Leon
30th August, 2006 at 4:42 pm    

Oh dear. Chavez, angling for his UN Security Council seat, is really scraping the barrel with this lot:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has pledged to stand by Syria in opposition to what he said was US “imperialist aggression” in the Middle East. He said he and Syria would strive to build a world free of US domination.

“We have decided to be free. We want to co-operate to build a new world where states’ and people’s self-determination are respected,” Mr Chavez said after meeting President Assad.

“Imperialism’s concern is to control the world, but we will not let them despite the pressure and aggression,” he said. [Via BBC News]

This doesn’t really track with the reality of countries like Syria or China. So there you have it. The reverse of Blair and Bush is Chavez and some of the most authoritarian regimes on the planet. Great set of choices we have isn’t it?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East,The World






113 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Sid — on 30th August, 2006 at 5:19 pm  

    oh my gosh. oh my gosh
    Are the choices really Bush vs Chavez? Or the Euston Manifestations vs the SWPers?

  2. Leon — on 30th August, 2006 at 5:33 pm  

    Heh, yeah a little dramatic, just stuff like that makes me think “great, I can see the polarised nature of the debate about this, were the hell do I fit in?”…

  3. mirax — on 30th August, 2006 at 5:38 pm  

    Bush and Blair’s days are definitely numbered, they have to leave office and who knows, there may yet be a day of reckoning for them.

    But Chavez and Assad? Or Mugabe, another ‘anti-imperialist’ ally? “Peoples’ self determination” is gonna be accompanied by a lotsa blood in those countries.

  4. Bert Preast — on 30th August, 2006 at 6:08 pm  

    Where di Chavez get the idea that socialism involves doing everything humanly possible to annoy your neighbours?

  5. Sunny — on 30th August, 2006 at 6:33 pm  

    Oh dear….

  6. Vikrant Singh — on 30th August, 2006 at 7:15 pm  

    Lefties in their over-whelming hatred of capitalists have lost their grip over the reality. I call it “Crimson blur”. Pinkos make fine Islamist groupies….

  7. Rowshan — on 30th August, 2006 at 7:40 pm  

    Personalities and digs aside

    I don’t mind anyone standing up to the US – which other state leader has the guts?

  8. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 30th August, 2006 at 7:43 pm  

    Vikrant,

    “Pinkos make fine Islamist groupies….”

    Its important to remember who they replaced.

  9. Roger — on 30th August, 2006 at 7:46 pm  

    It isn’t a matter of “standing up to the US”. What matters is standing up to the US when the US is wrong, which unfortunately it often is. Supporting psychotic mass-murderers merely because they- in some unspecified way- “stand up to the US” is the politics of fools. “They may be psychotic mass-murderers but they’re anti-US psychotic mass-murderers, so that’s all right then.”

  10. Nav — on 30th August, 2006 at 8:47 pm  

    No one’s actually surprised by this, right?

  11. Vikrant Singh a.k.a Amey — on 30th August, 2006 at 8:47 pm  

    Hey,

    Could somebody add us to Desi Blog Directory (my browser is giving me probs..)

    http://desipundit.wiki.com/Directory_of_Indian_Bloggers

  12. Sunny — on 30th August, 2006 at 9:07 pm  

    Well, Chavez is engaging in the old art of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” politicking. Given the US is trying to unseat him by funding opponents this is not surprising, though deeply regrettable. But if anyone thinks the US is beyond this then they’re also living in cuckooland.
    I’m with roger on this.

  13. Amir — on 30th August, 2006 at 9:33 pm  

    [Rubbing his eyes in disbelief]

    Leon? Getting medieval of Chavez’s arse?

    Sunny? Has excommunicated Stalin, err, sorry, ‘Lenin’, from his list of Comrades?

    Eh? What’s going on here?

    So tell me. Which one of you is taking the anti-stupid pill? ;-)

  14. Amir — on 30th August, 2006 at 9:44 pm  

    Sid,

    ‘Or the Euston Manifestations vs the SWPers?’

    Ever the expert on moral equivalences, you don’t actually say why it is thus. Now, ask yourself this: Isn’t it funny how more and more of your ilk (anti-war Socialists) are signing up to the Euston Manifesto, and at a time when left-wing ‘feminists’ are embracing the misogynistic theocracy in Iran and their Lebanese proxy. When left-wing ‘democrats’ are embracing the Syrian thugocracy, Mugabe’s nightmare regime in Zimbabwe and the anti-human dictatorship in North Korea. But hey,… Norman Geras is just as bad as Andrew Murray, isn’t he?

    I don’t think so.

  15. Bilal Patel — on 30th August, 2006 at 10:25 pm  

    It’s usually the case that people side with the underdog, and when the US Empire is going around crushing people by itself or through it’s agents (in the MidEast for example) then there’s nothing wrong with organising to fight it. This comes at a time when Syria, Iran and Chavez are all targets. So why shouldn’t they find a common cause?

  16. Malcom Zed — on 30th August, 2006 at 10:48 pm  

    We should blow American aircraft out of the air as acts of resistance too, dontcha think Bilal?

  17. Bilal Patel — on 30th August, 2006 at 11:07 pm  

    I didn’t know Chavez was being accused of blowing up American aircraft He is ‘guilty’ of forming a strategic partnership with others who are either considered competitors of the US, or it’s enemies. If it’s effective, then good luck to him, as it ensures a balance of power.

  18. Nyrone — on 30th August, 2006 at 11:47 pm  

    Wait a sec, before we lump Hugo Chavez into the ‘Syria-Iran-Hezbullah’ camp as a diametrically opposite dummy form of Bush and Blair, shouldn’t we at least list the charges he’s supposedely guilty of? I’m interested in knowing, because personally I’ve never seen Chavez say anything but factually correct and gut-honest things.

