Sometimes politicians can be very insulting. Yesterday the Labour MP John Mann was very insulting to Ken Livingstone, when he called him a disgusting anti-Semite and berated him in full finger-wagging, loud-shouting mode as the TV cameras rolled. The Labour candidate for Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said there could be no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn said something similar. Oh, and Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party.
So there were plenty of insults flying the direction of Mr Livingstone. There were, however, a helluva lot more insults flying in the direction of the British public. Let me explain.
If you’re going to call someone insulting names, particularly if those names label the person anti-Jewish (or anti-Irish or anti-British or any other kind of anti-) , you need to be sure that the insults are based on something substantial. What were the insults against Livingstone based on? Something he said. Which was: “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.”
Given the frenzied reaction to his words, it’s important to establish if they were true. It would appear that they were. Hitler personally approved what was called the ‘Transfer Agreement’ with the world Zionist movement for the transfer of Jews from Germany to Palestine. Germany wanted to get rid of the Jews, the Zionist movement wanted to establish a home in Palestine. Eichmann and other Nazi officials visited Palestine. A medal was struck commemorating such a visit. When hiding in Argentina post- WW2, Eichmann wrote:
“I did see enough to be very impressed by the way Jewish colonists were building up their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I was myself an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable.”
What is appalling and an insult to the intelligence of the British public is that none of the Labour MPs and others who branded Livingstone anti-Jewish for what he said bothered to consider if what he said was true. They still haven’t. It’s an example of what Robert Ballagh in the Irish context calls ‘trigger-words’. Say “United Ireland” and for many people that’s it, the shutters come down and you’re branded. That’s exactly what happened with the Labour Party yesterday. Livingstone was suspended, not because what he said happened to be true, but because the Labour Party was hyper-anxious to respond to the irrational attacks that the Tory Party might mount in the local elections next week.
Latest results from British politics: Hysteria 1, Rational Argument 0.
Spot on Jude, excellent analysis, every word indisputable truth. First it was Socialism and threats to national security, next it was the IRA then Chairman Mao and now Hitler……Also Ive heard that Corbyn was responsible for making wagon wheels smaller and may well have shot JFK, sorry, definitely shot JFK…….heard the head of the board of deputies on R4 this morning giving out, I wasn’t convinced that he believed what he was saying himself…..its almost as if the debate and situation needs to move on beyond name calling and cliché but if it were to do so certain positions might just crumble – so its a hold our ground and repeat ourselves over and over kinda gig……depressingly familiar stuff.
Grma, Barry – depressing and familiar are the words…
So was Ken just providing us with a history lesson from his mid-twentieth century studies Jude or was he telling us that Zionists are the same as Nazis because a Nazi approved of Israel (as a place to dump Jews)?
I thought you were generally against damnation by association. Were you not telling Gio off for it the other day?
Yes I would say that damning by association is wrong. That’s why I think those who condemned Jeremy Corbyn for talking to republicans ‘way back are wrong, and those who condemn him likewise for associating with groups from the Middle East. No, I don’t think Ken was offering a history lesson – I think he was drawing attention to the complexity of the history of Israel. It wasn’t Israel ‘as a place to dump Jews’ – Jews wanted to establish a homeland in Palestine and that happened to suit Germans/Nazis as well. That does appear to be a historical fact and I’m pointing out how people didn’t dispute the facts of the case, they began to chant ‘Anti-Zionist!’ That’s mob reaction. And finally, I’d never have the nerve to tell gio off about anything. I’d sometimes disagree but I don’t have a death-wish…
He tells me off for so many things you cannot expect him to remember them all!
Personally I don’t think Livingstone’s remarks were anti-semitic, but they were certainly insensitive and you have to wonder why he made such a comparison.
It would be like telling a group of republicans from Drogheda, how much they had in common with Cromwell.
What Zionist Israelis are doing to Palestinians is every bit as evil and hateful and inhuman as what Nazis did to European Jews.
Zionists were and are evil-minded terrorists to a man jack of them.
Israel stole the land which rightfully belongs to the Palestinians.
What Nazis did to Europe’s Jews was vile and disgusting.
But humans have been doing the very same thing for the entirety of their history.
So it wasn’t unheard of.
But it didn’t (and doesn’t) entitle Jews to a ‘homeland’ that they never owned in the first place, or to steal other people’s lands (in exactly the same fashion as murdering Irish people and purloining their property, livelihoods and lands never entitled the scumbag Scottish who did it to our people during the plantation in Ulster to a ‘country’ of their ‘own’ just for being Protestant, sectarian, supremacist white trash who thought/think they’re better than Irish people).
There was NEVER, in history, a Jewish state before the US and the British decided that the killing of Palestinians (by the hundreds of thousands) by Israelis was acceptable, morally upright behaviour, carried out in furtherance of a good ’cause’.
