Was he doing some sort of stunt where he is trying condemn Israeli people for attacking Palestinian people or something? Either way this was not very clever.

Thanks gorillaman, hadn't seen his follow up. Really gives some insight into his mindset. He feels misled, because the nationality of his opponent wasn't revealed to him before hand. He'd completely understand if the shoe was on the other foot and someone refused to debate someone because they happened to Palestinian, or Syrian, or otherwise...

What an unrepentant hate monger.

How is he hate mongering? He refuses to argue with a 20 year-old military idealist from a country who's sovereignty he doesn't recognize. Disregarding that debating with a 20 year-old idealist is like arguing with a brick wall because nothing productive can ever come of it for anyone, he was deceived into participating with his policies well known by the organizers, long before he was to be invited. He did nothing wrong by walking out from that ambush. Actually, that's probably the most sensible thing he could've done under the circumstances.

If ANYTHING, this is unrepentant attention whoring on the part of the organizers.

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.

No, that is not what we're talking about here at all.

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.

He doesn't recognize the state of Israel, so the point of arguing the state of Israel is completely moot for him, THAT is the reason. He's not anti-semitic in the sense that he hates jews, he just doesn't recognize the state of Israel, no? That is not the same thing. It definately isn't interchangeable with any other nationality, as his problem is specifically with Israel.
This is much like how the Israeli government for the longest time refused to talk to the Palestinian leadership because it didn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
Let him discuss something else, ANYTHING else, with an Israeli person and you can be sure he'd be up for it.

He walked out from that debate because he got ambushed by the event organisers, who knew full well that he would not agree to any debate involving Israel and Israelis debating Israel, but decided to deceive him into participating by misleading him into believing the event was about something it was not. Had they been straightforward about this then he'd declined the invitation and the end result would be the same, he would not have participated. Instead, they orchestrated this whole debacle with the sole intent of gaining some publicity, and perhaps to cast him in bad light while they're at it. There was no other outcome from this, they knew he wouldn't participate and invited him anyway, making sure there would be cameras there to capture everything on film. That is shameful.

The guy is an idiot, if hes not kissing some murderous dictators hand or pretending to be a cat on a reality show, you'll find him doing something else self promotional.

The only shame here is we have to waste time on this fool.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Yikes

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.

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.

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.