Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus reports that the former Archdeacon of Bradford has condemned Member of Parliament George Galloway over his controversial comments earlier this month that the city should be an ‘Israel-free zone'.
He said that “it could damage [Bradford's] reputation". Canon Guy Wilkinson (now the Vicar of Fulham and Hammersmith) also said that Galloway’s views are “absurd and unjustified".
Would a current Archdeacon ever have dared – or even wanted – to say such a thing; considering Bradford’s Muslim demographics?
So what did George Galloway – MP for Bradford West – actually say?
We don’t want any Israeli goods, we don’t want any Israeli services, we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or college, we don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, even if any of them had thought of doing so.
As a result of all this (as well as the 60 or more reports to West Yorkshire Police), there’s now a petition on change.org entitled ‘To bring about a prosecution against George Galloway MP under S.5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986′. So far, the T & A writes, it has attracted more than 4,100 signatures; though on the last count that had gone up to over 13,000.
Dr Irene Lancaster, chairman of Broughton Park Jewish Christian Dialogue Group in Salford, has also also signed the petition. She said:
He is demonising a whole people.
I don’t know if I want to go to Bradford any more. I’m scared to go there.
Despite all that, a spokesman for Mr Galloway rather arrogantly and childishly said:
It’s a complete and utter nonsense that people have done an online petition.
These people should have more to do with their time. The police have not been in touch with us.
Mr Galloway was merely expressing an opinion.
To be fair to the police, it will be the case that the “police haven’t been in touch” with Galloway or his lawyers because the police will only contact a person once they have established a case against him or her.
Would George Galloway’s spokesman have said the same if a politician had attempted to make Southampton “Pakistani-free” or “Muslim-free"? What about “Iraqi-free"?
And what about reports of racism other than racism against Jews or Israelis? Should the people who report such things “have more to do with their time"? Or is it that some hate crimes are acceptable and others are unacceptable? I have a feeling that Galloway’s spokesman would have spent much of his time talking about racism; just not racism against Jews, Israelis or whites.
Then again, there is a Marxist/Leftist theory about “hierarchies of racism” which stipulates that certain “power groups” – as the Left sees whites and Jews – can never be the victims of racism or even of hate crimes. Why is that? Simply because all whites and Jews are seen to have political power and/or be a majority. Thus, by Marxist logic, Leftists won’t see what Galloway has said as an example of either racism or incitement to violence – by definition.
Of course this quaint Marxist theory simply doesn’t work for powerless working-class whites and Jewish minorities. And it must also be noted that Jews and Israelis are classed as “whites” – even the black and brown ones – by International Socialists; though not by National Socialists.
Honourable Leftist Jews & Evil Jews/Israelis
What George Galloway may now say is that Jews are free to visit Bradford; just not Israelis. Judging from what he’s said about non-Israeli Jews (not just Israel-supporting Jews) in the past, that would be to backtrack on his part. Nonetheless, Galloway will be especially keen to welcome those Marxist or Leftist Jews who are often quoted by “anti-Zionists” because such Jews are also fanatically anti-Israel. This includes well-paid academics such as Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, the Socialist Workers Party’s Steven Rose, etc. – all self-described Marxists/communists (except Chomsky, whom many young people think, bizarrely enough, is an anarchist). These Jews – like the Neturei Karta (of whom there are less than 5,000 in Israel and probably less than 100 in the UK) – come in very useful when it comes to anti-Israel causes and demos.
The ‘argument’ goes something like this:
Well, Chomsky and Finkelstein are Jews. So that must mean that what they say about Israel and Zionism must be true.
That, of course, is logical puke.
Does that also work for American and European Jews who defend Israel? This author doubts it. In fact, International Socialists and National Socialists often call such Jews “Israel-firsters” – even when they’ve never been to Israel.
What we have here is the bizarre and self-contradictory case of Jew-hating Islamists, International Socialists and National Socialists (a totalitarian alliance of haters of “capitalist democracy” and Israel) suddenly making far-left Jewish critics of Israel (as well as the Neturei Karta) the honourable exceptions to an otherwise omnipresent Jewish nefariousness.