George Galloway Storms Out of Debate With Israeli Student at Oxford

[WKDWZD]

Was that the question O'Reilly asked? No.

It was relevant to the question that O'Reilly asked and why Galloway would not give a simple yest or no answer. In fact O'Reilly opened the interview saying that he would not debate with Galloway and then in the interview said that he didn't want to go into the history... of course he didn't. However, he seems to have managed to get the simple minded sheeple to suck up his one sided interview technique, so I guess to him at least, it was a success.

[flyboy56]

It was relevant to the question that O'Reilly asked and why Galloway would not give a simple yest or no answer. In fact O'Reilly opened the interview saying that he would not debate with Galloway and then in the interview said that he didn't want to go into the history... of course he didn't. However, he seems to have managed to get the simple minded sheeple to suck up his one sided interview technique, so I guess to him at least, it was a success.

Why was it relevant? So one day you help your neighbor get back on his feet, and when he is able again, he supports the attack of your family. Why should it matter that you helped him get back on his feet?

[Cameron]

Probably smart to avoid these threads, especially when certain characters show up. My position is Pro-Israel, yet I support a two-state solution. I don't support West Bank settlements either. Depending who you ask, I'm either a terrorist supporter or apartheid supporter.

I admire your optimism, sorta like I'd admire the optimism of somebody on his 7th or 8th marriage.

I don't see any "solution."

Israel is a mistake.

[ivanbalt]

I admire your optimism, sorta like I'd admire the optimism of somebody on his 7th or 8th marriage.

I don't see any "solution."

Israel is a mistake.

I have my opinions, but I wouldn't say I'm too optimistic a solution can be reached based on the history of that region. I am hoping Obama steps in with some tough love for Israel.

[WKDWZD]

Why was it relevant? So one day you help your neighbor get back on his feet, and when he is able again, he supports the attack of your family. Why should it matter that you helped him get back on his feet?

If you don't know, then I am unable to help you.

[beeg jacques]

George is good. Especially when it comes to debating. But I think he screwed up on this one.

But I also have to ask, was Christ Church College being racist or segregationist by having George Galloway represent the Palestinian side instead of a Palestinian that could also use the word "we" instead of a Brit saying they?

If George was under the impression that this would be two Brits debating the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I agree that having an Israeli debate Brit drastically alters the milieu of the debate. But I don't think George handled that properly. When that guy said that he was an Israeli he handed George a nail. Instead of driving that nail he threw it away and walked out. George should have taken this position. How can anyone deny that Israel is an aparthied state when the seperation extends from Israel to Britian and right into this very room. I want to take notice that we have an Israeli representing Israel's side in this debate. But there is no Palestinian here to represent the Palestinian side. Instead they have me a Brit representing Palestine. Don't pretend you couldn't find a Palestinian. The Palestinian diaspora has about 15,000 - 20,000 Palestinians in Britian. So is the real problem here that you have accepted this aparthied and can't have a Palestinian in the same room with an Israeli? Maybe worse a Palestinian speaking authoritativly in the same room with an Israeli. Then at the end of the debate call a press conference to expose the segregated nature of this debate. But they set a trap and he stepped in it.

The debate organizer, Mahmood Naji, is obviously part of the Zionist plot that viciously stifles academic discussion about Israel and the Palestinians.

The selection of an Israeli student to present his position is especially unreasonable when you consider his 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."

How was George Galloway supposed to debate with such a rabidly Zionist mindset?

[Rael]

Probably smart to avoid these threads, especially when certain characters show up. My position is Pro-Israel, yet I support a two-state solution. I don't support West Bank settlements either. Depending who you ask, I'm either a terrorist supporter or apartheid supporter.

There is no place on this forum for nuance!

[jrob]

Probably smart to avoid these threads, especially when certain characters show up. My position is Pro-Israel, yet I support a two-state solution. I don't support West Bank settlements either. Depending who you ask, I'm either a terrorist supporter or apartheid supporter.

An actual 'pro Israel' position means consulting the law, and having no more hostility towards Jews living in palestine than one has to the Muslims living in actual ethnically clean, 99% Muslim-only countries throughout the region.

How can you be 'pro-Israel', yet support restrictive covenants against Jews living in Judea and Samaria?

[jrob]

I admire your optimism, sorta like I'd admire the optimism of somebody on his 7th or 8th marriage.

I don't see any "solution."

Israel is a mistake.

You should do like the schoolmarm and take your negative and bitter outlook elsewhere. One can only imagine what a depressing downer you are to live with.

Israel's the solution and antidote to the oppressive Islamist puppets that you prefer inflicting on others throughout the world.

In the 17th Feb 2013 edition of Israel’s good news, the highlights include:

· Israeli scientists have developed a cure for a disease causing millions of genetic deformities.
· Israel’s new parliament will have a larger proportion of women than those of the USA or UK.
· Israeli surfers saved 8 children from drowning in Hawaii.
· Israeli 3D printers can now print your false teeth.
· An Israeli company won the top award at the Munich CleanTech Conference.
· Israel exported 60 million flowers to Europe for Valentine’s Day.
· The UN heard first hand about the fruits of Israeli technology.

How sad that you're unable to get joy from anything other than the subjugation of others.

[regularguy]

How can you be 'pro-Israel', yet support restrictive covenants against Jews living in Judea and Samaria?

Jews who immigrated to the West Bank many years ago, or were born there, should be allowed to remain in Palestine... as Palestinian citizens, subject to Palestinian law.

[jrob]

Jews who immigrated to the West Bank many years ago, or were born there, should be allowed to remain in Palestine... as Palestinian citizens, subject to Palestinian law.