    I’m all for cutting people like Nasrallah in their tracks when they begin sprouting utter rubbish like “the Jews need to be eradicated and if they are all in Israel then that’s a bonus” but why label Chavez as a “psychotic mass-murderer” when he has pushed through a series of brilliant socially progressive economic re-form policies that aim to re-distribute the enormous wealth of the land in his country? I trust you’ve all seen the documentary ‘The revoloution will not be televised’ ….It paints a pretty clear picture of how many good things Chavez is doing, how much he stands for social justice and how hard US cronies are working to get him out asap…

    What’s so blood-thirsty about firmly standing up against US Imperialism, which appears to be the antithesis of a free and open society? The US agenda as outlined by the neo-cons in the 1997 new American Century statement of principles, states that the ‘might is right’ crude form of social darwinism is the only way forward. After the Whitehouse was hijacked by people like Quayle, Forbes and Cheyney the loud and teary sounds of them carving out a ‘new world order’ can be heard by the most deaf of ears and to see people like Morales and Chavez resisiting the ideology of the empire is a breath of fresh air in a pretty putrid swamp…

    I like Chavez and I want more proof that he is the ‘polar opposite of Bush’ as some claim he is. Why must people taint all liberals with the same brush? like as soon as someone comes along with a leftist viewpoint and gets popular he’s a “liberal nutcase” I swear, you bring them up and tear them down, What’s an Anti-war human being gotta do?

    Chavez talkin with Syria is a bold step and it doesn’t mean he supports everything they do, just that.. countries should be allowed to get on with working in their own country and addressing their own problems without Daddy Mcdonalds and the USA Neo-con so solid crew coming up and stinking out the place with their ‘take-it-or-leave-it democracy USA style’ Chavez presents some form of an alternative to this clinical pathological madness the US gov is currently soaked in…..and the anti-imperialist movement needs all the help it can get with people as well-informed and as brave as Chavez.

  19. Sajn — on 30th August, 2006 at 11:59 pm  

    Wasn’t Chavez elected by his people? So how does that make him different to Bush & Blair as “democrats”?

  20. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 12:23 am  

    Norman Geras is just as bad as Andrew Murray, isn’t he

    at what?

  21. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 12:41 am  

    Sid,

    at what

    Table tennis. Norm is very, very good at table tennis. Andy Murray is pretty shitty city.

  22. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 12:48 am  

    oh. ok.

  23. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 3:45 am  

    Nyrone,

    (I) ‘I’m all for cutting people like Nasrallah in their tracks’

    Would it surprise you to learn that the oh-so-tolerant Chávez allows anti-Semitic terrorist organizations to operate within Venezuela’s own borders, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya? In conjunction with this, he is pursuing closer strategic relations with Arab countries and Iran, and is emerging as a key supporter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who repeatedly has called for Israel’s destruction. This is without even mentioning Chávez’s record in Venezuela itself. You may, or may not, have heard about an armed raid carried out by security forces in November on the Jewish elementary and high school in Caracas, which is, in the opinion of many, the most serious incident ever to have taken place in the history of Venezuelan Jews. Pro-Chavez supporters are also responsible for numerous anti-Semitic manifestations, including repeated desecrations of the Sephardic Tiferet Israel Synagogue. According to the 2004 Roth Institute report, the Jewish population in Venezuela is now below 15,000 “as a result of severe instability in the country”.

    More tellingly, Chávez was/is heavily influenced by his longtime friend Norberto Ceresole, an Argentinian writer infamous for his books denying the Holocaust and his conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to control the planet. In 2004, for example, Chávez told the opposition not to let themselves “be poisoned by those wandering Jews.”

    (II) ‘What’s so blood-thirsty about firmly standing up against US Imperialism, which appears to be the antithesis of a free and open society?’

    Yes! Of course. Silly me. Let us stand up to US “imperialism” by courting and currying the favour of genuine imperialists like China (Taiwan? Tibet?), Russia (Chechnya? Ukraine?), Iran (Iraq?) and Syria (Lebanon?). It is funny, is it not, that you should mention ‘a free’ and ‘open’ society? I was not aware, up until now, that the regimes of Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and President Alexander Lukashenko were ‘free’ and ‘open’. Or, for that matter, the People’s Republics of China, Iran & Zimbabwe, all of whom are supported (uncritically) by Chávez. Nor do you mention the tin-pot dictatorships in Cuba and Libya (or Vladimir Putin’s Banana republic in Russia), all of whom are championed by Comrade Chávez. How, furthermore, do you think he responded to Kim Yong-Ill? North Korea isn’t exactly renowned for its freedoms and openness, is it? And yet,… rather than do the noble thing and speak out against the unimaginable cruelty inflicted upon the North Korean people, not to mention the 2,000,000 or so who are estimated to have died as a result of famine (yes: famine), Chávez wrote a pretty little letter instead, praising the Dear Leader for his anti-imperialistic credentials. Pathetic.

    Amir

  24. Bilal Patel — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:35 am  

    Why should Chavez stop doing anything because Israel feels threatened? Anything that stops this military state from attacking as it pleases is a good thing, and Hizbollah and Hamas are popular resistance movements, as well as democratically elected bodies, so the freedom loving neocons should be delighted with them. Likewise, Ahmedinejad was elected by the popular vote and he has the widespread support of his people. And he never mentioned that Israel should be wiped off the map, as the anti-Iran propagandists would have us believe. He quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

    For the people of Syria and Iran, it’s a choice to either unite or be attacked by the US. Just because they have leaders we (or they for that matter) don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they want to face the prospect of sanctions and attack from the US. Chavez is a very popular figure in the Arab world at the moment, for a very good reason that he is doing things that incompetent Arab leaders can’t, or won’t. Like talking to Syria or Iran.

  25. bikhair aka taqiyyah — on 31st August, 2006 at 9:03 am  

    Sunny,

    I think I like Shahid Malik. Whats his deal?

  26. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 9:54 am  

    @ Amir, lol!

    For my part (I’ll let Sunny explain his reasoning for taking Lenin off the list but leaving Harrys Place) it’s mainly lament.

    Chavez has done much for the majority of poor people in his country and continues to raise issues at an international level that need to be aired but this latest round of geo-political angling? Well, I guess needs must when shooting for a place on the UN Security Council, with that kind of influence maybe the ends will justify these means…

    Upon reflection, perhaps he’s be subversive, given the populations of places like China and Syria (assuming they even know he said anything like the quotes in the op) something to think about?

  27. soru — on 31st August, 2006 at 10:30 am  

    Chavez isn’t a psychopath, or an authoritarian ruler. He may well end up being, on balance, a good thing for the people of Venezuala, although it’s also easy to see things turning out badly.

    It’s just that it seems that his grasp of global politics is that of a student who has just attended their first SWP meeting and is desperate to fit in with hs new friends.

