any number of times people have pointed out your irrational thoughts and ideas, then wham! 20 minutes later those comments are gone, talk about a hypocrite
this blog is a strange mixture of stalinism, student politics and emulating a semi-literate neo-nazi/white power freak’s attitude towards jewish people
still it is a good out let for your anger, I
’ll bet Freud would have a field day with this blog
PS: *the “some of my best friends are….” excuse does not much ice in the real world, it is heard up and down in pubs, spoke by racists or their friends
Do you agree with the statement "Anyone who does not distinguish between Jews and the Jewish state is an anti-Semite.", or not?
I ask because I can point you toward Jewish blogs that are hostile in ways that I've never seen Mark Elf engage in towards Orthodox Judaism or even Charles Krauthammer who has pissed on Jews collectively who aren't called anti-semitic.
Anyway H, we're looking for quotes from George Galloway that are anti-semitic. You can also go find some anti-semitic quotes from me too while you're at it.
And if you can't do either don't come back.
Thanks
All you have to do is expose his hypocricy and double standards, which isn't very hard.
I've had quite of a few of my comments deleted in such a way.
At least drop the holier than thou act. You're not fooling anyone.
As it happens - and as I point out in my post - I even have comments here by David Hirsh. He's one of the doyens of the zionist anti-boycott movement.
But I do delete time wasters. On that matter, the post is about George Galloway's "anti-semitism". Do you have any evidence of that or are you just another zionist liar out to muddy the waters?
You mean like when you completely misrepresented what I said in order to have an excuse to ban me, and when I logged in from another IP and pointed that out you claimed you "misread" what I said and then misrepresented what I said from another angle (and edited my post) in order to ban me again?
To refresh your memory, we were discussing the ethnic cleansing of Jews from East Jerusalem during the 1948 war. Remember?
As for Galloway, I don't really follow British politics that closely so I really have nothing significant to add about him.
I read somewhere he's doing Big Brother. How's that working out? I was wondering when some politician somewhere would figure out they could get a lot of free publicity by being on a reality show.
Anyhow, feel free to misrepresent what I said now, edit my post, and ban me again. I was just pointing out that your self congratulatory comments on what a fair minded moderator you are are based mostly on your wishful thinking.
You're quick to delete any dissent. You leave the occasional wacko for your buddies to play with, but reasoned comments not in line with your political agenda get nuked in a hurry.
For instance in the post that this comment is under I have asked people to give me quotations by George Galloway that are/were anti-semitic. This is what he has been accused of by a Cambridge professor in the UK. So far no one has even tried. The allegation of anti-semitism is the main stifler of debate used in the west these days even on subjects that have no specific bearing on Jews as Jews. That's the topic. Have you a contribution to that? Or do you want me to waste more time?
That said, when you post something congratulating yourself on what a fair minded moderator you are, don't be surprised when it's pointed out to you that you arn't.
The incident I was referring to happened less than a month ago. I was using the same handle. I was logged in from the same domain. I seriously doubt you don't remember it.
It was one of a few such incidents that I was involved in or saw on this blog, and I don't read or (try to) comment here regularly.
As for the Galloway quotes, considering the audience this blog is geared towards and the fact Mark unfavorably moderates people/posts that don't agree with him which puts off such people from reading and commenting on the blog, I doubt anyone will produce the quotes in question even if they do exist.
I doubt one of the regulars would post said quotes even if they had them.
And they, too, consider it beyond the pale for me to have deleted any of their precious nimcompoopery.
Just this week I had someone make a comment, longer than any here now, which asserted that since Senator Kennedy belonged to a male's-only Harvard club, he has no excuse for criticizing Alito's membership in a club that tried to kick women and blacks off campus.
If the drooler had simply pointed this out (I didn't know about Kennedy's membership) I would have been fine. Instead it turned into a monologue of positively pathetic proportions.
The reason no one is going to come up with the Galloway quotes is, I suspect, because they don't exist. Now go and look through the comments before making any more false accusations.
Thanks
I've even got this Mr T guy making excuses for someone based in the UK who seems to have falsely accused Galloway of anti-semitism without any back up. If someone comes up with anything anti-semitic that George Galloway has said then I'll happily post it.
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/b...mment.php?
id=53
"You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew."
FUNDED Hitler? wtf?
reverse protocols? this crap is all over neo-nazi web sites
- he even got thrown out of the New Labour Party because he was telling stuff like the 'truth' (cf Jack Straw's latest lies over CIA torture flights being serviced by British facilities) -
I made what excuse for whom? I think I was quite clear in saying I don't follow British politics very closely and don't know much about Galloway.
What I did say is that if such quotes exist it isn't likely they'll be posted on a blog full of Galloway supporters where dissenters are regularly silenced.
Again you misrepresent what I said, as per usual.
Now edit my posts a bit and then ban me and prove me right on every point.
