George Galloway being a cocksocket again
Discussion
My guess would be that the other fella was running rings round George in the debate! 
I've spoken to a few guys from Isreal over the years. They are usually well educated and well indoctrinated by the state they grew up in with plenty of justification for their country's actions and mitigation for their treamtment of the Palestinians. And although they seem to project a very gentle and placid viewpoint, it's obvious that as a nation they ain't gonna take no s
t or bend to anyone else's will whilst persuing their own agenda.
A bit like politicians in a way, which probably explains why George couldn't handle it; out politicianed by a young whipper-snapper Israel.
I've spoken to a few guys from Isreal over the years. They are usually well educated and well indoctrinated by the state they grew up in with plenty of justification for their country's actions and mitigation for their treamtment of the Palestinians. And although they seem to project a very gentle and placid viewpoint, it's obvious that as a nation they ain't gonna take no s
t or bend to anyone else's will whilst persuing their own agenda.A bit like politicians in a way, which probably explains why George couldn't handle it; out politicianed by a young whipper-snapper Israel.
Piersman2 said:
I've spoken to a few guys from Isreal over the years. They are usually well educated and well indoctrinated by the state they grew up in with plenty of justification for their country's actions and mitigation for their treamtment of the Palestinians.
Maybe you have discovered why he doesn't bother? It depends on his reasons... If he doesn't recognise Israel, then why should he bother with someone who you state has been armed with their indoctrination? Dawkins gets the same grief because he will not debate people whose only qualification is that they are a creationist. He flatly refuses to debate them. Maybe it is a similar thing?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
the_lone_wolf said:
TheHeretic said:
Come on, folks let's keep things in perspective.
This^^Nice to see someone standing up for their moral values - It's not like he's out there blowing up buses in Tel Aviv or dropping phosphorous bombs on the civilian population in Gaza...
I also don't see how refusing to debate with an Israeli is either racism or anti-semitism...
Ok, so Galloway has stopped short of saying they should be wiped out, but same thing applies....what 'action' have Iran taken against Israel? Yet the whole international community regularly speak out about their views about Iran not recognizing the state of Israel.
Point is, he is an elected MP......and he may have Israeli constituents. This is dangerous ground to tread as an elected member of parliament.
Don't mistake me for some Pro-Israeli here....quite the opposite. I somewhat agree with his views on the way Israel treats the Palestinians....but to say he doesn't recognize or debate with Israelis when he is an elected public official is a bit off IMO.
Why doesn't he debate with them? Has he not got enough conviction in his own argument?
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 21st February 15:52
Arguing over the legitimacy of Israel's increasing encroaches into land occupied illegally under international law is a completely different subject, and the one he should be addressing if he actually wants to make meaningful progress towards peace...
The subject of the Middle East always depresses me, and I don't think I'll see a solution in my lifetime. There's still people and institutions teaching children to hate other people for no logical reason - hate that'll continue for many more years to come...
Derek Smith said:
If he says he will not debate with a person because of the country he comes from, that is clearly a racist statement.
Not to me it isn't. If you won't debate with someone due to their genetic characteristics; that would be racist. Israeli is not a race; it's an identification of nationality. A nation which is composed of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Just like most other nations.What's this I hear about not recognising the State of Israel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrIjzUK0FKg
Galloway's in a minority of one, no wait a minute I forgot 'where's my dinner jacket'.
Phil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrIjzUK0FKg
Galloway's in a minority of one, no wait a minute I forgot 'where's my dinner jacket'.
Phil
plasticpig said:
Derek Smith said:
If he says he will not debate with a person because of the country he comes from, that is clearly a racist statement.
Not to me it isn't. If you won't debate with someone due to their genetic characteristics; that would be racist. Israeli is not a race; it's an identification of nationality. A nation which is composed of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Just like most other nations.the_lone_wolf said:
All your points are valid - refusing to recognise the state of Israel is a daft notion to me too - it exists, whether you think it should or not... I was (badly) saying that although he might not agree with my view of the world, it's nice to see someone making uncomfortable statements that stimulate debate, although it would be nice if when presented with evidence that contradicts their views, people showed a willingness to accept that they weren't right, but hey ho, that's human nature I suppose...
Arguing over the legitimacy of Israel's increasing encroaches into land occupied illegally under international law is a completely different subject, and the one he should be addressing if he actually wants to make meaningful progress towards peace...
The subject of the Middle East always depresses me, and I don't think I'll see a solution in my lifetime. There's still people and institutions teaching children to hate other people for no logical reason - hate that'll continue for many more years to come...
Sadly, I agree with your last paragraph.Arguing over the legitimacy of Israel's increasing encroaches into land occupied illegally under international law is a completely different subject, and the one he should be addressing if he actually wants to make meaningful progress towards peace...
The subject of the Middle East always depresses me, and I don't think I'll see a solution in my lifetime. There's still people and institutions teaching children to hate other people for no logical reason - hate that'll continue for many more years to come...
I also agree that, although I do not really like Galloway as a person, at least he stands up for his views.
