British MP George Galloway Confronted by Pro-Israel Student at Oxford University (VID

HBendor, you have seriously lost touch with reality. To pick just one glaring example out of your fantasy, how could the British simultaneously want a continuous land corridor for themselves from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf while intending to give it all to a future Jewish Homeland (a Homeland that numerous Jewish-disliking Lords, diplomats and politicians disapproved of both in concept and in execution, but somehow you never quote their letters, memorandum or decisions)?

You really are no better than some Deutsch of the 1930s dreaming of a Greater Germany to the East which somehow was filled up by numerous subhuman Slavs and even more vile Jews. True historical perspective seems to play no part in your scenario. How about finding me three internationally recognized Israeli scholars on the subject who believe the dreck you are ladleing out?

For that matter, I thought your plan was to shove all the West Bank Palestineans into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; not claim it for your Greater Greater Israel. If Jordan should actually be part of Israel and West Bank Palestineans should be part of Jordan, then it logically follows that West Bank Palestineans should be Israeli citizens and therefore should vote in Israeli elections since Israel voluntarily chose democracy as their form of government. Your illogic fails in multiple directions and in multiple ways.

 

It is either :
a) You cannot read and digest...
b) Your repost lacks the fortitude and acumen for interpretation.
c) I tried to be as logical as possible, as cogent as possible
Yet your rebellious instinct for argumenst has not subsided.

We disagree that is all... You will also notice I did not use pejorative to describe your bottomless retort.

 

If one sees garbage being extolled as diamonds, don't fault the person who points out that the so-called diamonds are garbage.

P.S. - where are those Israeli historical scholars you were going to cite in support of your so-called facts?

 

Here it is...

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?
~By Lawrence Auster
| August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:
 As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.


 If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.


 If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist anymore, so they can't want it back.


So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
 The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:


 The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:


 The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:


 The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:


 The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:


 The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from


 The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:


 The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:


 The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:


 The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:


 The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:


 The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:


 The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:


 The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:


 The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.


As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The terroritories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history.

The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, aeons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair-skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?
Back to the Arabs
I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict, and Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '4 or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers his traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right.

 

I've heard of Lawrence Auster before. Setting aside the fact he has no legal training whatsoever, he is also a self-professed racialist who supported the superiority of both the Jews and the White Race (probably because he was born a Jew and converted to Christianity in a WASP environment in the USA). Is this really what you consider mainstream conservative politics in either Israel or the USA?

 

Have you read Ian Lustick 's for the Land and the Lord?

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/penncip/lustick/

For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel

 

Apparently nothing that this Israeli states and others factually confirm.
Thanks but I will not be entangled in Skeptic's web of resistance to the truth... be well. HB.

 

HBendor must be the sole arbitrator of truth, because virtually no-one agrees with his version of it and HBendor consistently fails to prove or adequately defend his fanciful (or perhaps fantastical) version of it. Enjoy your snit.

 

Maybe this article will change your mind and put you on the right track. HB


Ten Basic points summarizing Israel's rights in Judea and Samaria
Ambassador Alan Baker - Amb. Alan Baker Blog, November 8th, 2013


http://unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/?p=10023


Upon Israel’s taking control of the area in 1967, the 1907 Hague Rules on Land Warfare and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) were not considered applicable to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) territory, as the Kingdom of Jordan, prior to 1967, was never the prior legal sovereign, and in any event has since renounced any claim to sovereign rights via-a-vis the territory.
Israel, as administering power pending a negotiated final determination as to the fate of the territory, nevertheless chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva convention and other norms of international humanitarian law in order to ensure the basic day-to-day rights of the local population as well as Israel’s own rights to protect its forces and to utilize those parts of land that were not under local private ownership.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the mass transfer of population into occupied territory as practiced by Germany during the second world war, was neither relevant nor was ever intended to apply to Israelis choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria.
Accordingly, claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no legal basis whatsoever.
Similarly, the oft-used term “occupied Palestinian territories” is totally inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians have sovereignty or that the territories belong to them.
The territories of Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between them.
The legality of the presence of Israel’s communities in the area stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.
The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to, and accepted Israel’s continued presence in Judea and Samaria pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without any restriction on either side regarding planning, zoning or construction of homes and communities. Hence, claims that Israel’s presence in the area is illegal have no basis.
The Palestinian leadership undertook in the Oslo Accords, to settle all outstanding issues, including borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees, by negotiation only and not through unilateral measures. The Palestinian call for a freeze on settlement activity as a precondition for returning to negotiation is a violation of the agreements.
Any attempt, through the UN or otherwise, to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up the situation to possible reciprocal unilateral action by Israel.

 

If you examine the Ten Points in question, there are numerous flaws and broad statements papering over the canyon-sized gaps in logic and law.

1. Someone inhabited the West Bank: people now referred to as Palestineans. The legal claim that neither the Hague Convention nor the Fourth Geneva Convention apply is threadbare, and ignores the fact that Israel accepted the UN designation of "administrator of an occupied territory" which is the terminology this point says doesn't apply.

2. Mostly fair, but as soon as 1 square metre of land was transferred from the public domain to private Israeli hands the Israeli government broke this provision. In fact, a lot of land has been transferred to private Israeli hands (about 15% of the West Bank) and some of that was originally taken from private ownership.

3. Why doesn't Article 49 apply? I could state that Jews are subhumans deserving of extermination, but that Nazi view wouldn't make ignoring international law any more correct. Either explain this point or abandon it.

4. Accordingly, this point also rests on very shaky ground and makes it doubly important to prove Point 3.

5. The territory as a whole may not belong to the Palestineans as a whole (although the same was said of Palestine in 1947 but Israel declared its statehood anyway), but there is plenty of private ownership by individual Palestineans. And if it is not occupied territory then it must be part of Israel and should be formally annexed and its inhabitants made Israeli citizens. Please explain how it can be neither simultaneously.

6. True from a de facto viewpoint quite apart from the legalities of the situation. The one thing I would point out is that creeping Israelization and ownership of the West Bank (42% and climbing) gives all the incentive to Israel to NOT make a peace agreement, as delay will apparently increase the percentage of "Judea and Samaria" it will end up with. Does the phrase "bargaining in bad faith" mean anything to you?

7. Three wrongs don't make a correct argument. The historical claims are at least 1,400 years old for all but 4% of the West Bank (mostly in and around Jerusalem) and are thus way out of date; the right to grant settlement is on land conquered or part of a nation while Israel claims the West Bank is neither (how can they claim the right while denying the status?); and those "rights" can easily be denied and brought into question (it's amazing how fond people are of using that kind of language when they know they don't have a leg to stand on).

8. Actually, Oslo2 is not legally binding because multiple key elements of that Accord have been violated and/or not met by both parties to the agreement. Please review your basic law regarding binding agreements and failure to abide by them. That apart, the Palestinean Authority actually had land division negotiations under way with Israel at the time which have now been abandoned for quite some years. Continuing a settlement policy (often illegal settlements under Israeli law that somehow rarely get uprooted) and ignoring the destructive and violent acts of such settlers aimed at Palestineans and their properties is hardly abiding by Oslo2.

9. The rational disconnect in this point is awesome. The authors are telling the Palestinean Authority off for calling for a settlement freeze prior to new negotiations because such negotiations were supposed to occur under the auspices of the Accord (and quite quickly, too) but both parties have effectively jettisoned the Accord and Israel is saying they have no intention of negotiating every time a new settlement is constructed. The unilateral modification of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the signing of Oslo by Israel means that the subject of such negotiations is not the same subject (like a car much depreciated in value over the years).

10. The Accord is effectively dead so the UN doesn't have anything to lose. As for unilateral Israeli action, that doesn't seem to be any change at all from current Israel practice. If the dog is biting anyway, having an outsider try to put a muzzle on him doesn't seem like a bad thing. Vague threats would look very ugly if actually carried out; is this implying forced mass deportations or ghettoes or what?

 

Aye right enough ..... So many idiots and morons, but do you get paid for this?

Mr Galloway took on the might of the senate, and those AIPAC morons therein, and kicked the deceit lies and the AIPAC agenda into the long grass.
Your lot haven't laid a glove on his honour or integrity, pity the same cannot be said for your judas senators regardless of which colour they portray, all owned by AIPAC.

You have no credence or proof of anything but truth from mr George Galloway so go back to those nazi Zionist scumbags and ask them why they haven't signed the non proliferation agreement?
Highlander

 

No proof of lies?
Start with the simple.
Galloway claims to be a Christian.
Galloway claims to have married in a Muslim wedding
Part of a Muslim wedding is the Muslim declaration of faith

Is he a Christian or a Muslim?
One must be a lie.

Now we know he has a history of lies when it comes to important little details, we have to consider what else he lies about.

Next up - Why does my attacking that very rich communist imply support for the U.S. stance on Israel or Israel?
The less than bright are commonly incapable of seeing further than a single post or position on one point.
You're also wrong in your basic understanding of who owns whom.

You think senators are owned by AIPAC - a big and common mistake.
You're assuming the car is owned by the driver, not the man who pays the bills.
AIPAC may well have a lot of power but they only have it because they're backed and guided by the American arms industry.
When you look at war, you have to see who the winner is, not of the war itself but where all the cash went.
The big winner in every war America has started or interfered in is always the American arms trade.
I firmly believe they're using AIPAC as a shield to hide the reality of the situation.
Everyone assumes the AIPAC twits are the great evil here but, whilst they are clearly the products of unmarried mothers, I believe, as with a glove puppet, their arses have arms industry hands in there.

When attacking a poster, you really have to look at who you're having a go at.
When your level of intelligence is far too low to take him on in debate, do a Galloway and run away.

 

What a load of Tom tit!
May I point out, mr Galloway's religion is his, nothing to do with your bigotry, regardless of your opinion!
And as for AIPAC, may I also point out, your owned, lock stock and barrel, only you haven't the gumption to know any different.

Highlander

 

Actually, his religion is of interest.
Apart from the fact his declaration of Muslim faith but public claims to ne Catholic prove he lies, he uses my religion for political gain in his attempts to become an even richer communist.

As an English chap, an evil Zionist group trying to keep American cash flowing to Israel makes me less than owned by them.
However, your hatred of Jews blinds you to looking past anything that pushes your hatred.
The Israeli lobby, in my opinion, is being used as a front to hide reality.
The American arms industry is beind the lot.

That doesn't let the Zionist extremist element go free from blame, they have plenty to be blamed for, but they're the trained monkey; not the guy doing the grinding.

Open your eyes.

 

I have no hatred of Jews, but I do detest those degenerate who hide behind the Jewish faith, Talmud and Zionist nazi thugs. Not to mention those ardent supporter and like minded Degerates Saudi royal family.

But the powerhouse is the laundered drug money corrupting humanity of most nations of the world. Give you a guess.... It's not the Taliban they reduced the world supply of opium to western markets to 2percent.
Unlike your AIPAC friends who took it to 98 percent of the worlds supply in Afghanistan.
Regards
Highlander,

 

Some people can be educated but it's a bit of a waste of time trying to get a pig to sing...and it really annoys the pig.
However, I'm going to have a go but, to assist, I'll type slowly in an attempt to get basic information over to you.

1 - I'm NOT American so I don't have any senators or congressmen.
2 - As I'm not American, I'm not owned by any Jewish/American group
3 - I'm not anti Muslim as I am a Muslim
4 - I have no love for Israel and really wish they'd stop killing people
5 - The Saudi royal family are not like minded with Israel except in so much as they love American cash/bribes
6 - Using Nazi as a dig at more extreme Jews is stupid - They're not even close to as efficient as the Nazis were at killing people.
7 - What has Teletubby drug supplies got to do with George Galloway?
The Taliban did get rid of the drugs in Afghanistan but they now supply to America, indirectly, to fund their way against America. Clearly the Americans are pretty stupid as they fund their own people getting killed.
However, you're still wrong as the whole Israeli thing is supported by the American arms industry with the Jewish lobby as the sock puppet.
Still, the Israelis are hardly going to complain because they get exactly what they want out of the deal.

Now, to the part you're ignoring.

Given Galloway has said the Muslim declaration of faith at least twice, maybe three times, so is he a Muslim or a Catholic as he claims?
Either the declarations were lies or he lies when claiming to be a Catholic.

To make things easy for you, in Islam, a non Muslim man can't marry a Muslim woman.
To prove you're Muslim, you must recite the Muslim declaration of faith at your wedding.
If you do this in front of two Muslim men; you are a Muslim.
Two Muslim men must attend a Muslim wedding for it to be legal in Islamic law.
My point is simple - Galloway is a liar and a turd, who'll say anything for personal gain.

Any thoughts or will you just ignore it again?

 

I state again the mans religion your religion my religion is that of our own choice, nothing matter other than living by the concepts therein.
I understand you'd like to make things black and white, but that's idiotic to consider any matter other than analysing the facts and coming to a conclusion. Religion is not a matter to come to any conclusion unless your a penny short o f a shilling!
Your analysis of mr Galloway reflects your bias, certainly not open or sincere rather the opposite.
In the uk there are representatives of the Muslim community, who just happen to be appointed by government, certainly not speaking for the Muslim community, rather the AIPAC Talmud Zionist nazis. Are you one of these?

Highlander

 

Ooh, and as for being a Muslim!

To you and to I the analogy you made about a pig, whilst being in your eyes and my eyes a petty attempt at being derogatory towards me, wouldn't even be considered by a Muslim, because of the associated disgust at the animal.

I don't believe you! Better luck next time! Bigotry isn't a nice attribute!

Highlander

 

My gawd, you're good at avoiding an issue.
My point is simple; Galloway lies.
His religion does matter as he claims to be one thing in public but delares faith in another in private.
He lied.
Frankly, I wish Galloway were pro Israeli.
With that idiot on their side, Israel would be gone before new year.

 

I have some disgust at pigs but not because of religion but that's one reason I don't eat pig product.
I used to go put with a girl who lived on a pig farm so I've seen the filthy animals first hand - not nice.
The last being, I'm not a fan of pork anyway, I don't enjoy the taste.
Becoming a Muslim meant so sacrifice but pork and alcohol weren't on the list.

As a further note, I'm a Tory and I voted for Thatcher.
That'll really make you think I'm a fascist.

You are a demi communist who has been reading far too much rubbish and, here's the killer, actually believe it.
The pro Israeli lobby want you to believe all that crap because they know it keeps the less intelligent from finding out the truth.
Israel has no real power beyond what it is given by the American Arms industry.
That's why the Israeli lobby is so small, they don't need a big one because their cause is being pushed in order to make massive profit.
AIPAC is nothing but a glove puppet, handy for diverting attention from the real criminals.
Of course, their evil and that of the nasty cretins that form the Israeli government and senior staff in the armed forces is no less for this as they get everything they want out of the deal.

 

You might beige the Tom tit but alas, you've been found out.

http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/the-liberation-of-the-death-camps/
http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/

You have no hope now the AIPAC genie is known about by even the goy, no matter your hypocrisy.

Highlander

 

Please anser my questions regarding Galloway. This thread is about him but you refuse to answer questions about his lies.
I have proved him to be a liar but you refuse to defend.

Does that mean you agree with me?

As for the links - Holocaust denial (*)(*)(*)(*).
Talk about a bigoted idiot.

I'll bet all Jews have big noses and support Israel.

 

Although you and I do not march on the same drumbeat... I just wanted to mention that philosophically we have much more in common... I meant <pragmatism>... keep well.

 

I believe we have similar attitudes towards the illegitimate state of Israel but I believe I think and research far more than you; looking past the propaganda and smoke and trying to see what's behind it.
Try a bit of the same.
Israel doesn't have a big lobby when it comes to getting weapons from the US of Arse.
Given that, how come they get so much free from the American taxpayers?
There can only be one answer; they have help.
The only people who'll do that are people who are making from it.
The only people gaining are the arms traders.

It's a double job for them as, whatever they get given to the Arab countries, they have to give more to Israel, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Yes, the Israeli lobby wields power but only because they have serious backing from the real power; the American arms trade.

However, Galloway is still a liar and turd.

 

George Galloway is my local MP for Bradford where I'm based.
And I have a number of things to say about him but I'll simplify it.

He's an imbecile.
Enough said