Galloway in Damascus

Comments

1. 

   November 16, 2005

   dearieme

   Full courtesies, please. It was the Ba’ath Socialist party.

   Reply
2. 

   November 17, 2005

   Professor Froward

   What’s creepy about this is that it isn’t left-wing cant from somebody who kids himself into thinking bin Laden is an anti-globalist hippie; it’s genuine Arab nationalist cant from somebody who knows the score. He’s not a “useful idiot”.
   Dig the bit about the UN report blaming the Hariri assassination on Damascus: It’s all a frame-up!
   Deeply weird stuff:
   “When Hitler was on the French coast and my country stood alone, when the Americans were watching the war on television before they joined it…”
   Television in 1941? Yes, it was developed in the late ’30s, but nobody had one. The rhetorical manner could be a translation artifact, but the airily mythical sense of historical fact isn’t. This is Arab nationalist rhetoric from the ground up.
   He’s selling Nasser’s old product line, too:
   “What your lives would be if from the Atlantic to the Gulf we had one Arab union – … The Arabs would be a superpower in the world if they had this unity, instead of the shameful situation in which the Arabs find themselves today.”
   “I say to you, citizens of the last Arab country, this is a time for courage, for unity, for wisdom, for determination, to face these enemies with the dignity your president has shown, and I believe, God willing, we will prevail and triumph, fwa-salam aleikum.”
   “We”, forsooth!
   What is his game? The tantrum in the Senate was just dumb, but when he’s playing down in his own league he’s kinda interesting. He’s got an eye on the main chance, I’m sure, but which one? What’s in it for George? Is he just playing to the Muslim vote at home? Does he actually believe this crap, in some complicated sense? Does he think the average Syrian in the street isn’t writing this stuff off as just another pile of Ba’athist bullshit?
   Remember him howling in Damascus earlier this year about how the Crusaders were raping the Arabs’ “daughters”, Jerusalem and Baghdad? He’s not crazy; he’s a politician. Maybe this is where the left is heading. Maybe it’s the next big fad.
   I don’t think he’s positioning himself for the Muslim takeover of Europe or the UK; the worst case on that (“worst” from my point of view, anyhow) is quite a few decades off. And if he really wanted so badly to sell to that market, wouldn’t he convert? The SWP wouldn’t hold it against him, would they?

   Reply
3. 

   November 17, 2005

   P. Froward

   Actually, never mind: It was probably translated into Arabic first and then back into English, so heaven only knows what he actually said.

   Reply
4. 

   November 17, 2005

   Mick H

   You can hear what he’s saying on the video clip. As far as I can tell the transcription’s accurate, though I haven’t done a detailed check.

   Reply
5. 

   November 17, 2005

   dearieme

   “Television in 1941? Yes, it was developed in the late ’30s, but nobody had one”.
   The beeb did broadcasts before the war, I believe, so presumably a few Londoners had one.

   Reply
6. 

   November 17, 2005

   P. Froward

   They did?! Well, there you go. Probably it was all a load of biased crap, though. Did you ever notice how many people on the BBC have British accents? Far too many to be a coincidence. There’s something fishy going on there, mark my words.

   Reply
7. 

   November 18, 2005

   Mick H

   There’s certainly something fishy in the number of people on the BBC who have middle class accents. I doubt if there’s anyone on Radio 3 or 4, for instance, who isn’t Oxbridge.

   Reply