Ken Livingstone suspended from Labour after Hitler remarks
Former London mayor excluded from party after arguing Hitler supported Zionism, during defence of Naz Shah
Labour has suspended the former London mayor Ken Livingstone “for bringing the party into disrepute” amid accusations of antisemitism and making offensive comments about Hitler supporting Zionism.
More than 20 MPs, including Sadiq Khan, Labour’s current London mayoral candidate, had called on Livingstone to be expelled over the remarks he made while trying to defend the suspended Bradford MP Naz Shah.
The party’s chief whip has also called in the MP John Mann, chair of the all-party group on antisemitism, to discuss his confrontation of Livingstone at the BBC in which he called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist”.
A Labour spokesman said: “Ken Livingstone has been suspended by the Labour party, pending an investigation, for bringing the party into disrepute. The chief whip has summoned John Mann MP to discuss his conduct.”
Livingstone was suspended after he appeared on BBC London to claim that, while Shah’s remarks were “over the top”, she had said nothing that amounted to antisemitism.
The Bradford MP has apologised and been suspended from the party for promoting a Facebook post in 2014 suggesting Israelis should be deported and claiming “the Jews are rallying” to support a poll about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
During his interview, Livingstone said Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews” and claimed there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israel policy as antisemitic”.
The veteran politician said accusations of antisemitism were part of a campaign against the Labour leader.
“Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as antisemitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going in the way it treats the Palestinians,” he said.
Livingstone was confronted at the BBC studios by Mann, who called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist” and then repeated his accusations to Livingstone live on the BBC’s Daily Politics, saying: “I think you’ve lost it, Mr Livingstone … What are you on at the moment? You certainly shouldn’t be on Labour’s national executive.”
It is the second time Livingstone has been suspended from Labour; the first being when he put himself forward as an independent candidate for the London mayoralty in 2000. It is also not the first time he has been in hot water over accusations of antisemitism, having been investigated for likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard in 2005.
Pressure mounted on Corbyn to suspend Livingstone after MPs made their anger known. It is understood the deputy leader, Tom Watson, made clear he was angry and offended by the comments and concerned about their potentially damaging effect on the electoral prospects of hundreds of candidates.
Khan said on Twitter that the comments were “appalling and inexcusable”, and there must be no place for them in the party. Labour MPs Jess Phillips, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting, Tristram Hunt, Stella Creasy, Liz Kendall, Conor McGinn and John Woodcock were also among those calling for Livingstone to be suspended.
Chris Bryant was the first shadow cabinet minister to criticise Livingstone, telling the House of Commons he was sick and tired of people trying to explain away antisemitism, adding: “Yes I’m talking to you Ken Livingstone.”
David Lammy, the Labour MP and former minister, had hinted he could not stay in the party if Livingstone remained, tweeting that he “simply cannot reconcile being in the same party as someone with these views”.
Allies of Corbyn had also turned on Livingstone. Jon Lansman, the Momentum founder who helped run Corbyn’s leadership campaign, said: “A period of silence from Ken Livingstone is overdue, especially on antisemitism racism and Zionism. It’s time he left politics altogether.”
Woodcock, a former chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, said Livingstone was chair of Labour’s international policy commission, and that his comments suggested he must be “actively seeking suspension and notoriety”.
The rows over Shah and Livingstone have been going on amid wider claims that the party has failed to get a grip on antisemitism among some of its members.
David Cameron said it was
clear Labour had a problem with antisemitism.
“Antisemitism is like racism: it is unacceptable in a modern political party and every political party has got to deal with it,” the prime minister said at a pro-EU referendum campaign event in Peterborough. “As I said to Jeremy Corbyn some weeks ago when I was shouted down in the House of Commons and called disgraceful, they’ve got a problem and they’ve got to deal with it.”
Livingstone's comments didn't seem to be stated as an opinion, or a criticism of Israel or anything, but was simply a historical fact that he had done something.
Additionally, I fully agree with his statement that there is a lot of confusion and conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people. Just like criticising something India does doesn't mean that I hate Hindu people. Or criticising England meaning I hate CofE people.
Goliath wrote: This entire furore is utterly perplexing to me.
Livingstone's comments didn't seem to be stated as an opinion, or a criticism of Israel or anything, but was simply a historical fact that he had done something.
Additionally, I fully agree with his statement that there is a lot of confusion and conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people. Just like criticising something India does doesn't mean that I hate Hindu people. Or criticising England meaning I hate CofE people.
No but Naz posting that all Israelis should be forcibly deported to the US is pure anti-antisemitism at its worst and Livingston defending it was just him trying to defend the indefensible. Livingston is a scummy, corrosive arse and he has form. Plus this quote just shows he hasn't got a fething clue:
Vanessa Feltz: “It was over the top. Over the top of what?”
Ken Livingstone: “To think of anti-Semitism and racism as exactly the same thing.”
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people.
Well, that kinda depends. Context is everything.
When the media says something like "Israeli Soldiers kill Palestinians" instead of "Palestinians stab Israelis to death on Streets of Jerusalem, and Soldiers open fire to protect themselves" there are some serious problems. Sadly, Anti-Israel like that can be considered Anti-Jewish.
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people.
Well, that kinda depends. Context is everything.
When the media says something like "Israeli Soldiers kill Palestinians" instead of "Palestinians stab Israelis to death on Streets of Jerusalem, and Soldiers open fire to protect themselves" there are some serious problems. Sadly, Anti-Israel like that can be considered Anti-Jewish.
Well, if you're gonna be like that, it should say "Israeli soldiers stabbed by member of the population they are occupying, opened fire in response"
To be honest, 'anti-Zionism' often is the disguised cloak for anti-semitism these days. Not all anti-zionists are anti-semites, but it's not surprising that all the anti-semites are anti-zionists. It's the more politically acceptable way of expressing anti-semitic views for them. The number of times I've read 'All the Jews' should just get out of Israel' or 'Israelis are the new Nazis' or somesuch line briefly followed by 'I'm not anti-semitic, I'm just an anti-zionist/against Israel' is unreal.
I think the proof in the pudding tends to be the fact that for every ten 'Free Palestine/Boycott Israeli products/Cut ties with Israeli Universities/Protest against the Zionist occupier' movements, you see maybe one equivalent protest relating to the horrendous oppression carried out in Zimbabwe, or Saudia Arabia or somewhere just as bad. There are more such movements based against Israel than I've had nice dinners this year. And yet when you question why Israel deserves such special attention in a world full of perfect examples of war, oppression and hunger, you get some vague justifications about being 'anti warmongering Nazi zionists'.
Please note here, that I'm not saying what Israel does in that part of the world is necessarily right and just. I abhor many of the actions taken by the Israeli state. As should any self-respecting person of sound moral judgement (I'm aware that's entirely subjective). But I temper that abhorrence with a sound knowledge of the issues and challenges that the region faces, and the awareness that quite frankly, the Palestinians are just as bad in many respects, and so is a good chunk of the rest of the world. Your average rabid 'Anti-Zionist' protestor seems to lack that.
I suspect it's because the majority of people who drum up/organise these movements tend to be pulling funding from the Middle-East (whose neighbours give a lot of money away each year to cause trouble for Israel) and possessed of something of an inculcated cultural hatred of Israel, or they're descendants of the anti-semitic political tradition (which is also reasonably inculcated). They both have an interest in keeping up the political pressure and keeping tensions against Israel high, and frankly, Israel gives no end of morally questionable actions to publicise and rage against.
The result is that naturally, your average leftie/liberal at University ends up being extremely well-exposed to Israel's individual perfidies and ill-actions specifically over and over to the point where they consider it the very embodiment of evil, with no real contextual knowledge. Those that then go on to join the Lib Dems/Labour party take that attitude with them. Those that become journalists write about it extensively. And so forth. These people then often raise their own children in similar political beliefs/priorities (as indeed, all parents do).
That's how I'd hypothesize the 'Anti-Israel/Zionist' movement is so large (as opposed to say, the anti-Sudanese Goverment movement). The result, naturally though, is a hardline stance towards Israel specifically, which is ultimately predicated upon anti-semitism as much as it is any actions by Israel. But good luck getting any 'Anti-Zionist' to admit that, of any stripe!
I'd argue there's quite a bit of racism in it as well; we expect Israel to behave because they're "like us", whereas when the Palestinians or Kongolese or South Africans or some other nationality that isn't perceived as "white" we just shrug our shoulders and brush it off as it being "just the Arabs/Africans/Whatever killing each other, what can you expect?". No such excuse for Israel, because we in the Western world helped create that mess in the first place (arguably we're involved in similar manners in the rest of the world too, but not as directly as in the creation of the State of Israel).
I'm not sure if he's trolling or just utterly tone deaf to the nonsense that dribbles out of his mouth. Or maybe, occams razor and all, he really just is a bigot.
Oh, and I'm presuming the 'Hitler supported Zionism' thing refers to the Madagascar plan. It was some wheeze where European Jewry would be (forcibly) relocated. Like a lot of Nazi grand plans it was an utter fantasy and theres very, very good reasons why they never even tried it.
Good riddance to him - the mans an embarrassment. I just hope hes not allowed to quietly rejoin labour after a token 6 month suspension or something.
Also - agreed with Ketaras post entirely. Well put sir.
As someone who's apparently an anti-Semite (or so I've been told) I sadly have to agree; there's a metric tonne of crazy conspiracy nutters who hate Israel because they hate Jews. These nutters are used by Israel to dismiss any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, which makes the nutters more nutty, fuelling the fires, while moderates on both sides of the argument throw their hands up and give up.
The Tories are on the ropes: they're floundering on issues left, right, and centre, with Cameron all over the shop because of the Panama papers and the deep divisions in the Tory party over Europe.
Any half-decent opposition party should be landing knock out blows on this government.
But as always, Labour shoot themselves in the foot and let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd argue there's quite a bit of racism in it as well; we expect Israel to behave because they're "like us".
Ofc, that could also explain why some people try to excuse everything Israel does. They're "like us" so if we call it bad that means we too are bad. Yes, it's a democracy - but the people in the occupied territories don't get a vote on what Israel does there.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd argue there's quite a bit of racism in it as well; we expect Israel to behave because they're "like us", whereas when the Palestinians or Kongolese or South Africans or some other nationality that isn't perceived as "white" we just shrug our shoulders and brush it off as it being "just the Arabs/Africans/Whatever killing each other, what can you expect?". No such excuse for Israel, because we in the Western world helped create that mess in the first place (arguably we're involved in similar manners in the rest of the world too, but not as directly as in the creation of the State of Israel).
I'd agree with that. I think however, that as a Jewish state, there's further lack of contextual knowledge possessed by those who jump to judge, namely of that of the Jewish people. Jews have been persecuted, butchered, and oppressed in so many ways over such a long period of time (from the 1190 Massacre of Jews in York down to the post-War pogroms in Poland) that Jews have a very self-focused attitude to things. They've basically culturally embodied Millwall's 'Nobody Likes Us, We Don't Care' slogan.
I mean, seriously, boycotting Universities and writing nasty articles? That's the nicest thing anyone's done to the Jews in two thousand years!
So whilst protestors might have higher standards for Israel, so to speak, they forget that the Jews exist as a separate cultural entity in and of themselves, and take actions according to that culture. The actions in Israel's case, being an emphasis on the preservation of the Jewish State, and Jews specifically above all else. Now the way to try and change that cultural outlook is through careful integration, diplomacy, and showing them that not everybody in the world is out to get them. By organising all these protests and puff pieces demonstrating the complete opposite though, all you do is confirm and harden that Jewish cultural outlook of 'The only ones we can rely on is ourselves', and keep the wheel spinning, and Israel ignoring them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Tories are on the ropes: they're floundering on issues left, right, and centre, with Cameron all over the shop because of the Panama papers and the deep divisions in the Tory party over Europe.
Any half-decent opposition party should be landing knock out blows on this government.
But as always, Labour shoot themselves in the foot and let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.
It annoys the feth out of me!
I'm no friend of Labour, but I'm forced to agree. Governments need to be kept in check, criticised, questioned and watched. Her Majesties opposition party is a bloody shambles lurching back to the dark times of the hard left and that useless joke they voted in as a leader hasn't got a bloody clue what he's doing. Labour are expecting a pummeling during the upcoming local elections (if the polls are to be believed) which shows, in some way, what the country thinks of him.
I just find it a little odd that of all the troubled places in the world, an ongoing dispute between two small levantine states gets SO much attention.
Some background for the non UK posters - the Labour party have had a steady drip drip drip of similar incidents recently. Councillors, advisors, an MP, and now the ex Mayor of London -- all posting gak on facebook, shooting their mouth in interviews, etc. It's troubling (to put it mildly) that a mainstream political party seems to have attracted so many cranks and nutters.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Tories are on the ropes: they're floundering on issues left, right, and centre, with Cameron all over the shop because of the Panama papers and the deep divisions in the Tory party over Europe.
Any half-decent opposition party should be landing knock out blows on this government.
But as always, Labour shoot themselves in the foot and let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.
It annoys the feth out of me!
I'm no friend of Labour, but I'm forced to agree. Governments need to be kept in check, criticised, questioned and watched. Her Majesties opposition party is a bloody shambles lurching back to the dark times of the hard left and that useless joke they voted in as a leader hasn't got a bloody clue what he's doing. Labour are expecting a pummeling during the upcoming local elections (if the polls are to be believed) which shows, in some way, what the country thinks of him.
The SNP are on course for another landslide in Scotland next week, and Corbyn can't be blamed for that, but if he doesn't win big in Wales, or sweep the council elections, he'll be under pressure.
David Cameron has to be the worst PM I've ever lived under, but he's been bloody lucky with his opponents: Brown, Clegg, Milibland, and now Corbyn!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pistols at Dawn wrote: I just find it a little odd that of all the troubled places in the world, an ongoing dispute between two small levantine states gets SO much attention.
Some background for the non UK posters - the Labour party have had a steady drip drip drip of similar incidents recently. Councillors, advisors, an MP, and now the ex Mayor of London -- all posting gak on facebook, shooting their mouth in interviews, etc. It's troubling (to put it mildly) that a mainstream political party seems to have attracted so many cranks and nutters.
Historically, this has always been a problem for the left, but in recent years, with everybody occupying the centre ground, and politics being so PR managed, I honestly thought the issue had been long forgotten.
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people.
Well, that kinda depends. Context is everything.
When the media says something like "Israeli Soldiers kill Palestinians" instead of "Palestinians stab Israelis to death on Streets of Jerusalem, and Soldiers open fire to protect themselves" there are some serious problems. Sadly, Anti-Israel like that can be considered Anti-Jewish.
Well, if you're gonna be like that, it should say "Israeli soldiers stabbed by member of the population they are occupying, opened fire in response"
Criticising Israel for something it does doesn't mean that I hate jewish people.
Well, that kinda depends. Context is everything.
When the media says something like "Israeli Soldiers kill Palestinians" instead of "Palestinians stab Israelis to death on Streets of Jerusalem, and Soldiers open fire to protect themselves" there are some serious problems. Sadly, Anti-Israel like that can be considered Anti-Jewish.
Well, if you're gonna be like that, it should say "Israeli soldiers stabbed by member of the population they are occupying, opened fire in response"
I am stating fact, sir. You are stating opinion.
Israel being a Jewish state does not mean that "Israel" and "Jews" are synonymous any more than the Vatican is synonymous with Christians. Your "facts" are flawed.
Historically, this has always been a problem for the left, but in recent years, with everybody occupying the centre ground, and politics being so PR managed, I honestly thought the issue had been long forgotten.
If anything, I'd say its gotten worse in recent years. This is a party with, after all, a long and proud history of opposing bigotry.
Anyway, Livingstones a fool. A smug fool. I really hope this ends his involvement in politics.
Ustrello wrote: Well considering Israel has the highest population of jews and the Vatican represents the largest sect of christians you are about half wrong walrus
For the love of...
Does the Pope speak for every Christian in the world?
Ustrello wrote: Well considering Israel has the highest population of jews and the Vatican represents the largest sect of christians you are about half wrong walrus
For the love of...
Does the Pope speak for every Christian in the world?
Ustrello wrote: Well considering Israel has the highest population of jews and the Vatican represents the largest sect of christians you are about half wrong walrus
Nobody is arguing the numbers, but that doesnt make the statement any less true. The US has very neary as many Jews as Israel does, that doesnt mean however that hating the US means you hate Jews either though. Likewise, the Vatican itself constitutes a very tiny population, and represents nowhere near the entirety of christianity.
Taking issue with governments and their policies is not the same as actively hating their people. Look at how many people in the world hate the US government (and with some good reasons in many cases) but adore US culture and have no problem with US tourists or visiting the US themselves.
Ustrello wrote: Well considering Israel has the highest population of jews and the Vatican represents the largest sect of christians you are about half wrong walrus
For the love of...
Does the Pope speak for every Christian in the world?
He does for Catholics doesn't he?
the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, but that is not the same as representing all followers of that creed, especially beyond matters of faith.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is the largest majority the same as everyone in a group? Is it fair to say that the Pope speaks for Christians as a collective or not?
When you talk about the Vatican you think of catholicism and christianity. When you think of Israel you think of jews. So that is why you anology wasn't the best
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.
Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?
And? Anyone who lives locally to me can go and get a membership of the local library. That doesn't mean everyone locally is a member of aforementioned library.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is the largest majority the same as everyone in a group? Is it fair to say that the Pope speaks for Christians as a collective or not?
When you talk about the Vatican you think of catholicism and christianity. When you think of Israel you think of jews. So that is why you anology wasn't the best
That erroneous assumption is the point I'm trying to argue against. I absolutely cannot understand how you believe that doubling down on equating a subset of a group* when that very practice is what I'm arguing against is in any way to your advantage.
*This is assuming that Israel is a subset of the group Jews, which it, as has already been pointed out, isn't.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.
Where else in the world can a Jew go and be given automatic citizenship?
And? Anyone who lives locally to me can go and get a membership of the local library. That doesn't mean everyone locally is a member of aforementioned library.
This is some pretty poor logic.
That is probably one of the worst Straw Man arguments I have ever heard or read on the internet LMAO.
MdlBuildr, could you please restate your original point in different wording, then? Because my reading reflects the library card analogy as spot on. Perhaps you were being unclear?
I'll break it down further for you into simple steps then.
Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)
The logic being used to substantiate the mutually interdependent linking is that all Jews can by given 'automatic membership' to citizenship of the state of Israel, merely by applying. Ergo, all Jews are de facto Israelis.
The problem with this logic is that if equivalent logic is applied, it works for anything that anyone can get automatic membership to merely by applying for it. In my example, the local library. Yet clearly, it would absurd to say that just because all people who live locally to me can apply to be a member of that library, and will be automatically approved, that they are therefore de facto members of the library.
In the same way, it is absurd to make such a claim of Jews and Israelis. If you care to disagree further, try and pick apart the above reasoning rather than shouting 'strawman', and then I know whether to respond or ignore as appropriate.
Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)
I never stated this in any of my posts. Please show me where I said this specifically.
I SPECIFICALLY said that Israel was created as a Jewish State which is FACT. I also said that Israel takes everyone in. Even those that wish to destroy them. I also said that if you are Jewish you are automatically given citizenship in Israel.
You might be referring your interpretation of what I wrote SPECIFICALLY, but I have no control over that.
I read them and I do not understand your point. Could you please expand on it to add precision. Say exactly what you mean rather than just saying enough for it to be "obvious", which it isn't. And please, please do not refer to any previous posts. If they were clear, no one would have misunderstood you in the first place.
I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.
Claim is as follows:- All Israelis are Jews, and all Jews are Israelis. (If this is not your claim, then you need to be clearer)
I never stated this in any of my posts. Please show me where I said this specifically.
I SPECIFICALLY said that Israel was created as a Jewish State which is FACT. I also said that Israel takes everyone in. Even those that wish to destroy them. I also said that if you are Jewish you are automatically given citizenship in Israel.
One would assume that when you quote a rebuttal to a specific statement with a contending point of your own, that you agree with the initial point being rebutted. One would also assume that the content of that post would be linked to the original discussion. Otherwise, it seems like an entirely random thing to say, A bit like saying:-
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.
All Jews can be Israeli citizens
or
That's the thing though: not all Jews are Israeli, nor are all Israelis Jews.
A lot of Israeli citizens are Jews
If your comment is separate, and you're denying all linkage between your post and the one AlmightyWalrus was contending with, one wonders why on earth you bothered to use the quote function.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.
I wasn't arguing your point. I was stating fact.
These are the facts about Israel as a nation.
Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm asking you because you're not making sense. In the quote that I linked above you responded to my claim that not all Jews are Israeli by stating that being a Jew means that one gets automatic citizenship in Israel and that Israel was founded as a Jewish state. What I want to know is what your point was when making that post, since you apparently weren't trying to equate Jews and Israel. If that wasn't a post aimed at countering my claim then it becomes a non sequitur, so I'm asking you what the point of the post was.
I wasn't arguing your point. I was stating fact.
These are the facts about Israel as a nation.
Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.
The Blue Whale is the biggest animal to ever live on Earth.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Tories are on the ropes: they're floundering on issues left, right, and centre, with Cameron all over the shop because of the Panama papers and the deep divisions in the Tory party over Europe.
Any half-decent opposition party should be landing knock out blows on this government.
But as always, Labour shoot themselves in the foot and let Cameron and Osborne off the hook.
It annoys the feth out of me!
Quite.
But its what you get when your supposed core labour values only go as deep as the sixties, seventies and eighties.
Polytechnic princes and princesses, and militant supporters who still have an unhealthy obsession with Maggies crew.
It almost, almost makes me yearn for 1997 and the rise of the red tories!
Ketara, after our conversation I looked into the arsehole in the title.
I don't agree that criticism of Israel = Antisemitism either, but Ken is an arse and his stupid comments are harming the chances of the organization he claims to want to support.
Oh, definitely. Ken did some good material stuff over the course of his political career, but he's always been tainted by the fact that he liked to snuggle up to dictators, a mild anti-semitism, a thoroughly self-righteous attitude, links to somewhat morally dubious organisations, and a hardcore desire to scrap with the right wing regardless of the consequences to anyone else.
Ken himself, much like Corbyn, was a throwback to the 70's, and he never got over the fact Johnson beat him as Mayor and got him relegated to the dustheap. He must have been thrilled when Corbyn tried to give him a comeback, but it seems it's gone up in smoke a bit. I doubt Corbyn will be able to use him again now, there's just too much dirt and bad history.
Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?
That would depend upon the opinion of each individual person.
What's your opinion since you wrote it?
My opinion on what? You'd need to provide a subject matter which his anti-semitism impacts specifically. His worth as a person? His ability as a politician? His past accomplishments? My likelihood to vote for him? The potential list is endless. What precisely do you wish to know?
In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?
You used a very specific adjective. You didn't just write anti-semitism. You wrote "mild" anti-semitism. Any particular reason for that?
Sorry it's vice news, but it's an interesting perspective.
My views on this (and this is the party I am a member of, and I am defo a Corbynite!):
1) People often share things on social media. Shah's post from four years ago was a bit silly but wasn't anti-semitic. It was anti-Israeli, which is not the same thing. Regardless, she apologised, very well I thought, and we should move on.
2) There was a very good discussion on The Today Programme about anti-semitism vs anti-Israel. The poin was made that robust, strong, highly critical commens about Israels foreign and internal policies are fine and must be defended.
3) Ken Livingstone hasn't said something stupd in too long. What an idiot. Pointless comments coming at a itme when the right wing is looking to have a go at Labour and Corbyn is like walking into a bear pit. You might be technically right, you might me technically on the moral high ground, but it's still going to snap you.
4) The reaction has been over the top but ber in mind there are elections next week. Everyone is nervous.
5) Cameron and the Tories have been running a racist party for years. They have been running a racist, Islamophobic campaign for the mayor of London. The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine and the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the right wing papers. But that has been lost because of Livingstone's daft comments.
Mdlbuildr wrote: In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?
If there are degrees of racism, it follows that there are degrees of despicability
Amazing how hung up people are getting on an adjective.
Mdlbuildr wrote: In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?
If there are degrees of racism, it follows that there are degrees of despicability
Amazing how hung up people are getting on an adjective.
My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.
Mdlbuildr wrote: In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?
It would depend on where that anti-semitism was derived from, naturally.
You used a very specific adjective. You didn't just write anti-semitism. You wrote "mild" anti-semitism. Any particular reason for that?
Errr......because he's not goosestepping down the streets and taking crowbars to the head of anyone wearing a yarmulke? Or writing editorials about how Jews are subhuman scum, and Israel should be nuked off the face of the earth? That, (naturally) would be 'extreme' anti-semitism. In his case, his anti-semitism is more a number of racially motivated remarks over the years. Hence the word 'mild':-
mild
mʌɪld/Submit
adjective
1.
not severe, serious, or harsh.
"mild criticism"
I'm not entirely sure what you're fishing for here.
Errr......because he's not goosestepping down the streets and taking crowbars to the head of anyone wearing a yarmulke? Or writing editorials about how Jews are subhuman scum, and Israel should be nuked off the face of the earth? That, (naturally) would be 'extreme' anti-semitism. In his case, his anti-semitism is more a number of racially motivated remarks over the years. Hence the word 'mild':-
mild
mʌɪld/Submit
adjective
1.
not severe, serious, or harsh.
"mild criticism"
I'm not entirely sure what you're fishing for here.
I think he/she is suggesting that mild racism is still racism - true; and just as indefensible - true; so wondered why you said mild - suspect because there are heirarchies of bigory and racism, all bad, but some worse?
Does that mean you feel there are legitimate reasons for someone to be an anti-semite? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Likewise.
You asked me whether it made somewhere more or less of a despicable person (in my eyes) if someone was mildly racist instead of severely. To which I responded that it depended upon where the racism derived (or originated from).
For example, if a Jew virulently hated Polish people because they butchered his entire family and left him in a burning building, I would regard that as unfortunate, but completely understandable. On the same side of the coin, if a 17 year old makes a comment about Jews all being greedy because he's listened to his parents espousing such things all his formative years, I would have the same reaction.
On the flip side of the coin, if you have a man who hates the Jews because the Sun told him to, I'd think he was moronic. How despicably moronic would depend upon how far he took his racism (privately held views, or attacking Jews in the street). And so on.
You're asking very vague general questions, clearly in the hope of leading this discussion somewhere. I'd appreciate it if you'd outline exactly where though.
Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?
Yes.
I had a co-worker who just generally didn't trust anyone who wasn't like him. (white hetero). It didn't really affect the job, we ha all kinds of guys on site and he would work with any of them. he was fine to have a pint with generally.
My friend's dad had a roommate who was a full on neo-nazi. skinhead, swastika tattoos, the whole nine. he had been to jail previously for assaulting immigrants because "jerbs".
One of those guys is more dangerous and despicable than the other.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.
Oh, they do have to prove a few things first. And they might still be discriminated against by the whiter Jews. The Ethiopian Jewish community was granted the Right of Return, but they often had to reaffirm their Jewishness by doing a religious ritual. And they're still not seen as quite "Jewish" enough although things have improved as they learned Hebrew and youngsters have served in the IDF. Something like 85% of others would still find it bad to let their daughter marry an Ethiopian, and 39% wouldn't want their son to marry one.
My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.
And yet, we have Hitler ("kill them all"), Dietrich ("Jews suck but I don't want them dead"), Mengle ("Jews are fascinating little animals, let me experiment on them"), and Henry Ford ("I published lots of antisemitic books but that's about it"). I can go on.
Honestly I think Mengle was probably the worst, but that'll come down to whether you think it's better to be horrifically maimed but alive, or just dead. And of course in Ford's credit, he supposedly had a stroke after being shown footage of the concentration camps so maybe he got some sense knocked into him (or biology picked an awkward time to be coincidental).
Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.
Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.
My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.
If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'. Attaching the word 'mild' or 'extreme' to the words 'anti-semite' do not devalue or alter that fact or the phrase beyond its core meaning. It's a further specification/qualification, which is not uncommon within the English language. I can say that I am 'eating', or I can say I am 'eating a lot'. Adding 'a lot' does not alter the fact I am eating (and declaring that fact), the same way attesting the strength of opinion/action of the mentioned anti-semitism does not subtract/change it from being anti-semitism.
Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.
"Mildly Anti-Semitic" is sugar coating. You are trying to minimize the fact that this Politician doesn't like Jews. So he's only hates Jews a little. Really?
Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.
"Mildly Anti-Semitic" is sugar coating. He's Anti-Semitic. Period.
It's not sugar-coating. It's adding greater detail. I can point at a doughnut, and say it is a doughnut. If I say it is a sugar-coated doughnut, I am not saying it is not a doughnut. Adding the phrase'sugar-coated' does not stop it being a doughnut, and it does not mean that I am sugar-coating the fact I am talking about a doughnut!
Ketara wrote: If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.
It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?
Ketara wrote: If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.
It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?
I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one. It doesn't quite fit into any of the social constructs 'race', 'ethnicity', 'nationality', or 'religion', but rather all of them at the same time. There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.
Spetulhu wrote: It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?
The term originates in the early 19th century from Moritz Steinschneider when he used the phrase to describe the prejudices of another Orientalist, Ernest Renan. As to why it continues to be used, probably because antisemitism is so distinctly identifiable among all the kinds of racism in the world (or Ethnocism? Is that even a word? w/e it is now ).
It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?
Anti-Semite means to hate Jews. It is a descriptor.
Ketara wrote: There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.
Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money
Ketara wrote: If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.
It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?
I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one. It doesn't quite fit into any of the social constructs 'race', 'ethnicity', 'nationality', or 'religion', but rather all of them at the same time. There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.
Ketara wrote: There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.
Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money
Do Hindus have the same genetic similarities as Jews? And is there a separate 'Hindu' culture beyond that dictated by the religion? (so separate music, eating habits, and so on from their neighbours). If so, I'd love to know!
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.
Ketara wrote: There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.
Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money
Do Hindus have the same genetic similarities as Jews? And is there a separate 'Hindu' culture beyond that dictated by the religion? (so separate music, eating habits, and so on from their neighbours). If so, I'd love to know!
Well as a non-expert on Indian who is just familiar with Hinduism, the religion is innately tied to the culture and society of India (that's why Hinduism didn't spread throughout the world like Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam). Being Hindu is very much about being Indian as I understand it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?
I think it's all over the top. We're his comments really 'staggering' and as one put it 'abhorrent and beyond disgraceful'? All seems a bit disproportionate but some people are on a hair trigger about comments regarding Hitler and Jews and very black and white in their interpretation (as in 'you're either with us or a bigot') - I really don't think Livingston is an anti-Semite or Hitler apologist.
There's no shared religious aspect to being a Roma I'm aware of.
Depending on what part of the world they're in, the Romani do have distinctive religious practices (most are either Christian or Muslim), and they put their own spin on the faiths combining their own folklore and mythology with the traditional religious precepts. But Romani are I think a far less cohesive group that the Jews have been. Given the breadth of the Jewish Diaspora, it is something of a marvel that Jews have maintained such consistency as a group. Being the object of hated for centuries probably helped
I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one.
What genetic type exactly?
Due to the fact that historically, Jews intermarry as opposed to breeding with the locals (who often wouldn't have had their sons/daughters breeding with a Jew!), there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?
I wouldn't say it's okay, but there's a difference between someone who doesn't like Jews and Hitler. Is Ken Livingstone literally Hitler? No, I'd argue. A douchebag? Sure, but not a genocidal maniac.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?
Now who's building a strawman? What part of "awful behaviour" are you having difficulty comprehending?
I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one.
Romani, perhaps?
Aye, that's another one though IIRC they're usually Christians. And they've certainly been discriminated against! Hitler destroyed quite a lot of them too, but they never had the power or resources to make the world aware and willing to help them in any way. Hell, even here we grudgingly gave them basic human rights less than a hundred years ago. Jews have been allowed to live where they want and practice whatever profession they want for much longer here in Finland. (Though I do recall some businessman was forced to sell his business during WW2 when our German allies made noise about it.) In Eastern Europe the Romani still live in poverty, often outside society with no access to schooling or social services.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I All seems a bit disproportionate but some people are on a hair trigger about comments regarding Hitler and Jews and very black and white in their interpretation (as in 'you're either with us or a bigot') - I really don't think Livingston is an anti-Semite or Hitler apologist.
There is a very specific historical reason for that hair trigger response.
Whether you think he is an Anti-Semite doesn't matter. What he says and has said is all that matters.
Well as a non-expert on Indian who is just familiar with Hinduism, the religion is innately tied to the culture and society of India (that's why Hinduism didn't spread throughout the world like Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam). Being Hindu is very much about being Indian as I understand it.
That's probably the difference then. Jewish culture is in many ways separate from that of the country they happen to live in. You have separate dining tastes, music, a style of comedy, and several other such cultural elements that tend to be spread across Jews from several different places. It's not geographically localised in that way, and not usually shared by those who are not Jewish.
Ketara wrote: there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.
Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.
Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.
Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?
Ketara wrote: there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.
Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.
Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.
Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?
I'll chuck you across to the Wikipedia page. It should point to a few books if you're really interested.
Ketara wrote: there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.
Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.
Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.
Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?
I'll chuck you across to the Wikipedia page. It should point to a few books if you're really interested.
Ah, okay. I consider that ancestry but I see what you mean. Thanks.
There are a few other aspects. In a nutshell, Jews tend to have more common genetic ancestry with jews from other countries, than they do their host countries. They've been transplanted as populations so many times, and the frum Jews marry out so rarely, that they don't tend to share the same genetic ancestors as any given national population. It's what's responsible for many appearance based Jewish stereotypes, it's because Jews tend to originate from similar stock wherever you go (and so are more likely to possess curly dark hair for example).
I'm not saying Jews are like the X-Men or anything.
We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?
The trick is to take politicians with strong opinions that infringe on a group's rights and remove them where they can do no harm.
This has been done for a limited time...
I am waiting for a certain USA Republican candidate to see a similar censure.
Talizvar wrote: We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?
We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
Agreed. My quality of life improved immensely once I embraced this concept.
As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.
Nice. That's just the kind of word needed to level up my vocab. Thanks.
Talizvar wrote: We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?
We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".
Therein lies the major problem. The whoel debate is so emotionally charged. I do wonder why Livingstone decided to get involved given his experience. George Galloway walked into exactly the same trap last year. It's a tactical blunder to raise it, there was no need, everyone had moved on from talking about Shah. Livingstone rode into the debat with the grace,tact and poise of a drunk with a wrecking ball.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.
As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.
So would prejudice against Palestinians be Antigizanism?
Talizvar wrote:We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?
Spetulhu wrote:
We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".
We can do that except when Israel tries to defend itself it is either called excessive force or apartheid. That and the horribly one sided view of the media towards Israel and the way they report the "News" there.
The common reference is that if Israel's enemies would put down their weapons, there would be peace, but if Israel puts their weapons down there would no Israel.
Have any of you actually been to Israel?
As far as Palestinians and Gaza, where is all the billions of dollars given to them in aid? Oh yeah, it was used to build tunnels into Israel to kidnap soldiers. I forgot.
Why aren't the other Arab nations helping their brothers and sisters in Palestine? They don't want them either? No kidding!
Who are using their Women and Children as human shields when their rockets misfire? The Palestinians.
Who is helping the Palestinians wounded when their rockets misfire? The Israelis. Oh yeah!
Rockets aren't being fired from Israel into Gaza on a daily basis. They are fired from Gaza INTO Israel. By whom? The Palestinians.
1) People often share things on social media. Shah's post from four years ago was a bit silly but wasn't anti-semitic. It was anti-Israeli, which is not the same thing. Regardless, she apologised, very well I thought, and we should move on.
No, you don't get to claim this. The ones found so far are the ones she posted between August to September 2014, 8-9 months before being elected as a sitting MP. And it wasn't a one off retweet either. Posting things talking about the forced relocation of the Jews to the US or saying what the Nazi's did were "Legal" whatever that means, is antisemitic. If it were over 4 years or more, she may have been given the benefit of the doubt perhaps. But that close to being elected a sitting MP? She rightly got roasted for being exposed as the colossal bigot she is. Even more galling is the fact she was part of the Commons Antisemitism Inquiry!
2) There was a very good discussion on The Today Programme about anti-semitism vs anti-Israel. The poin was made that robust, strong, highly critical commens about Israels foreign and internal policies are fine and must be defended.
It should noted that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic.
3) Ken Livingstone hasn't said something stupd in too long. What an idiot. Pointless comments coming at a itme when the right wing is looking to have a go at Labour and Corbyn is like walking into a bear pit. You might be technically right, you might me technically on the moral high ground, but it's still going to snap you.
Livingston is another colossal bigot and the fact that corbyn brought him back shows a spectacular lack of judgement and his naivety. Ken should have been gone long ago for being the dinosaur he is. Saying what he did on the radio and his comments about the Nazis and the Madagascar Plan was just unbelievable. In case you forget your history, the plan involved the forced deportation of the Jews with the view to them dying during the journey or when they arrived. The reems of aghast sitting Labour MPs shocked at Ken's caustic comments was refreshing considering the continuous uncovering of Labour antisemitism in recent months.
5) Cameron and the Tories have been running a racist party for years. They have been running a racist, Islamophobic campaign for the mayor of London.
please tell me this is a joke. Proof please. I want to see entries from manifestos in recent years that have policies that specifically target minority groups in a racist fashion. And, posting random nutters from the depths of the membership doesn't count. I want people close to the top. All parties have fruitcakes such as David Ward or Lord Rennard or John Cherry.
The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine and the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the right wing papers. But that has been lost because of Livingstone's daft comments.
Nice deflection. This thread is about the rise of antisemitism in the Labour party not Israel and Palestinian relations.
Mdlbuildr wrote: The common reference is that if Israel's enemies would put down their weapons, there would be peace, but if Israel puts their weapons down there would no Israel.
The thing is, Israel has the most powerful military in the immediate area and there's no one willing to stand against it. Everyone who tried has learned their lesson and, if not actually peaceful like Egypt, will at least not try again. Even the Hezbollah know they can't actually do anything to Israel. But at least the neighbors can't all be totally devastated simultaneously (without using the nukes Israel doesn't admit or deny they have) so they trust Israel will let them live if they let Israel live.
The situation with the occupied territories is something else entirely. The people there have nothing to say when Israel decides to build more settlements, once again deny them a new well or just, oh, the old extrajudicial "we didn't find the perp (to kill) but let's at least destroy his parent's home". It's a systematic campaign to slowly take over every valuable occupied area while getting rid of the people that already lived there by making life intolerable. Even islamic terrorists usually try bombs, but now you have Palestinian youths attacking Israeli soldiers with knives? How desperate do you have to be to try that?
Both sides are flawed IMO. The Palestinians do terror attacks because they have nothing else, Israel builds up a list until they can justify something heavy-handed in response. Quassam rockets are certainly nerve-wracking for the Israeli that have to run to shelters for them, but the answer is US built F-16s doing precision strikes. Compromises have been proposed but the stagnant leadership on either side will sabotage it. Hell, last time an Israeli Prime Minister, Yitshak Rabin, tried to get a peaceful solution an Orthodox Jew (acting alone, oh yes, we all believe he got through all the Israeli security measures alone) killed him!
Spetulhu wrote: The Palestinians do terror attacks because they have nothing else...
Huh? Is that a justification for them running around the streets of Israel stabbing Israelis to death? Not just Jews to be clear.
There are many ways that the surrounding countries can help their brothers and sisters in Palestine. Why don't they? Why is it Israel's responsibility to help them at all, which they do anyway btw? They offer free health care to the women and children of Gaza and free access to Israel as a country without prejudice.
What would happen if an Israeli would enter Gaza. Yeah, he or she would be torn to pieces.
BILLIONS of dollars were given to the Palestinians in aid to help them settle. And not by their own people mind you. Their government took that money and poured it into terrorism and building tunnels. They want MORE help?
You know that the BDS movemnt forced Israel to close a Soda factory where 11 000 Palestinians were employed and now they are jobless, right?
The last time they tried to gang up on Israel, I think Israel won and is the reason it's borders expanded.
See 1948 Arab Israeli war.
I think there's groups on both sides that are quite happy with the current state of affairs and looking to keep it that way. Never mind other nations over/under the table involvement.
You'll be able to show where I said I was OK with someone being racist then?
Feel free to expand that to where anyone said anything about being okay with racism, cause I don't think anyone in thread has said anything of the sort.
Since I've not said anything about the actual topic of the thread yet, pretending that Hitler was a Zionist is patently ridiculous. A politician so obviously out of touch with reality really has to go, even if what he said hadn't been on a subject so likely to (rightly) piss people off.
To go back to the OP, and as a response to anyone who think the British MP getting flak for ranting about deporting Israelis to America was not being anti semitic when she said that, just anti Israel...I have a question for you..
Do you believe she would be in favour of deporting ALL Israeli citizens, including non-Jewish and Muslim citzens ? Or just Jewish Israelis?
What makes me angry about this is that Livingstone apparently thinks his idiotic views are so important that he will continually restate them for three days, doing immense damage to his party directly before the local elections.
What a completely narcicisstic tosser.
He fully deserves to be expelled because what he said was stupid and offensive, and he insisted on saying it (and repeating it several times on television FFS) right before a crucially important election.
As a big supporter of Corbyn who is hoping he'll do well in the elections, I am furious that he would callously do so much damage to his chances and the chances of the labour councillers to feed his own ego and need to be heard. What a complete gobshite.
Oh, good god, more dodgy Labour MPs. This time Diane Abbott (taken from the Guido Fawkes blog):
Diane said anti-Semitism “isn’t a problem in the Labour Party, no more than in other mainstream parties”. She defended Naz Shah, saying her Facebook posts were “made before she was an MP“. When challenged that the posts were still anti-Semitic, Diane denied this was an “issue“, saying that “other people think this but don’t put it on Facebook“.
I always figured racism is an excuse for a lazy mind.
Your bias breaks down as you meet people from that "type" on an individual basis and you notice there is variation within a group.
Ken knows his statements are a hot / bad / inflammatory path to go. Not sure if he is into self-destructive behavior or is a bit too desperate for attention (mainly bad).
Da Boss wrote: What makes me angry about this is that Livingstone apparently thinks his idiotic views are so important that he will continually restate them for three days, doing immense damage to his party directly before the local elections.
What a completely narcicisstic tosser.
He fully deserves to be expelled because what he said was stupid and offensive, and he insisted on saying it (and repeating it several times on television FFS) right before a crucially important election.
As a big supporter of Corbyn who is hoping he'll do well in the elections, I am furious that he would callously do so much damage to his chances and the chances of the labour councillers to feed his own ego and need to be heard. What a complete gobshite.
The problem IS with Corbyn himself. Livingstone is divisive and a liability and harks back to a really mediocre time in Labours history. Jeremy wanted Livingstone back in and look what its gotten him. There was literally nothing to be gained by having Ken Livingstone back in the fold, nothing.
Time and again, with Camerons government ripe for plucking Labour feth themselves. Theres talk of a civil war within the Tory ranks over Europe but the other side of the house look more prone to buckling.
That Labour do well locally is the only thing keeping Corbyn in power. If they slip up there Corbyns days are numbered and there will be blood.
So Livingstone, whilst digging his hole, has decided to abandon the JCB and instead use dynamite to make his hole even deeper. He's fighting the suspension!
"How can the truth be an offence - if I had lied that would be offensive."
The conservatives are at their weakest and instead of giving them a pummeling, Labour have a racist fueled meltdown...
zedmeister wrote: So Livingstone, whilst digging his whole deeper, has decided to abandon the JCB and use dynamite to make his whole even deeper. He's fighting the suspension!
"How can the truth be an offence - if I had lied that would be offensive."
Mdlbuildr wrote: [
We can do that except when Israel tries to defend itself it is either called excessive force or apartheid.
It isn't defence when you're fighting the resistance to the occupation you are inflicting upon a population. Israeli military operations are often called excessive force because they often employ excessive force. Their treatment of Palestinians is likened to apartheid because having Palestinians live under separate legal systems in separate areas under Israeli military control does in fact resemble the policies of apartheid.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Why is it Israel's responsibility to help them at all, which they do anyway btw?
Israel is occupying Palestinian territories and colonising them. Old-school colonisation where you drive away natives and move in people of your preferred ethnicity. They literally call them settlements. Palestinians are only employed at Israeli factories because they're a desperate source of cheap labour and because other economic activity has been denied to them through the blockade and destruction of agriculture. You don't help anyone through conquering them and then putting the occupied population to work.
zedmeister wrote: Oh, good god, more dodgy Labour MPs. This time Diane Abbott (taken from the Guido Fawkes blog):
Diane said anti-Semitism “isn’t a problem in the Labour Party, no more than in other mainstream parties”. She defended Naz Shah, saying her Facebook posts were “made before she was an MP“. When challenged that the posts were still anti-Semitic, Diane denied this was an “issue“, saying that “other people think this but don’t put it on Facebook“.
Though, again, she has form with racism...
Ahhh, good old Diane Abbot. I remember her.
“White people love to play divide and rule. We should not play their game”
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I guess the Romans weren't racist after. Labeling all non Romans barbarians? That was just a term of endearment, honest.
Well to be fair, their criteria for 'barbarian' didn't have much to do with anything we would identify as "race." It was a lot dumber.
Honestly the entire Barbarian thing the Romans and Greeks had going had little to do with anything other than "not like us." The old Greek word Barbaros was simply a word meaning not Greek, and had little to do with anything other than identifying someone as not being a citizen of a Greek city state. By the time the Hellenic period hits, the word gets expanded to mean anyone who isn't from one of the "great" Civilizations (Greece, Persia, Egypt) and at this point it starts gathering a negative connotation effectively meaning "backwards" and "unreasonable." The Romans pretty much adopted that form, but they added in a whole bunch of stuff to it;
Worship some god we've never heard of? Barbarian.
Wear pants instead of a toga? Barbarian.
Don't build kick ass statues? Barbarian.
Don't have weekly orgies? Barbarian.
Christians then come along in the late Empire and adopt the word as well and for a little while they actually use it a bit nicer than the old Romans, meaning essentially "haven't found Jesus yet." It's sometime in the Middle Ages that the word actually starts to take on a racist tone, as Christian Europeans start using the word for anyone whose culture isn't remotely like theirs. Even then, the word was more ethnocentric than racist
There are people desperate to spin this out for all its worth and Livingstone is just fuelling it. I don't agree with what he said, but he's not a 'Nazi apologist'. The MPs making public confrontations with him are doing as much damage as Livingstone. Suddenly we have accusations that Anti-Semitism is rife in the party and there needs to be a full inquiry (meaning witch hunt) The Tories must be loving this as I've heard barely anything about the NHS strike and other issues for 2-3 days now. Labour seem intent on attacking themselves very publicly and in a prolonged manner over things that are ultimately inconsequential, this issue is clearly being whipped up and inflated into a scandal by some, all while letting Cameron's government not be called to account for their policies which are eroding our education, health and social systems and pushing these stories off the front page. Well done all involved.
All of that is true, but none of this could have happened without Livingstone being a complete idiot.
The Labour Party had a man with Jewish ancestry as leader up til recently and has plenty of Jewish members. I don't doubt an organisation as big as that has some antisemites in it (any organisation big enough will have some) but to imply that the party as a whole is a hotbed of antisemitism is dishonest as hell.
So why in the name of god is Ken giving them ammunition? What a complete fool.
Da Boss wrote: All of that is true, but none of this could have happened without Livingstone being a complete idiot.
The Labour Party had a man with Jewish ancestry as leader up til recently and has plenty of Jewish members. I don't doubt an organisation as big as that has some antisemites in it (any organisation big enough will have some) but to imply that the party as a whole is a hotbed of antisemitism is dishonest as hell.
So why in the name of god is Ken giving them ammunition? What a complete fool.
I actually knew a member of the youth section of the Labour party, She left after two years. Couldn't bear it. Said it was the most poisonous environment she'd ever been in. You were expected to think purely along the party line or get out, there was no political ideology that couldn't be abandoned to win votes, and the patronage system reduced it to a level of bitter infighting and backstabbing from the word go.
Whatever one might think of the Tories, they're reasonably tolerant in some regards. There are so many upper class or senior members who 'will be damned if they'll let some bloody upstart' tell them what to think, yet you'll notice it doesn't hold them back career-wise. It means they're far more likely to reach for knives when they feel the time has come, but also tend to be a damn sight more ruthless and successful about it when they do. That lets them maintain, I think, a more cohesive front when necessary. They know when they think time has come to remove a leader and just do it, but otherwise, feel secure enough to just get on with things.
With Labour, you just get this continual drip-feed of passive aggressiveness, minor leaks, and inability to form a cohesive movement or opposition anymore. Nobody will reach for their knives for fear of retarding their future careers, so you just get this low-level obstructiveness and attempts to sabotage and drop others you don't like in the cacky without getting caught. There's no political ideology left to tie them all together, and none of them feel strong enough to take a stand on anything. It's why the joke candidate turned into the leader I reckon, he was the only who had something to say that didn't sound just like the other three.
The Labour Party these days, is just sadly run entirely by self-interest, as opposed to any kind of overarching purpose other than 'get our snouts in the trough'. As a result, Ken is doing what he feels is best for Ken (because naturally, that coincides in his mind with what is best for the Party, as it does with all of them).And everyone else is encouraging him because it suits their personal goals (to ditch Corbyn).
I've no doubt that the activists at Labour could be pretty obnoxious, but didn't Tory youth activists bully one of their own to the point of suicide recently? And Tory infighting over the referendum?
I agree though - Blair killed ideology in Labour for cynical manipulation and "spin".
I see Corbyn as trying to get back to actually talking about what he believes in and what the labour movement should be "for", but unfortunately his party is absolutely infested with Blairite losers with no attachment to any ideology except career driven cynicism, as you say.
Ken Livingstone was never on my radar up to now but if he is a representation of Labour's hard left then my optimism about the Corbyn project has taken a huge dent. (Diane Abbot is also an arsehole).
Da Boss wrote: I've no doubt that the activists at Labour could be pretty obnoxious, but didn't Tory youth activists bully one of their own to the point of suicide recently? And Tory infighting over the referendum?
Oh, I don't doubt that they have their own issues. I was merely speculating though, that the very existence of infighting over the referendum is a sign of the variety of Tory opinion on certain things. It's two sides taking two opposite stances on an issue, whilst remaining a part of the same party, and a greater cohesive whole. Whatever happens, once the referendum is done, that'll be it for the most part bar some grumbling, they'll move on.
Labour though:-
I agree though - Blair killed ideology in Labour for cynical manipulation and "spin".
I see Corbyn as trying to get back to actually talking about what he believes in and what the labour movement should be "for", but unfortunately his party is absolutely infested with Blairite losers with no attachment to any ideology except career driven cynicism, as you say.
is more 'pro-Corbyn' and 'anti-Corbyn', but once Corbyn goes, it'll split down the same divide with whoever replaces him. There's actually no political ideology left to bind them together. They're all on 'my side' and against 'everybody else's side'. Political issues are irrelevant. If they think something will get them elected, they're 'pro' it, if they don't they're 'anti' it.
Ken Livingstone was never on my radar up to now but if he is a representation of Labour's hard left then my optimism about the Corbyn project has taken a huge dent. (Diane Abbot is also an arsehole).
Corbyn is a throwback to 70's with all it entails. The Hard Left has always been a hypocritical, self-righteous, cantankerous lot. Whilst they do actually have beliefs (unlike most of the rest of the Labour party), those beliefs are outdated today. They've gone wrong too many times in too many places.
I firmly believe that if Corbyn had shown an inch of political sensitivity and leadership, he could still have sailed the Labour party in the right direction. But, like the Hard Left always does, he either rules with the iron fist, or not at all. He either pushes all his policies, or none of them. And the only people willing to get on that train with him are the remaining resident nutters, one of which happens to be his ex-girlfriend. When that's the best support you can rally, you're not doing it right.
I'm sad about Corbyn. I wish he'd expressed a modicum of basic political awareness. I want the Tories out next Government. But how the hell can I hand the country over to the Labour party in it's current state?
I'm not at all convinced by the argument in your last bit there (because I think you are selling short the huge surge in membership bringing new ideas to the party under Corbyn's leadership) but I owe you a better response via PM still (sorry, hectic week and currently should really be writing wedding invitations rather than nattering about Corbyn, again!)
Da Boss wrote: Ken Livingstone is STILL TALKING and STILL HASN'T APOLOGISED.
Holy crap. Like I've said, I'm a huge Corbyn supporter but even I'm questioning his judgement in being friends with this tosser.
I am a huge Corbyn fan and Livingstone fan. I am very angry with Livingstone for such nonsense. I don't believe he is trying to upset or be racist, though he is, thus my disappointment.
I believe the left generally 1) hold their leaders to a higher standard, 2) expect more of them 3) hero worship their leaders more.
Livingstone is still a good bloke, though is completely wrong on this matter.
Ketara wrote: Oh, definitely. Ken did some good material stuff over the course of his political career, but he's always been tainted by the fact that he liked to snuggle up to dictators, a mild anti-semitism, a thoroughly self-righteous attitude, links to somewhat morally dubious organisations, and a hardcore desire to scrap with the right wing regardless of the consequences to anyone else.
Ken himself, much like Corbyn, was a throwback to the 70's, and he never got over the fact Johnson beat him as Mayor and got him relegated to the dustheap. He must have been thrilled when Corbyn tried to give him a comeback, but it seems it's gone up in smoke a bit. I doubt Corbyn will be able to use him again now, there's just too much dirt and bad history.
Ken's always been very self-obsessed. For years now, I've seen him on the telly, and he is literally all he ever talks about. How he'd have done a better job as Mayor. How he was responsible for x/y/z. How no-one gives him the credit he deserves. What he'd do if he was in someone's shoes. How he was always being held back by others. It's like watching a more mild/less offensive version of George Galloway.
It doesn't surprise me that even now, all he thinks about is himself.
Ketara wrote: Oh, definitely. Ken did some good material stuff over the course of his political career, but he's always been tainted by the fact that he liked to snuggle up to dictators, a mild anti-semitism, a thoroughly self-righteous attitude, links to somewhat morally dubious organisations, and a hardcore desire to scrap with the right wing regardless of the consequences to anyone else.
Ken himself, much like Corbyn, was a throwback to the 70's, and he never got over the fact Johnson beat him as Mayor and got him relegated to the dustheap. He must have been thrilled when Corbyn tried to give him a comeback, but it seems it's gone up in smoke a bit. I doubt Corbyn will be able to use him again now, there's just too much dirt and bad history.
Ken's always been very self-obsessed. For years now, I've seen him on the telly, and he is literally all he ever talks about. How he'd have done a better job as Mayor. How he was responsible for x/y/z. How no-one gives him the credit he deserves. What he'd do if he was in someone's shoes. How he was always being held back by others. It's like watching a more mild/less offensive version of George Galloway.
It doesn't surprise me that even now, all he thinks about is himself.
Ken is back in the public eye. He will see an opportunity to carve support from activists within the hard left and make himself relevant again.
I wouldn't put it past him to stab Corbyn in the back and make a run for some sort of power.
He certainly seems to be relishing the spotlight, despite the reasons for it. I suppose there may be an element of "No publicity is bad publicity" behind it, but I find it hard to imagine anyone wanting him as leader after all this.
They handed the Tory's a massive artillery shell to blast a huge hole in labours hull.
Corbyn has been forced to defend himself, back track whilst a even weak Tory giv is not taking flak, there weak yet Labour is in such as shasmbles right now they cannot land a blow on even a weakened government.
I still believe Corbyn is a good man and I agree with his beliefs and policies on the main.
But man, this whole thing has me questioning whether the Labour party as an organization should really have it's hands on power. Between idiots on the left of the party making braindead, tonedeaf statements and dead eyed careerists on the right sharpening their daggers and piling in to damage their leader right before an election...
Maybe as an "anyone but the Tories" option. I mean the Tories are just a lot worse for anyone who believes in social equity.
Soteks Prophet wrote: It's funny how stating something utterly non-racist is anti-semetic. It goes to show who you can't criticize
ny,
It's funny, Diane Abbott kept saying anti-Semetic this morning, too! She certainly has an emetic effect on me
Saying Hitler supported Zionism was never going to go down well in terms of defusing this issue. I had time for Ken once - but he is an out-of-touch verbally-incontinent egomaniac and should go back in his bunker.
I am a Londoner, and Ken's actions will probably help that race-baiter Zac Goldsmith (whose latest propaganda sets Sadiq Khan against pix of the 7/7 bombing) get elected.
Da Boss wrote: ts and dead eyed careerists on the right sharpening their daggers and piling in to damage their leader right before an election...
Maybe as an "anyone but the Tories" option. I mean the Tories are just a lot worse for anyone who believes in social equity.
I won't be voting for the Tories come next election, but I certainly won't be voting Labour as things stand. I'd rather have a functional Tory Government at the end of the day, than a party with no idea what it's doing in power that can't work together and has no coherent policy or direction. At least you know what you're getting with the Conservatives, y'know?
With Labour, it all comes down at the moment to the next batch of council elections and the NEC. Despite all the headlines about the Tory war over Europe, the real civil war in British politics at the moment is between the Hard Left and the Parliamentary sections of the Labour party. Livingstone was the latest casualty, but he's far from being the last I'd wager.
I'm keeping a close eye on Tom Watson at the moment. Corbyn is a political pussycat compared to him, and I suspect that even if the Hard Left wins control, Watson will be launching a coup shortly afterwards. And frankly? I think the Labour party would be the better for it. He's the Vice President of the 'Friends of Israel' group (cutting out the whole anti-semitism taint), he resigned his ministerial post under the last Labour Government after calling for Blair to resign in 2006 (gives him distance from the previous administration whilst retaining actual government experience), he's a bit of a computer nerd (helps to link with a younger generation), and he has strong trade union links to keep them in order. He's an ex-marketing bloke as well, which means he has a certain amount of savvy Corbyn is lacking when it comes to the press.
Unfortunately, he's a bit of a knee-jerk populist when it comes to his opinions/policies (which has landed him in the mud a few times), but frankly, that might wash well with the parliamentary aspect of the labour party, as it means he's not set in his ways/opinions like Corbyn. He's shown several times in the past that he's not above getting dirty and ruthless, but that's not always a bad aspect in a politician, so long as they can know when it's appropriate and when it isn't.
I don't think I'd vote for him, he's a bit too dishonest for me. But if the Labour Party wants to function as a cohesive force, I can't think of anyone else capable of it right now.
Since the Tories have shown themselves to be the most dishonest, self-serving, thieving and arrogant oligarchy of toffs.... and Labour are having issues with ridiculous levels of ideology.
Could this see the return of the Liberals from their post-WW1 decline?
Or maybe I'll just vote SNP / Green because I absolutely detest the incompetents who have been in power so far.
The lib dems should be able to capitalise on this, but I don't think they will. Unfortunately too many of their supporters are still angry at them for the coalition. The lib dems failed to communicate the limits of what is possible for a minority party in a coalition. For some reason people are angry at them for things like not keeping all their manifesto pledges, ignoring the fact of how much they reined in the more extrem parts of the Toryies that we have seen over the past few years. What they need to be doing is shouting about how they limited the damage of the Toryies and landing blows on two parties that are in disarray and leaning further and further to the left and right. Unfortunately what they are doing is still hiding and licking their wounds.
Well, he did a short interview on Sky news this morning. And just went off on one about "Hitler and the Jews". He wasn't even prompted, was talking about “embittered old Blairites” and “far right Labour MPs" and just suddenly went full Hitler. Blokes got a bloody tourettes tic:
"How you doing today Ken?"
"I'm fine thanks. So was Hitler on days like this..."
This is like one big Godwin's law playing out to the max.
I must admit I have not paid much attention to this since our closer neighbors have some scary individual called Donald Trump pretty much the Republican leader which may sink them as a party for years to come.
If this guy becomes president... ummm... nevermind, I would rather not think about it.
zedmeister wrote: Well, he did a short interview on Sky news this morning. And just went off on one about "Hitler and the Jews". He wasn't even prompted, was talking about “embittered old Blairites” and “far right Labour MPs" and just suddenly went full Hitler. Blokes got a bloody tourettes tic:
Far Right Labour MP's??? I mean, I know they have a lot of Far Left members but Far Right?
"How you doing today Ken?"
"I'm fine thanks. So was Hitler on days like this..."
Thats a joke right? Please tell me he didn't actually say that.
zedmeister wrote: Well, he did a short interview on Sky news this morning. And just went off on one about "Hitler and the Jews". He wasn't even prompted, was talking about “embittered old Blairites” and “far right Labour MPs" and just suddenly went full Hitler. Blokes got a bloody tourettes tic:
Far Right Labour MP's??? I mean, I know they have a lot of Far Left members but Far Right?
"How you doing today Ken?"
"I'm fine thanks. So was Hitler on days like this..."
Thats a joke right? Please tell me he didn't actually say that.
You can breathe.
He did brand the creation of Israel a catastrophe though.
And in the same breath as saying his comments may make things tight in the local elections went onto reiterate his previous claims.
Cameron and Gideon can literally murder and eat babies whilst the media focuses in on Livingstone. I reckon he'll properly break at some point.