There's no legal foundation for your opinion. There was no palestinian state, nor palestinian government.

Again, objective observers consult the law, particularly the breakup and partitioning of the Ottoman empire into multiple countries. Some are ethnically clean Muslim states.

The fact that the Nato cheerleaders have no problem with those bastions of misogyny and oppression, but instead lie incessantly about Israel, tells us all we need to know regarding the honest intention/intellectual capacity of the Nato cheerleader.

The legal foundations are easily found.

The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine conferred on Britain by the Principal Allied Powers and confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920. These founding documents were supplemented by the Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924 respecting the Mandate for Palestine. It is of supreme importance to remember always that these documents were the source or well-spring of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over Palestine and the Land of Israel under international law, because of the near-universal but completely false belief that it was the United Nations General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 that brought the State of Israel into existence. In fact, the UN resolution was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, rather than an affirmation of such rights or progenitor of them.

[regularguy]

There's no legal foundation for your opinion. There was no palestinian state, nor palestinian government.

Yet even a lot of right-wing Israelis pay lip-service to the idea of a Palestinian state. Gotta figure it will happen someday. But it would be a farce if there were Israeli-controlled enclaves scattered throughout a supposedly-sovereign-state of Palestine. If settlers want to remain as Palestinian citizens, that seems like a fair solution.

[beeg jacques]

Jews who immigrated to the West Bank many years ago, or were born there, should be allowed to remain in Palestine... as Palestinian citizens, subject to Palestinian law.

The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States says otherwise.

Transfering Jews is his solution

[jrob]

Yet even a lot of right-wing Israelis pay lip-service to the idea of a Palestinian state. Gotta figure it will happen someday. But it would be a farce if there were Israeli-controlled enclaves scattered throughout a supposedly-sovereign-state of Palestine. If settlers want to remain as Palestinian citizens, that seems like a fair solution.

Lip service is very inexpensive policy, which matters little. There is no grass roots movement seeking a peaceful Arab state in the region, not even by local Arabs, thus it's no surprise it doesn't exist.

Your statement is rather bizarre in that you can't explain why 'Israeli control' is worse than plo/hamas controlled--unless you don't like modern economies and luxuries inflicted on Arabs.

Similarly, you can't explain why it's so important to you to subject Israelis to life under a regime that opposes civil and human rights.

[regularguy]

The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States says otherwise.

Transfering Jews is his solution

So I don't share his opinion... just as I don't share the opinion of Israeli government officials who insist that armed Israeli settlements must remain scattered throughout an eventual Palestinian state.

[beeg jacques]

So I don't share his opinion... just as I don't share the opinion of Israeli government officials who insist that armed Israeli settlements must remain scattered throughout an eventual Palestinian state.

It would helpful if the PA aka "moderate peace partners" didn't view the creation of a Palestinian State as simply a step towards the elimination of Israel.

Do we even need to discuss the explicitly stated goal of the other governing authority of the Palestinian Arabs?

[regularguy]

Your statement is rather bizarre in that you can't explain why 'Israeli control' is worse than plo/hamas controlled--unless you don't like modern economies and luxuries inflicted on Arabs.

I like the idea of self-determination. If there is going to be a Palestinian state - as even Netanyahu supports - it shouldn't be riddled with enclaves of armed foreign citizens who are beyond the reach of Palestinian law.

Similarly, you can't explain why it's so important to you to subject Israelis to life under a regime that opposes civil and human rights.

The only reason it's important to me is that the U.S. is so closely tied to Israel, and the Palestinian issue complicates our country's foreign policy. I have no desire to "subject" Israelis to living in Palestine if they don't want to. They could always move back to Israel if they don't want to be "Jewish Palestinians", in the same way there are currently "Arab Israelis".

[regularguy]

It would helpful if the PA aka "moderate peace partners" didn't view the creation of a Palestinian State as simply a step towards the elimination of Israel.

I agree. Just as it would be helpful if Likud dropped its insistence on retaining Israeli control of the West Bank settlements.

[jrob]

I like the idea of self-determination. If there is going to be a Palestinian state - as even Netanyahu supports, it shouldn't be riddled with enclaves of armed foreign citizens who are beyond the reach of Palestinian law.

Were such the case, you'd stop ignoring self-determination while supporting the international community's (and US funded) plo/hamas quislings.

It's not possible to support 'international community' funded, elitist created, oppressive regimes, yet support 'self determination'.

The only reason it's important to me is that the U.S. is so closely tied to Israel, and the Palestinian issue complicates our country's foreign policy. I have no desire to "subject" Israelis to living in Palestine if they don't want to. They could always move back to Israel if they don't want to be "Jewish Palestinians", in the same way there are currently "Arab Israelis".

Right McGovern. The US is infinitely closer tied to Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries for which US soldiers have been fighting and dying for years, two countries lead by US puppets. Thus, your first sentence has no foundation in reality.

Where exactly have the PLO or hamas made it clear that they'll provide Jews in their countries full legal rights, governmental representation, and civil right? Unless you can cite this, you're merely advocating the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews that are living on their own legally owned land, minding their own business.

[beeg jacques]

I agree. Just as it would be helpful if Likud dropped its insistence on relating Israeli control of the West Bank settlements.

Maybe the Palestinians will getting yet another Israeli offer of the majority of the West Bank as well as associated land swaps to reject.

They can base their rejection on their unwavering demand that Israel allow the Palestinian Arab refugees and their millions of multi-generational descedants to flood into Israel as part of any agreement.

It's all part of the goal.