Dear Editor,
So according to your editorial of Sunday, June 28, the Latin states involved in Alba “are all socialist in orientation” and by implication our Caricom countries are all ‘free’ and democratic, ie, we all follow a free market, neo-liberal system graciously bestowed on us by a benign colonial history, God and America. Our future interests obviously lie in continuing down such a path under the illustrious gaze of Obama, whose administration continues an illegal trade boycott of Cuba; the occupation of Afghanistan with the concomitant death of civilians by drones and torture at Bagram; support for brutal undemocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; of course its friend Israel with its disgusting and racist suppression and occupation of Palestinian land on the West Bank, but no recognition of Hamas after they had democratically won an election! (the EU also refused to recognise a democratically elected government in occupied Palestine); and old dodgy CIA groupings such as the OAS. Our future interests according to the editorial are away from ‘greedy’ madmen like Chávez who, with his imaginary take-over of territory has not yet demonstrated a predilection for murder, torture and occupation like our ‘democratic’ freedom-loving western friends and their practice of selective humanity. Perhaps, Chávez in time will create an international organisation like the CIA?
Guyana has a rich political history so please don’t insult our intelligence with this cold-war style paranoia.
Yours faithfully,
Henry Horton
Editor’s note
Much of what Mr Horton claims follows from what was said in the editorial was neither stated nor implied in the leader in question. The issue partly concerned the incompatability of the socialist principles underpinning Alba with what was enunciated in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, and the fact that the membership of Dominica et al in the organization would likely undermine Caricom. With respect to Venezuela’s greed in the region (this goes back well before Mr Chávez’s time although he has not changed direction where this is concerned), this has been amply demonstrated over the years, not least by the spurious claim to ⅝ of Guyana’s territory, and the stymieing of this country’s efforts to develop it both by Mr Chávez and his predecessors.
Mr.Horton has cited some very relevant facts to support his theory ! especially as it relates to the legally elected Hamas ! and the modes of the “ukranian jews” who now occupy lands that is/was never theirs and will never be ,, as long as the Palestinians exist ,, hence the volatility of the middle east !
Weeeel, Venezuela has claimed Dishikobo but has never invaded it. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, has never claimed certain places, yet he invaded and took them over.
…. Patriot 1 what would it benefit Uncle Sam to invade and take over GUYANA ?????????????????????????????? tho ,, it may be a “divine intervention” that could possibly be the answer to the continuation of a GUYANESE society relative to what’s unfolding on the ground now ,,, in our motherland !
r u a Patriot indeed ??????????????????????????????????????????
i’m tuggin at yuh elbow….
Please stay off the drugs,better the devil you know than the devil you don’t
Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist – even within its pre-1967 borders. As soon as Hamas corrects this error, it will be recognised by the USA and the European Union.
At the Camp David summit in 2000, Arafat was offered the whole of the West Bank, the whole of the Gaza Strip and the whole of East Jerusalem. He refused. Ehud Barak, the then Israeli prime minister, was soundly defeated at the next Israeli general election, and a hardline Likud government was elected instead.
All that Arafat succeeded in doing was persuading a large section of the Israeli electorate that there was no point in making concessions to the Palestinians. History will judge him harshly.
Adam ! as a fellow JEW ,, — tho ,, not a practising JEW — i have to say in defence of the Camp David summit ,, led by my friend ,, the indomitable Bill Clinton ,, that ,, ur 3 paragraphs does not in any way give “justice” to ur claims !
the time spent at Camp David — in my back yard — is way much more dan juss 3 paragraphs ,, to judge Arafat !…. it is hardly worth mention to believe a man like Arafat would refuse justifiable concessions ,, for which he has been fighting for ,,, most of his adult life ,, if not b4 ??????????????????
Mr Tannassee has misunderstood what I was trying to say, although (having just reread my earlier post) I think that it’s largely my fault.
I didn’t mean to imply that Arafat refused each individual concession. It was the whole package of concessions which he rejected, because there were not enough of them!
Arafat was after one more concession – that every “Palestinian” born in what is now Israel (and all of their descendants) should have the right to return to their place of birth. No Israeli government will ever agree to that.
Negotiation involves both sides making concessions, not just one.
Adam ,,, negotiations of this ,, that is fueling iran’s push to have nuclear weapons which will ultimately be the equaliser in the region .. is the reason WHY israel should ,, in combination to concessions for peace ,, — their snake tongued mantra –
should also think of COMPROMISE !…..