chicot

You don't regard the West trying to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria as dangerous? I think world war III may do quite a bit to blow up your foundation and it might not be all that reversible either.

This is a curious form of debate. Rather than stating exactly what you mean, you hint at things and expect me to guess where you're coming from. If I guess wrong you can say that wasn't what you meant or "aha, you don't know your history after all". I'll guess that you're trying to imply that the reason that the "attention is only on Israel" is due to anti-semitism. If there really is no case against Israel and it only gets so much criticism due to anti-semitism, then why are there so many Jewish critics of Israeli policy? As for there being a problem with Jews in the holy land, Jews and Muslims have lived together in the holy land prior to the advent of Zionism in relative peace, certainly far more peacefully than did the Jews and Christians in Europe over the same period. Take a look at some of the early Zionist literature. When you have a group coming from outside, saying that you are inferior, have no rights to the land on which your people have lived for generations and making no attempt to hide the fact that they mean to displace your from your homeland, it's really unlikely to go down too well.

Actually I know my history pretty well but I explained why I believed the histories of Syria and Jordan were not relevant, therefore the onus was on you to explain their relevance. As for why the Palestinians in question left the land that is now Israel, that is a matter of dispute. I very much doubt that what I believe is the same as what you believe and as neither of us was actually there at the time we will have to agree to disagree. What could have happened in an alternate universe doesn't really get us anywhere. Like it or not, we have to deal with the universe that we live in. Do you really believe that slaughtering Gazans by the thousand is actually going to improve Israel's security?

Well, enlighten me then.

I am not talking about people who left the land that is now Syria or Jordan. I am talking about people who were made refugees in the chaos that followed the creation of Israeli. As such, they have the right of return. As the people I am referring to did not come from the lands now making the present-day states of Syria or Jordan, the "long histories of the great nations of Syria and Jordan" are entirely irrelevant.

I would argue that those who lost their homes as a result of the creation of the state of Israel or are their descendents have a considerably greater claim to Israeli residence and citizenship than in any random Arab nation.

I am by no means an expert but I think there is some question of whether Jews are a race, religion or both. Still, if you prefer it I will label it "religious majority" instead. Whatever you want to call it, my reply to Tom stands - full citizenship of Israel is not and has never been on offer to all Palestinians. Would you dispute that?

Garbage. Some Palestinians have Israeli citizenship but that is something that has never been offered to Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank (nor to the wider Palestinian diaspora) as doing so would interfere with the racial purity of the Jewish state.

Liverpool, UK. I think he is from the deep south but for some reason he's been over here for years.

I've met Earnie Shavers. He nows works the door in bars in Liverpool (my hometown). Even though he's well into his sixties he still looks like a dude you really would not want to mess with.

So you think Tyson was a harder puncher than Foreman? I think that's a pretty hard call to make. Foreman absolutely destroyed Frazier and Norton and I'd say they were both way better than any of the chumps Tyson was knocking out.

The thing is the EDL and their ilk have been around in various guises long before radical Islam became a problem. Not to put too fine a point on it, these people are morons and they have to have someone else to blame their problems on rather than look in the mirror. In the past, they would hate ethnic minorities for various reasons such as taking their jobs, getting earlier access to social housing ...etc. Now that people are (rightfully) concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism they have made that their cause celebre rather than their usual bs. Don't be fooled though - even if there was no problem with radical Islam, they would find some other stick (both metaphorical and literal in some cases) with which to beat Johnny Foreigner. There's rational and valid ways to respond to this atrocity. Some sort of inter-communal march to show that we are all opposed to this would be a valid response. Throwing bottles at the police and trying to incite racial hatred is neither valid nor rational.

I'd have no problem with going down the lawsuite route but I suspect (though I'm certainly no law expert) that it would be next to impossible to make anything stick.

The EDL are ignorant racist thugs who need very little excuse to "protest". Their reasoned response to this atrocity was to throw bottles at the police. Thankfully they have very little popular support over here.

Alive but shot in the throat so he can't speak. Very convenient

I'm just down the road from your buddy in Manchester - I live in Liverpool. No, skimping is definitely not enough in a resource-rich country but it beats the hell out of starving. In 1999, 23% of the population were in extreme poverty. Not just poverty, but extreme poverty. That almost 1 in 4 were living in that condition in a country with one of the largest oil-reserves in the world is an absolute obscenity. Chavez was a reaction to what came before him. Despite his faults (and he had plenty) he did manage to improve the lives of those in most need. Moreover, he has changed the political landscape. No Venezuelan political party will ever again ignore the poor like they did in the past and that has to be a good thing.

The only thing I got wrong was in assuming the esteemed Mr Brewer was an exile. Ok, he's not - I'll give you that. Doesn't change that the only source for this $2 billion claim that you presented in your post as fact seems to be this "CJIA" organisation" (every mention of the $2 billion I've found links back to the CJIA). Sorry, but I don't regard a single, unsubstantiated report by some obscure organisation as an open and shut case. My spin on his motives for constitional change? Sorry, no spin. I agree that the motivation was to retain power and I disagree with it. As the same time, I think calling it an "utter and perverse abuse of power" is going over the top. It wasn't as if the changes were made solely by presidential decree - they were voted on in a referendum and approved. The majority of the media in Venezuela is anti- rather than pro-Chavez. http://venezuelablog.tumblr.com/post/32935872987/media-bias-in-venezuela No, I don't dispute that there have been accusations of corruption and nepotism against Chavez, but what of it? The man had god-knows how many enemies and I have no way of knowing whether the charges are genuine or politically-motivated. I very much doubt that you do either. I'm not embarrassed in the slightest. In fact, I would be embarrassed if I had to resort to the rude, pompous and arrogant tone you used in this or later posts. You may imagine calling people twits, morons, accusing them of "talking out of their ass" ...etc helps make your point but I really doubt it.

I'm not saying that his policies were necessarily sustainable or promote steady growth. What I am saying is that if you are living in abject poverty then the latest growth figure is of somewhat abstract importance and your immediate living conditions are of somewhat greater concern.

The people themselves endorse it. Who am I to tell them that I know better than they do what they need?

Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living.

Thank you for your well-informed and reasoned contribution to this debate.

Sorry, but I give the poor a bit more credit than you do. They know whether they are starving or not, whether they are receiving healthcare or not, whether they have access to education or not. Yes, he amended the constitution. So what? Constitution's are not actually set in stone, to remain immutable for all eternity (being from the US, I realize you'd have difficulty with that concept ). The change was voted on and passed. It's also worth remembering that despite his curbs on the media, most of the media was extremely hostile to Chavez for the whole of his presidency. Yet, he won elections in spite of this. As for this 2 billion dollars claim, find me a credible source (sorry but dubious Miami-based exiles do not count) and I'll believe it. Until then I'll regard it as propaganda and utter garbage.

I'm guessing that you would include Chavez himself in your list of "regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor". If so, you're on pretty shaky ground. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Chavez such as mismanaging the economy or his embrace of more or less anyone as long as they were an enemy of the US. However, not improving the conditions of the poor of Venezuela is not one of them and that is something that even most of his critics grudgingly accept. By more or less any measure you care to use the Venezuelan poor are far better off than before Chavez took over. Inequality is now the lowest in South America, poverty has been reduced from 70% to 21% and extreme poverty from 40% to 7.3%. The thousands of Cuban doctors brought in have given free healthcare to thousands who previously had virtually no access to healthcare. Illiteracy has been virtually eliminated. These are very real achievements. Yes, you can argue they may not be sustainable or that things could have been done in a more efficient way, but I think it's pretty difficult to deny their existence all together. And who is in a better situation to judge whether or not their conditions have improved than the Venezuelan poor themselves? They have given their answer by voting for Chavez again and again and again. How do you account for that?

What changes do you expect to result from his death that will beneficial to either?

Not particularly. I didn't know the man personally so it doesn't have that much effect on me.