*waves*
Political anti-zionism is a critique of the notion of zionism. Zionism is an idea put into practice by real zionists applauded by the 'diaspora' zionists and Christian zionists. The fact that GG criticizes GG on these grounds does not make him an anti-semite. GG doesn't say that there's something wrong with 'the jews'. He doesn't attempt to define something called a 'jewish character' or 'jewish essence' and then say what's wrong with that. Instead, he reserves his critique to what zionists do and have done. he's utterly entitled to do that, if only because of the existence of thousands of jews who are not only not actively zionist, but many who are also anti-zionist. They are against zionism's ideas and against what Israel has done and is doing. No one, H, is going to come here, as the author of the article has done, and claimed that to decouple the word 'Jew' from 'zionist' is itself dubious. Sorry, shmendriks, here meet the jews who decouple 'jew' from 'zionist' and will not be dismissed with crap about how we hate ourselves, hate jews, are anti-semites in disguise, only say what we say because we want to ingratiate ourselves with the goyim, etc etc. No, we argue from first principles, just as we did over, say, apartheid South AFrica, and say, zionism no thanks, Israel no thanks.
Anyway - I have asked for quotes showing that Galloway is anti-semitic and so far I have had a quote purporting to be from Galloway that wasn't anti-semitic.
Mr T - you're a serial time waster. Thanks for letting everyone know why you ended up getting yoru inane comments deleted and your IP banned.
"You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew."
This is an attack on Zionists.
It is intemperate. (I do not know much of the history of political Zionism, but I suspect Zionism is misrepresented if described only in terms of undoubted complicity by some Zionists.)
Despite these misgivings it still remains that the piece cited is not antisemitic. Only if you make an equivalence: jewish person = Zionist does this become anti-semitic.
I suspect H makes that equivalence, but nobody has shown that Galloway does.
The important thing is to get that "anti-semetic" label attached to someone.
You go to Harry's Place don't you? Any recollections? I find their archives a bit tricky. I've had a look at the main posts and I can't see anything.
Anyway - there have been 27 comments to this post not including this one. Six were by me. So that leaves 21. And not one had anything to establish that George Galloway has said anything that was anti-semitic. I'm not sure if "meow" counts as admissable evidence.
Qumsiyeh: A Human Rights Web
I picked up this refreshing news item
US Neocons Accuse Chavez of Anti-Semitism
by Jim Lobe
It strikes me that all these supposedly 'anti-semites' are also not the flavour of the month viz. Bush junior's plans to conquer the known world -
ie Prez of Iran, Prez of Venezuala and the Dundonian thorn in the flesh George Galloway
- is there a connection I wonder?
No, when i've met him, he's been utterly cordial. I've had much more anti-semitism from my ex-wife.
the comment was clear enough, but I will repeat just in case you mis-read it:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/b...k/
b...mment.php? id=53
"You mentioned the Zionists. The Zionists its now coming out even in major publications, well we already knew, actually early on funded Hitler. They said he's gonna be good, he's gonna persecute Jews and he likes our plan for Palestine. And I'm sorry folks, funding Hitler, helping Hitler kill Jews is not pro-Jew."
so my question for you, isakofsky, is do you believe that "Zionists... early on funded Hitler"?
and if so, what evidence from reputable historians (other than the Galloway accusation), do you have?
Where does Galloway even mention Jews here?
Round and round and round and round and round we go.............
Though I guess the accusation of "funding Hitler" is the customary bombast and exaggeration from GG, there is a detailed account of how the World Zionist Organisation tried to undermine a Jewish Boycott of Germany in the 30s here:
http://www.marxists.de/middleast...renner/
ch06.htm
(Ch. 6 of Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictators)
Though I guess stopping a trade boycott is not simply equivalent to giving Hitler money, it might be the distant source of Galloway's statement - which, true or false, cannot be categorised as anti-semitic.
Harry's Place!
That is a hate site.
All you ever get on Harry's Place is a never ending stream of articles that put an anti muslim spin on news stories.
Harry's Place is simply a production line of anti muslim propaganda pretending to be a news blog.
Furthermore Harry's Place are completely obsessed with Galloway and they are effectively running a hate campaign against him.
If you do not believe me - go do a search of Galloway articles in Harry's Place and you will see what I mean. It is amazing
My advice - do not trust any piece of information coming from that hate site nor would I trust anyone who makes important judgments using information provided by that site.
Also you will never see any criticism of Israel on Harrys Place, and I mean NEVER. Harry's Place will go to extraordinary lengths to find an anti muslim angle on a news event but then completely ignore a huge story if it contains the slightest adverse content regarding Israel.
Finally the comments section is full of the same tired old characters, some of whom can only be described a arab hating racists. They never get banned or deleted no matter what outrageous bigotry they come out with.
Avoid Harry's Place. It is a disgraceful website.
