george galloway storms out of debate, 'doesn't debate with israelis'

[ed miliband]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/feb/21/george-galloway-debate-israelis-video

anyone gonna try and defend him on this?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

saw this earlier on facebook. What a vile piece of shit.

[Conscript]

I sure wouldn't want an earful of chauvinist rhetoric justifying national oppression.

Still a poor choice of words.

[Igor]

I sure wouldn't want an earful of chauvinist rhetoric justifying national oppression.

literally all israelis are capable of producing

it wasn't just a poor choice of wording, the dude made it pretty damn clear he doesn't "debate with israelis" and there's not really any way of going around that, he's defending his shit in twitter right now even. this is pretty much undefendable and the dude is a vile piece of shit.

[Conscript]

The citizens as members of the israeli state have a stake in the matter.

Why debate the merit of something, in this case israeli withdrawal, with someone who has no interest in it?

I mean, do you really want to hear someone essentially defend the right of conquest?

[MarxArchist]

Israel is a race?

[Rurkel]

Israel is a race?
Who claimed so in this thread :confused:

While not every Israeli Jew is an OMGREACTIONARYBYDEFAULT!!!11!, someone who opposes Israeli withdrawal from West Bank is pretty much guaranteed to spew militant nationalist chauvinism in support of his position.

That's what Galloway should've said in his defence. But of course, it's Galloway...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Israel is a race?

A left-wing version of the "Islam is a race?" Comment about that always crops up when people talk about racism towards Muslims.

[goalkeeper]

Of course Galloway does and has debated Israeli citizens such as Farouq Bajwa, the lawyer of Sheikh Raed Salah.




What he means is, he does not debate Israeli Jews.

[goalkeeper]

A left-wing version of the "Islam is a race?" Comment about that always crops up when people talk about racism towards Muslims.

It's true. Islam is not a race, but we would still not accept someone insisting flat out that they do not debate Muslims.

[Os Cangaceiros]

While not every Israeli Jew is an OMGREACTIONARYBYDEFAULT!!!11!, someone who opposes Israeli withdrawal from West Bank is pretty much guaranteed to spew militant nationalist chauvinism in support of his position.

Then expose it for what it is. When you put forth a position in public like he did, you should be willing to defend it with the strength of your argument, not run away.

[Goblin]

Israel is a race?
Not a race, no. But they are a nationality, and one can be racist against nationalities as well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How is one going to ever convince Israelis to accept a good state of affairs without debating with them?

Does his prohibition include Israeli Arabs? If he only refuses to debate Israeli Jews, then he is adopting a racist position - if he refuses to debate Israeli Arabs too, then he is adopting an absurd position.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I´m sure Galloway was just putting on a show instead of "following his principles" or whatever.
This act of his is of course totally absurd and only demonstrates how ridiculous this Galloway character is.

[MarxArchist]

It's true. Islam is not a race, but we would still not accept someone insisting flat out that they do not debate Muslims.
Well, taken in context, if, lets say, Pakistan was facilitating apartheid and he was dedicating much of his time to fighting Pakistani facilitated apartheid...years and years...and he got to the point where he said he doesn't debate Pakistanis would that be "racist" or antisemitic or whatever is being implied here? I personally agree, there's no debate to be had. What they're doing to Palestinians is pure evil. During WW2 would you debate a NAZI on the subject of forcing Jews into ghetto's? I wouldn't. Would you debate Scott Perterson as the the pro's and con's of him murdering his pregnant wife? What would be the point of that? Galloway is a silly person though and I don't know why he gets so much attention.

[goalkeeper]

Well, taken in context, if, lets say, Pakistan was facilitating apartheid and he was dedicating much of his time to fighting Pakistani facilitated apartheid...years and years...and he got to the point where he said he doesn't debate Pakistanis would that be "racist" or antisemitic or whatever is being implied here? I personally agree, there's no debate to be had. What they're doing to Palestinians is pure evil. During WW2 would you debate a NAZI on the subject of forcing Jews into ghetto's? I wouldn't. Would you debate Scott Perterson as the the pro's and con's of him murdering his pregnant wife? What would be the point of that? Galloway is a silly person though and I don't know why he gets so much attention.

If someone refused to debate a pro-government Pakistani on the current conditions of Ahmadis in Pakistan or the genocide perpetuated by Pakistan in Bangladesh in the 1970s because they "don't debate Pakistani's", that would be messed up.

[bricolage]

the guy's a circus, even BDS doesn't advocate this,
"BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views." (http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/bds-movement-position-on-boycott-of-individuals-10679)

Gaza Youth Breaks Out were pretty scathing,

"George Galawy is an idiot for not debating with the israeli student.. It was a great chance to tell the mislead british students of oxford about the truth.. You want to discuss peace, lets speak about justice first.. Lets see what israel has done since the nakba until today..
I am ready to debate any Israeli anywhere in the world.. Israelies would never win a debate because they've got nothing in favor of their side..

Israel is the one that is killing, blockading, arresting, destroying, torturing nd spreading hate while palestinians are just resisting and showing steadfastness infront of the israeli terrorism machines..

For this I must say that George Galway doesn't care about palestine and spreading the truth as much as he cares about his look and reputation!! "

[Nakidana]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/feb/21/george-galloway-debate-israelis-video

anyone gonna try and defend him on this?

Sure, GG isn't a racist. There are numerous excellent videos of him on YouTube denouncing racists and running them into the ground on his radio show, including anti-Semites.

It was a poor choice of words which he spluttered out without thinking about the issue properly. Now he's defending his action because he's stubborn like a motherfucker.

EDIT: And why the hell are people clapping?

[Red Commissar]

George Galloway seems to be digging himself a deeper and deeper hole recently. It doesn't really help him any, it will just help his critics.



EDIT: And why the hell are people clapping?

It's a mocking clap, or at least it comes off that way to me. He left in such a hurry it came off as very immature and unprofessional. It is annoying as hell when you got apologists for Israel's policies going on self-victimization and accusing their opponents of supporting terrorism, antisemitism, whatever, and it's often like arguing to a wall to them when it comes up. Galloway walking out on this will just add to their ammunition that people opposed to Israel only do so because of poorly thought out political positions and appeal to emotion, rather than "facts" they claim to have.

[The Intransigent Faction]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2013/feb/21/george-galloway-debate-israelis-video

anyone gonna try and defend him on this?



I refused this evening at Oxford University to debate with an Israeli, a supporter of the Apartheid state of Israel. The reason is simple; No recognition, No normalisation. Just Boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the Apartheid state is defeated. I never debate with Israelis nor speak to their media. If they want to speak about Palestine - the address is the PLO.

Granted he's somewhat of a contrarian and is a bourgeois politician, but on this particular issue he's been in several debates over many years, and can you blame him for feeling like Zionist apologists spout propaganda like broken records while Palestinians are subjected to genocide?

Criticism may be understandable, but branding him as a racist just speaks to being ill-informed. Plenty of times has he trashed racist callers on his radio show, and he has further stated support for a "single democratic state" with equal rights for all---Jews, Muslims, etc. Obviously not ideal from a communist perspective but far from the most reactionary for a British MP.

Before you all attack me, I'm just accepting the OP's challenge! :grin: Gotta have someone take a crack at it.

[brigadista]

i am not really worried about anything to do with the very privileged Oxford university

[rednordman]

I saw the footage of this and thought that all those people who yelled out 'racist' after what he said where totally deplorable and pathetic. So its OK to slate Palestine, yet how dear he slate Israel!!!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The problem with Galloway is he's an establishment figure in the end, a supporter of the state.

