George Galloway Storms Out of Debate With Israeli Student at Oxford

[bullmikey]

more

My question would be why did Oxford invite such an obvious anti-Semite to participate in the debate? His belief that the British media is Zionest controlled should have been their first hint as to where this pos resides.

[jrob]

No.

Your argument entirely fails (again).

You asserted that he could be making a political statement, even though you can't cite his legal citations at all.

Another batboy failure.

[jrob]

My question would be why did Oxford invite such an obvious anti-Semite to participate in the debate? His belief that the British media is Zionest controlled should have been their first hint as to where this pos resides.

No big surprise here. The international community loves its Jewhaters (and giving them a platform and accolades for squealing how badly those evil Jooos are oppressing them). It pays well to jump on that bandwagon.

[ivanbalt]

Was George Galloway a "complete clown" when he smoked the US Senate and ripped them a new one in 2005?

George Galloway is a very accomplished speaker and debator and is certainly not afraid of debating with any Israeli. He correctly, in my opinion, simply refuses to acknowledge 'Israels' legality in its current form and will not lend it any credence or legitimacy to it by entering into any debate on that matter and correctly describes it as an apartheid state.

He is not a man that can be bought or bullied, he willl not to be swayed by AIPAC or any other lobby and is not scared of being labelled an anti-Semite.

Watch the video link I've posted then, when you've finished wincing, come back and tell us all again that he is a "complete clown".

Good speech. Check out this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZbzfP7JIs

I'll give him a slight pass since it's Oreilly, but he sure does jump around with his opinions. He's like an extremist who's trying to pretend he isn't extreme. His North Korea comments didn't work out so well.

[ivanbalt]

Back atcha.


Only if they represent those actions in a debate.

"WE."

If you were a American student debating American policies, you would never say "We"?

[WKDWZD]

Good speech. Check out this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZbzfP7JIs

I'll give him a slight pass since it's Oreilly, but he sure does jump around with his opinions. He's like an extremist who's trying to pretend he isn't extreme. His North Korea comments didn't work out so well.

CTFU... Galloway toasted O'Reilly in that clip too. What sort of idiot would try to get Gallowy to answer a question yes or no?

Epic fail Ivan, if that's the best that you can conjure up...

[Cameron]

If you were a American student debating American policies, you would never say "We"?

I'm sure I'd say, "We."

BUT if I were an American student defending Bush's war, you could walk out on me without being anti-American.

You could be anti-war.

I don't follow these I/P threads much, but may I ask if you take a side?

[beeg jacques]

The Israeli student's position was that of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank "in the context of a negotiated peace treaty, which would recognise both Israeli and Palestinian states."

Apparently George Galloway finds the very existence of Israel intolerable.

No wonder he is being ardently defended on this forum.

[Cameron]

Indeed. Galloway finds the very existence of Israel intolerable.

no recognition, no normalisation. Just boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the apartheid state is defeated.

[flyboy56]

CTFU... Galloway toasted O'Reilly in that clip too. What sort of idiot would try to get Gallowy to answer a question yes or no?

Epic fail Ivan, if that's the best that you can conjure up...

I thought O'Reilly was extremely civil not losing his temper once. Never debated Galloway as he said he wouldn't do at the very beginning, and only asked him questions. And the one question Galloway could not give a yes or no answer to; was it right for the US to toss the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Which took place after 9/11. For most I suspect would be an easy yes. Not sure why Galloway felt this question could not be answered with a simple yes or no.

[flyboy56]

Indeed. Galloway finds the very existence of Israel intolerable.

That's not exactly what he said during his interview with O'Reilly.

[beeg jacques]

Indeed. Galloway finds the very existence of Israel intolerable.

"I don't recognise Israel and i don't debate with Israelis"


Yep.

Despite the fact that the Israeli student at the debate was in support of a "negotiated peace treaty, which would recognise both Israeli and Palestinian states."

That's no different from the Hamas position.

[Cameron]

I thought O'Reilly was extremely civil not losing his temper once. Never debated Galloway as he said he wouldn't do at the very beginning, and only asked him questions. And the one question Galloway could not give a yes or no answer to; was it right for the US to toss the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Which took place after 9/11. For most I suspect would be an easy yes. Not sure why Galloway felt this question could not be answered with a simple yes or no.

Here's why:

The White House bluntly warned Afghanistan's Taliban rulers Friday that "We will defeat you" if they refuse to turn suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden over to U.S. authorities.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-21/w...?_s=PM:asiapcf

[WKDWZD]

I thought O'Reilly was extremely civil not losing his temper once. Never debated Galloway as he said he wouldn't do at the very beginning, and only asked him questions. And the one question Galloway could not give a yes or no answer to; was it right for the US to toss the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Which took place after 9/11. For most I suspect would be an easy yes. Not sure why Galloway felt this question could not be answered with a simple yes or no.

And O'Reilly didn't want to discuss the history of the Taliban prior to 9/11... the two standpoints are inextricably linked and can'tbe answered with a simple yes or no. O'Reilly was playing the typical silly 'crew' game and trying to trap Galloway, who is far to long in the tooth to fall for that old one. I am somewhat surprised that you would think that anyone would answer such a question with a simple yes or no, let alone a skilled debator as good as Galloway. To anyone other than a dittohead, Galloway smoked O'Reilly in that interview, it was a bi of an 'own goal' for Ivan to have posted it.

[flyboy56]

And O'Reilly didn't want to discuss the history of the Taliban prior to 9/11... the two standpoints are inextricably linked and can'tbe answered with a simple yes or no. O'Reilly was playing the typical silly 'crew' game and trying to trap Galloway, who is far to long in the tooth to fall for that old one. I am somewhat surprised that you would think that anyone would answer such a question with a simple yes or no, let alone a skilled debator as good as Galloway. To anyone other than a dittohead, Galloway smoked O'Reilly in that interview, it was a bi of an 'own goal' for Ivan to have posted it.

Fact: we attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 when we found out Al Qaeda was training there. So should we have attacked Afghanistan and thrown the Taliban out? Yes or No? Where's the gray area in that scenario?

[WKDWZD]

Fact: we attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 when we found out Al Qaeda was training there. So should we have attacked Afghanistan and thrown the Taliban out? Yes or No? Where's the gray area in that scenario?

Fact: The US supported the Taliban and foisted them on Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Should the US have done that? Yes or No?

[Rael]

If the guy was a NAZI and Galloway refused to debate because he's a NAZI, would we say that Galloway is anti-German?

He didn't refuse to debate the guy because he might be a Jew, but because he is an Israeli.

Bad analogy. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel like a German is a citizen of Germany. If he wouldn't debate him because he was a Likud, then your analogy of a Nazi would be (somewhat) more correct.

[Cameron]

Bad analogy. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel like a German is a citizen of Germany. If he wouldn't debate him because he was a Likud, then your analogy of a Nazi would be (somewhat) more correct.

We weren't using the analogy in the way that you have incorrectly interpreted it.

It's about which analogy makes the person a bigot -- a personal statement as opposed to a political statement.

Not sure how any remotely evenminded person can conclude that it would be bigoted to walk out on a citizen representing an apartheid government.

"WE."

[beeg jacques]

We weren't using the analogy in the way that you have incorrectly interpreted it.

It's about which analogy makes the person a bigot -- a personal statement as opposed to a political statement.

Not sure how any remotely evenminded person can conclude that it would be bigoted to walk out on a citizen representing an apartheid government.

"WE."

Poor Cam.

His "NAZI" anaolgy failed badly.

Maybe he can have better luck with his claim of an "apartheid government"

Benjamin Pogrund, prominent South African anti-apartheid activist

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasised at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes.

Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.

A crucial, indeed fundamental, indicator of the status of Israel’s minority — and another non-comparison between apartheid South Africa and Israel — is that Arabs have the vote. Blacks did not. The vote means citizenship and power to change. Arab citizens lack full power as a minority community but they have the right and the power to unite as a group and to ally with others.

[zenwalk]

Apartheid with a smiley face.