Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Ken Livingstone resigns from the Labour Party

124

Comments

  • edited May 2018

    As a Hebrew reader Israeli 'Descender' following this thread, I can't help a sigh in total exasperation at the apparent victory of the Netanyahu regime's propoganda in linking every anti Israeli government criticism with antisemitism (as if Anti African, or anti Islam is any different).
    I wish the rest of the world will familiarize with Some of the statements coming out of respected Israeli Ministers (such as justice minister's Shaked: "Jewish law must be given priority when it conflicts with Human rights"
    Or Regev: "Asylum seekers are a cancer at the heart of our nation", or Netanyahu himself: "the Israeli left has forgotten what's it like to be Jewish)...

    Us Jews are very quick to tell anyone who will (or will not) want to listen how special we are, and to link everything to our Jewishness. However, when its done by non jews we immediately throw Auschwitz in their face.

    Even Holocaust survivors themselves on pointing out the obvious parallels between our treatment of Palestinians and their memories are at best being ridiculed.

    Like most sensible Israelies would be happy if you don't waste anymore guilt and sympathy over us, as Bibi will only use it to justify our own concentration camps in Gaza and the west bank.

    Yes, Zionism sounds like a reasonable enough idea, (until you read the small print such as the 'law of return') but in the words of my late father: "if it means for ever we have to live by the sword than it's a total failure".

    Weather Hitler was a 'Zionist collaborator' back then I'm not convinced.
    He certainly has been recruited now though...

    So, engage with Ken intellectually (yes it is possible) leave name calling to shock jocks and politicians under investigations.

    I love you so much for this post Lenny. I opened this thread really hoping to hear from you or Cordoban and I'm so floored at how insightful and articulate this is.

    Us Jews are very quick to tell anyone who will (or will not) want to listen how special we are, and to link everything to our Jewishness.

    But ummmmm, maybe don't read the US politics thread.... (because this is very true)
  • In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    Echo to this what I said about Lenny's post. Thank you to both of you.
  • SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    Echo to this what I said about Lenny's post. Thank you to both of you.
    I live for your praise oh *Marxist master. As for the nay sayers, come the day of the glorious revolution when the old order is swept away on the rising tide of history they will be first against the wall.

    *With apologies to anybody not reading the Trump thread.
  • Bye bye Ken, a dinosaur of a politician, means well but we have all moved on, put himself in a ridiculous unwinnable position, should have gone much earlier.
  • Bye bye Ken, a dinosaur of a politician, means well but we have all moved on, put himself in a ridiculous unwinnable position, should have gone much earlier.

    He did go. Not been active for some time. Marx springs to mind. Groucho not Karl.
  • SDAddick said:

    As a Hebrew reader Israeli 'Descender' following this thread, I can't help a sigh in total exasperation at the apparent victory of the Netanyahu regime's propoganda in linking every anti Israeli government criticism with antisemitism (as if Anti African, or anti Islam is any different).
    I wish the rest of the world will familiarize with Some of the statements coming out of respected Israeli Ministers (such as justice minister's Shaked: "Jewish law must be given priority when it conflicts with Human rights"
    Or Regev: "Asylum seekers are a cancer at the heart of our nation", or Netanyahu himself: "the Israeli left has forgotten what's it like to be Jewish)...

    Us Jews are very quick to tell anyone who will (or will not) want to listen how special we are, and to link everything to our Jewishness. However, when its done by non jews we immediately throw Auschwitz in their face.

    Even Holocaust survivors themselves on pointing out the obvious parallels between our treatment of Palestinians and their memories are at best being ridiculed.

    Like most sensible Israelies would be happy if you don't waste anymore guilt and sympathy over us, as Bibi will only use it to justify our own concentration camps in Gaza and the west bank.

    Yes, Zionism sounds like a reasonable enough idea, (until you read the small print such as the 'law of return') but in the words of my late father: "if it means for ever we have to live by the sword than it's a total failure".

    Weather Hitler was a 'Zionist collaborator' back then I'm not convinced.
    He certainly has been recruited now though...

    So, engage with Ken intellectually (yes it is possible) leave name calling to shock jocks and politicians under investigations.

    I love you so much for this post Lenny. I opened this thread really hoping to hear from you or Cordoban and I'm so floored at how insightful and articulate this is.

    Us Jews are very quick to tell anyone who will (or will not) want to listen how special we are, and to link everything to our Jewishness.

    But ummmmm, maybe don't read the US politics thread.... (because this is very true)
    Thank you for that.
    Though, when it comes to involuntary
    mythical collective identity, I'd be much happier if it was taken out of my *Id. Card. If we must then exception could be made once every **4 years for the world cup.

    * Israeli ID cards specify 'Jewish' as nationhood (whatever the fuck that means)

    **every 50 years or so in Israel's case...
  • Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. Judaism pre-dates this by a few years.
  • Gotta love a bit if Google
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited May 2018
    No I knew the exact name and date of the founder and formation! Of course, I knew it was founded relatively recently and googled the rest. It is generally a good way of finding details out!
  • Only pulling you leg mate, I use Google all the time
  • Edited as I've just broken my rule of not commenting on a political thread on Charlton Life. I'm annoyed with myself for doing so. It was very silly of me & it won't happen again.

    As you were...

    As you have deleted the original post please select one of the following:

    PC gone mad brigade.

    Right wing little Englander.
  • edited May 2018

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
  • So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    You couldn't be a bit more patronising could you?
    Proposal not accepted on my part, but please feel free to move on.
  • SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    Just like those from 'the left would' if, say, Jacob Rees- Mogg**, made a crass remark about Muslims.....

    ** For the record I am no particular fan of Rees- Mogg but he does appear to be a Tory to particularly wind 'the left' up presently hence selecting him.

    It is 'the left' who first endorsed political correctness and have mercilessly employed it to suppress 'off message' opinions. Therefore 'the left' cannot protest when their tactics are employed against them for once.

    Well actually they can because true socialism / communism is inherently authoritarian philosophically speaking and can best be described as do what I say not what I do.
  • SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.

    Politics in 2018.....
  • LenGlover said:

    SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    Just like those from 'the left would' if, say, Jacob Rees- Mogg**, made a crass remark about Muslims.....

    ** For the record I am no particular fan of Rees- Mogg but he does appear to be a Tory to particularly wind 'the left' up presently hence selecting him.

    It is 'the left' who first endorsed political correctness and have mercilessly employed it to suppress 'off message' opinions. Therefore 'the left' cannot protest when their tactics are employed against them for once.

    Well actually they can because true socialism / communism is inherently authoritarian philosophically speaking and can best be described as do what I say not what I do.
    exactly. Frankly i was shocked when there were people on here (i'm referring to the labour thread mostly) that were happy to defend livingstone or be willing to ignore his comments and those that even claimed that the anti semitism scandal was a smear. Even if it was, it was handled so incredibly badly by the labour leadership, it became and is a scandal.
  • edited May 2018
    From Wiki:-
    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and ZionistGerman Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.[1]

    The agreement enabled Jews fleeing persecution under the new Nazi regime to transfer some portion of their assets to British Mandatory Palestine.[2] Emigrants sold their assets in Germany to pay for essential goods (manufactured in Germany) to be shipped to Mandatory Palestine.[3][4] The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky) and outside it, as well as by members of the NSDAP and members of the German public.[4]For German Jews, the agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrant labor and economic support; for the Germans it facilitated the emigration of German Jews while breaking the anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state to be a potential threat to the German economy.[4][5]

    BUT HEY, HITLER DIDN'T SUPPORT ZIONISM.

    Kent. Tell me what anti-semetic statement Ken said.
  • And yet our current Foreign Secretary can call blacks 'picanninies' and still keep his job with no stigma of racism. He was only joshing!
  • Sponsored links:


  • So everybody from the left is a communist authoritarian! I see.

    I think where Corbyn did badly was you could see this brewing - I think there was a lot of unfair accusations banded about amongst some fair ones but it does seem a very polarised debate - if you have sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians you are supporting Hamas for instance.

    What I know is that Corbyn is not a racist and he is not an anti-semite. He does have a great deal of sympathy with the Palestinians and that shouldn't be the issue some want to paint it as. If you put yourself in their shoes, and somebody took your land, say a big chunk of England, you might not be too happy about it, even if the bible says it isn't your land!

    What was a sad effect of this was that politicians of all colours (There are Conservatives critical of Israel's policies too) were too scared to be too critical following recent shocking events. That is partly Corbyns fault, because had he dealt with those who take things too far in his party more swiftly, there wouldn't be this stick to beat him with. I do think some are using this to beat him rather than through real outrage with him though.
  • LenGlover said:

    SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    Just like those from 'the left would' if, say, Jacob Rees- Mogg**, made a crass remark about Muslims.....

    ** For the record I am no particular fan of Rees- Mogg but he does appear to be a Tory to particularly wind 'the left' up presently hence selecting him.

    It is 'the left' who first endorsed political correctness and have mercilessly employed it to suppress 'off message' opinions. Therefore 'the left' cannot protest when their tactics are employed against them for once.

    Well actually they can because true socialism / communism is inherently authoritarian philosophically speaking and can best be described as do what I say not what I do.
    exactly. Frankly i was shocked when there were people on here (i'm referring to the labour thread mostly) that were happy to defend livingstone or be willing to ignore his comments and those that even claimed that the anti semitism scandal was a smear. Even if it was, it was handled so incredibly badly by the labour leadership, it became and is a scandal.
    Agreed. Politics on here is so dull and repetitive. People base their opinions ENTIRELY on the party the person represents. The same people defending Ken Livingstone on here would be going mental if it was someone like Ian Duncan Smith saying it. The same people who would be happy to claim that all Conservatives and Theresa May are practically members of the KKK for Windrush, would happily defend Livingstones comments.

    Politics on here is like watching a never ending 0-0 draw.
  • Netanyahu: Hitler Didn't Want to Exterminate the Jews

    Israeli Prime minister tells World Zionist Congress that Hitler only wanted to expel the Jews, but Jerusalem's Grand Mufti convinced him to exterminate them, a claim that was rejected by most accepted Holocaust scholars.

    Haaretz

    21.10.2015 | 03:25 

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

  • From Wiki:-
    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and ZionistGerman Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.[1]

    The agreement enabled Jews fleeing persecution under the new Nazi regime to transfer some portion of their assets to British Mandatory Palestine.[2] Emigrants sold their assets in Germany to pay for essential goods (manufactured in Germany) to be shipped to Mandatory Palestine.[3][4] The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky) and outside it, as well as by members of the NSDAP and members of the German public.[4]For German Jews, the agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrant labor and economic support; for the Germans it facilitated the emigration of German Jews while breaking the anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state to be a potential threat to the German economy.[4][5]

    BUT HEY, HITLER DIDN'T SUPPORT ZIONISM.



    HEY EVERYONE BLACK PEOPLE GOT SOLD INTO SLAVERY BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE, so basically it means that a politician can basically imply that black people themselves were to blame for slavery and white people actually saved them from their horrible fellow Africans. And any kind of pride of being African is bad because it basically is linked to being proud of being a slave driver.

    Is basically what livingstone, and now you have said.

    The mind boggles at the ignorance.
  • Kent (how do you pronounce that?) I agree with your final word.
  • edited May 2018
    Hitler has a pathological hatred of all Jews and there isn't any evidence he supported the Haavara agreement - so that statement can't be fairly made. Anyway, using the word support in this context, always requires careful clarification I think. Before the war, the Nazis faced sanctions from countries disgusted at their treatment of the Jews. This agreement, gave them a counter position to hide behind to some extent. They later showed that they didn't support anything Jewish in the most tragic of ways!

    But this is a complex subject and it is good people try to understand it. Many throwing the biggest stones don't. The Nazis were vile scum and their crimes against the Jews were crimes against humanity. Yes, there were Zionists that saw an opportunity to further their cause, but at the time most Jews were not Zionists and even a lot of those that were did not support doing deals with them. It was a very divisive agreement and I think one of the Jewish signers of it was assassinated By fellow Jews which illustrates this.
  • LenGlover said:

    SDAddick said:

    In The Silk Roads - A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan the writer says a bit about this in the chapter entitled The Road to Genocide. The author writes (I have paraphrased occasionally) "In fact, and perversely, Hitler had been championing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine for the best part of two decades" . Albert Eichmann who was later executed in Israel, led a high level mission to meet Zionist agents in Palestine about increasing emigration to the region. Something that seemed to be in the interests of both parties, no agreement was ever reached.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern creator of Lehi or the Stern Gang sent a message to a senior German diplomat in Beirut with a radical proposal including "If aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised" (whom Stern purported to represent) Lehi, "would actively take part in the war on the German side". Frankopan goes on to say that this was all bluster and Stern was being pragmatic and wasn't even supported by all of his own organisation. But his idea was that he Jews would obtain a state, the Germans would be rid of an important British base in the ME and they would solve the 'Jewish question' in Europe.

    Sources quoted include: Eichmann: His Life and Crimes D. Cesarani
    The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940 - 1949 J.Heller
    The Palestinian Problem in German Politics, 1889 - 1945 D. Yisraeli

    It says a lot more and I recommend the whole book for anybody wanting to read a fairly broad sweep of history with links/sources to more detail.

    In my opinion it is clear that Hitler did not support Zionism but he wanted to be rid of the Jews and steal their land, factories and possessions and any deal with Stern would facilitate this. But there is enough evidence to say that at one point 'forced' migration was considered. Stern were not some small group and included amongst its members Yitzhak Shamir and other founding fathers of modern Israel. A case of my enemies enemy is my friend.

    Livingstone, I presume, was trying to make this point but either cocked it up really badly or was deliberately vindictive. Truth is he has been going off on his own tangent for sometime and ceased being relevant about 20 years ago.

    As others have said there is no doubt that he was being chased with a big stick for some time and seemed happy to run right into it.

    So I think this does the best job of summing up both the background and historical context to the situation and points out, as I understand it, what Livingstone was trying to allude to and as Cordoban points out he either fucks it up or lets his prejudice seep in.

    In lieu of that, I'd like to propose a third category to "Racist/Not Racist" which I call "Dumb." The "Dumb" category is used where something bad is said and you could spend hours going back and forth on whether it was ignorant or malicious because it's hard to tell even with context. So instead, you put it in the "Dumb" category and move on with your life. It's the category where the person would have been better off saying nothing, because even in the best scenario, it's a dumb argument. Most arguments that invoke Hitler belong in this category.

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    Just like those from 'the left would' if, say, Jacob Rees- Mogg**, made a crass remark about Muslims.....

    ** For the record I am no particular fan of Rees- Mogg but he does appear to be a Tory to particularly wind 'the left' up presently hence selecting him.

    It is 'the left' who first endorsed political correctness and have mercilessly employed it to suppress 'off message' opinions. Therefore 'the left' cannot protest when their tactics are employed against them for once.

    Well actually they can because true socialism / communism is inherently authoritarian philosophically speaking and can best be described as do what I say not what I do.
    And when I'm Communist Supreme Commander I'll ban things like calling Socialism and Communism inherently authoritarian.
  • edited May 2018

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    You couldn't be a bit more patronising could you?
    Proposal not accepted on my part, but please feel free to move on.

    If I'm being patronizing to anyone surely it's Ken Livingstone.

    You could replace the word "Dumb" with ill-informed or ill-conceived or potentially bigoted.

    The point I'm trying to make is I don't think this is the hill to die on. I think there are far better things to base the argument of "Does Labour have an antisemitism problem?" I think there are far better things to base the question of "is Ken Livingstone antisemitic," like, things he's said in the past. I don't understand why this is the be all end all, apart from political expediency.
  • SDAddick said:

    So I would like to propose we put these specific remarks in the "Dumb" category and move on.
    You couldn't be a bit more patronising could you?
    Proposal not accepted on my part, but please feel free to move on.

    If I'm being patronizing to anyone surely it's Ken Livingstone.

    You could replace the word "Dumb" with ill-informed or ill-conceived or potentially bigoted.

    The point I'm trying to make is I don't think this is the hill to die on. I think there are far better things to base the argument of "Does Labour have an antisemitism problem?" I think there are far better things to base the question of "is Ken Livingstone antisemitic," like, things he's said in the past. I don't understand why this is the be all end all, apart from political expediency.
    Labour's support of Palestinians, conemnation of Israel will always lead to allegations of anti-semetism, more so with a leftish leadership. The BoD and JLC have been at the fore recently but neither have condemned Israeli land grabs or the recent spate of deaths and injuries. Ironically leading the clamour of the Labour AS campaign are the Mail and Express who supported Moseley's jew hating fascists.
  • I honestly don't think Ken Livingstone is anti-semitic. One of the things that annoy the left is the positions people take with no real knowledge, study or thought for a subject. They have their position because they are manipulated into having it by others. Anybody on here who actually thinks Corbyn is anti-semitic falls into that category because he is the opposite.

    The point I think Livingstone was trying to make was that these subjects are more complicated and less black and white than people seem to make them. The problem was, in doing so, he was guilty of doing this himself. And seeing what happened to the Jews under the Nazis it was crass, insensitive and offensive.

    Some of the young and angry, and not so young look at the story of Israel and can't get over the injustice. Let's be honest, a people were kicked out of their country and oppressed, because of what is written in the Bible. Of course there were other factors, such as an empathy for the most terrible of crimes committed against the Jews. These crimes convinced people that they needed a homeland where they could not be oppressed. And of course, there was Jewish terrorism that was fighting for a homeland. But they have to get over it!

    The solution is not to look back, but to look forwards. Peace can be achieved - not with the current Jewish government but definitely with a future one. You only have to look at the Eurovision Song Contest to see the progressive elements in Israel's young. Anger causes deaths and both sides need to move closer and solutions can be found. The west needs to be a broker for a lasting peace. Everybody has to accept that the Jewish state cannot be undone and has a right to exist. From that point, a way has to be found for it to exist in peace.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!