Why does so many here think that debates are meaningful? Does anyone really think that the squabbles of politicians will matter, and that the outcome of some inane arguing between the two parts will in anyway affect the real situation? It seems silly and naïve to think that refusing to argue with someone whoever would be somehow detrimental: it's often recommended here on the forum, and I agree generally, that it's no use arguing with most right-wing nuts á la lolbertarians and what-have-you, yet I see here some members arguing that it is some sort of awful betrayal of the cause - it's not as if Galloway was ever anything but an on-off reactionary social-democrat.

[RadioRaheem84]

Did anyone not here what the guy was saying in the beginning? He was interrupted by Galloway but he was saying that "we want peace, we got war", insinuating that the Israelis wanted and still want peace but all they get from Palestinians and the Arab nations is war, war, war. They are the good guys, the bad guys are Palestinians.

Essentially he said more in that one mid sentence than Galloway did. Galloway should've chosen his words better but essentially when someone slights Israel, like say boycotting debates with people who support apartheid, then all of sudden it's racist! But if someone says Israelis are peaceful while the Palestinians are war hungry, leaving people to further believe that they're irrational in their demands, then it's ok?

[goalkeeper]

Did anyone not here what the guy was saying in the beginning? He was interrupted by Galloway but he was saying that "we want peace, we got war", insinuating that the Israelis wanted and still want peace but all they get from Palestinians and the Arab nations is war, war, war. They are the good guys, the bad guys are Palestinians.

Essentially he said more in that one mid sentence than Galloway did. Galloway should've chosen his words better but essentially when someone slights Israel, like say boycotting debates with people who support apartheid, then all of sudden it's racist! But if someone says Israelis are peaceful while the Palestinians are war hungry, leaving people to further believe that they're irrational in their demands, then it's ok?

Shocker! The pro-Israel guy in a debate on Israel tries to claim that the Palestinians, not the Israeli's are to blame. Well I never...

Stop trying to apologise for George Galloway. Refusing to debate someone on the grounds of their nationality is inexcusable. If George Galloway doesn't want to debate people who are pro-Israel, fine, but thats not what he said; he turned up to a debate on whether or not Israel should withdraw from the West Bank, he had to have known that the opposing side would be...pro-Israel. There is not way he could not have known that whoever he was debating against was going to be supportive of Israel's policies towards Palestinians or else there could have been no debate. WHat George Galloway did not know was in which state the opposing speaker was born, and as a result upon learning that born in one particular state refused to debate him. You can't explain this away with saying "well, the guy was a reactionary" - George Galloway did not go "oh you're so anti-Arab! I don't want to debate you", the issue was the guys nationality not his politics.

[Geiseric]

Granted he's somewhat of a contrarian and is a bourgeois politician, but on this particular issue he's been in several debates over many years, and can you blame him for feeling like Zionist apologists spout propaganda like broken records while Palestinians are subjected to genocide?

Criticism may be understandable, but branding him as a racist just speaks to being ill-informed. Plenty of times has he trashed racist callers on his radio show, and he has further stated support for a "single democratic state" with equal rights for all---Jews, Muslims, etc. Obviously not ideal from a communist perspective but far from the most reactionary for a British MP.

Before you all attack me, I'm just accepting the OP's challenge! :grin: Gotta have someone take a crack at it.

At this point a one state situation where all of the palestinians could come back to their lands would be as beneficial for the political situation in the region as the historic cry for an irish free state in which catholic people who have emigrated (or been kicked out) from northern ireland would become the majority over protestants, who are mostly scottish.

[Geiseric]

Shocker! The pro-Israel guy in a debate on Israel tries to claim that the Palestinians, not the Israeli's are to blame. Well I never...

Stop trying to apologise for George Galloway. Refusing to debate someone on the grounds of their nationality is inexcusable. If George Galloway doesn't want to debate people who are pro-Israel, fine, but thats not what he said; he turned up to a debate on whether or not Israel should withdraw from the West Bank, he had to have known that the opposing side would be...pro-Israel. There is not way he could not have known that whoever he was debating against was going to be supportive of Israel's policies towards Palestinians or else there could have been no debate. WHat George Galloway did not know was in which state the opposing speaker was born, and as a result upon learning that born in one particular state refused to debate him. You can't explain this away with saying "well, the guy was a reactionary" - George Galloway did not go "oh you're so anti-Arab! I don't want to debate you", the issue was the guys nationality not his politics.

I don't know would you think it's productive to debate the Halocaust with a full blown Nazi, in the 1930s? Most Israeli citizens are pretty damn reactionary as a result of propagation by the government, this includes American Israeli citizens, who I talk with regularly. Israelis may genuinely think that they're under attack, what good would it be arguing with somebody who believed in that?

I'm not sure if the person being debated with was like that, but in such a situation, it could be seen as pointless as debating racism with a "FREE THE SOUTH" person. Or Immigration with Arizona "Voulanteer militiamen".

[bricolage]

I don't know would you think it's productive to debate the Halocaust with a full blown Nazi, in the 1930s?
The comparison is ridiculous, not least because the Holocaust didn't happen until the 1940s.


Most Israeli citizens are pretty damn reactionary as a result of propagation by the government, this includes American Israeli citizens, who I talk with regularly. Israelis may genuinely think that they're under attack, what good would it be arguing with somebody who believed in that?
Well ok if that's what you're saying but Galloway obviously thought there was a point debating with them otherwise he wouldn't have turned up to a debate called 'Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank' in the first place. The difference was he was happy to debate someone who thought Israeli occupation should continue except when he found out that they were Israeli (or should we say Israeli Jewish? As has been mentioned would he apply the same criteria to Israeli Arabs?). No platform arguments (which this is an extension of) have always been based on political views held and the conclusions these result in (normally the presence of boots on the ground to intimidate people there - which doesn't really apply here but hey) but not on the specific nationality or whatever of the speaker.


I'm not sure if the person being debated with was like that, but in such a situation, it could be seen as pointless as debating racism with a "FREE THE SOUTH" person. Or Immigration with Arizona "Voulanteer militiamen".
So why did he turn up in the first place?

I think it's also worth mentioning that the point of debates (if there is one and I don't really have much time for these institutional Oxford wank sessions that Galloway's so fond of) is not really to change the mind of the person you are debating against (as that will never really happen) but that there are lots of other people listening and you more likely to have an impact on them, partly what I think the point of this website is really.

George Galloways a reactionary and a prick, he's just desperate for attention and it's a shame people give it to him.

[goalkeeper]

I don't know would you think it's productive to debate the Halocaust with a full blown Nazi, in the 1930s?

Perhaps it would be for you to debate the Holocaust with a Nazi, for it would (as J. S Mill argued) force you to brush up on you're own knowledge of the subject in order to counter the opposing view, which seems like something you could do with.


You seem to have missed the entire point I was trying to make though.

Ok here is what happened

1) George Galloway gets invited to debate the motion that "Israel should withdraw from the West Bank"
2) Obviously GG is going to be argued for the motion. This means that someone, of course, must argue against the motion
3) Someone arguing that Israel should maintain its occupation of the West Bank probably has reactionary politics, yet GG still decided to go to the debate
4) Upon learning that his debate opponent is a citizen of Israel, GG walks out of the debate

This is nothing to do with the guy being a reactionary. Galloway refused to debate him when he found out he was born in a specific state.

[Nakidana]

Stop trying to apologise for George Galloway.

Sure, and stop trying to demonize him.

I agree, let's get the facts on the table and leave the media spin out of it. Anybody who has done the least amount of research on him will know that he has numerous times denounced all kinds of racism, and has actually praised Israeli Jews on his show (the ones who're against the occupation). It's therefore pretty far fetched to brand him as a racist.

So why did he refuse to debate the Israeli? Probably because of the whole "boycott Israel" campaign. There have been many proposals for an academic boycott of Israel, inspired by the academic boycott of South Africa. GG probably made his decision based on his interpretation of this policy.

Now you can agree or disagree on such a boycott, but my point is that it doesn't make GG a racist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

See, here's the stupid thing about Galloway's action - he was there at the debate which showed that he was willing to debate with an apologist for Zionism but when he found out that the apologist for Zionism was an actual Israeli Jew he freaked out. At best it's a very juvenile way of showing solidarity with Palestinians.

[Sam_b]

Sure, and stop trying to demonize him.

Odd line to take. In your view was it wrong to 'demonize' Galloway for his rape apologism? He may not be a racist per se but he's still a misogynist.

[Sean]

George Galloway is one of those stopped clocks that happened to say the right thing once around 6 years ago.

This definately looked like he was dodging a "gotcha" moment as best he could. There's a video on his website of a TV interview from January where he explains how he differentiates between Jews and Israelis but rather than link to that, watch this instead:

---

[Sam_b]

You shouldn't really be posting those sorts of videos in a serious discussion thread.

[Nico Belic]

Let's face it, his comments were derogatory, unacceptable and inflammatory. So what if the student claims to be Israeli? He's a student in the end of the day, and has a right to be heard, and a right to an opinion.

In all seriousness, I remember when that fleebag Nick Griffin refused to debate with someone because they were from a certain ethnic group, this is exactly the same. George Galloway is a disgrace and a hypocrite.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Odd line to take. In your view was it wrong to 'demonize' Galloway for his rape apologism? He may not be a racist per se but he's still a misogynist.

OK that's a pretty serious accusation. I'm not calling you a liar, but...yeah. Evidence? FFS Galloway made a very personal statement on his radio show that he was sexually abused when he was a kid, so this is a pretty serious accusation to make without providing evidence.

[The Intransigent Faction]

No platform arguments (which this is an extension of) have always been based on political views held and the conclusions these result in (normally the presence of boots on the ground to intimidate people there - which doesn't really apply here but hey) but not on the specific nationality or whatever of the speaker.

So why did he turn up in the first place?

I think it's also worth mentioning that the point of debates (if there is one and I don't really have much time for these institutional Oxford wank sessions that Galloway's so fond of) is not really to change the mind of the person you are debating against (as that will never really happen) but that there are lots of other people listening and you more likely to have an impact on them, partly what I think the point of this website is really.

Okay, you've got me there. As someone heavily involved in a debate team at university, I can't really do anything but agree absolutely with this. He should have known that he would not be facing someone who would agree with him---neither from the start nor in the end.

I won't say his behavior wasn't silly, but I think to accuse him of racism or not to understand the valid concerns about legitimization of the State of Israel by recognition of it probably goes too far---despite his own admission that said debate actually got more attention than it would have had he not left. The point is not to legitimize Zionism by giving it yet another platform in which to express itself. When people are being subjected to genocide, the time for debate has long past.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Okay, you've got me there. As someone heavily involved in a debate team at university, I can't really do anything but agree absolutely with this. He should have known that he would not be facing someone who would agree with him---neither from the start nor in the end.

I won't say his behavior wasn't silly, but I think to accuse him of racism or not to understand the valid concerns about legitimization of the State of Israel by recognition of it probably goes too far---despite his own admission that said debate actually got more attention than it would have had he not left. The point is not to legitimize Zionism by giving it yet another platform in which to express itself. When people are being subjected to genocide, the time for debate has long past.

Why the blazes did he agree to the debate in the first place? That's how debates work - you show up with your position, and they show up with a different one. It obviously was going to be with someone who was pro-Israel, why should it matter if they are from the UK, US or Israel itself? Either way they will be pro-Zionism. Again, that's kind of the point of a DEBATE.

As much as anything else, one of the rules of a debate is a blatant ad hominem (like "you're from XYZ place, I don't talk to people from XYZ place") is basically surrendering the argument, so him showing up and leaving seems ten times worse than either not having gone in the first place or just having stayed and acted as a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights.

[Nakidana]

See, here's the stupid thing about Galloway's action - he was there at the debate which showed that he was willing to debate with an apologist for Zionism but when he found out that the apologist for Zionism was an actual Israeli Jew he freaked out. At best it's a very juvenile way of showing solidarity with Palestinians.

He didn't freak out because the Israeli was a Jew, he freaked out because the Israeli supported the occupation.

This is the third time I'm writing this; GG is vehemently against racism, has praised Jews on his show (including Israeli Jews) and has stated on twitter that he will engage with any Israeli who is against the occupation.

E.g.: https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/305053421084487680 and https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/304717011974504449

(btw is there some way of showing twitter comments on this forum?)


Odd line to take. In your view was it wrong to 'demonize' Galloway for his rape apologism? He may not be a racist per se but he's still a misogynist.

Yeah, and he's a thousand other things as well but we're not really discussing that in this thread. We're discussing his boycott of Israel and whether or not he's a racist.

Incidentally I don't see how it's odd to not want to buy into the media spin and perpetuate falsehoods about a person. :confused:

I used the word demonize in the sense that people shouldn't exaggerate a persons actions or make up stuff in order to make the person look worse than he is.

He's not a racist, or if he is, he's a pretty shitty one because he's been yelling at people and booting them off his shows if they as much as hint at antisemitism.


Let's face it, his comments were derogatory, unacceptable and inflammatory. So what if the student claims to be Israeli? He's a student in the end of the day, and has a right to be heard, and a right to an opinion.

In all seriousness, I remember when that fleebag Nick Griffin refused to debate with someone because they were from a certain ethnic group, this is exactly the same. George Galloway is a disgrace and a hypocrite.

I'm sorry, but it's not the same. GG never said he didn't want to debate with a certain ethnic group within Israel, he said he didn't want to debate with Israelis who support the apartheid system.

Now at the meeting GG said he didn't debate with Israelis. Considering his past record of praising Israeli Jews and his current twitter postings, I believe he misspoke at the meeting and actually meant that he doesn't debate with Israelis who support the occupation.

So the question is, should we engage academically with Israelis who support the occupation, or should we boycott them?


Why the blazes did he agree to the debate in the first place? That's how debates work - you show up with your position, and they show up with a different one. It obviously was going to be with someone who was pro-Israel, why should it matter if they are from the UK, US or Israel itself? Either way they will be pro-Zionism. Again, that's kind of the point of a DEBATE.

Because while there is a boycott of Israel going on, there is not a boycott of UK or US going on.

[bricolage]

He didn't freak out because the Israeli was a Jew, he freaked out because the Israeli supported the occupation.
he 'freaked out' yes because they were an israeli that supported occupation but you haven't yet answered why he would be happy to debate a non-israeli that supported an occupation and not an israeli that supported occupation?

I'd also say you should refer back to that gaza youth speaks out statement I posted where they say they would love to debate israelis as it would be a way to engage with them that didn't involve being bombed.

[Nakidana]

he 'freaked out' yes because they were an israeli that supported occupation but you haven't yet answered why he would be happy to debate a non-israeli that supported an occupation and not an israeli that supported occupation?

See above, because there is a boycott of Israel going on, and this is how GG has interpreted it.

Btw, I don't agree with his action.


I'd also say you should refer back to that gaza youth speaks out statement I posted where they say they would love to debate israelis as it would be a way to engage with them that didn't involve being bombed.

Yep, obviously GG is out of line with most organizations.

EDIT: I just took a look at GYBO's FB page and underneath the statement made by the admin, you have quite a few people actually agreeing with GG, saying they're fed up engaging with Israelis who support the occupation and that his action sent a clear message.

What is your opinion on an academic boycott of Israel?

[Q]

Question to most people here I guess: How is no-platforming Zionists so much different from no-platforming fascists (a policy which the great majority here defend)?

Sure, Galloway is hardly a man of tact and should've known better, but his action is as much "racist" as it is for leftists to walkout on your average rightwinger nutjob.

For what it's worth: I think he should've stayed and engaged with this vile graduating Zionist.

[Sam_b]

OK that's a pretty serious accusation. I'm not calling you a liar, but...yeah. Evidence?

Right, I take the point made above so I don't want to derail the conversation and I do accept that if it happens it is entirely my fault. I thought, however, that this was common knowledge, and seeing as I got asked for evidence I'm going to put a few links here and ask that if people want to debate this then a separate thread is used. Does that sound okay to everyone? If it doesn't I can just delete this post or move it.

http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/galloways-sexism-damages-anti-imperialism/

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Lefts/George_Galloway/15103/29-08-2012/galloways-ignorant-comments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/24/george-galloway-todd-akin-rape-comments

[l'Enfermé]

Question to most people here I guess: How is no-platforming Zionists so much different from no-platforming fascists (a policy which the great majority here defend)?

Sure, Galloway is hardly a man of tact and should've known better, but his action is as much "racist" as it is for leftists to walkout on your average rightwinger nutjob.

For what it's worth: I think he should've stayed and engaged with this vile graduating Zionist.
Yeah, I concur. But really, Zionists, at this point, are worse than fascists. All the fascist regimes are gone. Fascist don't aid in the perpetuation and reinforcement of fascist dictatorships anymore. Zionists do, though. The existence of the Zionist Entity depends, in part, on the support for it in the West. If it loses the support, the Zionist regime will crumble like apartheid in South Africa.

[goalkeeper]

Question to most people here I guess: How is no-platforming Zionists so much different from no-platforming fascists (a policy which the great majority here defend)?

.

How many times must this point be repeated: George Galloway was fully prepared to debate someone opposing the motion that "Israel should withdraw from the West Bank"! SOMEONE TAKING THAT ARGUMENT IS HIGHLY LIKLEY TO BE A ZIONIST, yet GG still decided to turn up to debate. The situation changed, however, when it turned out the guy was an Israeli. The equivalent with this "no platforming" analogy would be turning up to a debate on neo-Nazism in Europe and upon finding out the neo-Nazi in Europe was Russian, German, Swedish, or whatever saying "oh, sorry I won't debate you because you were born in X state". Now, while it is perfectly justifiable to refuse to debate a neo-Nazi, it is unacceptable to accept debating a neo-Nazi but changing your mind upon finding out which state they are citizens of

[goalkeeper]

See above, because there is a boycott of Israel going on, and this is how GG has interpreted it.

Btw, I don't agree with his action.



Then why are you trying to defend it?

I don't care if this is "GG's interpretation of it"; its fucking wrong.

[bricolage]

See above, because there is a boycott of Israel going on, and this is how GG has interpreted it.
uh huh but if he shares stages with non-zionist israelis (ie. ilan pappe) then it's obviously not a boycott of all things israeli, but if he will debate non-israeli zionists then it's obviously not a boycott of all things zionist. the logic of it just doesn't seem to make sense whichever way you look at it.

[bricolage]

Question to most people here I guess: How is no-platforming Zionists so much different from no-platforming fascists (a policy which the great majority here defend)?
zionist tend not to (in the uk at least) bring 'boots on the ground' to debates in the same way that 'fascists' do.

I actually think this is a serious thing, if you debated someone from say the edl you don't think they wouldn't come mobbed up?

[l'Enfermé]

How many times must this point be repeated: George Galloway was fully prepared to debate someone opposing the motion that "Israel should withdraw from the West Bank"! SOMEONE TAKING THAT ARGUMENT IS HIGHLY LIKLEY TO BE A ZIONIST, yet GG still decided to turn up to debate. The situation changed, however, when it turned out the guy was an Israeli. The equivalent with this "no platforming" analogy would be turning up to a debate on neo-Nazism in Europe and upon finding out the neo-Nazi in Europe was Russian, German, Swedish, or whatever saying "oh, sorry I won't debate you because you were born in X state". Now, while it is perfectly justifiable to refuse to debate a neo-Nazi, it is unacceptable to accept debating a neo-Nazi but changing your mind upon finding out which state they are citizens of
The difference is that Israel is not a regular state like Sweden or Germany, but a racist settler-colonist entity.

[Nakidana]

Then why are you trying to defend it?

I'm not, I'm arguing that this...:


What he means is, he does not debate Israeli Jews.

...is false, because as we've established GG has nothing against Israeli Jews, only Israelis who support the occupation.

I'm "defending" GG from accusations of racism, not from his policy of refusing to debate with Israelis who support the occupation.


uh huh but if he shares stages with non-zionist israelis (ie. ilan pappe) then it's obviously not a boycott of all things israeli, but if he will debate non-israeli zionists then it's obviously not a boycott of all things zionist. the logic of it just doesn't seem to make sense whichever way you look at it.

But who said GG had a boycott of all things Zionist?

Israel is engaged in the occupation of Palestine, not UK. I think that's why GG has singled out the country. To make the point that Israel is currently occupying Palestine and he will not engage with Israeli supporters of the occupation until it ends.


zionist tend not to (in the uk at least) bring 'boots on the ground' to debates in the same way that 'fascists' do.

I actually think this is a serious thing, if you debated someone from say the edl you don't think they wouldn't come mobbed up?

So you wouldn't have any qualms allowing a fascist to, say, speak on national radio as long as he was peaceful and didn't bring any goons?

[bricolage]

But who said GG had a boycott of all things Zionist?
so what makes a zionist non-israeli better than a non-zionist israeli? strangely I've got a lot more time for the latter.


Israel is engaged in the occupation of Palestine, not UK. I think that's why GG has singled out the country. To make the point that Israel is currently occupying Palestine and he will not engage with Israeli supporters of the occupation until it ends.
but he will engage with non-israeli supporters of the occupations? israel doesn't exist in some geo-political vacuum y'know.


So you wouldn't have any qualms allowing a fascist to, say, speak on national radio as long as he was peaceful and didn't bring any goons?
I don't know what you mean by 'allowing', i'm not in the habit of placing demands upon institutions alien to the class movement (parliaments, bourgeois media and so forth). if someone tried to get a fascist (or a zionist, or a tory, or a liberal and so forth) to speak at my union branch meeting, or an anti-cuts rally or something I felt I had some kind of (albeit marginal) stake in then yeah I'd fight against it, but I don't make an effort in supporting ruling class institutions cracking down on 'extremist' views, to least because what's used against the right will invariably be used against us - for example hope not hate pressured the government into banning an edl march and so the banned all marches, apparently a light curfew was a 'success'

[Nakidana]

so what makes a zionist non-israeli better than a non-zionist israeli? strangely I've got a lot more time for the latter.

I don't see your point, nobody has a problem with non-zionist Israelis.


but he will engage with non-israeli supporters of the occupations? israel doesn't exist in some geo-political vacuum y'know.

Yep, according to his statements.


I don't know what you mean by 'allowing', i'm not in the habit of placing demands upon institutions alien to the class movement (parliaments, bourgeois media and so forth). if someone tried to get a fascist (or a zionist, or a tory, or a liberal and so forth) to speak at my union branch meeting, or an anti-cuts rally or something I felt I had some kind of (albeit marginal) stake in then yeah I'd fight against it, but I don't make an effort in supporting ruling class institutions cracking down on 'extremist' views, to least because what's used against the right will invariably be used against us - for example hope not hate pressured the government into banning an edl march and so the banned all marches, apparently a light curfew was a 'success'

It just seemed to me that you were trying to differentiate between Zionists and fascists on the ground that Zionists are peaceful while fascists are not.

[blake 3:17]

I wasn't going to wade into this, but just saw this on the BDS movement web site and thought it might be helpful for those thinking about this.


BDS Movement Position on Boycott of Individuals
Posted on February 21, 2013 by Palestinian BDS National Committee

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the largest coalition of Palestinian unions, mass organisations, refugee networks and NGOs that leads and and sets the guidelines for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, supports all principled action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality that is in line with universal human rights and international law.

In its 2005 BDS Call, Palestinian civil society has called for a boycott of Israel, its complicit institutions, international corporations that sustain its occupation, colonization and apartheid, and official representatives of the state of Israel and its complicit institutions. BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views. Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with.

The global BDS movement has consistently adopted a rights-based approach and an anti-racist platform that rejects all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

These guidelines and the fact that BDS has been initiated and is led by Palestinian civil society are major reasons behind the rapid growth and success that the BDS movement has enjoyed around the world.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/bds-movement-position-on-boycott-of-individuals-10679

[Geiseric]

Sorry, I just remember on RT when normal finkestein was arguing with an israeli citizen, who was the zionist apologist, it went absolutely nowhere and degenerated into name calling, although Finkelstein wasn't even advocating anything honestly too radical. if I knew the person I was arguing with would do that, I might not want to waste my time. These things always come down to the Torah arguments, when you argue with Israeli jews, by the end, since misquoting that book is their political program.

I'm not advocating this, i'd never do something this stupid. He was probably just being an attention whore.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't know would you think it's productive to debate the Halocaust with a full blown Nazi, in the 1930s? Most Israeli citizens are pretty damn reactionary as a result of propagation by the government, this includes American Israeli citizens, who I talk with regularly. Israelis may genuinely think that they're under attack, what good would it be arguing with somebody who believed in that?

I'm not sure if the person being debated with was like that, but in such a situation, it could be seen as pointless as debating racism with a "FREE THE SOUTH" person. Or Immigration with Arizona "Voulanteer militiamen".

Sorry this is absolutely ridiculous and frankly, bordering on racial stereotyping.

Quite frankly, I have huge sympathy with the Israeli population - their plight may be nothing compared to almost all Palestinians, but they still do have to live with the very real fear of violence, bombing, missiles and even kidnap on a daily basis. Really, they and the Palestinian working class share a lot in common in this regard, even if the suffering isn't evenly distributed. To say otherwise is really to move away from class analysis and start to unnaturally attack Israelis for being Israelis - for not being as oppressed as the Palestinians.

If you go down that route, then why support the working classes of other oppressor/imperial countries - the UK, US? Why?

The Israeli working class doesn't live the high life. They die too, in war. They get drafted. They are economically oppressed too.

It's about time (and Broody, this isn't wholly directed at you personally) that people actually got a proper perspective on the Middle East situation and stopped crossing the line from Anti-Zionism to something different. In fact, it sometimes strikes me that some people have such a burning hatred for anything Israeli that they even have some hatred of Israeli workers purely for being Israeli. This has to stop. Defending George Galloway, in this instance, is a pointless, un-warranted task and a ridiculous position to take. A somewhat wonkish Israeli student at the University of Oxford is not a Nazi, so let's just avoid resorting to Godwin's Law.

Debate can achieve an awful lot. I've been part of a campaign at university recently and, after a debate, found myself and the campaign cited in the national newspapers of two different countries. All from debate.

[Geiseric]

Sorry this is absolutely ridiculous and frankly, bordering on racial stereotyping.

Quite frankly, I have huge sympathy with the Israeli population - their plight may be nothing compared to almost all Palestinians, but they still do have to live with the very real fear of violence, bombing, missiles and even kidnap on a daily basis. Really, they and the Palestinian working class share a lot in common in this regard, even if the suffering isn't evenly distributed. To say otherwise is really to move away from class analysis and start to unnaturally attack Israelis for being Israelis - for not being as oppressed as the Palestinians.

If you go down that route, then why support the working classes of other oppressor/imperial countries - the UK, US? Why?

The Israeli working class doesn't live the high life. They die too, in war. They get drafted. They are economically oppressed too.

It's about time (and Broody, this isn't wholly directed at you personally) that people actually got a proper perspective on the Middle East situation and stopped crossing the line from Anti-Zionism to something different. In fact, it sometimes strikes me that some people have such a burning hatred for anything Israeli that they even have some hatred of Israeli workers purely for being Israeli. This has to stop. Defending George Galloway, in this instance, is a pointless, un-warranted task and a ridiculous position to take. A somewhat wonkish Israeli student at the University of Oxford is not a Nazi, so let's just avoid resorting to Godwin's Law.

Debate can achieve an awful lot. I've been part of a campaign at university recently and, after a debate, found myself and the campaign cited in the national newspapers of two different countries. All from debate.

Yeah you're right, this whole situation is kind of dumb. However nobody is being racist for being anti Israeli, which isn't a race but a nation. It's as much of a race as American is. Israel is simply jewish white people from the U.S. and Eastern Europe who moved to that area. It is not a race, and nobody is racist for being anti israel, nor anti semetic for that matter, unless they're obviously anti semetic, and bring in racist slurs or rhetoric, which is easy to spot. I'm not sure this qualifies as racism though.

I don't have any sympathy for anybody arguing pro zionism, but I agree this wasn't the best way of going about protesting.

[l'Enfermé]

Sorry this is absolutely ridiculous and frankly, bordering on racial stereotyping.

Quite frankly, I have huge sympathy with the Israeli population - their plight may be nothing compared to almost all Palestinians, but they still do have to live with the very real fear of violence, bombing, missiles and even kidnap on a daily basis. Really, they and the Palestinian working class share a lot in common in this regard, even if the suffering isn't evenly distributed. To say otherwise is really to move away from class analysis and start to unnaturally attack Israelis for being Israelis - for not being as oppressed as the Palestinians.

If you go down that route, then why support the working classes of other oppressor/imperial countries - the UK, US? Why?

The Israeli working class doesn't live the high life. They die too, in war. They get drafted. They are economically oppressed too.

It's about time (and Broody, this isn't wholly directed at you personally) that people actually got a proper perspective on the Middle East situation and stopped crossing the line from Anti-Zionism to something different. In fact, it sometimes strikes me that some people have such a burning hatred for anything Israeli that they even have some hatred of Israeli workers purely for being Israeli. This has to stop. Defending George Galloway, in this instance, is a pointless, un-warranted task and a ridiculous position to take. A somewhat wonkish Israeli student at the University of Oxford is not a Nazi, so let's just avoid resorting to Godwin's Law.

Debate can achieve an awful lot. I've been part of a campaign at university recently and, after a debate, found myself and the campaign cited in the national newspapers of two different countries. All from debate.
Yeah, no. Israelis(and I'm not talking about Arab Israelis, who are second-class citizens that are treated like garbage by Zionists) are racist, chauvinistic colonists. You cannot expect genuine communists to show any sympathy for them. When these Zionist colonists fuck off from Palestine then we'll give a shit. If I came, killed half your family and kicked out the rest of it from your house and occupied it, would anyone object if you took violent action against me? No, not really.

And, "suffering isn't evenly distributed"? Understatement of the year:
http://visualizingpalestine.org/timeline-of-violence

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=l'Enfermé;2583262]Israelis(and I'm not talking about Arab Israelis, who are second-class citizens that are treated like garbage by Zionists) are racist, chauvinistic colonists.

All of them, yeah?


If I came, killed half your family and kicked out the rest of it from your house and occupied it, would anyone object if you took violent action against me? No, not really.

No, not really. But if I killed a random American because George Bush killed my family, purely because they were American, would that be objectionable? Quite obviously.


And, "suffering isn't evenly distributed"? Understatement of the year:
http://visualizingpalestine.org/timeline-of-violence

That's why I said it.

[goalkeeper]

Israel is simply jewish white people from the U.S. and Eastern Europe who moved to that area.

No. Half of Israeli Jews are Jews from the Middle East and North Africa that were forced to leave. This proportion was even higher before the Soviet collapse in the 1990s also.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Why the blazes did he agree to the debate in the first place? That's how debates work - you show up with your position, and they show up with a different one. It obviously was going to be with someone who was pro-Israel, why should it matter if they are from the UK, US or Israel itself? Either way they will be pro-Zionism. Again, that's kind of the point of a DEBATE.

As much as anything else, one of the rules of a debate is a blatant ad hominem (like "you're from XYZ place, I don't talk to people from XYZ place") is basically surrendering the argument, so him showing up and leaving seems ten times worse than either not having gone in the first place or just having stayed and acted as a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights.

Yeah actually I was pretty clear I conceded that point. Doesn't mean I can't be somewhat sympathetic to the concerns expressed, even if done in the wrong way. That's kinda the whole point of what I was saying. :glare:

[The Intransigent Faction]

All of them, yeah?


No, but at the absolute least half of them. http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-agree-africans-are-a-cancer/



But if I killed a random American because George Bush killed my family, purely because they were American, would that be objectionable? Quite obviously.

Not really comparable to Palestinian resistance. At all. There are clear differences from the very example you quoted and your own.

As for "suffering is unevenly distributed", nice euphemism.

Seriously, Israel's bombing of schools and hospitals goes way beyond "uneven".

[l'Enfermé]

[QUOTE]

All of them, yeah?
Except for a negligible minority, yeah.



No, not really. But if I killed a random American because George Bush killed my family, purely because they were American, would that be objectionable? Quite obviously.
I don't see the similarity.



That's why I said it.
It's good that we are on the same page comrade.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The difference is that Israel is not a regular state like Sweden or Germany, but a racist settler-colonist entity.


Yeah, no. Israelis(and I'm not talking about Arab Israelis, who are second-class citizens that are treated like garbage by Zionists) are racist, chauvinistic colonists. You cannot expect genuine communists to show any sympathy for them. When these Zionist colonists fuck off from Palestine then we'll give a shit. If I came, killed half your family and kicked out the rest of it from your house and occupied it, would anyone object if you took violent action against me? No, not really.

And, "suffering isn't evenly distributed"? Understatement of the year:
http://visualizingpalestine.org/timeline-of-violence

This is kind of ridiculous. I guess we should stop organizing White Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Russian Siberians and Americans, as well as any white people in Latin America, as their presence where they live is just a part of a colonial project and are hence necessarily racist chauvinists! We shouldn't listen to them or debate them until they fuck off from Aboriginal/First Nations/Maori/Siberian Native/Native American land. I mean, up to 95% of the natives died when those colonists arrived so by the standard you set anyone who shows any sympathy for a white working class American is not only not a communist but a reactionary.

And these are just the white colonial projects. Indonesians in Papua, Chinese in Tibet and Xinjiang, Arabs and Turks in Kurdistan, Arabs in Sudan, Afro-Brazilians in the Amazon, Burmese in Myanmar and the Vietnamese in the Hmong highlands of Indochina - should we just write them off as all racists due to the nature of the relationship with the indigenous population?

The only way to permanently end racism in the Levant is to unite the greater mass of Israeli and Palestinian people under a common cause, just as ending racism in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand involves the same thing. I'm sure many Israelis have benefited from the occupation in a way an outsider might see as morally repugnant, but Communists should know that radical politics is not about punishing the morally repugnant but liberating the greater toiling mass of humanity. Let Jesus/Allah deal with the whole moral judgement thing at the end times so we can focus on the more practical goal of liberating everyone.

As much as anything else, it is a practical thing. How do you expect the 1-10% of the population of most colonial countries which is made up of the colonized to overthrow the 90-99% of the population which is made up of the colonizers? Why not follow the model seen in Bolivia, where the indigenous majority did not mete out great punishment against the White minority which exploited them for five centuries, but merely sought to redistribute the means of production along democratic lines? Why must the Israeli population be categorically condemned as a bunch of bigoted colonizers in a way in which no other colonizing population in history ever has been? It's not like Israelis are that much more racist to Arabs than white folks were (and in many cases still are) towards the various indigenous populations.



Yeah actually I was pretty clear I conceded that point. Doesn't mean I can't be somewhat sympathetic to the concerns expressed, even if done in the wrong way. That's kinda the whole point of what I was saying. :glare:

I kind of thought thats what you were trying to say but I must admit, I'm still utterly confused as to why one would agree to argue with an advocate for the state of Israel and then only back out upon discovering that he is actually Israeli.

[Sam_b]

This article has just been released by the Scottish We are all Hana Shalabi campaign, which I believe to hit the nail on the head:

http://weareallhanashalabi.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/a-comment-on-galloways-oxford-walk-out/

As activists in Scotland who campaign in support of the global movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, we feel it is necessary and important that we distance ourselves from the actions and statements of George Galloway MP last week.

The incident, in which Galloway walked out of a debate at Oxford University claiming that he would not debate with an Israeli student, received much attention across mainstream media in the UK and internationally. Galloway later defended his actions, posting on Twitter: ”Israel: simple, No recognition, No normalisation. Just Boycott, divestment, sanctions.”

Whilst Galloway is respected as one of only a few voices in mainstream British politics to have publicly supported anti-imperialist struggles and has been a vocal opponent of Israel, he is clearly not a political ally of those individuals and organisations who have embraced Boycott as a peaceful, non-violent and more importantly anti-racist tactic for challenging Israeli apartheid.

Whether or not one agrees with Galloway’s decision not to debate with an Israeli student is irrelevant; the fact remains that there are clear guidelines for exactly who and what is and is not ‘boycottable’, and a statement released this week by the Boycott National Committee affirms that ”BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli”.

Galloway has a history of misrepresentation and false reporting on BDS. During a lecture at Glasgow University in 2011 he proudly announced that French multinational company Veolia – who are the target of BDS campaigns around the world due to their complicity in Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank – had dropped all of their contracts in Israel and were therefore no longer a complicit company.

Unfounded and poorly researched claims such as those posited by Galloway are potentially damaging to everyone working to secure BDS victories and raise public awareness about international complicity in Israel’s numerous crimes. Recent action taken by students at Edinburgh and Essex Universities to shut down talks by Israeli politicians fall completely within the guidelines for Boycott, as these individuals are paid representatives of the Israeli state. Galloway’s misuse of the BDS name may have created a more difficult political climate for student BDS activists, yet principled actions such as those in Edinburgh and Essex will continue. We hope the whole episode serves to increase engagement with the guidelines, strategic aims and discourse of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Here is the full statement released last Thursday by the Boycott National Committee:

”The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the largest coalition of Palestinian unions, mass organisations, refugee networks and NGOs that leads and and sets the guidelines for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, supports all principled action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality that is in line with universal human rights and international law.
In its 2005 BDS Call, Palestinian civil society has called for a boycott of Israel, its complicit institutions, international corporations that sustain its occupation, colonization and apartheid, and official representatives of the state of Israel and its complicit institutions. BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views. Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with.
The global BDS movement has consistently adopted a rights-based approach and an anti-racist platform that rejects all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
These guidelines and the fact that BDS has been initiated and is led by Palestinian civil society are major reasons behind the rapid growth and success that the BDS movement has enjoyed around the world.”

[Nakidana]

No. Half of Israeli Jews are Jews from the Middle East and North Africa that were forced to leave. This proportion was even higher before the Soviet collapse in the 1990s also.

Source?

[bricolage]

Global Jewry is predominantly Ashkenazi, or European, in origin but Israel isn’t. Almost 800,000 Jews came to the nascent Israel from all over the Arab and Muslim world: Iraq, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Libya and a few from Leba - non. By the 1980s these oriental or “Mizrahi” Jews (the word means “easterner”) – “black”, as their European co-nationalists sometimes called them – were the majority in Israel. The mass arrival of Jews from the collapsed Soviet Union a decade later reshuffled the pack, so that Mizrahim (the Hebrew plural) now comprise about 40 per cent of the population.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/world-affairs/2013/01/z-israel?page=0,12

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Source?