  28. Roger — on 31st August, 2006 at 11:29 am  

    “why label Chavez as a “psychotic mass-murderer”
    I didn’t label Chavez a psychotic mass-murderer, Nyrone. However, some of the people he has allied himself with-the rulers of Syria, Zimbabwe and China, for example- undoubtedly are psychotic mass-murderers whose anti-US policies outweigh their habits of massacring their own people in Chavez’s eyes. This raises questions about- at the least- Chavez’s judgment.

  29. Kismet Hardy — on 31st August, 2006 at 11:54 am  

    Arif you terrible cocksucker. I applied to buy anti-stupidity pills you so highly recommended and, because you didn’t specify the brand name, I’ve ended up with countless packages of xanaax, ciallis, phantermine, ultram and all I’ve got to show for it is a dick hard enough to pierce metal. I’m not sure if any of them have helped at all to make mne cleverer.

    What do you think?

    (PS. Which movie is Chavez in?)

  30. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    Fletch Lives?

  31. bananabrain — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

    *claps for amir and roger, who have saved me the trouble of posting*

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  32. Vikrant Singh a.k.a Amey — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:21 pm  

    For my part (I’ll let Sunny explain his reasoning for taking Lenin off the list but leaving Harrys Place) it’s mainly lament.

    No wonder given that you worship Noam Chomsky… Lenin pyshcobabble on issues ranging from Kashmir to Palestine gives me mental cramps…

  33. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:45 pm  

    Eh? In what way do I “worship” Noam Chomsky? Some examples would be useful.

    I only mentioned the Lenin thing becuase to my mind if you’re going to get rid of Lenin you should get rid of Harrys Place because they’re essentially two sides of the same dysfunctional left coin.

  34. Kismet Hardy — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:50 pm  

    So Noam Chomsky’s kid says: ‘Daddy, will you leave me all your money when you die?’

    No, says Chomsky.

    ‘Oh. But I need the cash. You’ve blown up my laboratory and I need a new one.’

    Says Chomsky: ‘As soon as questions of will arise, human science is at a loss.’

  35. Vikrant Singh a.k.a Amey — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:55 pm  

    In my books linking to Noam “I’m an Islamist groupie” Chomsky is a proof enough…huff

  36. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 1:57 pm  

    In my books linking to Noam “I’m an Islamist groupie” Chomsky is a proof enough…huff

    Wow, with a standard of evidence that high I’m sure you’ll have no problem convincing the world!

  37. Vikrant Singh a.k.a Amey — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:03 pm  

    Lol,

    Cool down… i am just in ma-usual piss-taking mood…

  38. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:08 pm  

    Fair enough.

  39. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:11 pm  

    I think US/Israel parochialism needs to be rehabilitated in the same way as does that of Syria/Iranian’s parochialism. The only people who seem to capable or willing to do the latter is Chavez, for which he gains my total respect. You know Blair could have adopted that role as a broker for the US/Israeli position. Its such a shame that he’s made himself too comfortable playing the role of the standard poodle. At least thats something you can’t accuse Chavez of. He’s no one’s poodle.

  40. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:15 pm  


    Yesterday Israeli troops killed eight Palestinians in air strikes and gun battles around the Shijaiyeh neighbourhood of Gaza City. One of the dead was a 14-year-old boy who was in a crowd watching the fighting. At least two others were militants, doctors said. The Israeli army said it found a large tunnel for smuggling that ran 150 metres towards a cargo crossing.

    Israel’s military incursions into Gaza have been overshadowed by the conflict in Lebanon. But Palestinian officials say more than half of those killed in the past two months have been civilians – among them 39 children killed in July alone.

    Yes, we need a voice like Chavez. And you Amir and his cohorts will accuse him and anyone critical of anti-semitism, but that’s a debate-killing gambit thats wholly expected of them.

  41. Leon — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:20 pm  

    At least thats something you can’t accuse Chavez of. He’s no one’s poodle.

    Very true.

  42. Rowshan — on 31st August, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    Roger post 9.

    I thought we were dicussing a particular point and not generics.

    In this case Chavez is standing up to the US on why we shouldn’t vilify/criminalise Syria.

    So what’s your opinion on this one? US is right or wrong in its stance on the Middle East? This is the particular point we are debating and Chavez’s role in it.

    This isn’t the politics of fools – it’s the politics of people who might disgree. Is this still allowed? Is this specific enough?

  43. Chris Stiles — on 31st August, 2006 at 3:12 pm  

    What are the salient differences between Musharraf and Assad?

  44. soru — on 31st August, 2006 at 3:32 pm  

    Why is it impossible to oppose both?

    Chavez is not saying Assad is a nasty guy with whom it is sadly necessary to do business in order to make an oil deal in the interests of Venezuala. He is saying he is a glorious hero of anti-imperialism and fount of all Syrian national dignity. Maybe he knows he is talking shit, but I have my doubts.

    On the face of it, Chavez’s position is about as stupid as some american saying Assad is a good guy because he is a secular ruler who has killed and tortured lots of religious Muslims.

    The ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is just a saying, it doesn’t mean you should try and convince yourself you actually like them, or assume they like you.

  45. Joey Staples — on 31st August, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

    What are the salient differences between Musharraf and Assad?

    Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a secret service full of extremists, has proliferated nuke technology, and is the global hub par excellence of Islamist extremist terrorism. We need a bastard we can trust in control of that hell hole, or so the thinking goes.

  46. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 4:31 pm  

    Sidney,

    (I) ‘Yes, we need a voice like Chavez’

    I’d be amazed if you could look a Chinese peasant / Zimbabwean prisoner / malnourished Korean in the eye, and say this. Coz, ya know, Booosh No.1 Terrorist! No.1 perpetrator of genocide!!

    (II) At least thats something you can’t accuse Chavez of. He’s no one’s poodle.

    That is also true, grosso modo, for Josef Stalin and Genghis Khan. What’s your point?

    Coz, ya know…

    Booosh No.1 Terrorist!!
    No.1 Perpetrator of Genocide!!!

  47. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 5:29 pm  

    Sidney,

    ‘And you Amir and his cohorts will accuse him and anyone critical of anti-semitism, but that’s a debate-killing gambit thats wholly expected of them.’

    So here we are at the ad hominem stage, as usual. I am sure that I am a very bad person. In some eyes, I am a sort of generational traitor. My very existence is upsetting and inexplicable to quite a lot of people. Hence the misrepresentation and name-calling against which I must constantly defend myself.

    The reference to anti-Semitism was a riposte to Nyrone, who, in my opinion, was decent enough to distance himself from the ‘We are Hezbollah’ crowd. Vis-à-vis Chavez, I pointed out that the man is a vulgar anti-Semite. Which he is. There’s no getting away from it. Here are a few of my favourite quotes…

    #1. “The world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world.”

    #2. “Do not be poisoned by those wandering Jews. Don’t let them lead you to the place they want you to be led. There are some people saying that those 40 percent [who supported his recall] are all enemies of Chavez”

    Amir

  48. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 5:48 pm  

    Generational traitor? Ha ha, thats funny. But tell me, what misrepresentation and name calling?

  49. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 6:07 pm  

    And what ad-hominems have I used, dear Amir? Funny that someone who is so articulate should crumple at the slightest refutation and take things so personally.

    If I have a problem with your arguments its the piss-poor resort to emotional blackmail with the use of the antisemitism charge for any and all criticism of Israel or critics of Israel.

    Muslims resort to the same form of shoddy hyperbole when they use the Islamophobia charge and the victim rhetotric to downplay their own transgressions.

    Victimhood and the comparison of one anethema to justify another has become a zeitgeist in its own right. But thankfully one that we here at PP can see off as transparent.

  50. Sunny — on 31st August, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

    I’d be amazed if you could look a Chinese peasant / Zimbabwean prisoner

    Tell me Amir, looked at a Palestinian or a Lebanese in the eye recently? Two can play this stupid game.

  51. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 7:39 pm  

    Sid,

    If I have a problem with your arguments its the piss-poor resort to emotional blackmail with the use of the antisemitism charge for any and all criticism of Israel or critics of Israel.

    Do you, or do you not, possess an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside your hard drive (cut & pasted from CounterPunch Magazine no doubt), so that you only have to touch the keyboard for one of them to materialise miraculously onto the page? The accusation of ‘emotional blackmail’ is an ingenious sleight-of-hand. It’s intended to sabotage dialogue by accusing others (i.e. me) of sabotage. Genius. How, or in what capacity, am I trying to blackmail you? Please, elaborate…? More interestingly: why, all of a sudden, are you talking about Israel and the Palestinians? Surely, we can talk about Hugo Chavez’s anti-Semitic discourse without resort to a puerile spat on Israel/Palestine? Or is that beyond you and your ‘cohorts’?

    For a change, let me recommend that you read my arguments. Ditch the self-pitiful crap. And try to refute me with a substantive argument. Can you do that? Do you deny that Hugo Chavez is a shallow, narrow-minded anti-Semite? And an apologist for one of the most evil men and regimes on the planet? If not, say why

    Amir

  52. Jagdeep — on 31st August, 2006 at 7:59 pm  

    Amir is great. Even when he posts the same comment four times!

  53. Jagdeep — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:07 pm  

    Amir that’s a typical pro Zionist anti-multiculturalist Neo-Con tactic of posting your comment quadruply :-)

  54. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:08 pm  

    Sunny,

    Tell me Amir, looked at a Palestinian or a Lebanese in the eye recently?

    Yes, I have. Several. Why do you ask?

  55. Amir — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:20 pm  

    Jagdeep,

    Be careful of what you say to me… or I might accuse you of anti-Semitism and SILENCE you forever! :-)

    Mwahahahah!

  56. Sid — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:29 pm  

    Amir

    Do you, or do you not, possess an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside your hard drive (cut & pasted from CounterPunch Magazine no doubt), so that you only have to touch the keyboard for one of them to materialise miraculously onto the page?

    As a matter of fact I do. Here’s another one:

    Chavez is a superb example of a self-serving politician who symbolised nothing if not good news for his beleagured country who uses emotive reactionary race politics to flare up support. As do Olmert, Ahmadinejad and Assad.

    I wrote the little app myself with a bit of asynchronous javascript and XML. What do you use to generate your greasy reactionary-isms?

  57. Kits Coty — on 31st August, 2006 at 8:41 pm  

    There is soething about Chavez style leaders that makes the left lose all sense of critical judgement when it comes to political leaders. The charge against Chavez is not one of anti-semtimism or being a dictator (he is not) but that he has eroded democracy in Venezuala. He has effectively neutralised the senate as a checking mechanism on the executive; indulges in grace and favour dispensation of government resources and political positions; the social programmes he is lauded for are run through the president’s office and not through the existing government departments; he has created a militia force that is only answerable to the president. I’m sorry but no democrat of either left or right wing persuasion should see any of these things as positive developments.

  58. Tasneem — on 31st August, 2006 at 10:17 pm  

    Looks like Chavez is right now the “Latin American Messiah” in the Arab World. Check this out:

    http://www.iwrnews.org/tasneem/archives/hugo-chavez-revolution-in-foreign-policy

    Well, I do find this exciting development. Hmm.

  59. Matthew — on 31st August, 2006 at 10:22 pm  

    Accusations of Chavez being an anti-semite are pathetic. For example, regarding the quote “the christ killers” This is from Wikipedia
    “According to an an article published at Forward.com, Venezuelan Jewish community leaders accused the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment with the anti-Semitic remarks, saying that Chávez’s comments had been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to “gentile business elites” or the “white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era”". Unfortunately, pathetic right-wingers are trying to use any smear possible against Chavez so they have resorted to the anti-semite card.

  60. Sharifa — on 1st September, 2006 at 4:12 am  

    Amir

    Is anyone anywhere who allies with Arab leaders against Bush branded an anti-semite? Terribly reductionist argument.

    Sounds like a bit of Wikipedia hysteria has been enough to brand Chavez anti-semite in your mind.

    Thought as Mathhew points out – the history of white oligarchy in Latin America is well known, and a big chunk of this European oligarchy is now Jewish. That’s not anti-semitism – it’s appreciating South American history from a western, anti-colonial perspective.

  61. bananabrain — on 1st September, 2006 at 11:14 am  

    well, that’s all right, as long as we can kick the jews’ arses. white? well, they’re racist. rich? they’re oligarchs. immigrants? ah, they’re colonialists. relatives abroad? imperialists and zionists. whatever the fashionable enemy is, i’m sure we can end up attacking the same people.

    look, i had nothing against chavez (well, other than him being a sort of military ken livingstone) until he started buddying up with ahmedinejad and assad. by a man’s friends shall ye know him, i say.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  62. Roger — on 1st September, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

    Rowshan:

    “I thought we were dicussing a particular point and not generics. ”

    Generics come from particular points. The particular points here is that Chavez is setting out to ally himself with murderous dictators because they have the generic quality of being anti-American in common.

    “In this case Chavez is standing up to the US on why we shouldn’t vilify/criminalise Syria.

    So what’s your opinion on this one? US is right or wrong in its stance on the Middle East? This is the particular point we are debating and Chavez’s role in it. ”
    As the truth about Syria is that it is run by a murderous, corrupt and criminal minority government telling the truth about Syria is vilification. Any long-term improvement in the condition of the Middle East would involve getting rid of the Alawi-dominated baathist government. That’s up to the poor bloody Syrians however. It may be necessary to make deals with the Syrian government – the US, for example, recognising the exemplary skills of Syrian torturers has “rendered” quite a few people to the syrian secret police- but that doesn’t mean believing or pretending that that is inspired by anything but short-term necessity.

    “This isn’t the politics of fools – it’s the politics of people who might disgree. Is this still allowed? Is this specific enough? ”
    The fact that the governments Chavez has specifically allied himself with- China, Zimbabwe and Syria- all specifically agree on the power of cruel and dictatorial governments, whatever else they disagree about, is pretty specific.

  63. Leon — on 1st September, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

    This bit from Tasneems link is interesting and supports my idle speculation of the potential subversive nature of Chavez’ on ME populations:

    An earlier Chavez interview with Al Jazeera had an electric impact on 26 million Arab viewers. It received the station’s largest ever email response — tens of thousands — with the bulk of them posing a simple question: why can’t the Arab world produce a Chavez?

  64. Jagdeep — on 1st September, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

    Thought as Mathhew points out – the history of white oligarchy in Latin America is well known, and a big chunk of this European oligarchy is now Jewish. That’s not anti-semitism – it’s appreciating South American history from a western, anti-colonial perspective

    That stinks in a thousand different ways. I was always sceptical when people talked about how the Left has submitted to an anti-semitic narrative, and how ‘anti-colonial perspectives’ have taken on the old Nazi tropes of nefarious hook nosed Jews pulling the strings of oppression behind the scenes. But the more that it is obvious that this narrative has fused with the Left abetted by large dollops of Islamic extremism, it appears to me to be apparent, and in this respect, part of the left is rancid.

  65. Jagdeep — on 1st September, 2006 at 1:13 pm  

    Yeah I typed that out above rather fast so some of it may be a little, you know, convoluted, but basically I hate the simplicity of these idiots who ascribe every global evil top Jewish influence, and am most disgusted by those who invoke leftists tropes to do so. I expect that from Nazis and Islamic fundamentalists, when the Left does that, they are true scum as far as I’m concerned.

  66. Chairwoman — on 1st September, 2006 at 1:31 pm  

    There are certain regular contributors to this site who are rabid antisemites, but lack the courage to say they hate Jews, but hide behind the net curtains of anti-zionism.

    There are other regular contributors who have problems with the government of the State of Israel, but don’t have problems with Israel per se, or Jews en masse.

    I just wish you antisemites would show your true colours. Your dishonesty is worse than prejudice.

    I won’t be replying to this post, as there really is nothing else to say.

  67. Sid — on 1st September, 2006 at 2:41 pm  

    Chairwoman

    There are blogs that have granted themselves the license to be anti-Muslim and, by extension, racist. Many of these commenters brandish this fashionable anti-Islamic rhetoric to exorcise their own deep-rooted racism that they otherwise have no other outlet for. For many people who frequent such blogs, prejudice against the hook nosed Jew, the lazy nigger and the smelly paki and other such inflexions that represent prejudice against the non-European is swapped for a muddled hatred of Islam as an entity. But the prejudice has taken on pseudo-respectability and given an intellectually legimitised gloss. I’ve never had a problem with racial prejudice unless its institutional, in which case I look on it as a crime worth prosecuting. Over time, I’ve come to accept and even enjoy some of these blogs because they do present a rich vein of ideas to use for my own purposes.

    Ideally, couldn’t we speak against the transgressions of Pakistan or Israel (to take two examples of soveriegn states) without taking all such discussions to the natural anti-paki or antisemitic conclusions? Although, you must admit that the accusations of antisemtism are more likely to be encountered if one criticises Israel than convserse accusations of paki-hatred if one criticises Pakistan. Why is that?

    I almost always value your comments. But by reducing these arguments to personality-based differences and contentions, aren’t we hiding behind our own private net curtains?

    PS You can be my Jewish aunty-ji anyday.

  68. Rowshan — on 1st September, 2006 at 7:06 pm  

    Roger post 62

    ‘poor bloody Syrians’. Sure you didn’t mean any offence but sounds pretty patronising to me, I ain’t even Syrian or from the Middle East.

    Bananabrain 61

    Lots of cruel things happen under the guise of colonialism – Latin America has had its entire civilisation turned upside down over centuries of repression, violation. It’s not fashion that brings us to speak about this – nor is it something that is easy to accept or offer historical apologies for.

  69. Chairwoman — on 1st September, 2006 at 7:24 pm  

    Sid – I know I said I wouldn’t reply, but I was heartened by your comment. Firstly, let me say that one of the things Judaism and Islam have in common is the current feeling of being besieged. Secondly, I have not always been a supporter of the actions of the Israeli government any more than I have of the Government here. Usually I object not on moral or political grounds, but on the sheer futility of the action. For instance, I was against the invasion of Iraq for two reasons, the first one was that I thought it was none of the UK’s business, and the second being that I couldn’t see any reason why western forces were going there at all. Sadam Hussein, though obviously being an extremely unpleasant individual and a cruel and oppressive leader, was no threat to us or the Americans whatsoever, even had he had WOMD concealed about his person. With Israel, well frankly my objections to their policies is that there are a group of people who will use Israel as a stick to beat us with, and I’m tired of it. I can no more influence Ohmert than I can Blair. It’s not my fault. As for ruling the world, and controlling the media, if I was up and about, frankly I’d rather buy a handbag.

    Inevertably I find myself in the position of fighting the corner of policies I’m not committed to. It’s called loyalty. I’m sure a good percentage of Muslims who we see in the media saying they can understand what drives young men to blow themselves up feel the same.

    So here is my absolute opinion on the middle east. I am infuriated by the refusal to negotiate and compromise on both sides. I have always considered myself to be the great facilitator and arbitrator. I have little patience with those who won’t. The trees that survive great winds are those that bend. The others snap or are uprooted. But having said that, I will always support the existence of the State of Israel, and will dispute with anyone who says otherwise. And here’s the reason why: If the State of Israel ceases to be, where shall Katy, Little Brother and I go when the good people of europe decide that it’s time for us non-europeans to get our coats.

  70. Rowshan — on 2nd September, 2006 at 6:14 am  

    Chairwoman

    That’s what other non-Europeans, aside from Jewish people, don’t understand. Why do the Arabs have to pay for the centuries of oppression inflicted on Jewish people by the Europeans?

    But I agree with you – Israel came into existance illegally – but so have lots of nation-states these days – even by sqautters law, Israel has every right to exist. Trouble now is what to do with the other Palestianians who were thrown out by the Israelis and told to get their coats? Isn’t that where the debate is now? The world has indeed moved on from 1948 and the ravishes of the Second World War.

  71. Roger — on 2nd September, 2006 at 7:55 am  

    Rowshan: “‘poor bloody Syrians’. Sure you didn’t mean any offence but sounds pretty patronising to me, I ain’t even Syrian or from the Middle East. ”

    I didn’t say you were. The term is an adaptation of “poor bloody infantry”. The Syrians will probably face similar casualties when they try to get rid of their present government, but it’s their problem. I’m glad you agree with the rest of my post.

    “Why do the Arabs have to pay for the centuries of oppression inflicted on Jewish people by the Europeans?
    …Trouble now is what to do with the other Palestianians who were thrown out by the Israelis and told to get their coats?”
    Actually, the largest part of the population of Israel is “Oriental” jews- people who were thrown out of or fled persecution in the arab states in the 1950s. They are also statistically the ones who most bitterly oppose concessions to the Palestinians and vote for parties that reflect their views.
    The arab countries concerned confiscated their property without compensation- rather as Israel acquired land- so the logical solution would be a population exchange; to move displaced Palestinians into the places that jews fled and give them the property left behind. The big problem there is that the countries and peoples concerned would be rather reluctant to abandon their spoils and- arab or not- would not accept the newcomers as citizens. It’s one of the big problems of the arab countries, that they have massive populations of long-resident hereditary non-citizens- especially, of course, the wealthier states.

  72. Chris Stiles — on 2nd September, 2006 at 11:06 am  


    why can’t the Arab world produce a Chavez?

    They did. He was called Nasser.

  73. Rowshan — on 2nd September, 2006 at 11:46 am  

    Roger I didn’t say I agreed with the rest of your post. Just didn’t think it was worth debating with you.

  74. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 12:45 pm  

    Rowshan – If you feel that the a vote by the United Nations in 1948 proclaiming the inception of The State of Israel was illegal, then I assume that you consider all resolutions passed by that body are illegal too.

    As for the Palestinians who lost property at that time, they should be financially compensated. I think that the value of the property in 1948, plus compound interest accrued over the last 58 years should help ease their grief and discomfort, and enable them to start anew. As to who should pay it; why not the United Nations as they were ultimately responsible. It would be good to see them do something other than keep their officials in the style to which we would all like to be accustomed for a change.Those who left of their own volition, ie., who trusted their leaders to throw the Jews into the sea should not be compensated. Those who were actually evicted by Israeli troops and/or government officials obviously should be. Perhaps there should be compensation for distress built into those claims too.

  75. David T — on 2nd September, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

    I thought every Jewish person is an honorary citizen of the state of Israel – so every Jewish person now has a home after the creation of Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Europe offered it’s historical apology to the Holocaust by supporting the state of Israel despite its illegality, and subsequently aided, Israel into becoming the 2rd or 3rd largest nuclear superpower in the world – though un-declared. I don’t think Jewish people now have much reason to feel persecuated – or feel that they need to cling onto a home – there are more Israeli Jews residing in New York than in Israel. To claim otherwise is to cling to an out-dated victim mentality.

    Muslims, on the otherhand, have probably never been in a position of weakness – until now that is. Historically the Islamic world has happily foised itself on the world from a position of power – but since the decline of the Ottomans, it’s finding it difficult to know how to react, positin, advocate from a victim position. It will take some time, I guess, before the Islamic world deals with this new geo-political reality – which incidently isn’t just about the US.

    Victims can also be aggressors, often more so, – this is the hardest pill to swallow, it seems.

  76. Sajn — on 2nd September, 2006 at 1:03 pm  

    The UN in 1948 had no right to give away that which did not belong to them.

    The UN in 2006 should not be held liable for compensating those made refugees in 1948. Compensation should be paid by those that were responsible for driving the refugees out of their homes.

  77. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 1:14 pm  

    David T – you’ve half got my point. Yes we Jews are safe, but only as long as there is the State of Israel. For, trust me, the white europeans will get fed up with the rest of us, particularly when they have the cheap and virtually problem free white labour from Eastern Europe, comfortably esconced here. No Israel? When the rest of us ‘go back where we came from’ there would be nowhere for the Jews to go. Paranoid? Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. BTW I think there are now more Jews in Israel than in New York, although that has only recently come about.

    Yes, Muslims probably are feeling the pinch so to speak, at the moment, but as I have said for years to anyone who will listen, and here on PP, though no-one took it up here either, IF MUSLIMS STOPPED MAKING WAR WITH ISRAEL THEIR PRIORITY AND MADE PEACE WITH ISRAEL, IT COULD BE A GOLDEN AGE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST. WITH PEACE WOULD COME FULL DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC TIES. WITH FULL ECONOMIC AND DIPLOMATIC TIES, WITH THE INTERCHANGE OF COMMERCE, IDEAS, SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY, A UNITED MIDDLE EAST COULD RAPIDLY BECOME A MAJOR POWER PLAYER IN THE WORLD. But would the West, or even the East actually want that? I doubt it. Is anyone/country/organisation doing anything that would actually promote a real and lasting peace? NO! For years the USA and USSR used the Arabs and Israelis as proxies to warm up the cold war for them. So still victims? I think so, both of us, although not in the way you meant it.