Jude, I think the title of your article was intended in the form of sarcasm.
But if I am wrong and you are really labelling him an ‘anti-semite’, you are 100% incorrect.
What he said was in NO WAY anti-semitic.
It was historically and factually accurate.
Jews may not like what he said, but it’ll harden them.
The fact is, Hitler DID support Zionism before he changed his mind and opted for the ‘Final Solution’.
How, exactly, is saying so ‘anti-semitic’?
It is a fact that Britain, during its empire period, exterminated more millions of people than even the most demented Nazi would have dreamed of doing.
Is pointing out that fact ‘anti-British’?
(It will, of course, bring local unionists to a screaming frenzy, but I don’t care what unionists think).
Is pointing out the fact that the US has also exterminated millions of innocent people as a matter of ‘foreign policy’ since 1945 to be labelled ‘anti-American’ also?
It is NOT anti-semitic to decry and denounce the hateful, inhuman violence of Israeli blow-ins towards the Palestinians, the rightful owners of the land.
It is the duty of every right-thinking person.
Read about the ‘Goyim’ to see EXACTLY what Jews in Israel (and perhaps outwith it) think of EVERYONE who is not a Jew.
Thought the Muslims were bad? Wait till you read how Jews think about you!
Like their Muslim extremist cohorts, you will see that they (non-Jews) are referred to in less than salutary fashion and as nothing better than the slaves of the Jewish master race.
Of course, like extremist Muslims and Ulster loyalists, they also relish the opportunity of wading up to their waist in the blood of their enemies.
Is pointing this fact out to be labelled ‘anti-semitic’ also?
So, if I visited Palestine and an Israeli tried to kill me, I’d be an anti-semite for trying to get him jailed, is it?
Israel (and the overwhelming majority of Israelis) are terrorists.
Israel is a rogue state.
Israel has no right to exist on the land the Jews took from the Palestinians.
The Jews forsook the shared territory two millennia earlier.
That action negated any ‘claim’ they thought (incorrectly) they had on the land.
God did not give it to them, because God is nothing more than a psychotic myth for the psychologically-weak.
It was the evil, terrorist Zionists in the British government and establishment who latched onto the idea of cleansing Europe of its Jews, long before Hitler came to power, by shunting them all across the globe to where “decent WASP British people” wouldn’t have to be bothered with ‘their sort’ any more.
Remember, at this time, Protestant Britain, Protestant Europe and the Catholic world considered Jews ‘Christ killers’, subhuman, not equal with ANYONE, worthy of scorn and being discriminated against.
Hardly very pro-semitic!
So it was NEVER out of love for Jews that Britain began the f*ck up of the Middle East at the end of the nineteenth century and right through until the Russians defeated the Nazis at the end of WWII.
The British occupy no moral high ground.
Britain does not act in a moral manner.
It never has and never will.
Its sole aims in all its endeavours have been its own enrichment and the subjugation of peoples, the acquisition of ‘possessions’ around the world and the pillage of the natural resources of these invaded territories.
There is much too much pandering to Israel by the British government and by the Americans.
This emboldens the Israelis into thinking that no matter how many innocents they slaughter, no-one will say a word against them.
Millions like me will.
Belief in non-existent sky beings does NOT entitle adherents to a ‘homeland of their own’.
Not for Jews.
Not for Muslims.
Not for the issue of murdering Scottish Protestants in Ulster.
Not for Catholics or any other group of deluded dough brains who have forsaken intelligence for ‘faith’ (then used that ‘faith’ as justification for mass murder on an EPIC scale)!
Israel is to the modern world exactly what the Nazis were in the 1930s and 40s – murdering, mindless animals.
If you think that too strong, tough!
People who survived the extermination of (an alleged) six million of their co-religionists should not be trying to catch up with the Nazi totals.
One would think that they would have sought peace and friendship with their neighbours.
Instead of which, they have conducted wars against their neighbours, stolen more territory, have killed millions of Palestinians, ignored international law, human rights law and practically every other law there is to break.
Israel and those who support its campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people are evil, bloodthirsty terrorists.
Their evil deeds must not go unchallenged.
The world MUST stand up to and face down the rogue Israeli state.
The British and the Americans MUST be made to stop their campaigns of industrialised extermination of innocent civilians in Islamic countries, where they have NO BUSINESS being.
Why are Muslims so against the West?
British and American invasions of their countries since the end of WWII.
British and American funding of the political destabilisation of the Middle Eastern countries.
CIA coups. The appropriation of Arab oil supplies. The list is endless.
Why was Iraq invaded, when it was (allegedly) a Saudi Arab (whose body was conveniently disposed of by the Americans after they allegedly killed him) who was supposedly responsible for the destruction of the twin towers in NYC?
Jews are NOT the only semites.
Middle Eastern Muslims are ALSO semites.
