">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDaZ8CVh8U] read the description as well:
George Galloway has been caught on camera storming out of a debate simply because the other speaker was Israeli.
The
outspoken MP was speaking at an event at Oxford University last night
when he discovered that the student who was debating against him was a
citizen of the Jewish state.
He immediately left the room, saying: 'I
don't debate with Israelis,' in explosive scenes caught on camera by
the student newspaper.
Mr Galloway, elected MP for Bradford West in a
by-election last year, had already spoken for 10 minutes on the motion
that 'Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank' at the time
of the incident at Christ Church, an Oxford college.
Eylon
Aslan-Levy, a third-year student, stepped up to the podium to respond,
but after he used the word 'we' to refer to Israel, Mr Galloway
interrupted him.
'I don't debate with Israelis,' Mr Galloway muttered
as he stood up and put on his coat. 'I have been misled, sorry. I don't
recognise Israel and I don't debate with Israelis.'
He then left the room followed by his wife, Putri Gayatri Pertiwi, as shocked students who were attending the debate looked on.
Speaking
after the debate, Mr Aslan Levy - who studies Philosophy, Politics and
Economics at David Cameron's alma mater, Brasenose College - said: 'I am
appalled that an MP would storm out of a debate with me for no reason
other than my heritage.
'To refuse to talk to someone just because of
their nationality is pure racism, and totally unacceptable for a Member
of Parliament.'
Mr Galloway, a former Labour MP who was expelled
from the party and helped set up Respect, is a stong opponent of
Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, which he has repeatedly
denounced as 'apartheid.'
He wrote on Facebook: 'I refused this
evening at Oxford University to debate with an Israeli, a supporter of
the apartheid state of Israel.
'The reason is simple: no recognition,
no normalisation. Just boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the
apartheid state is defeated. I never debate with Israelis nor speak to
their media.'
The strident left-winger later tweeted: 'Christ Church never informed us the debate would be with an Israeli.'
Mahmood
Naji, who organised the debate, told student newspaper Cherwell: 'At no
point during my email exchange with Mr Galloway's secretary was Eylon's
nationality ever brought up or mentioned.
'Nor do I expect to have to tell the speaker what his opponent's nationality is.'
Michael
Baldwin, a third-year student who was moderating the debate, said: 'I
was disappointed that a possibly fruitful discussion was prematurely
ended by Mr Galloway's refusal to debate someone just because of their
nationality.
'As he himself is a Palestinian citizen, he would
rightly be indignant if an opponent of his were to refuse to debate him
on the basis of his passport. I would encourage Mr Galloway to
reconsider his position, which is open to accusations of xenophobia.'
The MP faced a backlash over his comments from his followers on social media.
Christine
Quigley, a former Labour candidate for the London Assembly, wrote: 'As a
former constituent of George Galloway and pro-Palestinian, I'm deeply
unimpressed he refused to debate someone because he was Israeli.'
When
asked whether or not he would agree to represent an Israeli living in
his constituency, Mr Galloway replied: 'An Israeli citizen could not by
definition be my constituent.'
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruLWGW4-IKU]
Capable people often act in ways that can antagonise others, often to get done what they want to get done.
He is loud and shouty, I give you that, but at the same time it can have its uses.
The 20 year old was an unfortunate target, but if you want to carry out a total boycot of something you totally morally disagree with, its a way to get it done.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
it might just be his nationality. but being an Israeli is so much more than being french or british or american or whatever else. being Israeli says: "i dont give a crap about whats happening to the people on the other side of the wall who were here before me" "i accept the fact that their land is being stolen away mercilessly so that US chosen people can live on the holy land when we had it easy and nice in the US/UK/Canada and wherever else they come from."
No normalisation of the apartheid inducing "state".
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
What bull. Being Israeli is having been born in the state of Israel. It says nothing about beliefs.
Galloway suggests that a title about Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank was a clue to him and somehow deceptive. If his position is that there can be no two-state solution, no Israel, then either that should be his stated position or he should not have been in the debate. Walking out because of his opponent's citizenship, his place of birth, is ridiculous. He goes on about the student being "of military age" but since he is at Oxford that is clearly rubbish. What happened is that Galloway is more used to rabble-rousing, speaking to crowds that accept his position, than genuine debating, and he saw an opportunity to exit based on his notion of what boycotts mean. They don't actually mean you won't talk to people from a given place, unless you are a total arsehole. With due respect.
the guy obviously believed in Israeli notions as he used "we" in his debate. or is that a form of speech part of the weird rules of formal debating?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
He probably shouldn't have, but it is more honest of him to ackowledge he speaks as an Israeli. That wasn't part of Galloway's explanation for the walkout.
Perhaps we can have a thread to discuss the reasons for a boycott, the extent of it, and whether in fact there is a case against Israel being a country at all, but it wasn't a part of the debate and in fact since the debate concerned Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank I''m mystified as to why Galloway would want to take the podium, short of seeing another opportunity to publicise himself.
I do think it looked childish to be honest. He should've stood his ground, and beat him through the debate if he could. Even with the excuse of a boycott - is making an articulate argument more likely to change things or simply just avoiding it/them?
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
When i first watched the video, i actually didn't see anything wrong with it at all. I knew it was a bit exaggerated but i generally thought it was brave of him and that he was making his point very loud and clear. But then a couple of days later, i thought about it properly.
If you boycott any communication with those who disagree with you, how are you planning on getting your voice heard to the opposing side? Those that are already agreeing with you, will continue to listen to your speeches and attend your events, and their beliefs will be reinforced.
You've already got them to agree with you, but what about everyone else? What about those who don't hold an opinion or who disagree? How do you expect them to find out?
In my opinion, if you really want something to be done, you need to communicate, you need to listen, you need to understand, you need to compromise, you need to explain and you definitely need to work together to reach on some sort of agreement.
What you definitely don't want is the decision to boycott talking to them, and ignoring what they have to say too. Silent treatment really doesn't work with such an important humanitarian and political matter.