  78. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 1:20 pm  

    Sajn – if the rest of the world, as the UN, had no right to give away what wasn’t theirs, then there is no obligation on any country to abide by their resolutions. You can’t have it all ways.

    Goodness you lot exasperate me! Progressive generation? You are the most reactionary bunch I’ve ever had contact with. Change the world? I’m surprised you can change your own underwear!

  79. Bert Preast — on 2nd September, 2006 at 1:33 pm  

    I suspect that in 1948 nobody expected Israel to last more than a few weeks, and then that would have been that, problem solved.

    Unfortunately the Israelis turned out to be far braver and more aggressive than anyone could have imagined, considering what had happened to their people over the preceeding 15 years or so.

    And know still nobody knows what to do about it. Got to hand it to ‘em, well played Israel.

  80. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

    Bert Preast – Excellent point.

  81. Rowshan — on 2nd September, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

    chairwoman

    Israel was proclaimed unilaterally as a Jewish state by a group of out-lawed terrorists – Ben Gurion and his out-lawed bandits ( out-lawed by the Brits in their colonial role as protector of the UN mandate); the Zionists then clamoured behind to support the fledging declaratin, behind Ben Gurion, and then there was a war as you know, and then UN stepped in to declare it a state in 1948, hence i have no quibbles with its legality now, but when Irgun declared it an independent state – most moderate Jews in Palestine were just as surprised.

    As to the point about compensation. Most Palestianians who lost their land – rightly – should refuse to be sold off to justify their eviction. I wouldn’t take any compension from anyone for evicting me – even if its a neutral arbitrator like the UN ( which incidently we shouldn’t bash…).

    Home is more than just about financial compensation, as everyone understands, especially for those for whom homeland means more than just territorial boundaries, I think most Zionists would happily agree with this. By accepting money the Palestians would give up their claims to their land and the Israelis from day one sought this as their first strategy – eviction by financial means but the Palestinians aren’t buying it.

    As the UN subsequently sanctined Israel’s existance in the name of peace, it’s status is sacrosanct.

  82. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    Rowshan – I’m sorry to disagree with you, and I don’t know how old you are, but as someone pretty much the same age as Israel, I have learnt a whole lot of things that I would not have believed under 40, and don’t forget, the diposessed are older than I am. Some of things seem facile, but that doesn’t make them less true. Before I talk about these, please understand this, Israel is not going to disappear, the Palestinians are not going to get their property back any more than the Jews got their property all overEurope back. When you say that they won’t accept compensation, what you are really saying is that their governments won’t accept compensation on their behalf.Should you actually be able to talk to the man in the street, without a government, or liberation group watchdog at his side, and without fear of recrimination from either, you would probably find that things are different. For what you are saying, with your idealistic rhetoric, is that Palestinians are fools, and I’m sorry, but they most certainly aren’t. They are far too wise and pragmatic to think that living in squalor, with no future for their children, in the hope that some ephemeral time in the future they may get something back that the majority of them can’t remember (I am sure their time to return will come, but only when there is true peace and understanding in the middle east, and that won’t happen for a long time, even were treaties signed tomorrow). I am sure that if you asked them individually, the majority of them would like to be compensated now, so that they can break out of this ‘poor Palestinians’ mould that they have been forced into.

    So what are these facile things that I have learned? Well, firstly 100 o/o of nothing is still nothing, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    Yes they are indeed victims. Victims of circumstance, victims of their ‘leaders’, victims of their ‘supporters’. Don’t make them the victims of what you think should be best for them.

    By the way, read about the Balfour Declaration.

  83. Sunny — on 2nd September, 2006 at 2:47 pm  

    Oh for God’s sake. Are we still going over that ‘Israel is illegal’ rubbish?

  84. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 3:05 pm  

    Sunny – my peaceful solutions are always rejected here. I don’t know why I bother.

    Yes actually I do, I hope that if I keep plugging away, I’ll bring some people round to my way of thinking and start a groundswell of opinion that might actually influence those with influence. Cynic that I am, I still hope, for that truly is the human condition.

  85. David T — on 2nd September, 2006 at 3:52 pm  

    Incidentally, the David T post at 2nd September, 2006 at 12:51 pm is not me.

    I do wish people would make a point of not using names used by other posters in this forum. It makes it confusing for other people

    (the original no 1. old skool David T)

  86. Rowshan@hotmail.com — on 2nd September, 2006 at 4:52 pm  

    Chairwoman

    The Palestinians aren’t fools which is why they’re not taking the money that’s on offer. You can’t buy people off through compensation.

    I think you mis-understand. People who point to the injusticies in Israeli policies or look at the origins of Israel do not wish Isreal to disappear. You yourself made these points in one of your posts. I totally agree with you that Israel isn’t about to disappear, not in the least because it has all those nukes. Nor do I want Israel to disappear. The point I was making that Israel was a created illegally but subsequently given recognition through the new fledging state’s own ability to withstand the Arab nations and then gain approval from the UN. If its legality wasn’t an issue in 1948 when Ben Gurion delcared an independent states as the Brits were pulling out of Palestine desperately due to the terrorism of Zionists- there would’ve been no need for the UN to rubber stump its authority, right. This is not to say that Israel is illegal today. But it was created illegally by Irgen, the Stern Gang etc, fanned by the inconsistencies of British policy which was playing to both Arab and Jewish whim depending on whose supported was needed in the jostle for geo-political moves pre-1948. Israel’s legality is now, as I say, part of the international architecture.

    Age is nothing but a number… I could be older than you, or younger , doesn’t matter either way. When we try and persuade others of our arguments we shouldn’t assume they are younger – when others speak with emotion, we shouldn’t assume they speak with idealism. The fact that many Palestinians would reject compensation is the most pragmatic way to hold onto their rights to Palestine.

    The Balfour Declaration is indeed what caused the mayhem in the Israel/Occupied Territories. I don’t disagree with you there – but it was one of other conflicting British policy statements at the time (the other being a promise for Palestine to be Arab, no less). Right or wrong, that’s what I was taught at a British university.

    There were also proposals for a Jewish homeland in South America. Point is the idea of a Jewish homeland wasn’t always restricted to the Palestine mandate – other options were considered and in from the 1880s onwards through to 1914 the Zionists were split on where …

    But all this is history and we are where we are : the way forward is no doubt a two state solution with no illegal occupation of borders. That would be nice.

