Thursday, June 18, 2009

More Galloway bashing by Harry's Place

Harry's Place's favourite pass time is bashing George Galloway. That's mainly if not only because Galloway is a staunch anti-Zionist, capable of organising convoys of aid to Gaza, like the recent Viva Palestina UK convoy and the planned equivalents from the US, Venezuela and Russia - whereas the Potters couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

So this time its Lucy Lips' (in all likelihood a pseudonym for David Toube, HP's Big Smurf) turn with a ludicrous piecette on Ahmadinejad's suit. Galloway, almost entirely correctly, apparently has exclaimed:

[Ahmadinejad] lives like them, looks like them - he’s never worn a suit since becoming president

And boy, does David T. bang Georgeous George to rights! He's found a photie, a photie of Ahmadinejad wearing a SUIT!

In David's words: "So we’ve established the accuracy of that assertion."

He's right, isn't he? Galloway: liar, liar, pants on fire, matey boy!

Not.

David T. then gets slightly nastier but a whole lot lazier. George also said:

I’ve said many times that Ahmadinejad’s comments about the Holocaust are a disgrace.


David T. then questions the 'many times' part of George's rightful claim by means of a google search for 'holocaust disgrace' which turns up nothing vis-à-vis Galloway. NOTHING, I tell thee!

Well, as commenter John Houghton (steady on John, they don't like dissent at Potters Hill) put it nicely:

*sigh*

Galloway on a number of occasions on his radio show has said that he is not a supporter of the Iranian regime, and deplores Ahmadinejads views on the Holocaust.

Implying that because you can't find it on Google that it hasn't happened is just silly. And lazy.

Now let me put you out of your misery, David T., I watch Press TV's Galloway segments Comment and The Real Deal frequently (in fact whenever I can) and would testify under oath that George makes such comments about Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial more than just frequently, in fact almost always when the subject matter turns to Ahmadinejad. There isn't the slightest shred of doubt about Galloway's disgust for Mr A.'s position on that point. Got it?

And whilst I'm at it, since as you and your band of spineless Ziotrolls also believe Galloway's an anti-Semite, his Comment show does unfortunately attract the occasional anti-Semite, live shows tend to have that kind of disadvantage. But rarely will you see Galloway so worked up than when he deals with these ignoramuses. How often? Frequently and whenever one of them shows up.

Or are you gonna call me a liar too, David?

Truth and Liberty at Harry's Place? My arse...

26 Comments:

At 8:52 PM, Blogger Renegade Eye said...

Harry's Place is Gallaway's right opposition, and people like me, are his left opposition.

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger vildechaye said...

First of all, Dert, if you had any semblance of intuition about writing styles, you'd instantly see that Lucy Lips is NOT David T. There writing is not remotely similar.

Second, Galloway saying that he doesn't support the theocratic regime in Iran is such bullshit when he accepts weekly paycheques from that regime for hosting not one but two shows on a network that is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for that regime. And if you buy into that, well, then you're even stupider than I already think you are.

 
At 7:15 AM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Fascinating that you have nothing to say about the substance of Galloway's remarks, in which he makes it quite clear he rejects the cry of the protesters. Speaking of which, do you still believe this election wasn't a fraud?

 
At 9:26 AM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

So, if Harry's Place is obsessed with Galloway, and you're obsessed with Harry's Place, does that mean that, in order to complete the circle, George Galloway is obsessed with you?

 
At 1:21 PM, Blogger Gert said...

vildechaye:

You have quite the gall coming here and commenting after you actively called for deletion of my comments at Terry Glavin's.

Tens and tens of Westerners contribute to Press TV (some of its programming is ace, some of it is dumb) without working for the regime. You're a Manichean nitwit.

Alex:

To the last question you already have my answer over at yours.

Iran is a country about which Westerners, including me, liberal or otherwise, generally speaking know fuck all but about which most of us from rather phantasmagorical views, based mainly on their own perspective. You are no different, hence your ridiculous "cry of the protesters". Watch my next post coming up anytime soon.

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger Gert said...

vildechaye:

Your comment has now been deleted, as will all subsequent ones. Nobody calls me a racist at my own soapbox without reason, least of all people like you who call for the deletion of other people's comments purely because they present a dissenting view.

You are a shining example of the vilest kind of anonymous Ziotrolls that makes HP such intolerant vipers nest when the subject turns to Israel.

Let this be a taste of your own medicine.

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Gert - you are now beyond satire.

 
At 1:38 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Alex:

Sir, your comments are getting ever more cryptical.

 
At 3:28 PM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Well it seems you don't have much of a problem with what's happening in Iran, and are dismissing people's concerns as stemming from them not knowing anything about the place (imagine if someone said that in response to abuses in the territories). For some reason there are people on the left who think that, for example, resolutely standing in opposition to Iranian theocracy, means being a supporter of US/Zio imperialism, or whatever it is you believe in.

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger Gert said...

You see Alex, I always knew you saw it in those terms (which really are very simplistic and you're actually underestimating me).

I DO NOT support the theocracy in Tehran. I note simply that the simplistic narratives being spun from the Left, the Right, the Zios, the Islamophobes etc etc regarding the events in the IRI are in all likelihood projections by these people on a situation that is thoroughly complex, so much so that calls for 'standing with the people of Iran' are meaningless schmaltz that may make you feel better but clearly not this Iranian blogger here.

Even among Iranian emigrés opinion varies widely.

My position is honest and open-mindedly agnostic: I'm not yet buying into the now going orthodoxy that 'the Reformist Mousavi' was robbed of his birthright or that Ahmadinejad is a saint/Hitler (delete as appropriate).

Further clarification on request.

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Imagine if I wrote the following:

I do not support the Israeli government. I note simply that the simplistic narratives being spun from the Left, the anti-Zionists etc regarding the events in Israel/Palestine are in all likelihood projections by these people on a situation that is thoroughly complex, so much so that calls for 'standing with the people of Palestine' are meaningless schmaltz that may make you feel better but clearly not this Palestinian blogger here [insert an anti-Hamas Palestinian of your choice].

Even among Palestinian refugees opinion varies widely.

My position is honest and open-mindedly agnostic: I'm not yet buying into the now going orthodoxy that the 'dove' Tzipi Livni should have been able to form a coalition or that Netanyahu is a Zionist imperalist/racist (delete as appropriate).

It's fascinating to hear people suddenly invoking complexity, while at the same time telling us that Israel-Palestine (pace Mr Finkelstein) is actually startlingly simple.

All the more so when a five year old knows that proving an election hasn't been rigged, particularly on such a mass scale, isn't such a hard thing to do.

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Congratulations, Alex, you've become a real Zionist, Hasbarah BS included!

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is in essence really simple, as Finkelstein and many other conclusively show. That's a fact.

Zionism has complicated the issue, possibly beyond resolution, with its settlements. I'm now assuming you don't object to them anymore or that 'they are a complex issue'.

What's going on inside Iran most of us are clueless about, bar a few established facts. Read the many pieces that are being twittered and twattered, cickled and cackled in an endless cacophony of contradictions. It's a real clear issue: clear as thick mud. But don't let that stop you from feeling enlightened about it. Your sophisticated self-image cries out for it...

 
At 6:33 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

"The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is in essence really simple, as Finkelstein and many other conclusively show. That's a fact.

Zionism has complicated the issue, possibly beyond resolution, with its settlements."


The settlements are a further complication of an already complicated conflict. If they didn't exist, the situation still wouldn't be simple. Jerusalem, borders, refugees - all those problems and more would still be there, and each one of those issues is complex.

The point is, I think, that both situations (Iran and I-P) are complicated and most people don't know everything there is to know about each one, but people are still allowed to have a general opinion.

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Well I'm not surprised to see you result to shouting slogans and referring to 'Hasbara bs'. I'll try and keep it civil, nonetheless.

Settlements: I've been consistent in my opposition to the settlement movement, and I try and get over to the WB when I can to demonstrate that (which, to my sorrow, is not enough). It's one thing to be opposed to settlements, though, and another thing to see the settlements as the only obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. If that's 'hasbara bullshit', then so be it.

Nothing in human life is simple, Gert, nothing. It's only simple if you have a reductionist view of human affairs. To call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not necessarily to resist calls for justice for the Palestinians.

You are right on one thing though: I am a real Zionist. I have been for a long time now, and I expect to continue to be one, in one way or another, for the forseeable future.

As for Iran, the principle reason that it's unclear what's going on is because of the awful clampdown by the authorities. Interestingly, there was a similar clampdown on foreign journalists entering Gaza during Cast Lead, but I don't remember you saying, "actually we don't know that much, and the only news we're getting is from Palestinians journalists who are limited in what they can report by Hamas."

As ever, double standards.