Semitic refers to the core language grouping that informs the speech of people in that area of old, NOT the psychosis they elect to pander to by believing in Zombie Jesus or a fat, white, white-haired, angry old man with a dislike for the prepuces of children and a seeming equal distaste for female reproductive parts, preferring AI by ectoplasmic infusion per capitum. Not Greek or Arab schizophrenics to whom apparently him upstairs appeared, peace be upon he who must not be mentioned, for fear of my decapitation or death by explosion.
The British and the Americans, through their standing by idly twiddling their thumbs while Israel wipes out more and more Palestinians and subjects them to the most degrading of treatment, are the prominent anti-semites of the modern age.
Not Red Ken!
An anti semite used to be someone who disliked jews, today an anti semite is someone whom jews dislike.
The attack on red Ken is part of a pattern by the pro Israel/Blairite supporters on the labour right,the real target is Corbyns leadership.
Nailed it, Mv…
Pity MPs like Mann wouldn’t berate bankers, arms dealers, media moguls, war criminals like this in public. But like most of his kind he wouldn’t have the cajones to stand up to real power.
Damn right, he or the likes of him wouldn’t.
read the “Haavara” agreement signed in 1933.
Excellent point, Bridget – grma. Here’s the link to same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
Mr Donaldson on Talkback correctly stated,
“We need to be careful about the words we use…”
Perhaps his wise counsel will impact on elected representatives who view political opponents as “scum”, “taigs”, “rogues” and “renegades,” given the approach of the annual tyrefest. The use of sectarian epithets is no substitute for sophisticated political discourse.
“Hysteria 1, Rational Argument 0,” is an accurate analysis of the controversy that is being created in relation to Mr Livingstone’s remarks. Criticism of Israeli policies and the role of the Israeli Defence Forces is not evidence of anti-semitism. A disinterested observer need only examine the living conditions in Gaza, today, in order to appreciate the full extent of death, mutilation and destruction visited on Palestinians by the Israeli Defence Forces.
Jewish citizens and Palestinian citizens ought to enjoy equal rights. Benjamin Netanyahu continues to advocate and promote Israeli settlements. The reality of such a policy is that Palestinians lose land and homes. Israeli settlement policy is backed by the might of the Israeli Defence Forces.
British military might failed in Africa, India and Ireland. Time will tell if Mr Netanyahu and his colleagues in Wall Street will be obliged to eat some of their words in relation to the treatment of Palestinians. Contemporary events in Hillsborough prove that truth eventually prevails as some are being forced to eat their words. Be’te – avon.
Hitler came to power in 1933, to the cheers of THE IRISH TIMES.
De Valera came to power in 1932 and the IRISH TIMES (except when Douglas Gageby was Editor) never forgave him.
The irony is, out of the Hitler, Stalin and Churchill, I believe it was Hitler that was the only one to have come to power through democracy…….
Not just a good phrase that, ‘trigger-word’, Esteemed Blogmeister, but the cause of other ‘trigger-words’ too. For instance, ‘buttermilk-word’.
To explain: as is well know the trusty steed of movie cowboy Roy Rogers was, of course, Trigger who was the, erm, palomino of our cradle days, i.e., those of us fortunate enough to be have our ugly heads reared during the Fabulous Fifties.
What is not so commonly known is the name of the trusty steed of Dale Evans, the cowgirl who was joined in holy wedlock to her co-star at the Flying L Ranch in Davis, Oklahoma, in 1947. ‘Buttermilk’, in fact, was the name of her buckskin Quarter Horse.
While it were never established if Trigger and Buttermilk were ever an item, nonetheless the ‘buttermilk-word’ would be a more gender-equal and zeitgeist-friendly word to use in certain circumstance.
For instance the ‘buttermilk-word’ would be, perhaps, a more apt mot juste to describe, say, Senator Ronan Mullen. Certainly where the Harpies are concerned. Yes, those same Harpies who are once, twice, three times the Harpies who pull the strings in the halls of Tara Street where (gulp) The Unionist Times has its HQ.
Senator R. Mullen topped the poll this week in the National University of Ireland panel, followed at some distance into second place by M. McDowell , of the Continuity PD’s. It is safe to say, if one is to judge by the tut-tutting twiteratti of TUT that he is possibly not the crock of buttermilk to be ideally found at, say, the foot of the Dublin Castle Rainbow.
Unlike say the candidate who topped the poll of the Trinity College panel. Sadly, one candidate who failed to make the cut in the latter contest was Averil Power, in her latest abortive bid for, erm, power with a small p.. Which flop also caused no little tut-tutting in TUT. This is not to say that the Mezzo-Blowtorch voice on behalf of Averil will be silenced.
Thankfully, there is always the Johann Sebastian Bach-door for the musical one, via the eleven Seanad quick-picks which are in the gift of the incoming Prime Min. Nose-stroking knowing ones will wink and nod that one of these, erm, Cahilling-cards might well end up in her. still .empty. hand.
It is not so much Anti-Semitism as Anti-Samitism which is the problem (unacknowledged) down here in the Free Southern Stateen.
Far from being regarded as a problem this unrecognised racial predge is now so entrenched in these inclusive Times on liberated Liffeyside that Dublin even has a calendar day devoted to its celebration. Due mainly to the manly and single-handed efforts of the senatorial candidate who topped the TCD poll and whose brain child Bloomsday it is.
Like many things on Liffeyside, this is not without its own rich, even Lionel Richie vein of irony.
The Sam who had his name put into Anti-Samitism is, ar ndoigh / ca va sans dire, Sam Maguire whose name is also linked with the eponymous cup. The current holders of which are (gasp) the Dublin team.
Senator David Norris of TCD (for it is he!) can only have looked on, aghast, even aGAAst, at the 82,000 Paddy Stinks and Mickey Mucks who crammed into Croke Park last Sunday for what was, essentially, an anti-Bloomsday.
For on one side of this park, the one , to make it worse, opposite the TV cameras, stands the (gulp) Cusack Stand. Named in honour of the same Cusack who gets racially blaggarded as The Citizen in the pages of Ulysses , penned by a stock, sophisticated (sic) shoneen who was an old boy of both Belvo’s and Clongowes.
Now, whether Cusack in this instance is a trigger or a buttermilk word, is, at this moment in time going f., a moot one.
Not surprisingly, Ulysses is looked upon not just as a great, even if widely unread novel, but as a comic masterpieces was well. This is totally justified, even if much of the comedy is of the unintended variety..
Mind you, the backstory of Anti-Semitism south of the Black Sow’s Dyke have never been without its unintended comical strain.
Take the Limerick Pogrom of 1904 which, oddly enough, shares a factual year with the fictional one of Leopold Bloom of Ulysses.
To hear the late, grating and deeply lamentable Jim Kemmy, MP, demi-god of The Unionist Times, talk with phlegmy outrage about this trigger-word beginning with P, one would imagine Limerick belonged right down there with Dachau.
So much so, a mere prosaic description of this Pogrom will not suffice; there can hardly be a poet-taster out there who would not deny that a Limerick is your only man in this case.
Get your Pogrom, Pogrom of the Game !
In 1904 on the left shore of the Shannon
A hefty racist in the RC collar of a canon
With brimstone and spite
From his inner anti-Semite:
Bloody noses, ruddy shins and more anon.
This fire has all been neatly lit and stoked as part of the wider push by members of the Labour Party to oust Jeremy Corbyn.
If I had something to say to someone unlike Mr Mann I wouldn’t go grandstanding in front of a conveniently placed press corp.
I have no doubt this “coup” will succeed and Labour will soon have someone called Andy, Tristram or Chuka as their bright shiny anodyne new leader, and the cosy consensus that is British politics can get back to normal.
There is a second tier of criticism levelled at Livingstone (one can listen to the interview of course to verify) and that is that he claims that Shaz Nah “said nothing wrong” when she advocated the transportation of Jews to be re-settled in the USA to bring peace to the middle east. (One musn’t cherry pick, you know). His historical reference to Hitler and the resettlement of Jews, while accurate, was just immaterial.
I think Corbyn and Livingstone can be put under scrutiny on the anti-Semitism front given their friendship with Hamas and that organisation’s refusal to recognise the state of Israel’s right to exist at any level and their commitment to drive all Jews out the region.
Given the long tradition of attempting to defend the indefensible on this site I am sure you are all licking your pentips and getting ready for some class double speak!
“when she advocated the transportation of Jews to be re-settled in the USA ” – two years ago she did a FB map of US, had a map of Israel superimposed and “A solution to Israel problem” or some such. It fairly obviously was semi-humorous, semi-satirical, given the US’s unflagging supply of support and weaponry to Israel. Criticism of Israel is NOT the same as criticism/hatred of Jewish people.
“Given the long tradition of attempting to defend the indefensible on this site” – Chapter and verse, please,“JB?
You are so right Jude. Ken Livingstone has a type of personality that will tell something as he sees it, no matter how unpopular the message is, as long as he believes it to be true. For that reason I think he is a man of principle.
Ken, along with Jeremy had a cabal of people among the Labour Parliamentary Party who hate their unbending socialist beliefs and could not wait to get a boot in when any opportunity arises.
It is fairly easy to see in recent times that the public tide has turned against the actions and behaviour of the Israeli Government and its forces of occupation.
The difference between anti-Semite and anti-Zionist has been clearly defined, and people are no longer afraid to criticise the Israeli government without fear of being labelled an anti-Semite.
Although it is quite unbelievable to us, there remains a great number of non-Israeli people in Britain and indeed here in Britain’s own occupied territories who would like to see the distinction between the two distinctions blurred and would like to see criticism on the Israeli state categorised as anti-Semitic.
You have probably watched events recently where the French Government has decreed that anyone calling for Sanctions against Israel is guilty of an offence of anti-Semitism punishable by imprisonment.
Oh how the friends of Israel in the British Parliamentary parties would love that!
Ken broke the cardinal rule, that unwritten taboo, he mentioned Hitler in the same conversation as the state of Israel. Logic and reason went out the window. In the calmness of time I suspect reason will reassert its mantle and the realisation will dawn on those braying for Ken’s demise that they cannot pin a crime on him. It will not stop them trying to drag his reputation through the mud in the meantime.
I would personally like to see Labour MPs be more reflective of the views of the working classes in Britain and of those that vote for them. The likes of John Mann’s behaviour should be noted by his constituency selection committee.
Statement on “Labour’s problem with antisemitism” From the Jewish Socialists’ Group
It seems the Zionist movement are nothing more than spin doctors for the Jewish race, and as such, should never be above criticism.
Their function seems to be to deflect any criticism of the Israeli state’s murder campaign against their Palestinian neighbours, whom they hold in virtual captivity behind ever encroaching high walls, controlling the movement of people, goods and information, so the outside world has little real comprehension of the conditions endured by the unfortunate Palestinians.
They have unlimited funds to exert this control, as the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US ensures they receive at least $5bn per annum from the government of ‘the land of the free’ (is that not a sick joke?).
And don’t let anyone compare the Palestinian ghettoes with how Hitler treated the Jews of Europe – you will be labelled a holocaust denier, and hounded by their thought police!
Instead of learning not to repeat evil from the brutal Hitler, they just seemed to learn to copy it.
There is a difference between being Jewish and being a Zionist just ask the members of Jewish voice for peace who oppose the actions of the Israeli government.
We Irish did not like being stereotyped and labelled as being all the same when it came to some sweeping negative generalisation by our imperial masters, why do the same to others?
“Back in 1932 when Hitler won the election that brought him to power his policy then was to deport all Germany’s Jews to Israel. That’s not because he was a Zionist, it is because he hated Jews. He then had a dialogue with the leaders of the Zionist movement, private, not him personally but his officials, privately discussing whether or not to proceed with that policy. In the end he didn’t – he chose to kill six million Jews.”
This is what Livingstone said. I’ve read it several times and I’ve no idea why the man has been suspended. The panto outside the BBC points to some very frightened people trying desperately to stop Labour making gains on Thursday.
Forget about Ken Livingstone. This is the get Corbyn gameshow.
He actually said, (referring to Hitler)
“he was supporting zionism”.
That does not necessarily make Livingstone anti-Semitic but it was a crass and insensitive thing to say.
If it was true, is it still a “crass and insensitive thing to say”?
Well let me put it back to you.Do think he was being sensitive?
Not particularly – but I do know that the response was hyper-sensitive…No, sorry, fake-sensitive. If those who rent their garments are so stupid that they can’t tell a criticism of Israel from a criticism of Jews generally, they shouldn’t be allowed out on their own, let alone be elected public representatives.
Now – maybe answer my question, gio?
Of course I think it was crass and insensitive. I already said so..
I can’t see what point he was trying to make, and it appears he was being deliberately offensive.
Like Gregory Campbell and ‘curry my yoghurt’. And we all know how upset people were about that(or was it fake upset?)
Or like someone suggesting to console the Queen by asking “where is Princess Di now?” No sign of christian love there!
Ha haaa – very good, gio. No, I can state officially, I don’t love the queen. And to be honest (as I invariably am) I’m not really a Christian. In fact I’m not sure I know any Christians either. But to come back to your comparison of Gregory C’s ‘curry my yoghurt’ and Livingstone’s point re Hitler working with Zionists: it doesn’t stand up for a moment. Greg was certainly intent on offending or at best taking the mickey out of Irish speakers; Ken was stating what appears to be a historical fact – and one I didn’t know before. Did you? I think that’s helpful in understanding the kind of guy Hitler was. It’d be absurd if we weren’t allowed to mention some facts from Hitler’s life, because some people said it was offensive/racist. I also think the forcing of the young MP to publicly apologise for a two-years-ago FB thing, with Israel in the middle of the US map – I suspect she was trying to point up the US’s unquestioning support of Israel, which when you consider what Israel is doing to Palestinians is truly offensive. But let’s keep the focus on Ken – he is absolutely right to insist that he’s entitled to speak the historical fact that Hitler and Nazism had close ties at one point to Zionism. In fact he should be commended, not denigrated, since (speaking personally) it expands my knowledge about Hitler and Israel and that period generally. Did you know this stuff about Hitler, or would you say it never happened?
Of what relevance was Ken’s historical fact to the suspension of Naz Shah?
Not sure, to be honest. I guess she had raised the matter of Israel and he decided to add some background to Israel’s creation. If it was relevant, then fine. If it wasn’t relevant, sort of pointless – but I’d hate to see everyone who made an irrelevant comment get the abuse KL got/is getting.
As someone who has been reading books on WW2 since I was around 12, I’d always had an interest in Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, etc They were characters, brutal characters, that shaped the current world we live in today. Their Wars ended centuries old European Empires, the British, the French, the German, etc.
I certainly don’t share their ideologies. Stalin was a paranoid, ruthless dictator that killed anyone who could be a conceivable threat to his rule, even if they weren’t, hence his purges. Hitler was a man that gained his political view from the Pan Germans, an ideology that has been around for centuries and is today called “Nazism”. People think Hitler’s ideas were “New” for that era. They were not. Anti-Semitism has been rampant in Europe for centuries and the Jews were expelled from nearly country in Europe, with maybe the exception of Ireland, maybe because none lived here. Churchill was an Imperialist who was just as racist as Hitler. Churchill firmly believed the British Empire was a force for good.
Most people don’t know that Churchill was a Zionist and was on the payroll of Chaim Weizmann, the first President of the State of Israel, from the 1920’s. It was under the direction of Weizman that Churchill refused Hitler’s peace offers with Britain. Its important to remember Britain declared War on Germany, not Germany on Britain. Yes Poland was invaded but it was also invaded by the Soviet Union from the East, why no declaration of War against Russia?
What Ken Livingstone said is complete fact. Joseph Goebbels diary, which I’ve read, makes clear Hitler wanted to remove the Jews of Europe to what is today Israel or to one of the African colonies so they can create a state of their own. Madagascar was the most likely place where the Nazis wanted to deport the Jews. This is a form of Zionism, a state for the Jewish people.
I know this is slightly off topic but this figure of “6 million” Jews being murdered is completely inaccurate, the Auschwitz Museum even makes that clear but yet its still flaunted around and anyone who disputes it is ridiculed or demonized. You will even get arrested and imprisoned in many countries for just disputing it. It was said that 4 million Jews died in Auschwitz, that was revised down in 1980 to 1.5 million. Where did 2.5 million Jews go? Some Historians have said even 1.5 million figure is too high, realistically it should be around 300,000. The word “Holocaust” itself didn’t appear in public until 1970, 25 years after the end of the War….the word itself means “Death or Sacrifice by Fire”.
Again if you dispute this your called buzzwords like “Anti-semite” or “Racist” but it was the same when they were saying Jews were turned into soap and Lamp shades by the Nazis. That was held as fact in the 1970’s, anyone who disputed it was an “anti-Semite”. They even said “witnesses” saw the soap and lamp shades made from Jewish peoples skin and fat. But yet today all are agreed no Jews were made into soap or Lamp shades.
There seems to be this manufactured culture today in the Western World, in Europe and America, that if you speak out against certain things your a “Racist” or an “Anti-Semite” or whatever. These buzzwords are used to silence people and if they do speak up they are demonized, especially when it comes to immigration. When it comes to History and the present I’m only interested in one thing: The Truth. I’m not interested in anything else.
As Voltaire said “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”.
It’s all just a conspiracy theory that zionists control the media or at the very least have major influence within it. That much is evident by the balanced way red Ken has been reported by that industry. The BBC has been outstanding! I think I might start paying my licence fee now.
Maith thú , WT – I do enjoy a good bracing piece of irony on a Saturday afternoon…
Wolfe Tone, when it comes to Zionism its important to note that a large chunk, if not up to half, of all Zionists aren’t even Jewish. Fundamentalist Christians in the Southern States of the USA are more Zionist than most Jews are! Many Unionists here in norneverland are very Zionist. Our very own dear Dr Paisley was a Zionist as is the DUP. Indeed while thousands were out in Belfast City Centre protesting against Israel murdering 500 Palestinian children in the Summer of 2014, the DUP were in Stormont having photos took with a “Friends of Israel” group. Yes, I can really see Christ standing behind and supporting Zionists bombing Gaza and turning it into the largest concentration camp in History……Though its not surprising the DUP take this stance given Dr Paisley spent some of his youth training in theology in the southern states of the USA and even released a book there on….yup, you guessed it: Anti-Catholicism…..
Yes poor old Ken, tricked by them cunning zionists into making a stupid remark. And poor Naz Shah too. Somehow the Jew controlled media forced her to put her not at all anti-Semitic blether onto facebook. I blame that Zuckerberg guy.
Gio – do you think it was anti-Semitic of KL to say that Hitler worked with the Zionists in the early 1930s? Even if it’s true?
Depends why he said it. What point was he trying to make and why? That Hitler was a Zionist?
Was it anti-semitism? Probably not, but it was certainly ill judged and nasty.
He said Hitler supported Zionism. That would suggest a benign interest in helping create a Jewish homeland, which was clearly not the case as he hated Jews long before the ’30s. He did not care too much where they went as long as he was rid of them.
As a vegetarian I sometimes get people saying to me that Hitler was a vegetarian.
Usually I respond that “it goes to show no-one is all bad” or maybe “that would explain the meteorism”. But the point is why are they telling me this?
It is clearly intended to make a negative association with that -.ism. In my example vegetarianism and in Livingstone’s case Zionism.
To describe Hitler as supporting Zionism is grossly misleading and Livingstone was either very stupid (I don’t think he is stupid) or deliberately offensive.
So what point do you think he was trying to make?
Gio, you are being deliberately provocative by claiming he was either very stupid or deliberately offensive as if there is only a binary outcome. Offence taken is determined by the mindset of the second party it does not need to have been the intention of the person speaking. You agree he is not anti Semitic and you previously said you thought he was crass now you cannot have it every way!
He might be a bit tactless but is probably his only crime. The vast majority of the thinking public can see through the pretence that this is solely about Ken Livingstone. The main players in this melodrama are those same detractors who so opposed the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.
I agree that offence is determined by the other party and he may not have intended it. But to my mind if he did not think that saying Hitler supported Zionism might be offensive then that clearly indicates stupidity.
So I still think it was either deliberate or stupid.
Now maybe the anti Corbyn faction have jumped on this ,but it was Livingstone who was silly enough to provide the gift wrapped opportunitty.
Like Gerry and his hastily removed n-word,we can only marvel at the level of idiocy by experienced politicians.
I hate to repeat myself, but surely the central point should be, was what he said true or untrue?
“I hate to repeat myself, but surely the central point should be, was what he said true or untrue?”
No. The central point is why did he say it.
Just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to say it or that it can’t be deployed for malign purposes.
Oh dear. And there was me thinking truth was what mattered. Hey ho. Back to the drawing-board
You just don’t get it, Jude, do you?
No – quite right – I don’t. I don’t know what any intelligent person is doing, reading this drivel…
If you mean was HItler a Zionist then no it was not true and it is patent nonsense to suggest he was.
Yes he wanted rid of the Jews from his country but to say that meant he supported ZIonism until he went mad is not true.
You might as well say that SIn Fein supported Unionism because the signed the GFA.
Zionism was a movement founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 whose goal is the return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael, or Zion, the Jewish synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.
The name of “Zionism” comes from the hill Zion, the hill on which the Temple of Jerusalem was situated.
Supporters of this movement are called “Zionists”.
So in the letter of the literal facts Ken Livingstone could be seen to be correct in saying that Hitler supported zionists and only in that one action. In the spirit of the interpretation he is wrong in that in all likelihood Hitler had no affinity or goodwill towards Jewish zionists or Jews in general.
I think I would agree with your earlier sentiments that his comments were thoughtless and tactless. I would diverge from you in that I do not believe they were nasty or meant to be deliberately provocative.
One think for sure is that neither Ken’s friends or foes can understand the point he was trying to explain by raising the comment so therefore it certainly wasn’t clever.
A second point and perhaps a more important point is that there are certain elements who are trying to conflate this episode and run the risk of leaving two polarised sides which may be hard to reconcile.
We are not too far from agreement I think.
I am not sure on your argument that Ken was saying Hitler only supported Zionism on that one action alone.
He did say Hitler supported Zionism until he went mad and killed 6 million Jews, which suggests a continuous period of support.
Either way Livingstone knows very well that his words were a gross misinterpretation of history.
I remain baffled as to what point he was trying to make.
“his words were a gross misinterpretation of history.” – really?
Israel did not exist in 1933 so that is a pretty bad misinterpretation to begin with!
True – but the Zionist-Nazi co-operation at that point was to do just that – bring Israel into being.
So already you are reinterpreting what Livingstone said.
What happened to ‘it is either true or it is not?’
I can see how some reasonable people could see it as a misinterpretation of the facts although like you I am baffled about what Ken Livingstone was trying to make..
I know one thing for sure and that is that there is an unholy row brewing and the context for some of those fuelling it, is to silence once and for all people complaining about the inhuman treatment of Palestinians and the behaviour of the current Israeli regime.
More and more pro-Israeli commentators are coming forward and saying that the use of the word Zionist and Zionism is anti-semitic in itself.
The core reason is to unsettle/unseat Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Sin é…
I think there are 2 objectives at work here.
1 the removal of Jeremy Corybn as leader of the Labour Party because as a man of integrity he is a threat to the establishment (driven by the establishment and Israeli backed groupings).
2 a much wider concerted attempt to label anyone questioning the illegal and immoral actions of Israel as anti-Semite . The ultimate aim is to to toxify the groupings legitimately opposing the actions of Israel in the Middle East. (Driven by the Friends of Israel and to a lesser extent the establishment).