It's well documented that

(1) A substantial portion of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi Jews from around the Arab world

(2) Those Jews were driven out by anti-Jewish riots and political intervention by Arab leaders

The belief in the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is apparently quite high in the Arab world too

Just wiki Mizrahi Jews if you're too lazy to search Google for sources.

[Geiseric]

It's well documented that

(1) A substantial portion of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi Jews from around the Arab world

(2) Those Jews were driven out by anti-Jewish riots and political intervention by Arab leaders

The belief in the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is apparently quite high in the Arab world too

Just wiki Mizrahi Jews if you're too lazy to search Google for sources.

I don't think that major palestinian advocates, such as Yasser Arafat, can be classified as believers of the protocols of the elders of zion. Anyways the ones who are die hard zionists in Israel, like the ones in the front of the IDF, quite similarly to America and Europe, are white, "Khazar" Israelis, meaning they're genetically not from Israel, but from Central asia, and are descended from converts.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think that major palestinian advocates, such as Yasser Arafat, can be classified as believers of the protocols of the elders of zion. Anyways the ones who are die hard zionists in Israel, like the ones in the front of the IDF, quite similarly to America and Europe, are white, "Khazar" Israelis, meaning they're genetically not from Israel, but from Central asia, and are descended from converts.

Arafat didn't but Hamas does:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp


The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

As for the whole Khazar/Ashkenazi thing yeah the Ashkenazi Jews probably have a lot of non-Israeli heritage as do any group of Jews but I've never seen any convincing evidence that Ashkenazi Jews have no heritage from the Middle East either. This article seems to indicate that there is a common historical heritage. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/) It's a well-known fact that there was a large Jewish exodus from Israel during the Roman empire. Does it even matter? Who cares? I'm not genetically related to the indigenous people where I live, so should I not live there? Arguing over the genetic heritage of European Jews seems like a red herring. Either way, its crazy to kick out one group to move in another group, no matter what happened 2,000 years earlier

Also Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews can be some of the most hardcore and offensive Zionists, like the Chief Rabbi of the Shas party.

[goalkeeper]

I don't think that major palestinian advocates, such as Yasser Arafat, can be classified as believers of the protocols of the elders of zion.

I don't know about Arafat and the protocals but many apparently (emphasis on the apparently) progressive Arab nationalists of the mid 20th century did such as Gamal Abdel Nasser.


Anyways the ones who are die hard zionists in Israel, like the ones in the front of the IDF, quite similarly to America and Europe, are white, "Khazar" Israelis, meaning they're genetically not from Israel, but from Central asia, and are descended from converts.

I have not looked into the whole "Khazari Jew" thing too much as I don't particularly care for the genetic origin of peoples, but from the sort of people I have seen pushing such theories online (Neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists with a peculiar focus on businessmen and bankers who's names end in "witz" and "berg" etc) I'm quote sceptical of the whole thing

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]




No, not really. But if I killed a random American because George Bush killed my family, purely because they were American, would that be objectionable? Quite obviously.





If you killed a random German because Hitler was slaughtering six million Jews, purely because they were German, would that be objectionable? I doubt that would be objectionable to a Jew living anywhere.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=The Boss;2583269]

If you killed a random German because Hitler was slaughtering six million Jews, purely because they were German, would that be objectionable? I doubt that would be objectionable to a Jew living anywhere.

Well then you're a massive asshole. I am a Jew, and I have never had anything but positive experiences with Germans, and I certainly would find that sort of racist crap objectionable.

Fuck you. This is actually scandalous.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE=redshifted;2583715]

Well then you're a massive asshole. I am a Jew, and I have never had anything but positive experiences with Germans, and I certainly would find that sort of racist crap objectionable.

Fuck you. This is actually scandalous.

Well, don't make stupid analogies if you don't want them thrown back in your face.

[l'Enfermé]

[QUOTE=The Boss;2583269]

If you killed a random German because Hitler was slaughtering six million Jews, purely because they were German, would that be objectionable? I doubt that would be objectionable to a Jew living anywhere.

[QUOTE=The Boss;2583732]

Well, don't make stupid analogies if you don't want them thrown back in your face.
Wait what?
http://gfx.quakeworld.nu/files/327.jpg

Mod action:
This constitutes a verbal warning for trolling and flamebaiting, redshifted.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Who to? I've accidentally quoted myself. I didn't write teh German quote, redshifted did.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was trying to quote redshifted.

[MarxArchist]

Would an Israeli debate a NAZI concerning the factual information in Mien Kampf? No, they'd freak out at such a proposition. They'd call you stupid and rightly so. Even taking the NAZI seriously to that extent suggests he/she has a legitimate argument to debate. Israel has no legitimate argument when it comes to facilitating apartheid. Not only should people walk out of debates with them on the subject but a good spit in the face would be even better. What they're doing to Palestinians is disgusting, even more disturbing considering what Jews went through not but one generation ago.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Would an Israeli debate a NAZI concerning the factual information in Mien Kampf? No, they'd freak out at such a proposition. They'd call you stupid and rightly so. Even taking the NAZI seriously to that extent suggests he/she has a legitimate argument to debate. Israel has no legitimate argument when it comes to facilitating apartheid. Not only should people walk out of debates with them on the subject but a good spit in the face would be even better. What they're doing to Palestinians is disgusting, even more disturbing considering what Jews went through not but one generation ago.

Being a Nazi is a political position.

Being an Israeli teenager isn't really a choice.

Fuck you with your disgusting bullshit. This is crazy racism, man. You can't hate on someone for their nationality, whatever their government is doing or people in their country believe.

[l'Enfermé]

I was trying to quote redshifted.

Who to? I've accidentally quoted myself. I didn't write teh German quote, redshifted did.
I don't know what the hell is going on, I quoted redshifted's posts, not yours. The verbal warning is obviously to him. This has been happening for a couple of days, I quote someone but another person's name shows up.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

OK sorry, must have been a glitch with the forum or something. Cheers :)

[goalkeeper]

What they're doing to Palestinians is disgusting, even more disturbing considering what Jews went through not but one generation ago.

stop holding Jews to different standards.

[RedMaterialist]

I don't know what the hell is going on, I quoted redshifted's posts, not yours. The verbal warning is obviously to him. This has been happening for a couple of days, I quote someone but another person's name shows up.

verbal warning for what?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

if it didnt matter,then why are you stating a zionist line.
.

How am I taking a "zionist line"? You're such a hardcore antizionist you see zionism where it doesn't exist. Zionism is a political program, not a historical argument, hence why I said:


Either way, its crazy to kick out one group to move in another group, no matter what happened 2,000 years earlier
it is a well known myth "that there was a large Jewish exodus from Israel during the Roman empire."..
The Jewish population definitely moved out across the Roman Empire from Palestine. People immigrate all the time, marry in with the locals and bring their culture. How is it "Zionist" to argue that?


isreal didnt exist until 1948.another myth..
There were historical Jewish kingdoms in the area thousands of years ago - admitting that is not "Zionism" (ok only one which was short-lived and destroyed by Mesopotamian kings was technically known as "Israel")


judaism was a prosletyzing religion under theroman empireOK how is that a problem?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The idea of a Jewish diaspora is not some Zionist plot to change the history books. It predates zionism by a long time.

Also, how would the Jews have evangelized without leaving Palestine? It seems crazy to exclude that possibility, especially when various other groups moved all across the Roman empire, from Greeks to North Africans to the Roman people themselves.

[goalkeeper]

'zionist line' was someof the terminiology..
.. the 'jewish' popualtion of Palestine 2000 yrs ago, never left Palestine.theres no evidence Palestinians/Cana'anites [who practised judaism] ever left Palestine.
so as for what you say as definite, is more myth-not based in historical fact
it was a point- judaism was a legal ,recognised religion in the roman empire- was a prosletyzing religion.

