Israel exists. How does not recognising them or refusing to debate their citizens do anything to change the fact that Israel and the problems it creates will still exist. Isn't this exactly the issue - two sides completely unwilling to communicate or compromise on anything?

And isn't debating more than just trying to convince your opponent? There is an audience present, and I dare say most of them aren't Israeli of military age. Further more, how many times have you known anybody to make a u-turn instantly on anything even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contary of their beliefs. More often you are sowing the seeds that will eventually grow to undermine their convictions. I can't remember a time when Hitchens walked out on a debate because he felt his opponent was too firmly rooted to be swayed, or that they happened to be born in a specific country.

Was he misled by event organisers? Possibly, but its his word vs theirs so we'll never know. It certainly wouldn't have been news if he'd simply turned down the debate. Still, I think its juvenile to refuse to debate Israelis. He alienates those worth debating against and leaves him preaching only to his own choir, achieving absolutely zip. Way to go Galloway, even the moderates think you're a clown.

edit - I should mention I don't think there is anything wrong with turning down a debate against somebody. I think its something different to simply blacklist all Israelis, effectively deciding that they are all deaf to your opinions or that none exist that could offer new points.

He makes the point early on that he has had plenty of Israelis on his show.

Galloway makes a very big point of not conflating Jew with Israeli. He is then very clear that he has had Jews(not Israelis) on the show with him. He repeats at least 3 times he would never debate with any Israeli.

Listen, I consider myself to be as critical of the Israeli state as I can be short of wishing its total eradication from the map. I am sympathetic to Galloway's views, and I respect his passion. But it seems that this man is mistaken in his logic. On the one hand, he outwardly refuses to debate with Israeli citizens. This means that he drawing a line (a rather flimsy one, I might add, according to his own logic) between Israeli citizens and the rest of the world. So, if he doesn't recognize Israel as a state, how can he disavow the very citizens it claims as its own? Okay. That is the most basic point. Very basic. The problem that I see here, ultimately, is that his refusal to debate with this kid is NOT actually based upon an objective distinction between Israeli citizens and those who have no formal allegiance to the Israeli state. What he is doing is making a distinction between himself and people who fundamentally DO NOT agree with his views. He makes the point early on that he has had plenty of Israelis on his show. He seems to think that this validates him somehow, but it in fact invalidates his whole position, and reveals it as being wholly ideological, and, I might add, narcissistic and self-promoting. Without debate and disagreement, politics is nothing. I can respect Galloway's ideas, but I totally reject his understanding of politics and debate.

Or for that matter Galloway debates happily enough with a Nazi here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnncPbP9JrE

In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem

2:45 in Gorillaman's video, "I don't debate with Israelis", again at 8:44 and again at 11:08. Galloway only declares that his problem is not with Jewish people, he repeatedly declares that he absolutely will not debate Israeli's.

What is your response to the gorrilaman video which Galloway explains his reasoning.

My response is disgust, outrage and disbelief. Galloway declares that on principle, his boycott of Israel extends to the point of refusing to even engaging any Israeli in debate. I had hoped that much was clear, and if that point isn't agreed let me know. I don't know how Galloway could make himself any clearer but apparently some still don't hear him.

On the face of it, his position on that isn't even what I find most offensive, though I do find it so. I insist it is no different than any other nationality I've mentioned up thread. What is intolerable is Galloway's own past record.

Saddam Hussein committed genocide against his own people not once, but twice. Killing nearly a half million people across the two. George Galloway did NOT refuse to engage Saddam(let alone Iraqis) in debate. In fact, George went to Baghdad and met Saddam, telling him "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability. I can honestly say when I was speaking with my comrades about coming here, each one wished me to extend their fraternal greetings and support."

Bashir al Assad is continuing on the work of his father, brutally repressing and killing his own people. Galloway again went to Damascus, to praise Syria and tell the people how lucky they were to have Assad. He even squeezed in praise for the Iraqi suicide bombers then blowing up Shia mosques and neighbourhoods.

Galloway's moral 'high' road towards Israel is revealing in the extreme when looking at his eagerness to not only engage, but actively praise other war criminals in the region.

What is your response to the gorrilaman video which Galloway explains his reasoning. Do you believe Israel to be an apartheid state and if not why? If he doesn't recognize Israel as a state, then he doesn't recognize his debatee as being from there. And that break in logic seems to be what is hanging you up for whatever reason.

Then I am wrong, because I went by the word of Galloway in the video that Gorillaman posted.
There, Galloway said he was deceived by the organizer, who did not tell him he'd be debating an Israeli citizen arguing the Israeli state. In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem, that he doesn't consider jews to be the problem, but that it's the Israeli citizens in favour of the Israeli state. He names several prominent jews and Israelis whom he agrees with, and he also details what and why he objected to the particular person in the debate video. It was not simply because the person was Israeli, not simply because the person was a jew.

That means he did not know he was going to be debating a person he's well known for refusing to debate, an Israeli citizen of military age and background who defends the sovereignty of Israel, meaning he was deceived into participating in something all parties involved knew he would refuse, had he known the facts. It also means Galloway didn't refuse simply because the person in question was Israeli, it was the circumstances surrounding that character which made Galloway leave, in addition to being lied to and made a publicity stunt of by the misleading organizer.

You are wrong. He was not misled or offended by the topic of the debate. He did not leave because of the topic of the debate. He in fact attended because of the topic of the debate, which was the topic he expected.

Galloway himself clearly in the video, and repeatedly since, states he reason for leaving was that the PERSON he would be debating was an Israeli, and therefore he would not debate with that PERSON. No different than refusing to debate a PERSON who is from China, India, Russia or Mexico because they were from said country.

Yes, it is. Galloway states very, very clearly that he walked out because his opponent was Israeli. He restates this multiple times again in the video Gorillaman references. Substituting Chinese, Indian, Russian or Egyptian is EXACTLY what is being talked about.

Galloway staunchly defends that he refuses to debate Israeli's because they are Israeli. Changing it to another nationality changes nothing.

I see.....

So you believe it's just good form to let a person know the nationality of the people they will be speaking to or working with? Replace Israeli with Chinese, Indian, Russian or Egyptian and does the same still apply?

Galloway and apologists like him should be ashamed and our society should actively shun them as the narrow minded bigots they are.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Quboid:
British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded

George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.
While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.
There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.


He's allegedly a shill, but he's definitely a nut.

>> ^Quboid:

British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded


George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.

While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.

There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.

British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded

One of his more iconic debates can still be viewed right here on the sift:

http://videosift.com/video/George-Galloway-debates-Christopher-Hitchens-on-Iraq-part-1

I think it important to point out that Galloway opposed the removal of Saddam not on any principals, but because he was personally profiting to the tune of millions off the Oil for Food scandal, and traveled to Iraq and sang Saddam's praises while there.

He doesn't care about or support Arabic and Persian people like he claims, his a sycophantic parasite off the tyrants and dictators repressing them.