Comments on: British Politician Leads Bold International Aid Effort for Palestine

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:19:20 +0000

Thanks for this. It’s good to see something being done for Palestine: A grassroots movement succeeding where governments often fail.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:07:41 +0000

Great points, Ryan. My aim here wasn’t to criticize your post, just pointing out my general distaste for Galloway. The cause is a good one — I do think, though, that the harm Galloway does goes beyond just excluding people who are turned off by his rhetoric. I do think nasty, violent rhetoric does tangible harm on its own terms, in its effect on the ways we all relate to each other as we try to hash these things out. (And hey, I guess this thread is an example of things going right! )

(Report comment)

By: Julie

Julie — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:10:33 +0000

Ryan-

Great discussion– my husband and I talk about the same issue on what seems like a daily basis– this notion of framing and how it includes or, more often, excludes. Thanks for raising the issue here.

(Report comment)

By: Carlo

Carlo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:17:11 +0000

Palestine really does get a bum rap on the international stage. I’m glad to see people fighting for the Palestinians.

(Report comment)

By: Angela

Angela — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:15:42 +0000

Galloway is very outspoken and he definitely leaves politically correct speeches to his colleagues MPs, but he’s one of the few (very few) who still care about people’s rights.

(Report comment)

By: Ryan Van Lenning

Ryan Van Lenning — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:00:41 +0000

Eva,

Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, Galloway has spewed some really nasty things. It raises some interesting questions. What’s the best way to support a cause that have leaders and others who do admirable things but use ugly rhetoric? It is like going to a rally or demonstration and people do or say things that you see as harmful to the cause. I run into that issue often. Framing matters. The most recent discussion I had along those lines–though much more mild–was this weekend when I went to the Anti-Corp Film Festival. There was a moderate number of people there. The films there would be widely enjoyed and appreciated by many people (Sweet Crude and Blue Gold, about oil and water respectively), many of who wouldn’t ever respond to “Anti-corp” framing. My friend and I asked what would have happened if it would have been advertised in different terms? “Tear down capitalism!” vs. “there is a water scarcity problem and we should be concerned about a small number of people getting control over it for profit.” It’s always an interesting question to ask how to frame and communicate issues. A lot depends on the audience, but what if you want to read the widest audience?

My purpose was to raise awareness about the Gaza situation and the aid effort. Hopefully people who are turned off Galloway can still see through to the purpose of the campaign.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:19:47 +0000

I’m all for aid to the civilians in Gaza but Galloway is one nasty piece of work.

The fact that I generally agree with his causes (though not to the extreme he does – for instance, I opposed the invasion of Iraq but would never describe the hypothetical murder of Tony Blair as “morally justifiable,” as Galloway did) doesn’t make his rhetoric any less inflammatory or ugly. He represents the opposite of dialogue. He’s the Bill O’Reilly of the left.

(Report comment)

By: Tim Patterson

Tim Patterson — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:41:00 +0000

Thanks – this is really inspiring. I hadn’t heard of the Lifeline to Gaza and am glad I did.

(Report comment)

By: Angela

Angela — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:40:35 +0000

I met George Galloway at an anti-war demonstration and I heard him speaking a couple of times, he’s really doing a great job for Palestine.

(Report comment)