George Galloway in the linked article argues why he supports the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
He rightly points out the conflict between Israel's current criticism of acts of terror and the act of Terror committed in 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed in Jerusalem.
Regardless of whether or not there was an adequate warning given and whether or not the British were lax in not evacuating it remains that such an act is an act of Terror. It is an unjust act.
Unjust acts have a tendency to create an emotional demand for retaliation. It is not a reasonable or practical position to oppose the unjust actions of Israel whilst supporting the unjust actions of Hezbollah.
There are three possible positions relating to the conflict in Lebanon. You have the UK/US government position of supporting the war on Israel's side. You have George Galloway's position of supporting the war on Hezbollah's side. Alternatively you have a position of wishing to maintain international law (humanitarian law and otherwise, calling for a ceasefire and for people to work toward resolving the disputed issues.)
I think George Galloway is now undermining his claim to be anti-war. I accept his point that the dispute has gone on for a long time. I accept his point that Israel has acted in an unjust manner on a number of occasions. I do not see any merit in trying to make a case as to which "side" is worst. However, if you want to see peace you cannot support the random bombing of civilian areas in Israel by Hezbollah.
In essence it is this part of George Galloway's speech that is key:
"That makes it doubly important that the anti-war movement raises its voice clearly. To be for peace means to be for the justice without which there can be no peace. To be for justice means to take sides against injustice. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel, for that’s what it is, is a monstrous injustice.
"I side with the resistance to that injustice. Hizbollah is leading that resistance. I do not hesitate to say, and Blair and his law officers may take note, that I glorify that resistance.
"I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah."
(see link for full article - speech)
Ghandi in India learnt that participating in unjust acts against injustice fails. Unless you are in the stronger position and can actually "win" unjust acts merely cause greater anger and resistance. We are not going to see an Armenian style resolution to the dispute in the Middle East. In siding with Hizbollah whilst they are bombing civilian areas in Israel George Galloway's position is hence morally equivalent to that of the Israeli Government.
Galloway is clearly attempting to challenge the "glorifying terror" parts of the new laws. I think he is probably more likely to be challenging the trades descriptions act in as much he is now clearly "pro war", but on the other side to the Labour Party.
He rightly points out the conflict between Israel's current criticism of acts of terror and the act of Terror committed in 1946 when the King David Hotel was bombed in Jerusalem.
Regardless of whether or not there was an adequate warning given and whether or not the British were lax in not evacuating it remains that such an act is an act of Terror. It is an unjust act.
Unjust acts have a tendency to create an emotional demand for retaliation. It is not a reasonable or practical position to oppose the unjust actions of Israel whilst supporting the unjust actions of Hezbollah.
There are three possible positions relating to the conflict in Lebanon. You have the UK/US government position of supporting the war on Israel's side. You have George Galloway's position of supporting the war on Hezbollah's side. Alternatively you have a position of wishing to maintain international law (humanitarian law and otherwise, calling for a ceasefire and for people to work toward resolving the disputed issues.)
I think George Galloway is now undermining his claim to be anti-war. I accept his point that the dispute has gone on for a long time. I accept his point that Israel has acted in an unjust manner on a number of occasions. I do not see any merit in trying to make a case as to which "side" is worst. However, if you want to see peace you cannot support the random bombing of civilian areas in Israel by Hezbollah.
In essence it is this part of George Galloway's speech that is key:
"That makes it doubly important that the anti-war movement raises its voice clearly. To be for peace means to be for the justice without which there can be no peace. To be for justice means to take sides against injustice. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel, for that’s what it is, is a monstrous injustice.
"I side with the resistance to that injustice. Hizbollah is leading that resistance. I do not hesitate to say, and Blair and his law officers may take note, that I glorify that resistance.
"I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah."
(see link for full article - speech)
Ghandi in India learnt that participating in unjust acts against injustice fails. Unless you are in the stronger position and can actually "win" unjust acts merely cause greater anger and resistance. We are not going to see an Armenian style resolution to the dispute in the Middle East. In siding with Hizbollah whilst they are bombing civilian areas in Israel George Galloway's position is hence morally equivalent to that of the Israeli Government.
Galloway is clearly attempting to challenge the "glorifying terror" parts of the new laws. I think he is probably more likely to be challenging the trades descriptions act in as much he is now clearly "pro war", but on the other side to the Labour Party.
Comments