What I find disappointing though is the fact he refuses to debate the issue. How is that in any way helpful? Ok, he may feel that it gets him nowhere, and that he's had these debates many times before without anything changing, but how on earth are you ever going to persuade people that the position you hold is valid unless you make them aware of the reasons.
What could he, or anyone, hope to achieve unless you're prepared to sit round a table and discuss your differences with people.
When Galloway used to have his show on TalkSport he was happy for any one who agreed with him to fawn over him and his ideas at great length.
The moment anyone came on who disagreed with him, he cut them off, particulary if they were articulate and had a good point, and then proceeded to ridicule them without giving them a chance to reply.
Nice to see he's staying true to himself.
The moment anyone came on who disagreed with him, he cut them off, particulary if they were articulate and had a good point, and then proceeded to ridicule them without giving them a chance to reply.
Nice to see he's staying true to himself.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Sadly, I agree with your last paragraph.
I also agree that, although I do not really like Galloway as a person, at least he stands up for his views.
What I find disappointing though is the fact he refuses to debate the issue. How is that in any way helpful? Ok, he may feel that it gets him nowhere, and that he's had these debates many times before without anything changing, but how on earth are you ever going to persuade people that the position you hold is valid unless you make them aware of the reasons.
Very true - I think the problem is that you're not dealing with a logical system of debate, you're dealing with belief that a particular bit of land is "mine" - and the problem with belief is that you don't approach any debate that questions your beliefs with an open mind and a willingness to seek a solution, only a desire to defend your beliefs...I also agree that, although I do not really like Galloway as a person, at least he stands up for his views.
What I find disappointing though is the fact he refuses to debate the issue. How is that in any way helpful? Ok, he may feel that it gets him nowhere, and that he's had these debates many times before without anything changing, but how on earth are you ever going to persuade people that the position you hold is valid unless you make them aware of the reasons.
As above, it's like arguing with creationists, no amount of well presented coherent logic with alter their opinion...
Sadly that makes it a s
tty place to live if you just want to get along with your fellow human beings and not be a nutcase...Spiritual_Beggar said:
What could he, or anyone, hope to achieve unless you're prepared to sit round a table and discuss your differences with people.
Walking out, and in particular the resulting publicity, will give him a shedloads more votes in Bradford West.Debating would not have had the same effect.
plasticpig said:
Don't see how this is racism or anti-semitic. Israeli is a nationality; not a race. If he had said "I don't debate with Jews" then I can see there would be a problem.
What if he'd said "I don't debate with Pakistanis"?, although it's the same thing you can bet your bottom dollar that it would attract allegations of racism.Galloway has made a total blunder here. I don't like Galloway, his only saving grace was that he was at least a voice that would be heard on the mainstream media speakign out against Israel and the way it ignores UN resolutions that require it to withdraw from various areas etc. The Mainstream media is outrageously pro Israeli and if for no other reason at least that meant the sheeple heard the other side of the argument occasionally.
Walking out saying he doesn't recognise Israel or debate with israelis has only served to marginalise him and any ability he may have had (albeit questionable) to put forward a pro Palistinian argumant.
HOWEVER, as a previous poster has pointed out the media and it would seem several people on here don't know the difference between anti-zionist and anti-semetic. Shame on you, it makes you no better than the Daily (hate)Mail.
He will just be seen as a lunatic with less than no credibility and rightly so. The palastinian people and cause can do without his kind of 'help'.
Walking out saying he doesn't recognise Israel or debate with israelis has only served to marginalise him and any ability he may have had (albeit questionable) to put forward a pro Palistinian argumant.
HOWEVER, as a previous poster has pointed out the media and it would seem several people on here don't know the difference between anti-zionist and anti-semetic. Shame on you, it makes you no better than the Daily (hate)Mail.
He will just be seen as a lunatic with less than no credibility and rightly so. The palastinian people and cause can do without his kind of 'help'.
Galloway said "I don't debate with Israealis".
The Isreali chap on the other hand said "To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a member of parliament."
'Debating with' and 'talking to' are quite distinct.
For example, I wouldn't waste my time debating with a Climate Change believer, or a religious fundamentalist. Life's just too short and their beliefs are irreconcilable with mine. We will never talk each other around and I will always think they have a screw loose for harbouring the specific beliefs they do. I do however, talk to them when the need or occasion requires. Not to do so would be unconscionable.
That said, unless totally mislaid by the organiser, Galloway should have expected an Irsreali at the debate.
The Isreali chap on the other hand said "To refuse to talk to someone just because of their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a member of parliament."
'Debating with' and 'talking to' are quite distinct.
For example, I wouldn't waste my time debating with a Climate Change believer, or a religious fundamentalist. Life's just too short and their beliefs are irreconcilable with mine. We will never talk each other around and I will always think they have a screw loose for harbouring the specific beliefs they do. I do however, talk to them when the need or occasion requires. Not to do so would be unconscionable.
That said, unless totally mislaid by the organiser, Galloway should have expected an Irsreali at the debate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff