George Galloway hosts a phone-in radio show every saturday and sunday night 8-10pm GMT on Talkradio (uk) which you can listen to live on-line.

http://www1.talksport.net/presenters/pr ... _id=100044

Some of which are already available on bittorrent, and i hope will be posted on this site in future.

eg. Sunday 6th August 8-10pm

"George Galloway's live phone in twice each week, The Mother of all Talk Shows on hosted on UK Talk Sport Radio. Tune in live on the web, http://www.talksport.net, 20:00-22:00 GMT, each Saturday and Sunday. People wishing to take part are invited to email, text or phone him

This broadcast discusses Fidel Castro, Tommy Sheridan, Sky news (http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/video ... 06,00.html) Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and Middle East politics"

http://www.mininova.org/get/388625

someone uploaded that torrent -- i had to remove it, the filename was >100 characters, and it wasn't seeded..

Reposted with shorter filename, seeded ok (3.471 available)

major.tom,

That was a great post refuting copyleft's points! Thanks for taking the time to do it articulately and factually

I would only add this the following to your excellent rebuttal of copyleft's predictable propaganda about Israel "leaving Gaza" out of the kindness of its heart and how poor Israel got nothing in return for it, blah blah...

First of all, Israel had no right at all to be in Gaza in the first place. So let's get that straight. Israel was occupying Gaza illegally, and against countless UN resolutions condemning its occupation. This brutal occupation lasted over 35 years, and saw the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The only reason Israel "left" was because the Palestinian resistance made it financially, military, and politically unviable for Israel to continue that occupation. It had nothing to do with Israel being charitable. It just became too costly for Israel with minimal benefit, if any. And even as Israel left Gaza, it was annexing portions of the far more fertile and valuable West Bank at the same time, and taking control of valuable water resources in the West Bank, all the while building a wall and displacing Palestinians from their land. Israel never has, and never will, have any intention of ever allowing the Palestinians a real and viable state. All this stuff about peace-talks and 2-state solution is nothing but one big charade and Israel knows this very well. But it keeps everyone occupied for a while, fools the world for a while and buys Israel some diplomatic cover so it can pretend it is serious about peace, and then inevitably, some manufactured crisis occurs, and the Palestinians take the bait, allowing Israel to unleash violence and to then pretend it's only the big, bad Palestinian terrorists who are preventing the powerful state of Israel, pumped full of billions with financial and military aid and given unconditional political and diplomatic support by the world's sole super-power, from reaching a just settlement. This is just absurd. The US and Israeli policy has been to allow Israel to continue to f*ck over the Palestinian people, and that's the truth. Chomsky put it best as follows:

The United States regards Israel as virtually a militarized offshoot, and it protects it from criticism or actions and supports passively and, in fact, overtly supports its expansion, its attacks on Palestinians, its progressive takeover of what remains of Palestinian territory, and its acts to, well, actually realize a comment that Moshe Dayan made back in the early ’70s when he was responsible for the Occupied Territories. He said to his cabinet colleagues that we should tell the Palestinians that we have no solution for you, that you will live like dogs, and whoever will leave will leave, and we'll see where that leads. That's basically the policy. And I presume the U.S. will continue to advance that policy in one or another fashion.

Here's an excellent very recent interview - August 4, 2006 - with Chomsky on the Middle-East crisis.

Following intellectuals' letter, Prof. Noam Chomsky explains his doctrine, discusses danger of Israel's nukes compared to 'Iranian threat,' global media's role in escalating Mideast conflict and US's place in picture

Last week, a group of renowned intellectuals published an open letter blaming Israel for escalating the conflict in the Middle East. The letter, which mainly referred to the alignment of forces between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, caused a lot of anger among Ynet and Ynetnews readers, particularly due to its claim that the Israeli policy's political aim is to eliminate the Palestinian nation.

The letter was formulated by art critic and author John Berger and among its signatories were Nobel Prize winner, playwright Harold Pinter, linguist and theoretician Noam Chomsly, Nobel Prize laureate Jos é Saramago, Booker Prize laureate Arundhati Roy, American author Russell Banks, author and playwright Gore Vidal, and historian Howard Zinn.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/articl ... =11&ar=371

I_am_not_a_number wrote:That was a great post refuting copyleft's points! Thanks for taking the time to do it articulately and factually

It was my pleasure. I'm glad that someone found it of value. I would be especially gratified if copyleft found it to be food for thought. This will make me sound like a flower child, but I'm not out to win any arguments, but to help make the world a better place.

I_am_not_a_number wrote:I would only add this the following to your excellent rebuttal of copyleft's predictable propaganda about Israel "leaving Gaza" out of the kindness of its heart and how poor Israel got nothing in return for it, blah blah...

I quite agree that Israel's decision to leave Gaza was not out of kindness, but the PR-friendly half of a greater scheme to solidify control of the West Bank. When balanced against the more plentiful resources of the West Bank, combined with its geographical proximity to Jerusalem (the Holy Grail, if you'll forgive the terrible metaphor, of the Middle East conflict), the vast expense of maintaing its illegal settlements in Gaza (a rather small strip of land off in Israel's corner) could no longer be justified, no matter what proclaimed principle is involved.

On Democracy Now a while back there was a debate between Norman Finklestein and Shlomo Ben Ami (former Israeli Foreign Minister) on the subject of Camp David and, more generally, what issues each side was willing to negotiate and how it differs with the historical record through the mass media lens ("The Palestinians Never Miss an Oportunity to Miss an Oportunity").

The debate opened my eyes to viewing the issue in a whole new light. At the risk of shilling for DN, here's the link for any interested.

Fmr. Israeli Foreign Minister: "If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... ead&tid=25

Best of wishes,

Thanks a lot for the link. Very good debate.

The truth is that Arafat was the best Israel could hope for. He was willing to give up a lot to reach a peace agreement, but in the end Israel still rejected it.

Good to see there are some reasonable people in Israel that want peace with the Palestinians. I actually had some hope for Peretz this time. He sounded like a reasonable guy from what I heard from him in the election campaign. Now he has turned out like a monster. During this latest war, the Israeli political and military leadership were falling over themselves trying to be the most aggressive. When you live in an environment where you have to be perceived as a "strongman" military against the Palestinians to not commit political suicide at home, there is pretty much zero chance of peace.

What impresses me a lot with people like Chomsky and Finkelstein (who I've seen speak myself) is their calm no matter what kind of arguments or rants they are faced with. Coupled with a seemingly bottomless well of knowledge, this is an unbeatable combination. This is probably why the jingoists and right-wingers dare not meet them in debates, but prefer to carry out smear-campaigns and name-calling excercises. It effectively throws the issues off track, and silences the debate. Then they don't have to answer to the charges.

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict

major.tom wrote:I get the feeling that Israel is trying to cause civil war within Lebanon and Palestine. They would much prefer Hamas and Fetah to be fighting, and the Lebanese army fighting with Hezbollah, in the hope that Israel would be spared most of the bloodshed. So far, this has (largely) failed to materialize.

I was glimpsing through this thread and happened to see this comment. Now we know what happened - thanks in no small part to US and Israeli political pressure and military training.

During a field study in mid 2008 I happened to interview a senior analyst in the Crisis Group, where we discussed the disclosure in the hopefully now famous Rose article. One of my questions happened to be formulated like "the alleged coup attempt by Dahlan", or something to that effect. At this point he broke me off and said there was no controversy about this. It was clear there were plans of a coup, and Hamas simply pre-empted it.

Later, much of the same forces, trained by Israel and Jordan with US backing, managed to virtually prevent any protest in the West Bank against the slaughter in Gaza during the 2008-9 war.

The US showing itself as an honest broker once again....

(No, I won't replace your melted irony meters...)

AlexZello wrote:What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict?

I think this quote says it all about the Israeli mentality towards the conflict. It's all about conflict management now, not conflict resolution. Meanwhile, more and more lands are being stolen, and more and more Palestinian houses being demolished. The Palestinian state is dying before our eyes.

The question is, why do we even need the peace talks? A far better choice would be to accelerate the construction and hang up the peace process, which would otherwise strip Israel of vitally important lands.

http://samsonblinded.org/news/white-hou ... -you-17154

Pangaea wrote:I was glimpsing through this thread and happened to see this comment. Now we know what happened - thanks in no small part to US and Israeli political pressure and military training.
<snip>
Later, much of the same forces, trained by Israel and Jordan with US backing, managed to virtually prevent any protest in the West Bank against the slaughter in Gaza during the 2008-9 war.

The US showing itself as an honest broker once again....

I've seen that article before (already bookmarked) and had mixed feelings about it. On one hand, it confirmed what I'd gleaned from disparate sources. On the other, it's a reminder that, sadly, the Fatah/Hamas divide continues to be sewn by "the West". (U.S., GBR & Israel) Tony Blair is still the so-called "Peace Envoy" -- funny thing is, I haven't seen much "peace" being built, except for that enjoyed by Israel as they continue to expand their foothold on Occupied Territory.

Occasionally, one glimpses articles which make overt mention of the "security training" role played by U.S. (reading between the lines, the CIA) in the West Bank. It seems they are frightfully afraid, as is Abbas, of Hamas winning elections there as well. They're willing to do almost anything from the imprisonment, torture and even murder of Hamas activists to delaying the elections indefinitely. Abbas is already > 1 year past his mandate and the latest word is that there might be elections this June. But I won't hold my breath.

re: "Cast Lead" (a misnomer, since the massacre also included chemical weapons such as white phosphorous), I recall a couple articles which suggested that Abbas might have even been complicit in the Israeli offensive. As you may recall, his about face on the Goldman Report was quite bizarre, leading to questions he might not wish to have explored. The 1st article can be found here (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=11 ... =351020202) A follow-up article has disappeared but is still available in Google Cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca).

I believe there's a Chinese proverb (or is it a curse?) which goes may you live in interesting times...

Yesterday I saw the Doha Debate between Hamas and Fatah (happened to see it on the real news network). It was pretty much a PR campaign from both sides, but I found two things interesting.

1. Fatah (Abdullah Abdullah IIRC) said armed resistance is a legitimate way to protest and fight the occupation - which reflects Hamas' view (I'm unsure whether it's the strategically smart thing to do, but that's another debate)
2. It seemed obvious that Hamas and Fatah had agreed on a reconciliation deal. Then, after US pressure, Egypt (the mediator) put more demands on Hamas, which they knew they couldn't agree to. Hence, the deal wasn't signed. One Hamas representative said the papers had actually been signed, then came more demands, and they withdrew. Once again the US shows they are doing all the can to continue the Hamas-Fatah divide, cause that reduced the risk of a peace process. They talk a lot, but behind closed doors they do all they can to sabotage the process.

I've seen enough of Abbas now to pretty much call him a Quisling, and I think it is warranted. He is in cahoots with the Israelis in trying to weaken Hamas. His comments about both the onslaught against Gaza and the Goldstone report just brought it unusually out in the open. The senior analyst I talked to said straight out that there can be no reconciliation with Abbas as leader. He is probably right too.

The good thing is that there is a huge split in Fatah, and during the latest congress it was far from certain he would remain the leader. I think several 'old guards' left for newer ones, and the newer ones are in general negative to him. This can mean that Fatah is changing. Hopefully for the better - cause they've done a terrible job historically. Especially since (pre-)Oslo.

The Oslo process itself was a disaster for the Palestinians. The truth is that the intifada terrified the Israelis. It was non-violent and large amounts of people, including in Israel, rose up against the Occupation. It got quite expensive for the Israelis. Since Hamas was rising in power and had local leaders (remember that pretty much the whole of Fatah leadership was in exile), Fatah was fast losing control. The Oslo process got them a way back in. Israel never had plans to relinquish control, but they wanted to stop policing the OPT themselves. They wanted a client army. That is pretty much what they have now gotten in the new police force. One of its main jobs is to prevent protest and violence against Israel. Before the IDF had to do this. And meanwhile they keep building the Landgrab Wall and colonies, and increase Jewish control of Jerusalem.