And the reason no one has provided any quotes of Galloway saying something anti semitic is that there are not any.
Whatever Harrys Place crap is quoted above you can rest assured it will be lies or distortions.
Harry - thanks for your take on Harry's Place. I ignore it mostly but what shocks me is that a professor of law and philosophy at Cambridge can actually accuse George Galloway of anti-semitism using the comments at Harry's Place as a source.
I know! It is shocking.
This is what makes Harry's Place such a dangerous site in my view.
It has this veneer of respectability and one often comes across references to it the mainstream media for example.
However spend any time there and you start to notice what is really going on.
It still really shocks me that more people do not catch on to it's hidden agenda, especially high powered intellectuals who ought to know better. How embarrassing for the guy!
I was visiting HP for only a week (or two) before I noticed the frequency and consistency of their articles putting an anti muslim spin on events. And then it was another couple of weeks later that I noticed the complete absence of criticism of Israel.
How this professor does not see this I will never know.
Or maybe he just does not care, maybe he just wants to smear Galloway the same way Harry's Place does every day of the week.
Go figure.
As it happens, the stuff that Lenni couldn't mention (not part of his brief) are the American companies who went on doing deals with the nazis, before and during the war. Try 'American Swastika' (forgotten the author) but George W. Bush's grandfather was involved. However, I don't think you can pin anything on 'the jews', 'some jews', or even 'the zionists' or 'some zionists' on this one, unless there's someone I don't know of who was the boss of eg Dupont (supplier of engines to the Luftwaffe) or Bush senior's oil company, the forerunner to Exxon, I seem to remember. I'll google andget back before H tells me I'm an anti-semite for even mentioning America or something...!
Any gentile reading HP for a few days is likely to think 'Do only Zionists still support the war? I wonder why...'
Then there are the bizarre, obsessive vendettas against anyone whom they suspect of being 'antisemitic' or just Roman Catholic (a particular bugbear of 'David T'), such as Galloway, Mother Teresa, Ken Livingstone. It goes on and on, like Kamm's vain attempts to discredit Noam Chomsky.
When all else fails, a handful of regular commenters say the kind of thing about Islam and Mohammed which has got the BNP men in court.
HP used to be a more broadly based forum, but it seems to have shrivelled down into a grumbling area for bummed out ex-lefties who nowadays feel that anything that's 'good for the Jews' and defending Israel has to be backed by vilifying their perceived enemies-- even George Bush and his Christian Zionist crazies.
Actually. I've noticed a new fashion emerging among some zionists. They are starting to deny that they are zionists. David Hirsh is trying that one on over at the Engage site.
I note that Engage posted Finklestein's piece on why Israel should be boycotted. It appears the usually verbose Engageniks are at a loss for how to refute it, thus there are zero comments on the post.
Jim Denham - I shoudl have said in the previous rebuke to Isakofsky. You are still banned - it's just that Isakofsky responded and I don't like to delete comments that people have responded to. You are on record as saying that anyone who doesn't recognise Israel's "right" to exist within the '67 boundaries is anti-semitic but Galloway supports that "right" as far as I know because he supports the two-state "solution".
I addressed the question directly to you for a reason. You
’re a wordsmith and words have specific meaning in a specific context, as you fully know and appreciate this.
So shall we avoid simplistic word games and at look at the historical accuracy of the issue?
Four points:
1. Zionists, by and large, in Germany during that period (1930s) were Jewish.
2. Galloway
’s comments, in my view, echo the old myth of “the Jews brought these troubles upon themselves”.
3. Brenner is not a reputable historian, and he has a self admitted bias. Examples of specialists in this area are: Kershaw, Fest, Bullock, Richard Evans, Burleigh, Gellately etc. There are plenty of historians in this field but Brenner is not one of them. That is why I said ‘reputable historian’.
4. Therefore, I will repeat:
do you believe that "Zionists... early on funded Hitler"? yes or NO?
and what evidence from reputable historians do you have for this ‘fact’? Bearing in mind that ‘FUNDED’ has a very specific meaning.
So jump through hoops elsewhere as you have nothing to add to your (not so) original false allegation.
Whether Zionists regard Brenner as 'reputable' or not is largely irrelevant - although given the frauds who propagate a pro-Zionist history like Efraim Karsh perhapa that an endorsement - but it remains that the evidence he presents of Zionist collaboration with anti-semitism and Nazism is unchallenged. When unable to deny the factual basis of Brenner's arguments Zionist typically attempt to justify them on the grounds of pragmatism.
Theres a distinction here between advocates of the 2-state solution, such as Edward Said, who pragmatically accept the continued existance of Israel as part of a conclusion to the conflict and those who regard a 'jewish state' - with all attendant oppression and discrimination against non-Jews - as a positive good in its own right. The AWL fall squarely in the latter category, which is why Zionist is an accurate description of their position.
Commenting by HaloScan
