Crosswords1 min ago
Ken Livingstone - Please Can Someone Explain
58 Answers
I don't understand this anti Semitic furore and wonder if someone could really explain it in words of one syllable for me. Nothing nasty, please, just the basics.
Answers
Anti Semitic?... What a laugh. Ask the Israelis if they would like to see the Palestinians transported to another place on Earth, I bet 90 % will put their hands up. But will any of those who raise their hands be classed as Anti Palestinian or anti Islamic? Will any of them be suspended or sacked from there job for simply suggesting the idea? Of course not.
Israel have been breaking all the rules of the original agreement for years, it's time it stopped.
Israel have been breaking all the rules of the original agreement for years, it's time it stopped.
Hellywelly 4,
Naz Shah was suspended when an old Facebook post from before she was an MP was published by a Conservative blogger. Here it is (Hope the link works).
https:/
It has been called anti semitic. It is clearly a comment on the State of Israel, and the cost to the American taxpayer of Israel. But it does not attack anyone for being jewish. It does not say this is a stated aim, or any Israelis should be forced to move. It is meant as a jokey solution to the Israel / Palestinian problem, not a manifesto. The graphic stand alone is not anti semitic. It is anti the State of Israel in its present location.
Shah's own comment is rather dumb, as she confuses US Dollars with Pounds Sterling and that gives the false impression that UK citizens are paying 3 billion, not US citizens. Her comment of 'Problem solved' is not anti semitic, as the graphic itself is not anti semitic.
It is legitimate to question Israel as a foreign country, particularly if some of Israels actions are contrary to your own idiology. Unfortunately the pro Israel lobby jump on any criticism of the country, and particularly on its foreign polucy toward the Palestinians, as anti Jewish and therefore anti semitic. This is a deliberate mistake intended to stiffle debate and deflect any criticism.
So why has this become news?
The Labour leadership election unnanously selected Corbyn as leader. It was a huge rejection of New Labour and all it stood for. Unfortunately, many of the sitting MPs are Blairite New Labour followers. They are in open revolt of their leader and seek to discredit him. One way (there are others) is to portray him as anti semitic, because he has supported the Palestinians in the past. So we have suddenly seen several Labour anti semitism stories pop up in the media. The aim of them all is to discredit Corbyn.
One of those Blairite MPs seeking to remove Corbyn is John Mann. John Mann is also very pro Israel and is chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. He confronted Livingstone outside the BBC over comments he had made about the Nazis supporting a Jewish state. Whilst that is true, I am unsure of the context that Livingstone reminded us of the fact. Anyhow, it was a red rag (lirerally) to the pro Israel lobby, who as usual shout 'anti semitism!' At any criticism of Israel the country. Hence the confrontation between Johm Mann (who has got reprimanded) and Ken Livingstone (who has been suspended).
Naz Shah was suspended when an old Facebook post from before she was an MP was published by a Conservative blogger. Here it is (Hope the link works).
https:/
It has been called anti semitic. It is clearly a comment on the State of Israel, and the cost to the American taxpayer of Israel. But it does not attack anyone for being jewish. It does not say this is a stated aim, or any Israelis should be forced to move. It is meant as a jokey solution to the Israel / Palestinian problem, not a manifesto. The graphic stand alone is not anti semitic. It is anti the State of Israel in its present location.
Shah's own comment is rather dumb, as she confuses US Dollars with Pounds Sterling and that gives the false impression that UK citizens are paying 3 billion, not US citizens. Her comment of 'Problem solved' is not anti semitic, as the graphic itself is not anti semitic.
It is legitimate to question Israel as a foreign country, particularly if some of Israels actions are contrary to your own idiology. Unfortunately the pro Israel lobby jump on any criticism of the country, and particularly on its foreign polucy toward the Palestinians, as anti Jewish and therefore anti semitic. This is a deliberate mistake intended to stiffle debate and deflect any criticism.
So why has this become news?
The Labour leadership election unnanously selected Corbyn as leader. It was a huge rejection of New Labour and all it stood for. Unfortunately, many of the sitting MPs are Blairite New Labour followers. They are in open revolt of their leader and seek to discredit him. One way (there are others) is to portray him as anti semitic, because he has supported the Palestinians in the past. So we have suddenly seen several Labour anti semitism stories pop up in the media. The aim of them all is to discredit Corbyn.
One of those Blairite MPs seeking to remove Corbyn is John Mann. John Mann is also very pro Israel and is chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. He confronted Livingstone outside the BBC over comments he had made about the Nazis supporting a Jewish state. Whilst that is true, I am unsure of the context that Livingstone reminded us of the fact. Anyhow, it was a red rag (lirerally) to the pro Israel lobby, who as usual shout 'anti semitism!' At any criticism of Israel the country. Hence the confrontation between Johm Mann (who has got reprimanded) and Ken Livingstone (who has been suspended).
Mysterious silence from the AB regulars who have, in the past, made a thing about minority groups "playing the race card" (give or take that they may not have engaged with this thread yet).
Did Ms Shah draw parallels between present day ghettoisation of Palestinians and the way Jews were treated in 1930s Germany (and other parts of Europe they took over)?
This is the thing I find most puzzling about Israel today. Go on, tell me I'm racist.
While you're at it: If there had been no maltreatment of Jews in WWII (and only UK/US air raids had killed them, would there even be an Israel, today?
In other words, was it entirely an effort at compensating for our collective failure to prevent the Holocaust or would political pressure have persuaded UK/France to hand over land, in the end, regardless?
Did Ms Shah draw parallels between present day ghettoisation of Palestinians and the way Jews were treated in 1930s Germany (and other parts of Europe they took over)?
This is the thing I find most puzzling about Israel today. Go on, tell me I'm racist.
While you're at it: If there had been no maltreatment of Jews in WWII (and only UK/US air raids had killed them, would there even be an Israel, today?
In other words, was it entirely an effort at compensating for our collective failure to prevent the Holocaust or would political pressure have persuaded UK/France to hand over land, in the end, regardless?
It would suit the pro Israeli lobby to stifle any criticism of that pariah state by smearing its critics as anti Semites. They look to be succeeding.
I wonder in the aftermath of the war did American State Department officials throw their weight behind the foundation of a Jewish Homeland because they didn't want a flood of refugees coming to make a new life in the land of the free?
I wonder in the aftermath of the war did American State Department officials throw their weight behind the foundation of a Jewish Homeland because they didn't want a flood of refugees coming to make a new life in the land of the free?
Hi hellywelly4 - hopefully you have a clearer picture of what is going on, thanks to some excellent answers.
Mr Livingstone is no stranger to controversy concerning Israel, but his comment about 'Hitler being a Zionist' is actually inaccurate.
It is true that the Nazi regime favoured forced repatriation of the European Jews to elsewhere (they were not especially fussed as to where, as long as it wasn't Germany) but that does not make Hitler a Zionist, and that is an inaccurate statement.
Mr Livingstone does rather favour controversy, and doesn't always allow historical facts to get in the way of his headline-grabbing - although ironically he defended his statement by advising that it was a historical fact.
So - that is why Mr Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party - this will run on for a while yet, since detractors have seized on the perceived late actions of Jeremy Corbin as a further example of his weak leadership, and another nail in the coffin of his political career.
Mr Livingstone is no stranger to controversy concerning Israel, but his comment about 'Hitler being a Zionist' is actually inaccurate.
It is true that the Nazi regime favoured forced repatriation of the European Jews to elsewhere (they were not especially fussed as to where, as long as it wasn't Germany) but that does not make Hitler a Zionist, and that is an inaccurate statement.
Mr Livingstone does rather favour controversy, and doesn't always allow historical facts to get in the way of his headline-grabbing - although ironically he defended his statement by advising that it was a historical fact.
So - that is why Mr Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party - this will run on for a while yet, since detractors have seized on the perceived late actions of Jeremy Corbin as a further example of his weak leadership, and another nail in the coffin of his political career.
Peter Pedant: > "... and KL said that Hitler was Zionist in the thirties that is he (AH) supported a homeland for the Jews and actually I think KL was wrong "
No, Livingstone did not say that. hellywelly, if you listen to the interview you will hear what Livingstone actually said:
http://
These explain the aspect Livingstone was referring to:
https:/
http://
No, Livingstone did not say that. hellywelly, if you listen to the interview you will hear what Livingstone actually said:
http://
These explain the aspect Livingstone was referring to:
https:/
http://
I am NOT anti Semitic but the truth of the matter is this, in order to give the Jews of the world their own homeland they were encouraged to settle in Palestine & the state of Israel was born. No one asked the Palestinians if they would mind sharing their country & so a resentment grew into a war like situation & over the years the Israelis have helped themselves to more & more Palestinian land to extend their holdings ( stolen). I think it would have been much better for Israel to have been created in a different part of the world where there would have been more room to spread. There are still areas of this planet that are sparsely populated.
Hitler did not support Zionism. The Nazis formulated a plan (financially lucrative to Germany) to rid Germany of the Jews. Since the strip of land called Palestine was the only place on earth that the Jews regarded as ‘home’, that was to be their destination. The prospect of living in Palestine – a land they had been ejected from 2000 years ago and had always dreamt of returning to - was an incentive for them to go. There was never any suggestion that the Nazis intended to assist the Jews to claim that land and re-name it Israel. It was simply, for the Germans, an expedient notion. They were not Zionists.
Now to Hellywelly’s question.
Anti-Semitism equates to an irrational hatred of the Jews themselves. Anti-Zionism is a political stance that opposes the existence of the Jewish state called Israel – formerly Palestine.
Therefore, anti-Semites hate Jews, but anti-Zionists simply oppose the existence of the state of Israel because they feel that forcing the former inhabitants of that land (the Palestinians) out in order to make way for establishment of a new Jewish state was morally wrong. I hope I’ve made it clearer for you.
Now to Hellywelly’s question.
Anti-Semitism equates to an irrational hatred of the Jews themselves. Anti-Zionism is a political stance that opposes the existence of the Jewish state called Israel – formerly Palestine.
Therefore, anti-Semites hate Jews, but anti-Zionists simply oppose the existence of the state of Israel because they feel that forcing the former inhabitants of that land (the Palestinians) out in order to make way for establishment of a new Jewish state was morally wrong. I hope I’ve made it clearer for you.
Andy-hughes,
Hitler and the Nazis did not force repatriation of Jews to Palestine, they had a policy to encourage it. Read up on the Haavara Agreement:
https:/
Whilst it is stretching it to call Hilter a Zionist, he did favour Jews leaving Germany for Palestine, the same as the Zionist wanted.
Hitler and the Nazis did not force repatriation of Jews to Palestine, they had a policy to encourage it. Read up on the Haavara Agreement:
https:/
Whilst it is stretching it to call Hilter a Zionist, he did favour Jews leaving Germany for Palestine, the same as the Zionist wanted.
Svejk,
Living with it does not mean accepting it. If trumped up accusations of anti semitism are levelled, then people have a right to stand up for themselves..
Whilst Livinstone's comment about the Nazis being zionists was particularly nasty (in that he was implying that supporting Israel was akin to having Nazi ideals) it was not anti semitic, and his suspension is ridiculous.
Unfortunately Corbyn is letting the media tell him how to run his party, and that is a mistake.
Living with it does not mean accepting it. If trumped up accusations of anti semitism are levelled, then people have a right to stand up for themselves..
Whilst Livinstone's comment about the Nazis being zionists was particularly nasty (in that he was implying that supporting Israel was akin to having Nazi ideals) it was not anti semitic, and his suspension is ridiculous.
Unfortunately Corbyn is letting the media tell him how to run his party, and that is a mistake.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.