Galloway and Griffin: two scumbags routed

May 8, 2010 at 12:25 am (anti-fascism, Champagne Charlie, cults, fascism, Galloway, islamism, Respect, thuggery)

The best news of the election has been that two communalist and thoroughly reactionary outfits, the BNP and ‘Respect’ and their leading members Nick Griffin and George Galloway, have been routed.

Griffin and the BNP were widely expected to challenge hard for victory in Barking against Labour’s Margaret Hodge. In the event, the BNP ‘s chubby Fuhrer was beaten into third place. Hodge won with 24,628 votes, distantly followed by the Tory’s Simon Marcus with 8,073. Griffin limped in third with just 6,620. Hodge (not usually a particularly inspiring speaker) caught the mood perfectly when she said: “The message from Barking to the BNP is clear – get out and stay out. You’re not wanted here, and your vile politics have no place in British democracy. Tomorrow you’re going to lose councillors and tomorrow we’re giving you a clear message – pack your bags and go.”

Licking their wounds: George Galloway did not turn up for the results count; Griffin was humiliated in Barking.
 
And sure enough, to add to the BNP’s humilation, they have  lost all of of their 12 seats on Barking and Dagenham council, leaving Labour with all 51 seats.
.
Almost as pleasing is the defeat of Respect’s George Galloway in Poplar and Limehouse, widely expected to be a close-run three-way race between Labour’s Jim Fitzpatrick, Galloway and the Tory. In the event, Fitzpatrick won by a country mile with 18,679 votes to the Tory Tim Archer’s 12,649 and Galloway’s miserable 8,160.
.
Galloway, a braggart and preening poseur in victory, showed himself to be a craven poltroon in defeat, failing to even turn up for the declaration.
.
Fitzpatrick said: “I have recently been the subject of a number of smears, being accused of Islamophobia, of trying to ban traditional Muslim weddings, and of trying to close the East London Mosque. These would be laughable if they were not peddled to try to poison the minds of the Muslim community. Happily that community refused to be conned.
.
“The dis-Respect Party has clearly suffered a  huge defeat. I am confident we can build better community relations without their polarising effect.”
.
We at Shiraz do not, of course, claim that the BNP and Respect are simply mirror images of each other. The BNP has direct fascist ancestry in the National Front and can still properly be called a fascist organisation. Respect is not fascist. Its political roots are an eclectic mix of communalism, Peronist populism, Stalinism and a dash of social democracy. But it does have clear links with the clerical fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood (via the Muslim Association of Britain) and leading figures like Galloway make no secret of their support for the clerical fascists of  Hamas.
.
As the BNP does with the white working class, Respect encourages its target audience (Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims) to identify with their “community” on ethnic and religious grounds, rather than on a class basis. They encourage a similar sense of victimhood and isolation. They are both obstacles to working class unity, even though the BNP is clearly by far the more vicious, racist and dangerous of the two.
.
Voters of Barking and voters of  Poplar and Limehouse: we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability!

78 Comments

  1. A Favourite at Poblish... said,

  2. Will said,

    Yes — well said.

    galloway and his sort –fuck off ethno-politico-reliogio scum.

  3. Rosie said,

    Yeah, it made my day to hear of their total trouncing. I’m willing to bet a tenner that Respect will totally disappear from the political scene. Salma Yaqoob may find another party to pursue her political career. She might chuck the Communalism and Stalinism bit and keep the social democracy and join the Labour party, who would probably like a personable Muslim woman as one of their candidates.

    The BNP will remain in some form. They’re imploding at the moment, but if they found themselves a capable leader they might revive.

  4. Andrew Coates said,

  5. skidmarx said,

    2. But you tell evryone to fuck off, so it doesn’t stand out here, maybe you should be a bit more discriminating, youTOtal cNU.

    3.But if she doesn’t have the communal appeal, she won’t be as much use to them.

    4. I think we can all share a bit of that. Ha ha.

  6. sackcloth and ashes said,

    My joy knows no bounds.

  7. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘Salma Yaqoob may find another party to pursue her political career. She might chuck the Communalism and Stalinism bit and keep the social democracy and join the Labour party, who would probably like a personable Muslim woman as one of their candidates.’

    Once she wakes up and smells the coffee, she’ll probably make a good MP. All she needs to do is walk out of what’s left of the RESPECT circus, and leave all the far-left/communitarian bollocks behind.