What a bizarre rewriting of history.

[Rurkel]

Please, the whole "the Palestinians are the true Jews" is as historically accurate as "Israeli Jews are the only autochtonous people in Judea blah blah blah". Nationalistic distortions of the oppressed are still nationalistic distortions.

Not to mention that the whole "Palestinians are the true Jews" line is a fairly recent invention anyway.

[Rurkel]

"Historical distortions" are not "History" :rolleyes:

Oh,and the Bible doesn't tell me anything about modern Palestinian ancestry. But then, only nationalistic zealots care much for ancestry anyway.

[Rurkel]

Yes, I'm talking about the "Israeli Jews have no ancestry in biblical Jews, thus the Palestinians are their only true successors" theory, which is nationalistic wankery, just like the opposite "Israelis are the only ones who have the right to trooo history of the land" theory.


In the west(at least) Palestinian history is distorted precisely due to biblical myths.and zionism.
I can easily believe that. Unfortunately, it seems that some Palestinian activists are introducing distortions of their own...

[Rurkel]

This copypasta sounds like a mixture of truths and frivolous reasoning akin to these Macedonian nationalists who claim that Greeks have no right to link themselves to ancient Hellenes (pity "the little book of BIG GREEK LIES" have been taken from the Internet, anyway here are its contents, (http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4293) sorry the links are dead).

[Rurkel]

.. i dont get why you posted on macedonia To compare the "Israelis have no right to claim any continuity with ancient Jews" and the "Greeks have no right to claim any continuity with the ancient Hellenes" claims. Reasoning for both include a large amount of truth, however, that doesn't prevent them both from being politically motivated wankery regardless. Even if it does posit itself as disinterested science.

[Rurkel]

Um, yeah, whatever.


really.. Yes. For instance, it's true that Biblical Solomon, David and their Kingdom of Israel didn't exist in any kind of recognizable form, and it's true that

Judaism developed much later than the narratives that became part of its belief, as a religion to which some people converted or others left.And it's true that modern Palestinians have, at least, a large amount of ancestry with inhabitants of the land circa 0 AD, including those inhabitants who followed Judaism.

[RadioRaheem84]

To compare the "Israelis have no right to claim any continuity with ancient Jews" and the "Greeks have no right to claim any continuity with the ancient Hellenes" claims. Reasoning for both include a large amount of truth, however, that doesn't prevent them both from being politically motivated wankery regardless. Even if it does posit itself as disinterested science.

So if its true why can't it be used politically as a counter argument to Zionist claims to the land?

I don't think Palestinians are using it as a "nu'uh we were here first, we're the real Jews" type of argument but one thst challenged the Zionist narrative to prove the depth to which they will go to streal the land.

[Paul Pott]

In the sense that I wouldn't debate a conservative in South Africa decades ago or an ethnic German in occupied Russia in a world where fascism won WWII, I understand his position.

Israelis view their presence in Palestine as legitimate, and that's the problem.

[goalkeeper]

Israelis view their presence in Palestine as legitimate, and that's the problem.

Anyones presence anywhere in the word is "legitimate". Its what people do that is the problem i.e. forcing other people to live under military occupation etc

A Jew, whether Ashkenyzi or Sephardi or Mizrahi, has every right to live in the Southern Levant area as does every other ethnicity/nationality/religion/whatever.

I remember in the early 2000s, some "Leftists" would go on the anti-War demos with banners saying "Arab lands for Arabs" - that shit is so reactionary.

[hatzel]

so as for what you say as definite, is more myth-not based in historical fact

No offence or anything but as somebody who once took over a thread claiming 'Jesus wasn't a Jew; he was a Muslim!' (I would link up, but - surprise surprise! - you deleted those posts an hour or so after making them) I hardly think you're the best person to accuse people of relying on myth rather than historical fact...

Oh and by the way, when you wrote in this same post...


the 'jewish' popualtion of Palestine 2000 yrs ago

...is that coming from a similar angle? I can't think of any reason the word 'Jewish' would be put in the little scarequotes there unless you were suggesting the word is somehow inappropriate or inaccurate to describe that population (despite their being routinely referred to as such in the historical record, and the. traditional usage of the word 'Jewish' to refer to such people). Were they, perhaps - like Jesus, one member of that population - not in fact Jewish, but...something else...?

Oh, and considering you decided to throw a tantrum at somebody for using the word 'Israel' to refer to that specific land before 1948 - despite the fact that it's just a common name for that territory (particularly when speaking of the biblical era) in the English language - I feel obliged to remind you that the name 'Palestine' was not yet used to refer to that stretch of land 2000 years ago, because the Jewish uprising was still over a century away. So the correct terminology would be 'the Jewish population of Judea 2000 years ago,' that being the historically applicable name (or at least the closest English equivalent to the Latin name for the province at that time). Not that I care, I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever what word a language uses to refer to that territory - Israel, Palestine, Judea, Southern Syria, the Southern Levant, Western Jordan, Northern Egypt, the unmentionable territory, Buggabuggaland, who gives a fuck? - as long as we all understand what area the word refers to, but because you seem to have a big problem with people using historically inapplicable (according to you, at least) terminology, I thought I'd might as well pretend I cared, too! :) (Problem is it makes me look completely ludicrous, but lo and behold that was my fucking point)

Is anybody still wondering why people are making accusation of 'nationalist wankery' in this thread? You would have thought that - as leftists, supposedly - we might have been able to look at ancient history - or even employ regular English words! - without trying to use it for some atavistic ideological purpose, but I guess I was wrong. I mean do you people not even realise you're seriously discussing purity of bloodlines through the millennia on a fucking leftist forum? I've got some big news for you: we're all a bunch of mongrels. Each and every one of us. Mongrels. But for some reason we think it's worthwhile discussing our histories as if we weren't? Or that the point is to challenge only particular peoples' claims to national continuity, rather than seeking to discredit the underlying logic? Fucking hell this shit is seriously weak. I swear Rocker wrote some book about this kind of stuff aaaaages ago, give it a read some time maybe, because the whole movement would greatly benefit if people weren't so laughable...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I appreciate critical deconstruction of traditional history, but dismissing the historical relationship between Palestine and the Jews on fairly minimal evidence is the bad kind of historical revisionism. It shows more attachment to a nationalist discourse which really values these "national narratives" than a leftist one which tries to remain critical of them.

[melvin]

Well, I guess Oxford won't become a hub of radical leftist thought. Bummer.

[Rottenfruit]

Question to most people here I guess: How is no-platforming Zionists so much different from no-platforming fascists (a policy which the great majority here defend)?

Sure, Galloway is hardly a man of tact and should've known better, but his action is as much "racist" as it is for leftists to walkout on your average rightwinger nutjob.

For what it's worth: I think he should've stayed and engaged with this vile graduating Zionist.
He showed up and was ready to debate the person so what does it matter what nationality the person was? Just because the guy was israeli he deicides not to debate him but okay dokay for him to debate that guy if he was danish? Yes that is racist .

[Orange Juche]

Anyones presence anywhere in the word is "legitimate". Its what people do that is the problem i.e. forcing other people to live under military occupation etc

What I got from it was that he meant their "presence" as in, political/economic domination of the area and the subjugation of other type of peoples. Not just choosing to live in that area.

[l'Enfermé]

Anyones presence anywhere in the word is "legitimate"
No it's not. Zionist colonisation of Palestine can in no way be considered legitimate regardless of anything else since it by necessity requires the displacement of the native, Palestinian, population.

[blake 3:17]

I thought it amusing at the time. The event itself was meaningless.

Galloway was wrong to act the way he did. There is no reason to not debate someone because of their nationality. Zionists here in Canada have been using Galloway as example of how terrible proponents of BDS are.