It's an absolutely horrible development, and unless the US changes their position, I honestly can't see a way out. I think Chomsky is right too - without massive demands in the US for a change of policy, the US simply won't change. Israel can offer the US a lot, while the Palestinians can't offer anything. International affairs is about power, especially so in the Middle East. And Israel is a dark shadow hanging above all the countries there. If they step too far out of line, they know they may get a (lot of) "gifts" from above. That is essentially what Israel offers the US, while the Palestinians is just a problem.

Sometimes I wish I was religious, and believed - truly believed - that US leaders would burn in Hell for all Eternity. They deserve nothing less for what they are doing.

For Abbas to side with the enemy over his own people is simply shocking. Arafat would never have done what Abbas has done. Wonder what happened there btw...

I've been meaning to watch the Doha debates. (Just a matter of finding the time.)

The most recent Fatah congress was interesting from a propaganda perspective. The went to great odds to show a united front in backing Abbas. I wonder if the result would be the same now.

It seems the best hope for Palestinian unity would be new Fatah leadership. Marwan Barghouti is a unifying personality. Unfortunately, he languishes in an Israeli prison. It would be interesting to see what happened if he was elected to be the leader of the PLO. Either Israel would have to release him or allow access to conduct affairs of state. And any future negotiations would need to be conducted in an Israeli prison. (I can't see the so-called peace envoy or U.S. Ambassador going anywhere near that place.)

The sad truth is that Israel and the U.S. simply don't want Palestinian unity. Unity would clear the way for concrete progress on the "Peace Process," which has so far been all about "process" without "peace."

They tried to look united when they first came to that decision, but I know there was a lot of ruckus in the ranks, and that pretty big sections of Fatah want a new leader.

Mustafa Barghouti would be a fantastic voice for the Palestinians. He preaches non-violence and unity, and that is exactly what is needed right now. That's not going to happen though. The US and Israel will do whatever they can to uphold the split, and if reconciliation is achieved, they'll probably go with a technocrat again.

I think the only chance for unity is through a new Fatah leadership though. I just can't see it happening with Abbas. Time and time again he shows he cares more about his own position than his own people. And whenever the Israelis or the US says "Jump!", he asks "How high?".

Marwan Barghouti is a more likely leader tbh. He is very popular, and if he was allowed to run and campaign I would fully expect him to pawn Abbas. Probably Hamas too. Unfortunately I think the lesson the Palestinians are learning is that if they elect Hamas again, the current policy of silent murder and strangulation will continue. But if they choose Fatah they will perhaps at least be allowed to breath a little. There will still be no progress on a 2-state solution as both the US and Israel are vehemently opposed to it, but perhaps the siege will be dampened a bit.

I wish the Western sphere had a free press so these things could be discussed and analysed in the open. Perhaps policy could be persuaded to be changed then. If people bothered about it.

Pangaea wrote:They tried to look united when they first came to that decision, but I know there was a lot of ruckus in the ranks, and that pretty big sections of Fatah want a new leader.

I just watched that debate last night. Neither side came off very sympathetic and the disapproval of the audience was clear. Frankly, the question was somewhat confusing, something like "are you in favour of the current Palestinian leadership?" Does "Palestinian Leadership" include Hamas, who have been marginalized and allowed only to rule matters internal to Gaza and nothing else, or both parties? Perhaps ambiguity was the aim and the only way they could get both sides to participate.

Pangaea wrote:Unfortunately I think the lesson the Palestinians are learning is that if they elect Hamas again, the current policy of silent murder and strangulation will continue. But if they choose Fatah they will perhaps at least be allowed to breath a little. There will still be no progress on a 2-state solution as both the US and Israel are vehemently opposed to it, but perhaps the siege will be dampened a bit.

So it comes down to which party the Palestinians will choose. Given the level of disapproval of Fatah and Palestinians' stubborn (in a good way) determination (you can't resist occupation for 60 years without being very stubborn), I suspect the next election will favour Hamas, if only slightly. If so, the "West" would be faced with a vexing dilemma: continue to ignore the free choice of the Palestinians and lose any remaining shred of legitimacy as "honest brokers" or finally accept the result and deal with Hamas. Their (the "West's") obstinacy must surely have a limit. (Or am I being naive?)