General Antisemitism

More evidence that #GeorgeGallowayIsAntisemitic

On Feb. 5th we posted about an episode of BBC’s Question Time in which Guardian executive editor Jonathan Freedland accused George Galloway, the MP from Bradford West, of fueling antisemitism with his conspiracy-ridden, obsessive hatred of Israel. A few days later, in the context of a tweet by Glenn Greenwald defending Galloway against these charges, a Guardian journalist named Hadley Freeman tweeted her belief that Galloway has indeed crossed the line into antisemitism. 

After Galloway threatened to sue Hadley for her ‘defamatory comments’, she deleted her tweet.

Since then, Galloway’s lawyers have attempted to stifle such criticism directed towards him by suing twitter users who, like Hadley, suggest that he has engaged in antisemitism.

Undaunted by such intimidation, we published a post on Feb. 12th expressing our view that Galloway is indeed antisemitic (based on the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism), and pointed to the following evidence.

  • Galloway openly calls for “the destruction of the political state of Israel.”
  • Galloway explicitly expresses and demonstrates support for violent, genocidal antisemitic extremist movements like Hamas and Hezbollah.
  • Galloway walked out of a debate with an Israeli Jew, declaring “I don’t recognize Israel and I don’t debate Israelis”.
  • Galloway declared his district an “Israeli-free zone“.
  • Galloway said he was “enthralled” by a book written by extreme antisemite Gilad Atzmon. The book, The Wandering Who?, was described by CST as “probably the most antisemitic book published in this country in recent years,” and included Holocaust denial, per these passages:

“To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook. To compare Olmert to Hitler is to provide Israel and Olmert with a metaphorical moral shield. It maintains Hitler at the lead and allows Olmert to stay in the tail. We should never compare Israel to Nazi Germany. As far as evilness is concerned, we should now let Israel take the lead.”

“The question of whether there was a mass homicide with gas or ‘just’ a mass death toll due to total abuse in horrendous conditions is no doubt a crucial historical question. The fact that such a major historical chapter less than seven decades ago is scholarly [sic] inaccessible undermines the entire historical endeavour. …Furthermore, unless one approves and repeats the official Holocaust narrative, one may find oneself locked behind bars. This happened lately to three rightwing history revisionists who dared to suspect the official Auschwitz narrative. ….I can see these three outlaws :[David] Irving, [Ernest] Zundel and [Germar] Rudolf, the three rightwing historical revisionists who happen to be locked behind bars. …While left academics are mainly concerned with signalling out Holocaust deniers telling us what is right and who is wrong, it is the revisionists who engage themselves in detailed archive work as well as forensic scrutiny…. If history shapes the future, we need to liberate our perspective of the past, rather than arresting revisionists, we simply need many more of them.”

Evidently, Atzmon isn’t the only anti-Jewish activist that Galloway is ‘enthralled’ with.

A tweet by Galloway on March 2nd expressed enthusiastic support for Asghar Bukhari, a founding member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK), an organisation banned from university campuses in 2004 due to its promotion of antisemitism.

Bukhari has advised supporters of Israel to literally kill themselves and has shown support for Holocaust denier David Irving.

We’ve placed Galloway’s expression of support for Bukhari next to the evidence we’re referring to:

So, to recap: George Galloway seeks a total boycott of Israel and all Israeli Jews, calls for the destruction of the only Jewish state, advocates for terror groups which call for the mass murder of Jews and supports antisemites (and supporters of Holocaust denial) such as Gilad Atzmon and Asghar Bukhari.

With antisemitism in the UK at a record high, and Jews fleeing Europe in increasingly large numbers due to the fear of jihadist attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, the need to speak truth to power and call out those who legitimize and propagate such toxic racism takes on greater moral urgency.

So, once again, let’s be clear:



51 replies »

  1. You forgot a MAJOR slip by Galloway that will prove your point in Court. He fully supports Hamas and the goals. The Charter of Hamas besides calling for wiping Israel off the Map also calls for killing Jews whenever and anywhere in the World that you find them. (The key here is Jew and not Israeli and this is what Galloway supports if he fully supports Hamas)

      • I normally like your work Adam but this is limp-wristed at best. 90% of your points refer to Israel, not Jews.

        Ergo, anti-Semitism isn’t at work here.

        Everyone has a bad day I suppose. Yours is lasting a little longer than a day though Adam :/

        • This, of course, was posted by an impostor.
          Talk about a pathetic loser … Yes, ‘Tamara’ or whoever, I am referring to you.

          • Of course I mean the post above is the imposter.

            Please ignore my previous imposter post, written by a moron.

  2. Great! This alone sinks him on the differentiation between Israeli and Jew. He fully supports both groups and both groups make no distinction, we are one in the same. Hopefully those whom he is trying to sue are counter-suing; that could sting him if they win.

  3. If the jury is still out on this one, it can only be because they’re on an extended lunch break.

  4. right then, back to it …..

    oi Galloway , you are a racist bigot , a fool , and a man with bad dress sense .

    I heard that Galloway’s lawyers are now subject to a Law Society complaint concerning issuing about 20 threatening letters demanding £5,000 and apology by certain dates .
    Also a few top London Lawyers have offered to assist anyone sued by that toe rag .

    I am still awaiting a brave MP to use parliamentary privilege to call GG out as an anti Semite in the House . But in the meantime , us mortals continue to opinion – George Galloway is a racist who supports terrorism

    • Yes. They have demanded costs which are entirely unreasonable and clearly have not been incurred. To say that it costs £5,000 to draft and send a letter alleging antisemitism, when that letter is identical to a number of others sent out by the same law firm is plain fraud.

      And in any event, you don’t become entitled to costs unless you win your case, and even then you may not recover all (or indeed, any) of your costs. These are intimidatory tactics.

      As to his claim that he has been libled, well that is only possible if the allegation is a) false, and b) has caused significant damage to his reputation.

      The problems with that, of course, is that
      a) he IS an antisemite;
      b) is he saying that anyone of any influence decides what they think of him on the basis of a tweet by some nobody (like me, for example)?;
      c) he IS an antisemite;
      d) anyone who agrees with the allegation is likely not his supporter anyway, so no damage has been caused;
      e) he IS an antisemite;
      f) his supporters will not believe the allegation, so no damage has been caused;
      g) he IS an antisemite;
      h) his reputation as a supporter of Islamofascist dictators who want to kill all Jews is already well known to everyone, so no damage has been caused; and
      i) he IS an antisemite.

  5. What would be the premise of Galloway’s lawsuit? That by being defamed as an anti-Semite he would be less able to make a living as a professional anti-Semite?

  6. Is it not relevant that Galloway was employed as a mouthpiece for Iran’s PressTV-a media outfit that has accused “Zionists” of being behind everything from 9/11 to the mass shootings in the US? A media outfit that airs “scholars” discussing why Tom and Jerry is a Zionist invention designed to make people look at rats and mice in a better light, since Jews (not Zionists) were often described as rats and mice in Europe, or that Ben Stiller’s character in “Meet The Parents” was another Zionist conspiracy to portray Jews as good-natured but clumsy buffoons, so as to whitewash their crimes in Palestine ( has these videos up). What about how Galloway implicated Israel as somehow being the puppet-masters behind the unrest in eastern Ukraine (a charge that he unequivocally LIED about doing, on the floor of Parliament no less)? I would say that if Galloway is not a anti-Semite, then he must be one very talented con-artist.

  7. “Jewish barrister Jeremy Brier has offered free advice to those being sued” – excellent!

    • Thanks for the link. There used to be a recurring post on CiF called ‘You Tell Us’ that has been cancelled. There was always someone there who used to post links about ‘more BDS successes’ and cause ‘the locals’ some real heartburn.

  8. All jokes aside, Galloway is the white sphincter which articulates a certain Muslim and Leftists UK constituency. The fact that he has represented three different seats in three distinct locations is proof enough. The last two having been chosen for their high Islamist nutter content.
    GG unwittingly channels and articulates what many people in the UK think. He has a few other high profile Muslim co-runners who have even won Guardian prizes for the community work.
    In that sense I find we need him. He is what you call a bleaches anus in the porn industry.

  9. I’d very much like to see a libel trial involving George Galloway and UK Media Watch – hopefully settling once and for all what the judicial limits are on both anti-Israel rhetoric and the branding of Israel’s critics as antisemitic. (“BOTH” being the operative word here.)

    But one word of caution to those posting here whose confidence of winning against Galloway seems matched only by their ignorance of defamation law …

    The last (and as far as I can see, single) time GG brought a libel action against an organisation which accused him of being antisemitic was in July 2008 – and he won.

    For full details, see story headlined ‘George Galloway wins libel damages/Respect Party MP awarded £15,000 for radio station’s anti-Semitic slur’ @

    • (a) Not all the cases have equal merit. (b) You can’t settle it ‘once and for all’, because (a) the law keeps changing (both primary legislation and evolving case law), (b) there are subjective aspects involved. (c) The whole point is that ‘anti-Israel rhetoric’ often is nothing of the sort. (d) “branding of Israel’s critics as antisemitic” is the usual mendacious bollocks.
      Take your obvious Jew-baiting and your highly defective grasp of defamation law and stick them you-know-where.

      • Leah –

        The points you make at (a) and (b) are certainly valid and might be worth discussing further, but given the infantile quality of your concluding assessment – that my post is nothing more than “Jew-baiting” (which might well be taken as defamatory in an arena where full names and reputations were at stake) – I can only suppose you have nothing more than ad hom insults to add from your legal armory.

        If that level of discussion is your idea of how best to combat antisemitism, Jews (including myself, incidentally) really can do without your “help”.

    • Whatever the judge said, f.e. this – which damages the intellectual credibility of the judge –
      As Mr Justice Eady, who heard the case last week, put it, such a claim is palpably “absurd”.
      , Galloway is an Antisemite.
      To paraphrase a cliché, some of my best friends are anti-Zionist Jews.

      Those anti-Zionist Jews do deserve such an Antisemite as friend.

    • Miranda

      you are the one who seems a tad unconfident on defamation law .

      There is a defence called honest opinion .
      There is also a defence called truth .
      As he is an MP and makes public provocative statements , so any Court will look at what the public will reasonably respond or view to such statements .

      You should also check out the definition of anti Semitism according to the EU and recent parliamentary commission . That will most likely be accepted by the Court as a working legal definition .
      The fact is , its going to be very very hard for GG to win . And he has all to loose .

      Even if proven , which I doubt , the issue then becomes loss of reputation and damages resultant from it . Most likely GG could receive nominal damages. His poor reputation stands on his anti Israel stance . This will cost him tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds . He may l have to indemnify his solicitors for contingent legal costs against multiple entities . Some of which will apply to the courts for orders asking GG to pay security for costs into court as a protection against speculative litigation . other entities wont have the ability to pay anything to GG so whats the point of chasing them ?

      The other issue is that various comments emanate from outside the UK . So unless GG and his lawyers are prepared to spend a disproportionate amount of resources issuing proceedings worldwide , they are not getting anywhere and will not stop comments .

      Now GG can instruct his lawyers to start injunction proceedings against all the internet sites and twitter etc . It might work . Most likely fail . Will cost him tens of thousands .

      Anyone sued by GG seems to have been offered legal advice from some of the best libel lawyers in the UK . Unfortunately his lawyers have already been reported to the Law Society just on issue of the letters before action . As you have probably read , his lawyers are not that experienced in the world of libel law . More used to specialising in anti terrorism law and sex offences according to their literature.

      Finally , A trial in the public arena on George Galloway to judge his racism and bigotry ? Does he really really want to go down this road #? he could win , he could loose . If he looses or doesn’t win as he wants to then- he is slaughtered . Big risks to loose if GG wants to continue to bully free speech . Mind you , GG does like to grab the main limelight in any scene . Vanity might make a play here . Vanity can be the step before a massive fall when litigating on issues of libel .

      GG can afford to litigate . Her earns above £300,000 per annum as declared in the House of Commons interests lists . Not bad eh , for the ol socialist credentials . I think that’s the 3rd highest earner in parliament but could be wrong . A lot of his income outside of parliament comes from his charges to Press TV and RT for his shows .

      so the issue to me is GG’s vanity not the strength of his legal arguments .

      • Lemoncurd,

        I think if the court looked at all of GG Arab TV appearances he’d look very bad. GG has left a huge trail over the years, not least his recent Atzmon interview.

        His debate refusal and the “Israeli free zone”.

        He is getting old, look at how is face has changed over the last few years. This guy will die of a heart attack soon. Too much stress.

        He is banned from Egypt ergo Gaza, Syria is a no go zone. As one Arab nation after another goes down the shitter where will he go for effective back drop ?

        This man is haunted by his own history, just like the Arabs.

        • Personally, I’m too scared to use my real name, so I can’t really talk about what I’d do.

          I’m a bit of a chicken, really…..

        • Just to clarify, the litigious indefatigable one’s lawyers have been reported to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, not the Law Society. Also, not entirely sure the “working” definition of antisemitism will be accepted by the court since it is not a legal document.
          And Carter-Fuck have been instructed by his Bradford lawyers to fight the counter claims. And that, M’learned friends, costs a shit load of money.

      • LemonCurd –

        Thanks for your thoughtful and courteous reply. You (rightly) point out that there are three basic grounds for defence in a libel suit – (a) the statement at issue was true; or (b) it was the “honestly-held” opinion – NB: “based on fact”- of the person making the statement; or (c) it was “in the public interest” for the defamatory material to be published.

        I think, however, that you underestimate how much of a minefield all three of these present where “antisemitism” accusations are concerned. Your (and, presumably, Adam Levick’s) optimism regarding the outcome of any action brought by GG might, I suggest, be more safely tempered by that “tad unconfident” note about defamation law you detect in me – and which I’m quite happy to confirm!

        The trouble – as I anticipate it, anyway – with relying too heavily on the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism for guidance is that this document declares “out of bounds” certain statements directed against Israel and/or Jews with very broad brushstrokes indeed. Such proscriptions might well be successfully countered when it comes to SPECIFIC statements, against SPECIFIC individuals (or entities), in SPECIFIC contexts … which is precisely what a libel trial lawyer would set out do.

        Take, for example, the clause which bars “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. A person making such a comparison in condemning a particular piece of Israeli legislation would be skating on very thin ice unless they could prove the parallel with factual evidence – let’s say two similarly-worded edicts by Nazi and Israeli governments. But if he/she COULD provide that evidence, and was then was branded “antisemitic” for airing it, the person doing the branding would be the one at fault – no matter what the EUMC document says.

        The “truth” and “honestly-held opinion” defences of a statement, after all, apply as much to someone allegedly defaming Israel as they do to someone allegedly defaming Israel’s accuser.

        The questions you raise about the huge financial risks GG would have to face in bringing a libel action I’ve no argument with at all, though do bear in mind that those “calling his bluff” are no less at financial risk – and the deeper they dig their heels in, the steeper the penalties are likely to be if they lose!

        • M

          good reply . However its GG suing the respondents who rely on defence truth and honest opinion and public domain.
          Libel law is well known as a minefield . The Defamation Act of 2013 was supposed to clean it up somewhat . But I think the burden of proof of any libel action still falls heavily on the Claimant . Even so , after all that battle , as he gets slaughtered at the courts . 12 of these actions going on I understand and more to follow the court then reaches statutory defences of honest opinion, truth and public domain . Next battle here we come ….
          Lets say he picks his way through that . then he gets a judge , sorry , he needs 13 judges at the moment , possibly in different jurisdictions to agree that he is not an anti Semite and he has been defamed .
          Then the court , sorry multiple courts decide a decision or court order on following principles :
          Does the Judge accept he has been defamed ? then at what loss ? and how can it be remedied ?
          That can result in the judges accepting the claim but awarding nominal damages and no costs . It happens . That’s like loosing really . saying your rep aint worth tuppence to begin with so don’t claim more than a penny .
          Then he has enforcement of any court order . Concerning internet, twitter , google , service providers , worldwide web .
          And does he think it will all magically stop ? Because he waves a county court order in Bradford , that internet users in Alaska or Japan will tremble ?

          Finally lets look at the legal teams , sorry football teams involved . GG is represented by a Bradford high street outfit , experienced in legal aid criminal work and family work . The crème of London’s libel lawyers have offered advice and services to those sued . The level playing field is the court , the quality and skills of the lawyers involved make a serious difference . If you have been up against Mark Stephens or sued by Carter Ruck then , please smoke a ciggie .

          Him threatening to sue and then issuing letters before action was calling bluff and then moving first . The decision to go to court or courts in possibly multiple jurisdictions is entirely up to Mr Galloway .

          I don’t even want to get into the court rules and applying to serve libel papers out of jurisdiction , having to transfer cases to Respondents jurisdictions , applications for security for costs , disclosure . Oh my gosh disclosure rules would be really fun . They would go through his filing cabinet and bed time reading list like combine harvesters .
          sorry , must stop , the thought of GG having orders for disclosure made against him , is chuckleworthy

          • LC –

            Highly unlikely that the saga involving tweets will progress much beyond out-of-court bravado, except … maybe… regarding the complaint against GG’s solicitors; so the scenario you paint will probably remain in the realm of fantasy. (Good laugh, though – thanks.) What Adam seems to be trying to provoke is a rather more “substantive” battle – and one I’d personally welcome, though with no bets, even a teeny one, on the outcome from me!

          • LC –

            One PS is needed to my last post – re. your thought that “the burden of proof of any libel action still falls heavily on the Claimant”.

            I know this is only from Wiki (see ) but if accurate, it’s just the opposite:

            “In the common law of libel, the claimant [i.e, in this case, GG] has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory…The claimant is not required to prove that the statement [eg, an accusation of antisemitism by AL] was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.

            “Because proving the truth or falsity of the statement is often extremely difficult (and the defendant does not generally have the ability to force the claimant to disclose materials that might help prove it) it is frequently said that the “burden of proof” in English defamation law falls upon the defendant.”

      • omg, I’m so BRAVE I think I’ll actually put my REAL name down here one day and then call old Georges bluff!

        I’m that sure of myself….aren’t I.

        Aren’t I???


      • Mods?! hahahahah

        If the Mods come on here, then they’re in for a big surprise!

        Like your mum;)