What I think history does tell us was that before the war in Nazi Germany there was disagreement within some parts of the Jewish Community, and some ardent Zionists saw the opportunity to help reach their goals through the Nazis. These were a minority and angered many Jews.
But the Nazis always hated Jews and were abusing them, killing them and robbing them of all their possessions and were trying to kick them out of the country. Their motivation was not Zionism, but unjust hatred of Jews and Livingstone was completely out of order implying something different.
I'm keeping a tally of people saying that this proves Corbyn is a racist
I certainly don’t think Corbyn is actually racist. But I do think he is very conflicted over a number of issues - the behaviour of Israel’s government being the most apposite example, given his long-time support for the Palestinians. When Corbyn is conflicted he seems to be unable to act and such inaction means journalists jump to conclusions. What Corbyn should have been doing is going full-out on the record about where he stands on many issues - Livingstone, anti-semitism within the Labour Party generally, Brexit.... and if he is going on the record he needs a new press team who are clearly incapable of getting his point into the media.
Livingstone probably has been able to avoid getting the boot from Labour because his argument is that journalists have emphasised incorrectly what he said. He should have made that clear at the time - but as is the case with Red Ken, why be awkward when with a little more effort you can be bloody impossible.
Corbyn probably should have made Livingstone the cause of the issue from the very off
Referring to the holocaust when talking about israel or Zionism is about as low and insensitive as you can get. It’s like saying there were slave owners who did give black people a decent life and they weren’t all terrible and black people should actually be grateful to those nicer slave owners.
Criticism of the government of Israel’s policies is not being an “anti zionist”, it’s being a fully functioning, critical thinking human being. Being an “anti Zionist” means you’re vehemently against the state of Israel existing full stop. Zionism is fundamental to a lot of jews’ faith. Much like the idea of paradise is fundamental to
I certainly don’t think Corbyn is actually racist. But I do think he is very conflicted over a number of issues - the behaviour of Israel’s government being the most apposite example, given his long-time support for the Palestinians. When Corbyn is conflicted he seems to be unable to act and such inaction means journalists jump to conclusions. What Corbyn should have been doing is going full-out on the record about where he stands on many issues - Livingstone, anti-semitism within the Labour Party generally, Brexit.... and if he is going on the record he needs a new press team who are clearly incapable of getting his point into the media.
Livingstone probably has been able to avoid getting the boot from Labour because his argument is that journalists have emphasised incorrectly what he said. He should have made that clear at the time - but as is the case with Red Ken, why be awkward when with a little more effort you can be bloody impossible.
Corbyn probably should have made Livingstone the cause of the issue from the very off - not the Labour Party - to avoid the fallout that’s happened.
Well, exactly, Corbyn doesn’t show leadership when the party needs it. What’s worse is that he clearly doesn’t like or doesn’t want to criticise any of his friends, and a lot of his friends are hard left nutcases.
Worth remembering there are plenty of Israelis who are critical of the Israeli government and some of its policies. We don't often get to hear their voices. They know that there can't be peace in the region without a better deal for the Palestinians.
I agree, but it’s also worth noting the Palestinians have been offered a better deal.. multiple times.
Really? That's a very bias and anti-semitic view. The myth of Camp David 2000 was not an offer many semites would have accepted. Barack offered limited dismantling on the West Bank, whilst allowing the building of more settlements on the West Bank than any Israeli PM before or indeed after for many years.
I'm not sure if Livingstone's comments in isolation are anti-semitic. But taken together over time they start to form such a myopic ridiculous presentation of history, that his judgement on the situation is close to and has very real anti-semitic consequences.
“It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.
His actual quote. I think he was re-quoting the Israeli PM. Not reported by most of the press. How many people commenting on here have actually read it? If that is a critisim or lack of respect to Jews, can someone explain. Or have I missed some more anti-semetic comments? All on the left are critical of the insipid Israeli regime, the right wing Tory Press who in the 30s supported Moseley and Hitler are throwing mud and some is sticking. The BoD and JCL (land grab apologists) that Corbyn met wanted him to agree to the IHRA defenition of anti-semtism that gave Israel carte-blanche to persecute Palestinians. They rightly refused while accepting the main defenition.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Hitler and the nazis decimated the Jewish population of Europe. There are individuals still alive today who remember their family being torn apart and having to hide or run from the nazis. Zionism is a key part of some Jews faith, and who’s popularity exploded after the events of the holocaust. To say Hitler, the man who has and continues to inflict a huge amount of pain on Jews was a supporter or supported something that some feel is fundamental to their faith that he wanted to destroy is grossly disrespectful and offensive. I refer to my comparison before, it’s like saying white people saved Africans who were being sold into slavery by their fellow Africans by giving them shelter and work in the southern United States.
The “then he went mad..” sticks the knife in as well, hitler had a long history of anti semtism and anti Semitic policies and speeches before he won the election. The reason he didn’t kill all those Jews immediately was simply because there wasn’t the infrastructure in place to do it.
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.
The Israeli right is what I, and I think everyone here has a problem with, and they’ve been in control of the Israeli governments for decades.
“It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.
His actual quote. I think he was re-quoting the Israeli PM. Not reported by most of the press. How many people commenting on here have actually read it? If that is a critisim or lack of respect to Jews, can someone explain. Or have I missed some more anti-semetic comments? All on the left are critical of the insipid Israeli regime, the right wing Tory Press who in the 30s supported Moseley and Hitler are throwing mud and some is sticking. The BoD and JCL (land grab apologists) that Corbyn met wanted him to agree to the IHRA defenition of anti-semtism that gave Israel carte-blanche to persecute Palestinians. They rightly refused while accepting the main defenition.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Hitler and the nazis decimated the Jewish population of Europe. There are individuals still alive today who remember their family being torn apart and having to hide or run from the nazis. Zionism is a key part of some Jews faith, and who’s popularity exploded after the events of the holocaust. To say Hitler, the man who has and continues to inflict a huge amount of pain on Jews was a supporter or supported something that some feel is fundamental to their faith that he wanted to destroy is grossly disrespectful and offensive. I refer to my comparison before, it’s like saying white people saved Africans who were being sold into slavery by their fellow Africans by giving them shelter and work in the southern United States.
The “then he went mad..” sticks the knife in as well, hitler had a long history of anti semtism and anti Semitic policies and speeches before he won the election. The reason he didn’t kill all those Jews immediately was simply because there wasn’t the infrastructure in place to do it.
Totally incorrect, he wanted the Jews as slave labour, so he could build the Third Reich to be even bigger, of course ultimately he wanted the demise of the Jewish population, still even blaming them for all that was bad in the world in his final statement the day before he shot himself.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
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.
“It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.
His actual quote. I think he was re-quoting the Israeli PM. Not reported by most of the press. How many people commenting on here have actually read it? If that is a critisim or lack of respect to Jews, can someone explain. Or have I missed some more anti-semetic comments? All on the left are critical of the insipid Israeli regime, the right wing Tory Press who in the 30s supported Moseley and Hitler are throwing mud and some is sticking. The BoD and JCL (land grab apologists) that Corbyn met wanted him to agree to the IHRA defenition of anti-semtism that gave Israel carte-blanche to persecute Palestinians. They rightly refused while accepting the main defenition.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Hitler and the nazis decimated the Jewish population of Europe. There are individuals still alive today who remember their family being torn apart and having to hide or run from the nazis. Zionism is a key part of some Jews faith, and who’s popularity exploded after the events of the holocaust. To say Hitler, the man who has and continues to inflict a huge amount of pain on Jews was a supporter or supported something that some feel is fundamental to their faith that he wanted to destroy is grossly disrespectful and offensive. I refer to my comparison before, it’s like saying white people saved Africans who were being sold into slavery by their fellow Africans by giving them shelter and work in the southern United States.
The “then he went mad..” sticks the knife in as well, hitler had a long history of anti semtism and anti Semitic policies and speeches before he won the election. The reason he didn’t kill all those Jews immediately was simply because there wasn’t the infrastructure in place to do it.
Totally incorrect, he wanted the Jews as slave labour, so he could build the Third Reich to be even bigger, of course ultimately he wanted the demise of the Jewish population, still even blaming them for all that was bad in the world in his final statement the day before he shot himself.
You are both right. The original plan was to use as labour, stealing assets followed by deportation/migration. What the Germans realised very quickly was that having gathered everybody in one place it was cheaper and easier to murder everybody. They also did this with the Slavs the imprisoned as they couldn't afford to feed them.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
I don't disagree with your stats and how badly the other majority Muslim states behaved is a whole new can of worms, there is an excellent book... ...but I can't remember the name of it.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
I think Zionism is not inherently part of the Jewish faith. In fact it's origins were not religious, were relatively recent and many deeply religious Jews actually oppose it. It is something many Christians believe in for religious reasons. It is a very complex subject that I can't honestly say I have a firm grip of! I try to wrestle with it though as we all should.
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.
I think you are probably right and he was trying to make this point, but he did it in a lazy way that was offensive to the memory of those who lost their lives and suffered at the hands of the Nazis.He crossed the line of decency.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
I don't disagree with your stats and how badly the other majority Muslim states behaved is a whole new can of worms, there is an excellent book... ...but I can't remember the name of it.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
That is a false analogy. France was a long standing state with clear borders.
Palestine wasn't a state and had never been in recent history, if at all. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and then was a UN mandate run by the British. It had both an Arab and Jewish population (among others).
Was the two state option a perfect solution? No, but it was a reasonable and workable compromise that could have worked. Israel becomes the state it is because the "drive them into the sea" view of the Arab League and the wars of 1948, 67 and 73 which handed power to the right wing who could call for harsh policies because of the very real threat from the neighbouring states.
Tellingly, the Syrian and Iranian attack on the largely Palestinian surburb of Yarmouk, leading to many deaths, has drawn no outrage from the left, IMHO because it was Syria ("he's a doctor, how could he kill people?") not Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinians are being sidelined by the Saudis who are more concerned with good relations with the US and fighting their "real" enemies, the Iranians. So the Saudis move slowly to an understanding with Israel living the poor Palastinians, who are very much the victims, nowhere when they could have had their own state 70 years ago.
I used to really admire Livingstone when I was in my teens and he was leader of the GLC and stood up for people. His actions over the last 20 odd years have trashed that. He's an experienced politician who at least in his early days was good at dealing with the media. He should have known to phrase his thoughts better, particularly as he has got form (the concentration camp jibe at the reporter, for example). There were contacts between the nazis and some Zionists in the 30s. It's a stick that's been used to beat Zionism with for many years, but the poor judgement and opportunism of some (not all) Zionists is so out of proportion to what else happened and I don't think Livingstone gave anywhere near enough context to his remarks. This would be excusable in someone who was new to politics, but frankly it isn't with Livingstone. It's worth noting that Jewdas, the lefty Jewish group who Corbyn met, do think Livingstone has a case to answer and called for his expulsion from Labour.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
I don't disagree with your stats and how badly the other majority Muslim states behaved is a whole new can of worms, there is an excellent book... ...but I can't remember the name of it.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
That is a false analogy. France was a long standing state with clear borders.
Palestine wasn't a state and had never been in recent history, if at all. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and then was a UN mandate run by the British. It had both an Arab and Jewish population (among others).
Was the two state option a perfect solution? No, but it was a reasonable and workable compromise that could have worked. Israel becomes the state it is because the "drive them into the sea" view of the Arab League and the wars of 1948, 67 and 73 which handed power to the right wing who could call for harsh policies because of the very real threat from the neighbouring states.
Tellingly, the Syrian and Iranian attack on the largely Palestinian surburb of Yarmouk, leading to many deaths, has drawn no outrage from the left, IMHO because it was Syria ("he's a doctor, how could he kill people?") not Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinians are being sidelined by the Saudis who are more concerned with good relations with the US and fighting their "real" enemies, the Iranians. So the Saudis move slowly to an understanding with Israel living the poor Palastinians, who are very much the victims, nowhere when they could have had their own state 70 years ago.
So can we agree that the Palestinians are being f****d from all sides?
I don't think it is a false analogy as my point was that a 'two state solution' clearly felt unfair to Palestinians. Perhaps we can use Kurdistan as an acceptable reference?
You are right the "drive them into the sea" attitude has forged the modern Israeli state but that does not give Israel a free pass on all actions committed past, present and future. Israel should be challenged on its actions just as any country should be.
Has the attack on Yarmouk drawn much outrage from anywhere? There have been atrocities all over the world where largely Muslim populations have been killed with barely a whimper in the press in the UK and at the moment their seems to be a particular desensitised attitude to anything in Syria involving refugees.
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Even so, it doesn’t mean Corbyn should be defended on the occasions where he is in the wrong.
It's obvious to everybody that Ken Livingstone isn't a racist but he is a crank so Labour are well rid!
I think most people would concede he had two pretty successful terms as Mayor of London. Being the leader of a major world city requires a slightly broader skill set than being a "crank" ( cues Boris Johnson jokes)
I think Zionism is not inherently part of the Jewish faith. In fact it's origins were not religious, were relatively recent and many deeply religious Jews actually oppose it. It is something many Christians believe in for religious reasons. It is a very complex subject that I can't honestly say I have a firm grip of! I try to wrestle with it though as we all should.
it's inherently part of some jews' faith. That's why you should be mindful.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
I don't disagree with your stats and how badly the other majority Muslim states behaved is a whole new can of worms, there is an excellent book... ...but I can't remember the name of it.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
That is a false analogy. France was a long standing state with clear borders.
Palestine wasn't a state and had never been in recent history, if at all. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and then was a UN mandate run by the British. It had both an Arab and Jewish population (among others).
Was the two state option a perfect solution? No, but it was a reasonable and workable compromise that could have worked. Israel becomes the state it is because the "drive them into the sea" view of the Arab League and the wars of 1948, 67 and 73 which handed power to the right wing who could call for harsh policies because of the very real threat from the neighbouring states.
Tellingly, the Syrian and Iranian attack on the largely Palestinian surburb of Yarmouk, leading to many deaths, has drawn no outrage from the left, IMHO because it was Syria ("he's a doctor, how could he kill people?") not Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinians are being sidelined by the Saudis who are more concerned with good relations with the US and fighting their "real" enemies, the Iranians. So the Saudis move slowly to an understanding with Israel living the poor Palastinians, who are very much the victims, nowhere when they could have had their own state 70 years ago.
So can we agree that the Palestinians are being f****d from all sides?
Yes but not just by Israel who at least have the legitimate defence that they are under attack. Doesn't justify all their actions but it's a fact.
I don't think it is a false analogy as my point was that a 'two state solution' clearly felt unfair to Palestinians. Perhaps we can use Kurdistan as an acceptable reference?
Kurdistan doesn't exist although I feel it should. Fact is there could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 but that was blocked by the Arab Palestinians and the other Arab states, not Israel.
You are right the "drive them into the sea" attitude has forged the modern Israeli state but that does not give Israel a free pass on all actions committed past, present and future. Israel should be challenged on its actions just as any country should be.
Absolutely but when people on the left deny Israel the right to exist, which is what their Anti-zionism means, what room is there for negotiation?
Has the attack on Yarmouk drawn much outrage from anywhere? There have been atrocities all over the world where largely Muslim populations have been killed with barely a whimper in the press in the UK and at the moment their seems to be a particular desensitised attitude to anything in Syria involving refugees.
No it hasn't but if it had been Israel the Corbynista left would have been screaming about it and using it as an excuse to attack ANY Jew in the UK regardless of whether they support Isreal's actions. But Syria are "good" as they are anti US so they say nothing.
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Even so, it doesn’t mean Corbyn should be defended on the occasions where he is in the wrong.
But given the negative media coverage by the state controlled Tory media, who do you know he is wrong, how do you know Corbyn didn't insist that Red Ken 'resign'?
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Same for nearly every Labour leader but if the right wing media is hitting you round the head with a big stick then do something about the stick.
Instead the left just try to pretend the stick doesn't exist. But it does and it won't go away unless Jeremy Corbyn actually makes a difficult decision, something to appears incapable of doing on this Brexit, Russia or anything else.
Exactly. He seems to be perfectly capable of having a position on something he’s had for 30 odd years but seems completely incapable of showing leadership and leading by making difficult decisions. He’s obviously flimsy and the people he surrounds himself with have openly (and continue) to say they wish to completely destroy our current society.
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Same for nearly every Labour leader but if the right wing media is hitting you round the head with a big stick then do something about the stick.
Instead the left just try to pretend the stick doesn't exist. But it does and it won't go away unless Jeremy Corbyn actually makes a difficult decision, something to appears incapable of doing on this Brexit, Russia or anything else.
Exactly. He seems to be perfectly capable of having a position on something he’s had for 30 odd years but seems completely incapable of showing leadership and leading by making difficult decisions. He’s obviously flimsy and the people he surrounds himself with have openly (and continue) to say they wish to completely destroy our current society.
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Same for nearly every Labour leader but if the right wing media is hitting you round the head with a big stick then do something about the stick.
Instead the left just try to pretend the stick doesn't exist. But it does and it won't go away unless Jeremy Corbyn actually makes a difficult decision, something to appears incapable of doing on this Brexit, Russia or anything else.
Exactly. He seems to be perfectly capable of having a position on something he’s had for 30 odd years but seems completely incapable of showing leadership and leading by making difficult decisions. He’s obviously flimsy and the people he surrounds himself with have openly (and continue) to say they wish to completely destroy our current society.
So you dont want a fairer share of the wealth then? You want the already rich, who have got richer during the 10 years of austerity that you and me and the majority of people have paid for, to get even richer? Really?
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Same for nearly every Labour leader but if the right wing media is hitting you round the head with a big stick then do something about the stick.
Instead the left just try to pretend the stick doesn't exist. But it does and it won't go away unless Jeremy Corbyn actually makes a difficult decision, something to appears incapable of doing on this Brexit, Russia or anything else.
Exactly. He seems to be perfectly capable of having a position on something he’s had for 30 odd years but seems completely incapable of showing leadership and leading by making difficult decisions. He’s obviously flimsy and the people he surrounds himself with have openly (and continue) to say they wish to completely destroy our current society.
So you dont want a fairer share of the wealth then? You want the already rich, who have got richer during the 10 years of austerity that you and me and the majority of people have paid for, to get even richer? Really?
straw man argument.
Name a socialist country that has made everyone richer. If you name a scandanavian country 1, they are not socialist, they are democratic socialist, 2, their economy is heavily subsidised by the oil industry.
Personally I'd argue we don't live in a capitalist society, but more corporatist one.
oh wow, has corbyn resigned? Thought this thread was on livingstone.
Read the thread and you'll find out.
i see, ken saying hitler was a zionist and making the link between zionism and nazis is just a media conspiracy.
Like I say read the thread.
i still don't see what you think is a media conspiracy. I would have thought the entire issue of anti semitism (and the fact conspiracy theories regularly use anti semitism) would make you re-think that everything is just a conspiracy against corbyn.
No it doesn't mate, the media are out for Corbyn whilst protecting May and her turds, its obvious to a blind man. As for Livingstone he is and has always been a sh!t stirrer and loves Ken Livingstone more than the Labour party.
Same for nearly every Labour leader but if the right wing media is hitting you round the head with a big stick then do something about the stick.
Instead the left just try to pretend the stick doesn't exist. But it does and it won't go away unless Jeremy Corbyn actually makes a difficult decision, something to appears incapable of doing on this Brexit, Russia or anything else.
Exactly. He seems to be perfectly capable of having a position on something he’s had for 30 odd years but seems completely incapable of showing leadership and leading by making difficult decisions. He’s obviously flimsy and the people he surrounds himself with have openly (and continue) to say they wish to completely destroy our current society.
Mutley. What was offensive in what Livingstone said?
He said that Hitler supported Zionism. Apart from there being no evidence for this and much evidence to the contrary, this was the person responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews - women and children included. I find that deeply offensive. Had he explained in more detail and not tried to make it a clever dick point scoring statement I may have been more sympathetic - but he didn't and he has deserved what he got.
I absolutely condemn some of the actions of Israel and its treatment of Palestinian. Some do many Jews in Israel and beyond.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
I don't disagree with your stats and how badly the other majority Muslim states behaved is a whole new can of worms, there is an excellent book... ...but I can't remember the name of it.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
That is a false analogy. France was a long standing state with clear borders.
Palestine wasn't a state and had never been in recent history, if at all. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and then was a UN mandate run by the British. It had both an Arab and Jewish population (among others).
Was the two state option a perfect solution? No, but it was a reasonable and workable compromise that could have worked. Israel becomes the state it is because the "drive them into the sea" view of the Arab League and the wars of 1948, 67 and 73 which handed power to the right wing who could call for harsh policies because of the very real threat from the neighbouring states.
Tellingly, the Syrian and Iranian attack on the largely Palestinian surburb of Yarmouk, leading to many deaths, has drawn no outrage from the left, IMHO because it was Syria ("he's a doctor, how could he kill people?") not Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinians are being sidelined by the Saudis who are more concerned with good relations with the US and fighting their "real" enemies, the Iranians. So the Saudis move slowly to an understanding with Israel living the poor Palastinians, who are very much the victims, nowhere when they could have had their own state 70 years ago.
So can we agree that the Palestinians are being f****d from all sides?
Yes but not just by Israel who at least have the legitimate defence that they are under attack. Doesn't justify all their actions but it's a fact.
Yes and Hamas deserve criticism for their role in all this as well. But I would like to see more of a proportionate response from Israel.
I don't think it is a false analogy as my point was that a 'two state solution' clearly felt unfair to Palestinians. Perhaps we can use Kurdistan as an acceptable reference?
Kurdistan doesn't exist although I feel it should. Fact is there could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 but that was blocked by the Arab Palestinians and the other Arab states, not Israel.
But the two state solution clearly was not viable for one of the sides and was therefore not a solution.
You are right the "drive them into the sea" attitude has forged the modern Israeli state but that does not give Israel a free pass on all actions committed past, present and future. Israel should be challenged on its actions just as any country should be.
Absolutely but when people on the left deny Israel the right to exist, which is what their Anti-zionism means, what room is there for negotiation?
I support the right for Israel to exist and I am left wing but I believe a lot of what Israel does is open to criticism. Gerald Kaufman and George Soros have criticised the modern state of Israel and have been called anti-semitic by some. Many on the right do of course deny Israel the right to exist.
Has the attack on Yarmouk drawn much outrage from anywhere? There have been atrocities all over the world where largely Muslim populations have been killed with barely a whimper in the press in the UK and at the moment their seems to be a particular desensitised attitude to anything in Syria involving refugees.
No it hasn't but if it had been Israel the Corbynista left would have been screaming about it and using it as an excuse to attack ANY Jew in the UK regardless of whether they support Isreal's actions. But Syria are "good" as they are anti US so they say nothing.
I think that is your opinion, rather than based in any fact.
Zionism, a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Cordoban's links suggest that was what the Nazis spent some years investigating and supporting. It is a political movement. The slaughter of Jews in WWII was horrific, but nowhere does Livingstone condone it.
Comments
But the Nazis always hated Jews and were abusing them, killing them and robbing them of all their possessions and were trying to kick them out of the country. Their motivation was not Zionism, but unjust hatred of Jews and Livingstone was completely out of order implying something different.
I'm not sure if Livingstone's comments in isolation are anti-semitic. But taken together over time they start to form such a myopic ridiculous presentation of history, that his judgement on the situation is close to and has very real anti-semitic consequences.
Hitler and the nazis decimated the Jewish population of Europe. There are individuals still alive today who remember their family being torn apart and having to hide or run from the nazis. Zionism is a key part of some Jews faith, and who’s popularity exploded after the events of the holocaust. To say Hitler, the man who has and continues to inflict a huge amount of pain on Jews was a supporter or supported something that some feel is fundamental to their faith that he wanted to destroy is grossly disrespectful and offensive. I refer to my comparison before, it’s like saying white people saved Africans who were being sold into slavery by their fellow Africans by giving them shelter and work in the southern United States.
The “then he went mad..” sticks the knife in as well, hitler had a long history of anti semtism and anti Semitic policies and speeches before he won the election. The reason he didn’t kill all those Jews immediately was simply because there wasn’t the infrastructure in place to do it.
That is nothing to do with the Antisemitism in the Labour party and it doesn't excuse antisemitism in the labour party any more than ISIS attacks excuse Islamophobic abuse of ordinary law abiding Muslims in the UK.
But while we're giving history lessons Most people don't know and many on the left don't want to know that there was a two state solution in 1948.
The UN set up two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian.
The Jewish authorities accepted this. The Arab states and Arab League didn't and so started a war to "drive the Jews into the sea".
The Arab states, Jordan, Syria, occupied those part of the Palestinian states that hadn't been captured by Israel when they won the war.
Around 700k Palestinian were displaced, many after having been told by the Arab League to evacuate their homes as they could move back once all the Jews had been driven out. Around 700k Jews in Arab states left or were driven out after 1948 and moved to Israel.
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.
But say WW2 ends without resolution. Would France have agreed to a two state solution where they were left with just the Vichy territories?
That is a false analogy. France was a long standing state with clear borders.
Palestine wasn't a state and had never been in recent history, if at all. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 and then was a UN mandate run by the British. It had both an Arab and Jewish population (among others).
Was the two state option a perfect solution? No, but it was a reasonable and workable compromise that could have worked. Israel becomes the state it is because the "drive them into the sea" view of the Arab League and the wars of 1948, 67 and 73 which handed power to the right wing who could call for harsh policies because of the very real threat from the neighbouring states.
Tellingly, the Syrian and Iranian attack on the largely Palestinian surburb of Yarmouk, leading to many deaths, has drawn no outrage from the left, IMHO because it was Syria ("he's a doctor, how could he kill people?") not Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinians are being sidelined by the Saudis who are more concerned with good relations with the US and fighting their "real" enemies, the Iranians. So the Saudis move slowly to an understanding with Israel living the poor Palastinians, who are very much the victims, nowhere when they could have had their own state 70 years ago.
It's worth noting that Jewdas, the lefty Jewish group who Corbyn met, do think Livingstone has a case to answer and called for his expulsion from Labour.
I don't think it is a false analogy as my point was that a 'two state solution' clearly felt unfair to Palestinians. Perhaps we can use Kurdistan as an acceptable reference?
You are right the "drive them into the sea" attitude has forged the modern Israeli state but that does not give Israel a free pass on all actions committed past, present and future. Israel should be challenged on its actions just as any country should be.
Has the attack on Yarmouk drawn much outrage from anywhere? There have been atrocities all over the world where largely Muslim populations have been killed with barely a whimper in the press in the UK and at the moment their seems to be a particular desensitised attitude to anything in Syria involving refugees.
I agree that at the moment we are seeing the playing out (although that is not to suggest that we are in anyway entering the end game) of Saudi and Iranian rivalries with the all the regional consequences that might bring. Haaretz had an article on it yesterday https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/middle-east-conflicts-no-longer-focus-on-israel-palestine-it-s-all-about-iran-vs-saudi-1.6110018 alternatively Al Jezeera also report on it.
This is worth reading: https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/05/17/corbynomics-would-change-britain-but-not-in-the-way-most-people-think
from the horses mouth.
Name a socialist country that has made everyone richer. If you name a scandanavian country 1, they are not socialist, they are democratic socialist, 2, their economy is heavily subsidised by the oil industry.
Personally I'd argue we don't live in a capitalist society, but more corporatist one.