  8. Rosie said,

    3.But if she doesn’t have the communal appeal, she won’t be as much use to them.

    They like to have minority candidates and woman candidates, don’t they? She has shown a lot of energy and looks good on the telly. I can see her doing well.

  9. Jim Denham said,

    Congratulations to Britain’s first female Muslim MP. She fought off a strong Liberal Democrat challenge, faced down an internal Party revolt against her, inherited the mess left by her preposterous predecessor. And she doesn’t wear a hijab:

    http://www.birminghammail.net/elections-2010/election-2010-west-midlands-news/2010/05/07/britain-s-first-female-muslim-mp-elected-in-birmingham-s-ladywood-65233-26395063/

  10. charliethechulo said,

    Ahhh:

    “Respect’s failure to break through in this election is a particularly bitter pill to swallow. Having George and Salma at the helm, both of whom are national figures, we were entitled to hope for, and even expect, what would have been a small victory in terms of seats won but a huge step forward for the left and progressive politics. It didn’t happen. Why? Well, unsurprisingly, those with an axe to grind with the entire Respect project are already gleefully citing charges of communialism, George’s appearance on Celebrity Big Brother a few years ago, and other such nonsense.

    The truth behind Respect’s inability to make a breakthrough is that it is still widely seen by voters, and portrayed within the media, as an antiwar party, and for the vast majority the war is simply not a burning issue when casting their vote at the ballot box.

    Moreover, while some comfort can be taken from the election of Caroline Lucas for the Greens, when it comes down to the wire the stark choice when it comes to voting in a general election in this country continues to be a choice between Labour and Conservative. Each represents one side of the mainstream class divide in British society, and the key battle between both over the past few elections has been the battle to win the allegiance of those all important swing voters.”

    Read the rest here:
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5815

  11. charliethechulo said,

    A second “ahhh”:

    Respect Parliamentary Election – Summary of Results by Liam of Socialist resistance:

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/

    Posted on May 7, 2010 by Liam

    Respect contested 11 seats in the General Election.
    The overall total of votes for the 11 candidates was 33,369 with an average vote proportion of 6.8%.
    The highest score was 25.1% for Salma Yaqoob, while the lowest was in Enfield Southgate with 0.4%. The three candidates in the targeted seats saved their deposit while two others (Manchester Blackley & Broughton and Bradford West) achieved very creditable results for left candidates who have not been an MP or councillor.
    Results in order of highest proportion of vote were as follows:

    Constituency Candidate Vote %
    Birmingham Hall Green Salma Yaqoob 12240 25.1%
    Poplar & Limehouse George Galloway 8160 17.5%
    Bethnal Green & Bow Abjol Miah 8532 16.8%
    Bradford West Arshad Ali 1245 3.1%
    Blackley & Broughton Kay Phillips 996 2.9%
    Oldham West & Royton Shahid Miah 627 1.5%
    Manchester Gorton Mohammed Zulfikar 507 1.3%
    Garston & Halewood Diana Raby 286 0.7%
    Croydon North Mohommad Shaikh 272 0.5%
    Brent Central Abdi Duale 230 0.5%
    Enfield Southgate Samad Billoo 174 0.4%

    Filed under: British politics, Respect | 5 Comments »

    ************************************************************************************
    Respect Parliamentary Election Results
    Posted on May 7, 2010 by Liam

    Socialist Resistance has been part of Respect since its foundation and played a major role in sustaining it during the acrimonious split in 2007. So, naturally, we begin our review of the elections with Respect’s campaign …

    Respect are running a highly focussed and limited general election campaign standing in just 11 seats, compared to 26 seats in 2005.

    However Respect stand the best chance of winning a seat of any national left wing party – with three key target seats: Birmingham Hall Green, Poplar and Limehouse; Bethnal Green & Bow. Expect very late declarations around 4 or 5AM at the earliest due to the close fought nature of the campaign and the expected chaos caused by postal voting.

    Other seats to watch for include Blackley & Broughton in Manchester/Salford being fought by Respect chair Kay Phillips against Labour’s Graham Stringer with a unique alliance with the Green Party, and also in Manchester, Gorton where Respect are running against Gerald Kaufman. This is the only seat in England where Respect and TUSC go head to head. Most of the other seats being contested by Respect were fought in 2005 so are an unknown quantity and results are likely to be varied.

