Now, I'm not saying that George Galloway isn't a fairly manipulative politician, who has, in the past, kissed up to some pretty nasty dictators... (as
( Read more... )
Worth observing that Sky is in the same stable as Fox news, and is about as "unbiased".
Galloway is a powerful speaker, but his stance has done a lot of damage to the anti-war movement over here (he's very partizan, and his party website has a map that shows Isreal as "occupied Palestine"), but anyone giving the Sky anchor a roasting deserves some kudos.
im surprised to see an all british person for once supporting the lebanese view on the conflict.
I'm British and not only do I support the Lebanese side, but so do all the people I know.
Please don't lump us all in together. The people I know are horrified at the Israeli "response", the disproportional casualty rate, media bias, american and british government hypocracy, the sale of weapons to Israel etc.
"Please don't lump us all in together. The people I know are horrified at the Israeli "response", the disproportional casualty rate, media bias, american and british government hypocracy, the sale of weapons to Israel etc."
Exactly, but that's a sign of a greater problem, really, because even though you and all of your friends want an immediate end to the conflict, followed by a fair peace -- as do I, and all of my friends -- there's a huge amount of stratification within society, and our opinions are probably minority opinions.
Even when they aren't minority opinions, however, there's no equal, fair court for the widescale broadcast of our opinions and our thoughts on the matter, and we aren't properly represented in the media.
Really, for us, the internet is the best that we've got.
You're right, he's slanted. I'm a minute in and have already typed and deleted two replies to his statements.
I got about half way through and had as much as I could stand. At this point, the interviewer made the cogent point that Iran/Hizb'Allah/Hamas could have approached their long history with Israel the same way the IRA got around to approaching their long history with Great Britain.
Someone has to choose to make peace. Israel tried that a year ago, and were lauded for it. Gaza was under self rule for 10 months. I/H/H should have done their part to continue the process. I won't say "meet them half way," because I realize the pullout was 80% under Israel's terms. But, they could have taken the "You've got to start somewhere" approach, and made their own commitment to peace.
At this point, the interviewer made the cogent point that Iran/Hizb'Allah/Hamas could have approached their long history with Israel the same way the IRA got around to approaching their long history with Great Britain.
It was a good point, but you have to remember that even when Sinn Fein was gaining seats in Parliament the IRA were still carrying out bombings, murders and kidnappings. This situation is similar. They have to make the choice for peace, as you said, but this period may continue for some time until Hizbullah decide they're in a sufficiently strong political situation to give up violence fully, and given the current international bias towards Israel, they may not feel that they are at the point yet where they can achieve more with Politics than with Violence.
I'm not trying to defend them, just looking at how it is. Remember, Sinn Fein (as used in your analogy) has a long history, and it's only for a small part of that history where violence by the IRA has not been used.
I'm willing to buy that I/H/H want a stronger political position before they support a lasting peace. I'll even grant that Gaza is not the West Bank, and the West Bank is the more significant piece of property.
Having said that, how is what is going on today better than digging in and securing Gaza and starting negotiations for the WB? Unfortunately, I just can't see it.
but Hezbollah are a fairly influent party in the lebanese government. ._. theyve walked out on parliament meetings many times and know how to make a point, i dont think they're looking to be in a "sufficiently strong political situation to give up violence fully".
i honestly think all of this was orchestrated to diverge the world's eyes from Iran's nuclear problem, as Hezbollah pledge alliance to them above all others.
Comments 29
Reply
Galloway is a powerful speaker, but his stance has done a lot of damage to the anti-war movement over here (he's very partizan, and his party website has a map that shows Isreal as "occupied Palestine"), but anyone giving the Sky anchor a roasting deserves some kudos.
Reply
Reply
I'm British and not only do I support the Lebanese side, but so do all the people I know.
Please don't lump us all in together. The people I know are horrified at the Israeli "response", the disproportional casualty rate, media bias, american and british government hypocracy, the sale of weapons to Israel etc.
Reply
well, i was refering to the british government and media ive seen so far, i shdve made it more clear, excuse me.
im pleased to hear this...thk you for your support.
Reply
Exactly, but that's a sign of a greater problem, really, because even though you and all of your friends want an immediate end to the conflict, followed by a fair peace -- as do I, and all of my friends -- there's a huge amount of stratification within society, and our opinions are probably minority opinions.
Even when they aren't minority opinions, however, there's no equal, fair court for the widescale broadcast of our opinions and our thoughts on the matter, and we aren't properly represented in the media.
Really, for us, the internet is the best that we've got.
Reply
Reply
I got about half way through and had as much as I could stand. At this point, the interviewer made the cogent point that Iran/Hizb'Allah/Hamas could have approached their long history with Israel the same way the IRA got around to approaching their long history with Great Britain.
Someone has to choose to make peace. Israel tried that a year ago, and were lauded for it. Gaza was under self rule for 10 months. I/H/H should have done their part to continue the process. I won't say "meet them half way," because I realize the pullout was 80% under Israel's terms. But, they could have taken the "You've got to start somewhere" approach, and made their own commitment to peace.
Reply
It was a good point, but you have to remember that even when Sinn Fein was gaining seats in Parliament the IRA were still carrying out bombings, murders and kidnappings. This situation is similar. They have to make the choice for peace, as you said, but this period may continue for some time until Hizbullah decide they're in a sufficiently strong political situation to give up violence fully, and given the current international bias towards Israel, they may not feel that they are at the point yet where they can achieve more with Politics than with Violence.
I'm not trying to defend them, just looking at how it is. Remember, Sinn Fein (as used in your analogy) has a long history, and it's only for a small part of that history where violence by the IRA has not been used.
Reply
Having said that, how is what is going on today better than digging in and securing Gaza and starting negotiations for the WB? Unfortunately, I just can't see it.
Reply
theyve walked out on parliament meetings many times and know how to make a point, i dont think they're looking to be in a "sufficiently strong political situation to give up violence fully".
i honestly think all of this was orchestrated to diverge the world's eyes from Iran's nuclear problem, as Hezbollah pledge alliance to them above all others.
Reply
Leave a comment