 
At 3:35 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

"but people are still allowed to have a general opinion."

Yes but so what? Are people also allowed to have 'a second opinion' on the Holocaust? What good does that do?

Alex:

"Nothing in human life is simple, Gert, nothing."

Is true to the point of being a truism. This is your argument that the I-P conflict is complex? It's a killer.

It continues to be Israel that puts up obstacles. New in this line of defense is the demand to recognise the "Jewish State" and now of course also the "natural growth" issue. Both are once again merely delaying tactics, your five year old can see that too.

Months will now be squandered 'negotiating' this, during which settlements will continue to expand and new ones will continue to be built.

Israel doesn't want peace, it wants all of Palestine. Only very naive people will not see this and very cynical ones will deny it. Israel's lurch to the religio-Right will make matters worse: why stop when one feels one has a Divine Mandate?

As regards Hasbarah BS, having debated the I-P conflict for over 20 years, there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that Zionist apologists have no arguments whatsoever and are limited to pointing to 'complexity', attempts at diminishing/ridiculing opponent's views, endless 'they do it too' arguments, pointing to perceived 'double standards' and 'hypocrisy', accusations of 'racism' (rather rich coming from the defenders of a racist state), straw man arguments and literalism.

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

I must say, Gert, that life would be much better if you were right. Bringing an end to the conflict would be so easy.

In your mind, every Palestinian demand is right (and righteous) and every Israeli demand is wrong and nothing but a delay tactic.

 
At 4:10 PM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Gert - you're very good at avoiding what I say. Clearly in a comments box it's difficult to get into such an abstract issue as simplicity vs complexity, but I'm not sure why you suddenly introduce the issue of settlements, esp. when my views are very clear.
As for the rest, I don't know what you mean by Israel; I only know Israelis. And as much as the rightward shift is causing me nightmares, I know very few Israelis (other than those who live on WB hilltops) who want the whole of Palestine. Now that's not to say that the Israeli electorate is ready to take the steps necessary to create a viable Palestinian State, because currently it's not. But there's still a massive difference between that and the position you describe. Still, feel free, after all you know so much about Israelis. We need not imagine what you would say if an outsider said similarly conclusive things about Iranians.

As for the Zionists apologists you refer to at the end, are you including me? If so I am prepared to address your comment.

 
At 5:15 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Alex:

"As for the rest, I don't know what you mean by Israel; I only know Israelis. And as much as the rightward shift is causing me nightmares, I know very few Israelis (other than those who live on WB hilltops) who want the whole of Palestine."

You have to try and understand something here. For those like me who have been following this affair closely now for 20+ years, the latter part that statement MUST be the unavoidable conclusion. You (and many other Israelis like you - indeed not all think alike) want to avoid that conclusion because you disagree with the colonisation.

Nearly fourty years on unabated (accelerated even) building of settlements, despite International condemnation including from Israel's main benefactor, how are we to conclude differently? Perhaps you can throw some light on the matter? 'It's complex' however will not do.

One also has to have serious doubts about the functioning democracy of Israel: I am constantly told by many Zionists that Israelis are opposed to these settlements and in favour of a Palestinian state with caveats (despite there existing some polls claiming the contrary), yet their successive Governments do exactly the opposite! Will of the people?

I also get told the matter is tied in with Israel's legitimate security needs. Oo-kay. At what point do security needs turn into yet another excuse, though? Again, with the best will in the world and reasoning in good faith, it's hard to see how security needs cannot and will not be used as another insurmountable threshold.

'Settlers out - army in' would increase Israel's security in the interim without loss of territory and awaiting the Final Status agreement. Yet again, Israel doesn't choose that option.

All Israel apologists use all or part of the 'debating' tactics I describe.

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

[...] every Palestinian demand is right"

In essence, apart from statements in Hamas's Charter (and bearing in mind there is movement on their position), name me a Palestinian 'demand' that's unreasonable? RoR? Only if interpreted literally.

Bear in mind that the so-called Two State solution if it comes about would in fact be an imposed injustice which the Palestinians would have to accept to avoid the very worst.

 
At 7:36 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

See, viewing the two state solution (allowing the State of Israel to exist) as an injustice is a big part of the problem. It's like saying the Palestinians have given up 78% of the land (territory that isn't there's to give up anymore, by the way) so all their other demands must be met.

RoR is a demand many (if not most) Palestinians interpret literally. If the Palestinians demand that the Right of Return be included in the final peace agreement in a way that could be interpreted as allowing refugees to enter Israel, there won't be peace.

Also, there have to be compromises regarding Jerusalem and borders. Neither Israel or the Palestinians will get exactly what they want.

 
At 8:26 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

To the Palestinians, what happened in 1948 and 1967 - to date will always be seen as an injustice, as it was.

To expect otherwise is to expect human nature to change.

Jews have kept the memory of their Exodus alive for millenia.

"All that you have done to our people is registered in notebooks" - Mahmoud Darwish

 
At 8:46 PM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Well first of all because there's now a consensus from centre left to centre right that Israel should get out of a majority of the territories. Unfortunately, the corrolary - that a sovereign and viable Palestinian State should be established - has not yet followed, but that's still very different from saying that Israel wants to annex most of the West Bank. It doesn't. Even a programme of Bantustanisation (however repellent) doesn't equate with a programme for taking all the West Bank.

As for will of the people, see the recent election of Hamas by a population that also consistently poll in favour of a two-state solution. Do I contradict myself? Very well then...Nothing new there.

As for security needs, I agree entirely.

I don't think I use any tactics; I just try and have an honest discussion without recourse to sloganeering and generalisations. It's a shame you can't extend me that courtesy.

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

I can't expect Palestinians to be happy about the existence of Israel, but I can expect that "giving up" on 78% of the country won't be the only compromise they're willing to make.

 
At 6:02 AM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Gert, trying to return to the topic, what do you think of this piece?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/22/iran-election-voters-numbers

I know my proverbial five year old would certainly have something to say about it.

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Alex:

"Well first of all because there's now a consensus from centre left to centre right that Israel should get out of a majority of the territories."

Did I blink and miss something? Is there a new poll or evidence of another kind that substantiates what you say? Last time I looked Mr Netanyahu's quite rejectionist speech went down rather well. We now seem stuck on this new 'point': Natural growth. Please elaborate regarding that 'consensus'...

"Even a programme of Bantustanisation (however repellent) doesn't equate with a programme for taking all the West Bank."

You see, Alex, you make it so easy for me. Literally (i.e. literalism) speaking you are of course correct. But in a real sense Bantustanisation is one of the greatest threats to the 'peace process' and the 'Two State solution': it would almost guarantee the State(let) of Palestine to fail, a failure for which the Palestinians would undoubtedly get the blame. And once the allotted window of opportunity would have come to pass, no second chance would arrive.

This is the biggest danger of the Two State solution: that the Palestinians will end up being fobbed off by a tired USA, with a package that's inherently unacceptable to a large number of them. Already I'm surprised that Mazen (sorry, Abbas!) and Erekat have managed to sign away airspace sovereignty and the rights to a National army. Which newborn Nation State in the world would accept such conditions? I wouldn't, that's for sure... Get full rights or die trying, is what I would believe in.

As regards Hamas' election, remember David Zarnett? He was hardly an anti-Zionist, now was he? Well, at the time of Hamas' election, we both published (own written) pieces with a remarkable resemblance: we both concluded that the majority vote for Hamas was a vote for change (anti-Fatah, anti-corruption etc), not dissimilar to the British voting in Blair after Thatcher (well, Major, strictly speaking). Part of the election cycle. I'm not sure whether Hamas today would get anything near the previous percentages, given that they too haven't achieved much.

I believe you indulge in well-meaning wishful thinking, generally speaking...

As regards the Iranian elections and the Guardian article, bravo! You've found yet another article that confirms what we already know: the results look suspicious (please don't sound surprised at my 'admission', I've already said so much over at faledi and elsewhere).

The concluding lines however are tellingly honest:

"The breakdown of the votes is not a smoking gun, it does after all come from the same ministry of interior run by Ahmadinejad's former campaign manager, which conducted the count. However, it shows that even the official ¬version of events makes some claims that are difficult to swallow."

The regime is now showing itself at its worst but still the situation isn't clear-cut. What do the Iranians want: an overhaul of the 'Islamic system' of governance (IRI (TM)), reforms of that very system without fundamental constitutional changes, a mere recount or a complete revote? Who knows this with any degree of certainty at this point in time?

 
At 6:28 AM, Blogger Alex Stein said...

Netanyahu's speech supported getting out of a majority of the territories. Still nowhere near enough, but definitely a majority.

Bantusan issue - I agree, but Israel isn't seeking to annex the territories. It just wants to maintain the status quo (or variations of it) for as long as possible.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home