  12. johng said,

    The attempt to equate Griffen and Galloway marks the departure of this blog from the left. What a far right bunch of scumbags you are.

    • Lobby Ludd said,

      John, I think you are wrong, the equivalence was not made.

      I would suggest, however, you leave this blog to stew in its own poison. In the absence of VP this blog has become a site for cocky children and a drunken misanthropist, where Jim D is boosted as the ‘house trotskyite’.

      Jill Mountford – 75 votes, so don’t get snippy.

      • Rosie said,

        John, I think you are wrong, the equivalence was not made.

        The consistent wrongness of johng:- wilful misreading or just misreading? The unanswered question of our age.

      • Celeste said,

        If the AWL had received 75 votes in every constituency in the country they would have done better than son-of-NO2EU (TUSC) ‘British jobs for British workers’ in their narrowly selected seats. Fact.

    • Left in Limbo said,

      I tend to agree. By conflating the two, you imply they represent something similarly despicable. There’s a world of difference between the truly revolting, and the merely distasteful. To not recognise the value difference is empty sectarianism.

      • skidmarx said,

        “If the AWL had received 75 votes in every constituency in the country they would have done better than son-of-NO2EU (TUSC) ‘British jobs for British workers’ in their narrowly selected seats. Fact.”
        So either the one selected seat was the best the AWL were going to do, or they could have done better standing elsewhere. This argument is either wilful stupidity or just stupidity.

  13. Jim Denham said,

    Dear John,

    The article makes it clear that we don’t regard Galloway and Respect as fascist. We *do* regard them as communalist reactionaries.

    I have already had to remind you of how your own party (the SWP) has denounced Respect and Galloway for “communalism”:
    http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=396

    Do you disagree with the late Chris Harman on that?

    You failed to respond last time I posted that link. How about responding now?

  14. Derek Wall said,

    The 75 votes for the AWL was cheering.

  15. Jim Denham said,

    Mr Wall:

    I have asked you on a number of occasions to enter into debate (for instance, about your anti-semitism and your stupid support for Jerry Hicks in Unite), always to be ignored. Now you pop up with a snide remark about the AWL. Fair enough.

    Now get in touch for a serious debate about whatever subjects you choose.

    -Jim

    • skidmarx said,

      “about your anti-semitism ”
      Is that actual antisemitism or more of your outrageous slurs on anyone who doesn’t back your support for the IDF?

  16. Rosie said,

    We at Shiraz do not, of course, claim that the BNP and Respect are simply mirror images of each other.

    johng’s reading skills again. I would certainly agree that Galloway is less repulsive and cleverer than Griffin,. just as Salma Yaqoob is less repulsive than other BNP candidates. Making your appeal to the racism of a majority is more repulsive than making your appeal to the religious exclusiveness of a minority. Nazi Germany was more repulsive than Iran is now, so getting your ideas from Mein Kampf is more repulsive than being employed by an Iranian propaganda outfit (Press TV). Griffin sets the bar high for repulsiveness and Respect doesn’t reach it. But Respect and Galloway are still repulsive, even though they don’t reach the BNP and Griffin standard.

  17. maxdunbar said,

    And the post made it explicit that BNP/Respect are not just identical equivalents.

  18. maxdunbar said,

    Galloway lost Bethnal and Bow to Rushana Ali, an aide of Oona King’s and now Britain’s first Bangladeshi MP.

    “We say goodbye to George Galloway,” Ms Ali said. At the mention of Mr Galloway, almost 200 Muslim activists shouted “scum” and “out, out, out”. Ms Ali continued: “We decided it was time to pay our final respects to Respect. Together we voted to end the division and unite the East End.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7119992.ece

  19. charliethechulo said,

    “johng’s reading skills again”:

    Rosie: John’s not the sharpest demand in the Transitional Programme.

  20. Will said,

    Stupid and pointless abuse which has been edited.

  21. Will said,

    Stupid and pointless abuse which has been edited.

  22. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘The consistent wrongness of johng:- wilful misreading or just misreading? The unanswered question of our age.’

    Well, the fact that he’s a mendacious little shit suggests the former. The fact that he flunked his PhD at SOAS suggests the latter. So think there’s a bit of both there.

  23. resistor said,

    From

    http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/05/07/camberwell-and-peckham-what-we-achieved-election-and-what-we-failed-achieve

    ‘The AWL candidate in Camberwell and Peckham, Jill Mountford, got a poor result: 75 votes, 0.2%. (To put that in context, the 2001 general election, standing as part of the Socialist Alliance, our candidates in Nottingham and Hackney received 3.8% and 2.9%.) That does not mean that the election campaign was wasted effort. We explained basic socialist ideas to thousands of people; made new contacts and sympathisers; educated and trained ourselves in doorstep and street-stall discussions.’

    75 votes, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Not a wasted effort – oh my aching sides. All praise to the dear leader Matgamna!

    I mean, the WRP got 211. Shame on you for splitting the loony vote.

  24. charliethechulo said,

    There is a difference between standing in order to make socialist propaganda, and standing because you seriously *want* to get in. That’s the reason there is no comparison between Jill Mountford and George Galloway.

  25. Jim Denham said,

    Skidmarks asks, re my question to Derek Wall:

    skidmarx said,
    May 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm · Edit

    “about your anti-semitism ”
    Is that actual antisemitism or more of your outrageous slurs on anyone who doesn’t back your support for the IDF?

    My reply to Skidders: No, I don’t accuse Wall of anti-semitism because of his criticism of Israel, but because of his articles in the ‘Morning Star’ which seemed to deny Israel’s right to exist. If Mr Wall can clarify his position on Israel’s right to exist, I’ll comment further.

    Reply

    • skidmarx said,

      So opposing the existence of a racist state makes him a racist? You really have attempted to gut the word of all meaning.

  26. resistor said,

    Since Jim Denham denies the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes on the basis of their race, his comments are worthless.

  27. karenski said,

  28. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘resistor’, you must be gutted. Your parties did poorly in the four London constituencies they hoped to take (Dagenham, Barking, Bethnal Green & Poplar).

    A bad election for red-brown types like yourself, methinks.

  29. resistor said,

    So

    ‘The AWL candidate in Camberwell and Peckham, Jill Mountford, got a poor result: 75 votes, 0.2%.’

    Not 20%, not 2% but 0.2%

    You get that sort of result from people voting for you by mistake.

    ‘We explained basic socialist ideas to thousands of people’

    and 75 voted for you.

    How did you make ‘basic socialist ideas’ so unpopular?

  30. Jim Denham said,

    Skidders: “So opposing the existence of a racist state makes him a racist? You really have attempted to gut the word of all meaning.2

    My reply to skidders:
    1/ Name a state in the world today that is *not* a “racist state.”
    2/Name me a state in the world today (other than Israel) that liberals and leftists routinely say has no right to even exist.

  31. sackcloth and ashes said,

    And (3) if we’re talking about ‘racist’ states explain why Israel (20% of its population is Arab, with the same rights as its Jewish citizens) is ‘racist’, but Iraq, Egypt, Syria and all the other states that evicted their Jewish communities after 1948 are not.

  32. skidmarx said,

    1. Name one that is based on the expulsion of such a high proportion of its native population.
    2. See 1.
    3. See 1.(additionally I’m not particularly a big fan of the states mentioned).

  33. Jim Denham said,

    Answers to Skidders’ questions:

    1/ America.

    (Not to mention, Australia and Argentina: but in the cases of all of these – unlike Israel – we’re not simply talking about “expulsion”: we’re talking about *annihilation* of the native population).

    2/ Why not?

    3/ Maybe not: but who calls for their immediate destruction as states?

  34. Will said,

    Stupid and pointless abuse which has been edited.

    https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/anti-israel-fanatics-disrupt-scott-heron-gig/#comment-29727

    you didn’t comment. because you are a Stupid and pointless abuse which has been edited.

  35. skidmarx said,

    1. I said expulsion, living breathing refugees and their descendants, who are prevented from returning to their homes because the state which occupies it prevents them, instead allowing unrestricted immigration from one religious/ethnic group. Are you going to go back in time and right the wrongs done to the Native Americans? No, of course not, you only want to use it as an excuse to back Israel, and to describe those that don’t as anti-semites.
    Which is where we came in. If you’d seriously wanted to debate with Derek Wall, you would have asked him about his views about the legitmacy of the Israeli state, but instead you just call him an anti-semite, closing off discussion so that you can live in a self-satisfied moral bubble. Not a good position for a socialist who wants to engage with the world.

    2. See 1.

    3. Because they aren’t based on the same profound inequality as Israel. And as it happens, I would have thought that revolutionary socialists were in favour of the overthrow of all existing states, you seem to be in favour of retaining a racist one in Israel.

  36. martin ohr said,

    skidmarx, indulge me a little here, for #3 how do you see the overthrow of the Israeli state happening- who will do what to who, how will they do it and when?

    Personally I can see 4 possible ways forward from the present

    1) Israel abolishes itself
    2) Somebody invades Israel and either kills or drives out the bulk of the jewish population
    3) nothing changes
    4) Israelis and Palestinians agree a peaceful compromise on two self sustaining states based on historic borders

  37. skidmarx said,

    martin ohr – as you ask so nicely, international pressure forcing the abandonment of the Law of Return and the return of Palestinian refugees. No I don’t see that happening tomorrow, but I don’t see it as meaning the Jewish population would be driven out, they might in some ways be insecure, but not in the permanent way that the massive injustice to the Palestinians creates.

    • martin ohr said,

      skidmarx- thanks for replying. Let me make sure I understand, you believe that by ‘international pressure’ Israel will effectively abolish itself and convert to a secular single state for Jews and Palestinians?

      What form will this international pressure take? Who will be applying the pressure- governments, business, workers? It all seems rather fair fetched and flies in the face of marxism does it not?

      • skidmarx said,

        Will be abolsihed and so replaced,yes.

        Boycotts and divestment would be a good start.

        Whatever.

        No.

      • martin ohr said,

        Skidmarx -let me get this right, you actually believe that a campaign of boycotts will lead to the Israeli state abolishing itself?

      • skidmarx said,

        Not on its own and not willingly, any more than the apatheid state in South Africa chose to.

  38. Jim Denham said,

    Skidders: (point 3 above): ” I would have thought that revolutionary socialists were in favour of the overthrow of all existing states, you seem to be in favour of retaining a racist one in Israel: no, but I’m n ot singling out Israel in the way that much of the “left” does. You surely know as well as I do that the revolutionary left is in favour of the “withering away of tyhe stae” and a world socialist federation as very long-term goals: the attitude of much of the rev left owards Israel is quite different: they in effect call for its *immediate* destruction (though not specifying by whom).

    I’ll leave you, Skidders, to think through the rather disturbing logic of your point #1…

    • skidmarx said,

      The disturbing logic that you use the destruction of aboriginal populations as an excuse not to seek justice for the Palestinians?

      Actual socialists call for the immediate abndonment of the racial exclusion that is the basis for the state of Israel in the same way they called for the immediate end of apartheid in South Africa. It’s you and your motley crew that want to make Israel a special case, not everyone else.

      • tc said,

        he’s probably too wankered to reply to you by now (it is 1pm after all). but basically they are little england Orwell-style romantics in love with what they imagine to be the “British working class” (never mind that in 30 years of existence none of these have ever joined the AWL).

        Muslims don’t fit into that image and therefore, it’s the white man’s burden to go around the world saving innocent Jews, women and children from the vicious Islamic hordes.

  39. tc said,

    If Galloway was “routed” then what happened to Jill Mountford!?

    she even lsot to the WRP who at least had SOME presence int he communtiy, unlike the public schoolboys of the AWL

    “Workers MP on a skilled workers wage” – how does some failure who can only get 75 votes have the right tod emand £30,000 a year eh? lol. Fucking pathetic, who are you lot to call anyone a “scumbag” eh? You can fuck off with the Tories and the BNP you filth.

  40. Adam Olivarez said,

    he’s probably too wankered to reply to you by now

    ???

    tc …? er tc….?? Ah, teenage clown … turd cruncher … thick cunt … tory ccandidate …. no it must be tallyho chaps! What a charmless moralist gobshite.

  41. tc said,

    *** teenage clown … turd cruncher … thick cunt … tory ccandidate …. tallyho chaps!***

    sounds like an AWL branch meeting.

  42. Will said,

    Stupid and pointless abuse which has been edited..

  43. Rosie said,

    Respect – no longer as well funded as it was:-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8678936.stm

    A local chairman and a financier of the Respect Party has told BBC London he is to resign and stop funding it.

    Azmal Hussain, chair of Tower Hamlets branch of the party in east London, said: “If anyone wants to continue, let them, but I am not involved.” …

    When asked about the future of his party, Mr Hussain said: “For me it is over.

    “I will resign and will stop funding the party. Not a single penny.”

    I’ll give Respect a tenner if it fields any candidates at the next election.

  44. tc said,

    ^^^Will the AWL be running again? I’ll buy Denham a bottle of gin if they beat the WRP.

  45. Jim Denham said,

    Firstly, I have to say that if Will’s comments are to be deleted as “stupid and pointless abuse”, so should tc’s.

    On to (slightly) more serious points: Skidders has not answered the point that it is *only* Israel, of all the states in the world, whose immediate destruction is called for by a significant section of the “left.”

    Nor has Skidders answered the point that by his logic Israel would now be accepted if it had followed the lead of most other “settler states” and simply exterminated the native inhabitants instead of ‘merely’ (I use the term ironically) displacing them.

    Skidders seems to subscribe to the standard-issue Arab-nationalist / Islamist view of history (propagated on the “left” bny Stalinists and the Cliffites) in which the Jews are simply invaders and colonists. This ignores the long-standing Jewish presence in the Middle east, sucessive attempts to reach a reasonable compromise in Palestine which were (even before the UN partition plan of 1947) vetoed by the Arab ruling class – one such very fair compromise being the Peel Commission of 1937:
    http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl140108ed02.html#isr2

    Finally: on what grounds does the “left” deny the world’s only nation of asylum seekers the right to even exist?

  46. Jim Denham said,

    By the way, Galloway’s at it again (threatening the bourgeoise courts against anyone who dares cirticise him):
    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/90337
    …however I notice that the Morning Star’s online versioin hasn’t repeated the headline used in today’s print edition above the same article:

    “Respect Party
    ‘We’re going nowhere'”

  47. skidmarx said,

    Jim Beamer –

    1) Immediate destruction blah,blah,blah – that’s just the way you want to put it. Socialist should always be against states institutionalising racial oppression. If Israel could be reformed to allow equal rights for Palestinians, all well and good, but its identity as a “Jewish state”(not because it’s Jewish, you idiot you sees anti-semtism behind everything, but because it is racially exclusive) would seem to make that nigh on impossible.

    2) I did answer the point, you only use the example of the extermination of aboriginal populations as an excuse to support Israel. That may not be the answer you want to hear, but it’s the one you’re going to get.

    3) Not simply colonists, but massively swamped by them.

    4) The Peel Commission – why should the Palestinians have put up with the division of their country to satisfy one group of colonists?

    5) Finally on what grounds does Jim Denham deny the millions of Palestinians the right to have their country back?

    6) Galloway does only threaten the BBC there. THey do seem to have corrected their misspelling of “Hoveman” in their original report.

  48. skidmarx said,

    Oh and on your first point, tc does seem to make a point, whereas Will just engages in the same vulgar tirade with every comment.

  49. Jim Denham said,

    ” Immediate destruction blah,blah,blah – that’s just the way you want to put it,” says Skidders, in denial.

    No, Skidders, it is not. It is the way that the SWP and many others on the “left” and not-so-“left” (like Wall of the Greens) put it.

    It is most emphatically *not* the same as Marxists’ usual attitude towards the withering away of the state. It is something different, exceptional and unique. That’s why I insist that it is right and proper to call it anti-semitism.

    On the Peel commissions proposals (rejected by the Arab ruling classes on fairly explicitly anti-semitic grounds)…well, if you think that the ‘indigenous’ peoples’ rights *always* trump those of immigrants (*not* “colonists” you berk!), you’re welcome to where that logic leads you.

  50. tc said,

    so in most countries do “migrants” set up a state based on a racial majority and then expel the indigenous population into ghettos?

    • charliethechulo said,

      Why not?

    • Harry Tuttle said,

      Most of, if not all, of the Americas and the Caribbean fulfill that requirement. I’m sure Australia does too. In the United States and Canada, the reservations have not disappeared. And the Ainu of Sakhalin Island didn’t just decide to to go on holiday, they were expelled by the Soviets.

      There are some countries, notably Mexico, where conflict between the state and the indigenous population continues to this day. And are the Tibetans being treated the same as the Han Chinese who are usurping their lands? How about the Arabs of Iran? Or the Kurds? They’re only now returning to Kirkuk, where they were removed by Hussein and replaced with loyal Iraqi Arabs. And the ethnic cleansing seen in the Balkans surely affected its current makeup.

      If anything, Israel/Palestine isn’t the exception, its the norm.

      • tc said,

        So the AWL and Shiraz Socialist also refer to the displacement of Tibetans by the Chinese state, the Arabs in Iran and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as “migration”, and to those who oppose these acts, say soemthing along the lines of:

        well, if you think that the ‘indigenous’ peoples’ rights *always* trump those of immigrants (*not* “colonists” you berk!), you’re welcome to where that logic leads you.

        ?

  51. tc said,

    ^^^answer – of course they don’t. Because they, not the rest of the left, make an exception for Israel. As guilty white liberals are prone to do.

  52. charliethechulo said,

    No, “tc”: we at Shiraz Socialist are:
    1/ Anti racists
    2/ Support the rights of asylum seekers
    3/ Are consistent…we dont apply criteria to Israel that is not applied to other states:

    This, from a South African anti-apartheid campaigner might help educate you out of your bigotry:
    http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=108121

  53. tc said,

    1/ Anti racists
    2/ Support the rights of asylum seekers
    3/ Are consistent…we dont apply criteria to Israel that is not applied to other states:

    Except this isn’t true: you don’t support the right of the Palestinians to return to their homelandg. Therefore you are both racist and make exceptions for Israel.

  54. Jim Denham said,

    We support a fair, negotiated two-state settlement.

    What do you support, “tc”? The destruction of Israel?

  55. skidmarx said,

    I see Noam Chomsky has said “the government of Israel doesn’t like the kinds of things I say, which puts them into the same category as every other government in the world”.

  56. Jim Denham said,

    The New York Times report of the same story also notes something that many of Chomsky’s supporters don’t realise:

    “Mr. Chomsky, who is Jewish and spent time living on a kibbutz in Israel in the 1950s, is an outspoken critic both of American and Israeli policy. But he has supported a two-state solution here and has not condemned Israel’s existence in the terms of the country’s sharpest critics around the world.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/middleeast/18chomsky.html

  57. tc said,

    Galloway also supports a “2 state solution”, and just the other day you were equating him to Nick Griffin.

    I like how you people change your tone when challenged from the left (this thread is a classic example), but then revert to playing to the red-baiting gallery whenever it suits.

  58. zjwriter.com said,

    The Caribbean region consists of a chain of islands in the Caribbean. Many of these islands are tourist destinations, people around the world visit the Caribbean in the breathtaking scenery and lush beaches to enjoy.

    The Caribbean is an ideal place for family holidays. There are a variety of places and activities the whole family to enjoy together. Among the many destinations are some of the popular Bahamas, Antigua, St. Lucia, Aruba, Bermuda, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, etc. The Caribbean islands offer a variety of activities for all ages. The island of St. Lucia is the drive through volcano in the world, which is a miracle of nature. In addition, there is a natural rainforest reserve, which is a big weekend for walkers bird watchers and nature lovers. There are many excursions, tours and programs for tourists wishing to explore the island. Barbados Sports Camp is an added attraction for children, making them enjoy their favorite sports. Most islands offer excellent family accommodation, private homes, apartments or hotels of fiction, including, on budget.

    Many hotels also offer child care, making it easier and safer for families. The Internet is now much easier to book their holidays taken. There are a variety of family packages available that you can choose. A look at the full range of exciting holiday activities available, you can certainly say that a vacation in the Caribbean is ideal for families.

  59. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘Galloway also supports a “2 state solution”, and just the other day you were equating him to Nick Griffin.’

    Then why does he support Hamas?

  60. sackcloth and ashes said,

    ‘1. Name one that is based on the expulsion of such a high proportion of its native population.’

    You could try Pakistan during partition. Cretin.

  61. skidmarx said,

    I remember reading an article by a friend who worked as a journalist in Pakistan pointing out that it was one of the few countries in the world whose raison d’etre was defined by religion. Along with Israel.

  62. rothpolt2 said,

    Reblogged this on rotherhampoliticstake2 and commented:
    good article and well explained

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: