Gorgeous George Galloway, Sub-Loony

Via Crooked Timber, Gorgeous George, how are ya, part 2, a link to this extended clip of George Galloway saying wicked and stupid things.

It’s ok to be mad at Bush, Blair and Berlusconi. It’s ok to to accuse the US of imperial designs on the Middle East, although these days it’s probably shifting fast to tail-between-legs time.

But telling an Arab Muslim audience that Jerusalem and Baghdad are their beautiful daughters being raped by westerners? And that they and their governments should do more to protect those daughters? Inciting the audience with the suggestion that Western leaders (and one presumes, their soldiers?) are really just terrorists?

I called Galloway a raving loon back when he made mincemeat of Senator Coleman a few weeks ago, to some criticism. I wish now to apologize to the fine folks in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, as I now appreciate that the Loony Party has standards; I accept that Galloway wouldn’t qualify.

This entry was posted in Iraq, UK. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Gorgeous George Galloway, Sub-Loony

  1. Patrick (G) says:

    Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners – Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it

    Inflammatory, yes. Inaccurate,…uhm, not really.

    And that they and their governments should do more to protect those daughters? Inciting the audience with the suggestion that Western leaders (and one presumes, their soldiers?) are really just terrorists?

    To the first question, Galloway is entirely correct. Simply waiting for the U.S. to fail in Iraq is an easy, but morally despicable, out from confronting a belligerent violator of the U.N. Charter.

    As to the second, are you claiming innocence on Bush, et al’s behalf, or are you angry that the accusation was made ?

    As to U.S. soldiers not being terrorists; It’s clear to everybody that the U.S. is not upholding its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. It scarely matters to Iraqis if the U.S. soldiers beating the man in the sleeping bag was doing so per orders emmanating from the highest levels of the Bush administration or not; in either case, they are equally responsible.

    If the U.S. Military, from its lowliest Privates to its officer corp to its Commander-In-Chief, is uninterested in upholding its legal duty to Iraqi Citizens under the congressionally-ratified Geneva Conventions, how in the world does it escape the ‘Terrorist’ label ?

  2. michael says:

    The suggestion that Jerusalem belongs to the people of Iraq, Iran, Tunisia and/or wherever it was GG was preaching strikes me as obscene. The idea that Jerusalem being held by Israel is like a “rape” of the residents of the Muslim (not even Arab!) world — for that is what Galloway said — is obscene. And even if you oppose Israel’s annexation of the half of Jerusalem not approved by the international community, the conditions under which even non-Israeli Arabs live there cannot, I think, be fairly equated to the situation in Baghdad.

    I do understand the cheap appeal to demagogs of calling the US and other coalition forces (or their leaders) ‘terrorists’: The direct, proximate, and indirect cause of their acts combine to leave many civilians dead or injured and many more threatened. (Although it pays to recall that other people, the ones setting the bombs, are responsible for many of the current problems too.) But I think it is wrong to equate stupid imperialism accomplished with uniformed troops with terrorism. They are different.

    I happen to believe that the US invasion of Iraq was not only stupid, but a violation of international law. (Having spent some time reading the sources and the commentators, I will however admit that the US case for legality had at least some weight to it. Not nearly enough in the end, but it wasn’t as laughable as one might have expected.) From what we know, however, the UK army, and at least much of the US Army, have followed the laws of war while in the field. The extent to which the US has violated the laws of war in regards to prisoners remains unclear, and is clearly not zero, but even those evils are different from terrorism.

  3. michael says:

    He was speaking to Syrians, by the way, according to Galloway pours petrol on the flames.

  4. Patrick (G) says:

    The suggestion that Jerusalem belongs to the people of Iraq, Iran, Tunisia and/or wherever it was GG was preaching strikes me as obscene.

    As opposed to the Idea that Jerusalem belonged to the zionists of the Western world ?
    or the Idea that Jerusalem belonged to the Crusaders of Christendom ?

    Of the three, Is not the Muslim claim on Jerusalem the strongest ?

    The rape metaphor is not one I would have chosen, and Jerusalem is the more subtle case, but the rape is not in Israel having nominal control of Jerusalem, but in how it uses that political control. A mundane but systematic violation of (Muslim) property and civil rights is rape, albeit not in the sexual sense.

    I do understand the cheap appeal to demagogs of calling the US and other coalition forces (or their leaders) ‘terrorists’:

    The difference between our military tactics and terrorist tactics is that when we use bombs, our military isn’t sacrificing one of its own to do it. We can hardly claim to be more discriminate in our targets, dropping them from high in the sky, than the suicide bomber that has to drive up (or walk) to his target.

    Politically, Bush and Blair terrorize their own electorates, primarily, with words rather than bombs, but the same message is sent: You cannot be safe unless you do what I want.

    I will however admit that the US case for legality had at least some weight to it. Not nearly enough in the end, but it wasn’t as laughable as one might have expected.

    That’s the most charitable spin that can be made of our case for war; it presumes that our case for launching a war was made in Good Faith, and we were bamboozled by marginal players like Chalabi with false evidence into a colossal mistake.

    But if you bother to look at how we actually made that case for war, Good Faith is a laughable presumption. Evidence Presented was Proof of Guilt, even when it couldn’t be substantiated. The approach taken was deeply cynical; keep the marginal players on retainer to collect/produce questionable evidence, throw the muck up and see what sticks, attack the doubters, and when nothing substantial stuck, call off the inspection and launch the invasion. And that was obvious from contemporary observation, nevermind all the stuff that’s come out since the invasion.

  5. fiat lux says:

    “zionists of the Western world” = Jews, I suppose. *sigh*

    There is a school of thought which likes to lump Jews in with other western colonial powers in order to cast them in an unfavorable light. This school likes to overlook the fact that the history of Israel is a lot more chaotic and rocky than the simplistic claim that “The Jews were driven off by the Romans, the Arabs moved in, and then 1800 years later the Jews came back, therefore the Jews have no right to Israel.”

  6. Patrick (G) says:

    Not all Jews are zionists, not all zionists are Jews.

    Since you missed that nuance, you probably don’t realize that I didn’t make your “simplistic claim”.
    “No Right” != “weaker claim”.

    I do believe that should the Israelis make an honest effort at negotiating a real settlement with Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, their terrorism/security problem would fade away.

    In the meantime, we’re subsidizing their expensive apartheid/police state with our tax dollars.
    And we get treated like rubes for it.

  7. Ted says:

    Patrick suggested:

    “I do believe that should the Israelis make an honest effort at negotiating
    a real settlement with Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, their terrorism/security
    problem would fade away.”

    Do you think the Arabs have made an “honest effort” at negotiating with Israel?

    Last time I checked the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq
    and most other Arab states – with the obvious exceptions of Egypt and Jordan –
    don’t even recognize the EXISTENCE of Israel.

    Kind of hard to make peace with folks who don’t even think you are alive
    isn’t it?

    As to your suggestion that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’ I suggest you do some
    reading about both the Union of South Africa and Israel. You may be rather
    upset to find out that in UoSA the overwhelming majority of people there
    are … well … black. And during the apartheid regime they had no political
    rights.

    And I bet you would be amazed to find out that Israel is 81% Jewish. And
    even more amazed to find out that it’s ethnic minorities not only have full
    civil rights but also can serve in the Knesset. And further amazed to
    find out that many of finest Israeli soldiers are … gasp … actually Arabs.

    You are certainly allowed your own set of opinions. You are not
    allowed your own set of facts. Instead of mindlessing parroting
    what you’ve seen from anti-Isreal zealots why not do some research
    on your own?

  8. mac says:

    George Galloway isn’t merely a loony, he’s an SML – a Scots-Marxist-Loony with a huge chip on his shoulder.

    George grew up in Dundee with ingrained working class prejudices that he picked up while working in a garden center and Michelin Tyres. He later finessed these prejudices into “a world view” courtesy of Karl. The Galloway world view is pretty basic … there are big rich strong guys who are BAD and poor litle weak guys who are GOOD. Saddam was viewed by George as a poor little weak guy, despite the latters megalomania and Nebuchadnezzar-like pretensions, because Saddam was up against the very, very BAD Great Satan and co.

    The accusation that George was out to line his pockets by sucking up to Saddam is probably untrue (he is Scots however so you never know). The sadder truth is that George was a Ba’athist cheerleader for reasons that had everything to do with his peculiarly deranged world view, and had little or nothing to do with what Saddam actually stood for or the possibility of easy coinage.

    George is married to one Dr Amireh Abu-Zayyad, a Palestinian academic – but I’m sure that his views would have been equally screwy if he had been a celibate tea totaller.

  9. Patrick (G) says:

    Ted,
    Last time I checked the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq
    and most other Arab states – with the obvious exceptions of Egypt and Jordan –
    don’t even recognize the EXISTENCE of Israel.

    Sorry, that’s incorrect: They don’t recognize the LEGITIMACY of Israel.
    Israel’s EXISTENCE is unquestioned fact. You understand the difference, don’t you ?

    As to your definition of Apartheid; one of the Big Issues in Israel is that if current reproductive rates hold up, Jews in Israels will eventually be a minority. If the present political stalemate holds till then, then by your own definition, Israel will be a State that practices Apartheid. To my mind, it is the treatment of the disadvantaged class that defines Apartheid, not the absolute population levels.

    Lastly, you might want to refrain from using that tired cliché, “Rather than parrotting Anti-Israeli propaganda…do your own research”, unless you’re willing to demonstrate that you yourself have gone beyond “pro-Israeli propaganda” in your own research.

  10. mac says:

    Israel won’t get anywhere by cutting and running. I stand with Netanyahu on that (he did the right thing in resigning).

    This withdrawl from Gaza is problematic, and I’m not speaking as a jew, I’m speaking as a democratic partisan of this amazing … nay …. miraculous little nation, founded after the atrocities of the WW2. The arab objections to Israel are based on fallacious thinking and the worst types of prejudice. There were never any arabs in this region prior to the return of the jews, that could even remotely be described as “a nation”. The Ottoman Turks, for God’s sake, had more influence in that region than the indigenous arabs.

    In the wars directed against Israel, arab forces sought to destroy the emerging democratic state and they failed miserably. This little country is a phenomena in this region; a country that struggles to retain democratic principles despite terrorist attacks and despicable rhetoric of hate coming from neighboring countries. Even the Muslim refusnik, Irshad Manji, who spent a period living in Israel, attests to the fact that it is a paragon in this region of autocrats and theocrats.

    The constant attrition, the constant effort to force Israel to retreat and minimize its presence in the region stems from an ideology of hate, and I say we need MORE Israel in the Middle East. Of course in achieving these ends Israeli democrats must struggle to avoid becoming tyrants. However, if in the wake of the withdrawl from Gaza, arab hate mongers use this to attack Israel, then all bets are off. If Iran tries to use its nuclear adventures to threaten Israel, then all bets are off.

    Right now we are in an interim period. What ensues depends a lot on the ability of the Palestinian authority to rein in the fanatics, and on the willingness of countries such as Iran, not merely to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but to drop any covert plans to export terror.

    We will see …

  11. Mark says:

    Patrick,

    “To my mind, it is the treatment of the disadvantaged class that defines Apartheid, not the absolute population levels.”

    Concur. Our views differ, yet it would be disappointing if you were to actually support George ‘I salute you oh Saddam!’ Galloway.

    Here is my perspective:

    The treatment of Israeli Arabs is consistent with the treatment of minorities in Western Democracies, with a few exceptions. Contrary to all Muslim countries except Turkey, Israeli Arabs have equal voting rights, serve in Knesset, have religious freedom and the women are not discriminated.

    Unequel treatment does take place (such as exclusion of Muslim Arabs from the Israeli Defence Force) and is a problem. These cases are, arguably, justifiable until such a time when a peaceful settlement can be reached. Israel has always sought peace from day 1 and even for many years before the formation of the state of Israel Jews looked for peaceful coexistance in the region. Indeed up until orchestration of terrorist attacks on Jewish civilians by Mufti of Jerusalem in 1920s (later Nazi war criminal, Araft’s uncle) the arabs and Jews existed in peace and benefited from each others’ presence. Jews,incidenlally, have ALWAYS lived in Jerusalem.

    To claim that the US has imperial ambisions is ridiculous. American soldiers are risking their lives TODAY to bring equality and prosperity to the people of Iraq. It is not them that are murdering the hostages, children in the street or indiscrimentately bombs crowds. If terrorism were to stop in Iraq, Americans would happily leave today.

    In summary, Israel is NOT an apartheid. US, Israel or ‘the West’ are ‘raping’ anyone. George Galloway is not the first one to court publicity by inflaming passions. Innocent children, women and men pay a heavy price for such speeches.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *