Skip to main content

George Galloway on Lebanon

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.

Comments

Ahmedinajad said…
ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM, MOSES, JESUS AND MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL). WAKE UP FEAR THE GOD OF ISRAEL AND THE UNIVERSE. AS A WESTENER THE RATE OF ISLAMS INFLUENCE IS SKY ROCKETING ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE. SO STOP BURYING YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND (no pun intended) LIKE OSTRICHES.

Visit the following websites for further information on ISLAM.

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://www.videos.informationclearinghouse.info/ichgalloway100.wmv
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm (Quran and Science)
http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.barnabas.net/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
http://www.islamicity.com/
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
http://www.islamalways.com/

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…