Protesters prevent Israeli deputy ambassador to UK addressing selected Essex University audience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113432162

But a categorical shunning of human beings based on their national origin is a big yuck.

No biggie , nor does Hamas nor Iran .

But totally agreed, such facts don't excuse bigotry, they underline it.
Galloway is a good rhetorician but has no answers and this incident shows it.

As I've said before, the fact that Galloway could be elected to anything is a deep indictment of the mainstream parties.

That's just out and out bigotry, isn't it?

There's a note of irony to it, I'll grant - seeing as how Israel itself refuses to speak to people it dislikes - but that's hardly a position that should be emulated for fuck's sake.

I'd just finished reading one of the posts from our newly minted advocates of Tibet stuff, but it was the selective blindness when it came to the Gatestone Institute being buddies with Gert Wiilders that got me in the end...

at least here in these parts and most others that I read, when he is brought up it is usually albeit not always by those who want "just-us" in Judea and Samaria

That said what he did was foolish and gave the appearance of weakness on his part if not out right bigotry to put it mildly

Lol .

He's ignored as much as Greta Berlin and the free Gaza movement .

http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/02/21/george-galloway-in-racist-walk-out/

Or just the "Zionist" ones?

I think anyone who lives in Israel would be a 'Zionist' as far as he's concerned. He might exempt Arab citizens, or might consider them as traitors- it would probably depend on his mood that day.

At any rate, I think one of his main driving forces is a desire for attention.

He has no problem engaging with certain citizens of Israel.

Mr Speaker, thank you for inviting me here tonight.

To the audience – thank you for coming.

Mr Galloway –

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that you had promised the press that you would “annihilate” me—

(Here Galloway interrupts and accuses me of libelling him for repeating a statement made to the Oxford Student Newspaper: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/02/14/galloway-says-he-will-annihilate/)

Let me make it clear where I stand. This debate is not about whether Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank upon the signing of a treaty that would guarantee the Jewish and Palestinian nations peace and prosperity within the safe and secure borders of their respective states.

That is a point of consensus in Israel. I believe that the Occupation must end. I am devastated when Israelis are murdered in suicide bombings and rocket attacks; and I am deeply distressed by heavy price that the Palestinians have paid for this conflict, including the tragic loss of innocent life. I want peace and I want it now.

This debate, however, is about whether Israel should withdraw immediately. Overnight. Unilaterally. Without any guarantees from the Palestinians to match such dramatic concessions by calling an end to this century-old conflict. The burden on the proposition today is to make precisely that case.

So this debate is not about who loves justice or freedom more. It’s not about who has suffered more. It’s not about who is good and who is bad, who is right, who is wrong. So let’s not let this debate descend into a parody of itself.

An immediate withdrawal denies Israelis and Palestinians the two essential goods that a peace treaty would secure: firstly, a framework for safety, security and cooperation; secondly, binding promises by each party to irrevocably terminate all claims or states of belligerency against the other. To forego the one chance to sign for peace on the dotted line would leave the region vulnerable, insecure, and in a perpetual state of war.

This is the lesson from the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which I supported – out of the same misguided faith that the cards were in Israel’s hands. Israel uprooted over 8,000 settlers and evacuated the military – but without a pledge from the Palestinians not to fire rockets at Israeli towns over the very border to which Israel had just withdrawn. We wanted peace: we got war. We mustn’t make the same mistake again.

My first point: only a peace treaty can provide a framework for enduring peace and security—

(Here Galloway interrupts for a second time, asking: “You said ‘we’. Are you Israeli?”)

http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/the-speech-sent-galloway-packing

Sadly these figures need not be invented as they are all too real.

is utterly powerless, baying at the moon on his own.

He has had some real gems.

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

There are plenty of them all over the world, some even post on liberal/progressive discussion boards.

If Israel agrees to leave the Arab Palestinian areas, what assurances will it get that Palestinian groups will not use that territory and its resources to attack and attempt to destroy Israel? Is Israel supposed to just trust that they will not, or accept that they might?

or send tanks in.

....other than to terrorize.

Get real.

the only time Israel carried out a military action without a direct provocation were incidents that did not directly involve the Palestinians, like the recent airstrikes in Syria. In each confrontation with Palestinians since the draw back from the West Bank in 2005, Israeli's bombings and use of armored units came after attacks from some entity on the Palestinian side. These include missile attacks, lone bombers and kidnappings.

The Israeli government cannot gain much benefit from violent provocative action, due to the reality of the geopolitics of the Mideast. To maintain the order, it also cannot tolerate its citizens doing it. That is the Palestinian's reassurance. It is a mix of past performances and cost/benefit analysis.

Now, I ask again, will Israel be given any assurance?

Firstly, I presume you mean the withdrawal from Gaza, and not the West Bank (its not entirely clear)?

The last fracas between Israel and the Palestinians is generally accepted to have started on 8 November 2012, although some date it to 29 October 2012.

The most even handed account that I've read concluded that it was very difficult to determine who started the 2012 conflict, although certainly Israel was the first to kill civilians:-

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/who-started-the-israel-gaza-conflict/265374/



Rubbish. Both the 2012 war and the 2009 war occurred within a month of legislative elections in Israel. On both occasions, Netanyahu was happy to have a bustup with the Palestinians so he could look tough for the voters, which turned out to be a roundly successful reelection strategy. On the other hand, Hamas gained nothing and lost quite a bit in terms of infrastructure and lives lost.