Delicious Hypocrisy By Chillean Politician of Palestinian Background ...

[Reffo]

Chilean senator's comments about Jews spark outrage

Lawmaker calls member of local Jewish community "activist and militant for the Israeli cause," holding back Chile's recognition of Palestinian state.

The American Jewish Committee issued the statement expressing outrage over remarks by Chilean Senator Eugenio Tuma, who said the country's Jewish community was responsible for holding back the country's recognition of a Palestinian state.

“Of course, there is an obvious irony to Senator Tuma's posture. As a Chilean of Palestinian origin, he deems it entirely appropriate to take up the Palestinian cause and press it in the corridors of Chilean power. Yet he questions the right of a Chilean Jew, like Mr. Zaliasnik, to affirm his belief in what's best for Chile's national interest,” said Harris.

What delicious hypocrisy by the good senator who himself is of Palestinian origin. How typical of their overall attitude. Preaching water and drinking wine ...

watOn, you are from Chille, can you give us some additional insight?

[Reffo]

I love the delicious irony of this one too ....

The recent topic of the Doha Debates was "Arabs say education pointless without free speech". Eventually the side which argued FOR the proposition won by a narrow majority. Both sides made much of the fact that they SUPPORT free speech, the need to have an open mind and to question everything and not just accept dogma and official lines at face value. The main difference between them was that the pro side emphasised the lack of quality of education that goes without free speech while the anti side tried to separate the topic of "education" from the topic of "free speech". They said that education in itself is of value, WITH or WITHOUT free speech, the idea of which they too supported.

Imagine my surprise though that neither side dared to question the questioner who inevitably HAD to bring Israel and "Apartheid in Israel" into the discussion. Had they really believed in what they were preaching, they should have asked the questioner, who was Iraqi by the way, whether he has been to Israel? Has he actually seen Apartheid in Israel? Or is he just repeating dogma, because he heard it from the likes of Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu?

They might have also asked him about Apartheid in Iraq where Sunni murders Shia and Shia murders Sunni and BOTH murder Christians (and the last bit is true in various other Muslim countries too (like Egypt, Pakistan and Lebanon to name a few ...). They might have asked him what he is doing about it.

Of course none of the debaters asked him all those questions or at the least suggested that he should do his OWN investigations before making unsubstantiated political claims just because he heard some authority figures peddling THEIR ideological spin about Israel.

So much for the free speech and the questioning attitude that they advocated that BOTH sides of the debaters professed to support, NOT when it comes to official DOGMA about Israel though, go figure ....

[wat0n]

Odd, this didn't appear in Chilean press. I have seen other similar declarations made by some prominent Chilean-Palestinians, but the Jewish community usually ignores them, since it doesn't want to import the conflict here (something that I think most Chilean-Arabs agree with).

[Kachah]

How ironic: Pinochet's Chile would never attempt such open anti-Semitic position (neither would Franco's Spain). Recognizing this false statehood and supporting Abbas' clique has only been made possible by democracy. Too early for it in these countries?

[Mediocrates]

A Chilean of Palestinian origin, is, according to UNRWA, a refugee. I highly recommend the Senator repatriate himself to Palestine immediately

[wat0n]

Most Chilean-Palestinians arrived here before the Independence War, so they aren't refugees. Also, they tend to be Christian or atheist/agnostic so while they may support the Palestinian cause, I highly doubt you will see them massively moving to the Middle East.

[Mediocrates]

How did they choose Chile in the early 1940's?

[wat0n]

How did they choose Chile in the early 1940's?

Most of them arrived way before, circa 1900 (before WWI), getting out of the decadent Ottoman Empire. In fact, when they first arrived people called them "Turks" because they had Turkish passports (and they weren't treated well, they faced discrimination at the beginning). I don't know why they chose Chile or if they even chose Chile (my family from the Jewish side came fleeing Russia around the same years. They just got into the first ship they could find and arrived in Argentina, they didn't like it and moved to Chile to see if they could start new lives here. They could've ended up in America for that matter - Perhaps the Arabs who arrived here went through a similar process).

If I'm not mistaken there was another migration to Chile around 1929 due to the economic crisis in the Mandate, and then there was another smaller migration due to the Independence War. Either way, I remember reading that over 80% of the Chilean Palestinian families arrived here before 1930.

[Kachah]

So how come they haven't yet declared Chile the historic homeland of the Palestinian people with the capital in East Santiago?