In the multitude of synonyms, 'obnoxious' is perhaps the best word we can use to describe the hullabaloo kick-raised by the British MP George Galloway. George made a dramatic exit from a debate he was taking part into at Christ Church College, Oxford University. Galloway walked out of the debate because he refused to partake in the exercise with an Israeli debater saying: 'I don't debate with Israelis'.
Within minutes, the British MP was accused of racism. Some called his exit bad politics. A few more tried to smell rat in his motives. And some more said that the Respect party MP has gone out of control. Even proponents of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was quick to distance themselves. They issued a statement saying that their movement 'doesn't call for the avoidance of people purely on the basis of nationality'.
Most surprisingly, a spokesman for the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign was perhaps the quickest to distance himself from Galloway's action. He was quoted by Guardian saying: "BDS does not call for a boycott of individuals because she or he happens to be Israeli or because they express certain views. Of course, any individual is free to decide who they do and do not engage with."
Whatever, the British explosion against Galloway, in fact, smacked of the nation's hypocrisy and delusion. It was quintessentially "just the standard smear tactic used for decades by western leaders to try to discredit anyone who opposes their" stand, policies and believes. The snide attacks against Galloway were vulgar and vituperative.
George Galloway's exit from the debate and his refusal to engage himself into any dialectical process with an Israeli student of Oxford were neither shocking nor unexpected. In fact, his has been the sole voice of staunch support for the Palestinians in the whole of English polity. His trenchant hatred for the "Zionist state" has been well known. Galloway believes Israel ought to have been long dismantled. Is Galloway wrong or an extremist in nursing his belief?
George had his logic and it was irrefutable. On his Facebook page he wrote: "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. If they want to speak about Palestine – the address is the PLO."
To this British politician we remain beholden. To a large extent we stand in agreement with The Independent columnist Joan Smith. George Galloway's Israel denial may repel the mainstream, but it further cements his reputation within his constituency. Therefore, his refusal to debate with Israelis wasn't really bad politics. He has, in his own style, brought up before the world, especially to the complacent and blinded British politicians, the anti-occupation cause.
For sixty four years the Jews have strangulated Palestinian aspiration for freedom, methodically stripped them of their land and homes colonizing with brazen shamelessness what never belonged to them and have created a bizarre political yin-yang in West Asia.
For well over half a century fear, bitterness and phantoms of enslavement have been daily companions of the Palestinians. Humiliated and perpetually persecuted these country-less and non-citizens of our planet have been reduced to eternal residents of refugee camps — uprooted by force of arms and deception. Yet, in the face of this immense shame and mortification they have survived, "kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next" only in the hope of acquiring citizenship of a country which they too would call their own.
The history of Jewish national revival is an appalling story of brazenness and barbarity written with the blood of the Palestinians and has been achieved at the cost of shameless destruction of Palestinian nationality. For the Palestinians it has been an endless chapter of a traumatic and cynical history which made them refugees in their homeland, constantly oppressed, relentlessly persecuted and uprooted from their ancestral homes at will by the Jews driven and intoxicated by despicable Zionist intentions.
To the Israeli student of Oxford whom Galloway refused to debate with we have a question. This student, Aslan-Levy, was quoted saying "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." Well, if Galloway's refusal to debate is racism what shall we call the Israeli demeanour? For over six decades the Zionists have kept the Arabs of the land homeless. The Zionists have been robbing the Ethiopian women of their reproductive rights and have been perpetrating 'an inconceivable crime' only to keep Israel white dominated. For over six decades the Arab demography in Israel has been treated like animals.
To Israeli Jews, Palestinian properties and land have always been ownerless and abandoned ready to be grabbed. Sixty four years later, in 2012 the same Israeli crime continues and with the same degree of government complicity. The Zionists have only institutionalised the crime further. Government's partaking in the crime has only become an integral part of official policy. Persecution of the Palestinians in their ancestral homes has simply intensified. And this apart, nothing has changed in the past 64 years.
If Aslan-Levy is appalled by Galloway's refusal to debate with him it is time for this Jewish student to be advised that we too are appalled by his country's racism against the Arabs, non-white Jews and the Ethiopian migrants. With George Galloway we agree that Israel is indeed a "little Hitler State".