  87. Rowshan — on 2nd September, 2006 at 4:54 pm  

    Ooops – didn’t mean to write me full ID – sorry all.

  88. Tahir — on 2nd September, 2006 at 6:10 pm  

    David T

    You talk about the Islamic world as if it exists as a thing – it can’t – so many countries, competing loyalties, there is no Islamic world anymore than there is a Christain world

    T

  89. Chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2006 at 6:13 pm  

    Rowshan – I am fully in agreement with a two state solution. The main problem is neither of the protagonists are prepared to sit down with each other. When the Palestinian electorate, fed up with their representatives lack of action in all areas, elected Hammas, I think they hoped that they would be more pragmatic and ease up on the rhetoric. Nobody understands their surprise more than I, as one who elected Tony Blair expecting socialist policies. But ease up they must, for there is barely an administration in the world, I have made allowances for the French and Spanish, who would sit down with people whos avowed aim is their destruction.

    As for the nuclear weapons, my co-religionists may be stubborn, stiff-necked, and frequently shoot themselves in the foot, but I doubt that they would poo on their own doorstep, and that’s what would happen if they used
    the damn things.

    Finally, as I’ve said on previous posts, when european Jews first went to ‘Zion’ in the 19th century, the aim was just to purchase land and live in the land of the Bible. There was no intent to build a Jewish state there.

    I’m going to do Sunny a favour now and leave this alone. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

  90. Amir — on 2nd September, 2006 at 7:22 pm  

    Chairwoman,

    I’m surprised you can change your own underwear!

    I can’t. It’s very annoying. But now, at least, I can incubate my own cheese! The environmental conditions down below are perfect :-)

  91. Amir — on 2nd September, 2006 at 7:25 pm  

    Two David T’s…?

    Good T vs. Evil T

    Let the battle commence!

  92. David T — on 2nd September, 2006 at 7:45 pm  

    David T

    You talk about the Islamic world as if it exists as a thing – it can’t – so many countries, competing loyalties, there is no Islamic world anymore than there is a Christain world

    That, broadly speaking, is my view too. I’m not an essentialist when it comes to individuals, communities, or nations.

  93. Bert Preast — on 2nd September, 2006 at 8:35 pm  

    It sounds like cods to me. There is no christian world, but there is a secular world.

  94. Chairwoman — on 3rd September, 2006 at 12:07 pm  

    Amir – speechless but grinning!

  95. Tahir — on 4th September, 2006 at 12:36 am  

    Chairwoman

    Oddly enough there is more to the Islamic world than just coping with Israel.

    David other T

    While some are just lazy with language it seems our chairwoman has beaten us all with essentialist language – East, West??? hmmm… There is no East or West or Clashes of Civilisations…Just figments of our geographical imagination. There is no Middle East, either come to think of it, but perhaps someone more learned has pointed that out for us .

  96. Chairwoman — on 4th September, 2006 at 9:45 am  

    Tahir – You wouldn’t think so to read comments on this site and others though, would you. The same, of course, applies to Jews, but it seems that others outside of our communities see us as one trick ponies, and we oblige them by continuing to perform that trick.

    East and West are of course points of refernce. I could have described them differently, but it would have taken a very long time, and would have been even more boring. Incidentally, I have been irritated by the phrase ‘Middle East’ for a very long time, as it doesn’t actually mean anything (equalled only by the Americans ‘Mid West’).

  97. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 10:04 am  

    Oh for God’s sake. Are we still going over that ‘Israel is illegal’ rubbish?

    Apparently so…

  98. Chairwoman — on 4th September, 2006 at 11:25 am  

    Leon – actually, no. I suggest you read what Tahir said, and my reply to him.

  99. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 11:35 am  

    You mean your exchange AFTER Sunnys comment about the possible direction this was going (and my agreement with his statement)?

  100. Chairwoman — on 4th September, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

    Check out my 89 where I said I was going to leave it alone, and I did. My dialogue with Tahir was NOT about the legality or otherwise of Israel, but a comment on others’ opinions, also on the bizarre namings of geographical regions.

  101. Katy Newton — on 4th September, 2006 at 1:29 pm  

    Leon, it wasn’t the Chairwoman who raised Judaism or antisemitism on this thread in the first place. The person who next raised Israel after Sunny’s comment was Rowshan, not the Chairwoman, who then said that she was going to leave the question of Israel alone, and has, apart from agreeing with Tahir’s point about Islam having more concerns than just coping with Israel.

  102. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 1:41 pm  

    You two twins or something!?

    Chairwoman, point taken and I stand corrected, happy now are the both of you?

  103. Katy Newton — on 4th September, 2006 at 2:52 pm  

    I do love a graceful retraction, Leon.

  104. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 3:03 pm  

    LOL! I gave up grace along with catholicism a long long time ago…

  105. Katy — on 4th September, 2006 at 3:06 pm  

    I never pegged you for a (lapsed) Catholic boy!

    *offers large helping of Jewish guilt*

    You’ll never know the difference. Honestly.

  106. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 3:18 pm  

    Yeah, I was a real Catholic boy too, church every sunday, prayed every night, alter server from aged 8 (by 10 I was trained enough to run a whole mass if the priest didn’t make it in), was seriously considering the priesthood etc. I can see the nods of “ahhh that explains it” now!;)

    And yeah I know about guilt (Bill Hicks said it best about the twin fangs of Guilt and Sin)…

  107. Chairwoman — on 4th September, 2006 at 4:19 pm  

    Leon – You sound just like the Chairman now. He too had rejected the Holy Roman Church and all her works.

  108. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 4:22 pm  

    The who?

  109. Chairwoman — on 4th September, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

    My late husband.

  110. Leon — on 4th September, 2006 at 4:28 pm  

    Oh right. Reject is too strong a word now I guess (although in my teenage years I was very hardline against religion). It simply doesn’t resonate with me.

  111. Tasneem — on 7th September, 2006 at 10:38 am  

    Here goes an interesting one on a bolivarian experiment changing the economic landscape in Venezuela:

    http://www.iwrnews.org/tasneem/archives/venezuela-co-op-revolution

  112. Leon — on 7th September, 2006 at 10:39 am  

    Cheers for that, read your other piece about him with interest too.

  113. Tasneem — on 7th September, 2006 at 11:15 am  

    Thanks man ;-)

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.