Those elements inside the Labour Party who undermine Mr Corbyn need to be identified by the leadership for removal through disciplinary procedures and or deselection.
Could I agree more? No. Perfectly stated – except I’d make the toppling of Corbyn a No.3 on its own merits (or demerits)…
To which the obvious response is ‘why was Livingstone so idiotic as to provide the ammunition?’
And indeed why is Gerry (has he learned nothing) so daft as give opponents of SF (which is everybody, apparently) such an easy target?
We all love a good conspiracy theory around here so could it be that Ken and Gerry are sleeping with the enemy so to speak.? It all fits.
Would you say a young woman in a tight skirt is idiotic if she was raped? Clearly a much graver matter than is being discussed here but in both instances, you seem to be ascribing blame to the person who’s being verbally assaulted. The whole thing has a sort of oh-Reverend-Mother-did-you-hear-the-word-Janet-said shock-horror to it. GA’s life makes clear to anyone (oh God, why do I waste my time?) that he’s not a racist. Ken Livingstone’s life makes clear he’s not anti-Semitic. But now we’re told both are racist/anti-Semitic. Sweet suffering Saviour…
Your analogy is inapt.
Rape is a crime. Criticising Ken Livingstone and/or Gerry Adams is not as far as I know, though clearly some think it should be.
Personally I agree,I think, that Ken is not anti-semitic and Gerry is not racist, at least not consciously..
I am pretty sure I have not made either accusation.
What I am accusing them of is insensitivity and in the mouth of an election clodhopping stupidity.
Fair enough gio – but I still think we’re oooh-mummy-john-said-a-bad-word routine. Spare me…As to rape being a crime, I know that. I also know that GA/KL aren’t women. Neither has anything to do with the parallel I was making
Yes Jude, you are probably right about the singular determination of so many to turn the democratic will of Labour Party members to have Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, on its head. It is why I like him!
Maybe if you were black you might not feel so blasé about it.
The trouble with your analogy is that it tries to appropriate victim status for Livingstone and/or Adams.
They are not victims of a crime, they said something stupid and left themselves open to criticism because of it.
When a Unionist politician says something stupid or offensive, as they often do, you are the first in line to criticise and mock them.
Are they victims?
Yes he is agreeing with me….
“He shouldn’t have done that. He was wrong.”
“After an initial hamfisted non-apology – blaming people for “misunderstanding the context in which [the word] was used” – Adams quickly graduated to a less grudging response, stating: “I apologise for any offence caused.” That should be the end of it.”
He goes on to argue that one stupid comment does not make Adams racist, which I have also already said.
Fortunately he does not try and equate Adams with rape victims
I think I’m beginning to give up on you, gio. “Fortunately he does not try and equate Adams with rape victims”. You’re clearly implying I have. That’s the point where I give up on you.
I am happy to accept your clarification that Adams is not in any way a victim in this.
Gio, ‘the Jew controlled media’ as you call it wont be ‘tricked’ into showing the recent murders of Palestinians by Israelis Defence Force anytime soon that’s for sure.
As for Naz Shah’s fbook post? Well I can understand why she posted it. After all the great and the good of the west had decided hitlers idea of moving all Jews to some kind of homeland was a good idea and suitably facilitated in that project. She probably thinks it could be done again for those in Israel?
But then again it should come as no surprise that hitlers schemes were being quietly supported/adopted by others who claimed they were at war with him. Although there’s no proof as of yet that Edward VIII got his penchant for dressing up as a woman from Hitler. That idea can be attributed much closer to home.
Leaving aside your usual obsession with the royal family, are you saying Naz Shah was right in some way?
You say you can understand why she posted it. Can you understand why she apologised?
Because she was afraid.
Because she realised she had said something stupid and insensitive.
Just like Gerry.
I’d put my money on her being afraid.
Do you think there was anything inappropriate in what she said?
Suggesting the transportation and relocation of Jews.
Commenting that “the Jews are rallying”
To me such comment by a public representative is out of order and it seems very likely she realised that herself.
What is she afraid of?
Is that why Gerry apologised too? Maybe he is afraid of black retribution.
She perhaps apologised for using the term ‘jew’? If she had used the Zionist term than it would have been more appropriate. She may also have apologised so as not incur the wrath of the Zionist run BBC and media?lol
Again her idea of moving those who claim to be Israelis to another country isn’t a novel idea is it? Perhaps if the US would halt giving Israel billions of dollars every year(block grant anyone?) there could be a stampede out of Palestine quicker than you can say exodus. After all it wouldn’t be the first time folk were lured to another land in search of free goodies.
Surely the question is why bring up Hitler and Zionism in a defence of someone accused of anti-Semitism?
It’s a fair question, MT, but it’s not the most important one. The most important is, was KL speaking the truth or making something up.
Why do you think that’s the most important question, Jude?
If he makes a statement about a period in history, it’s either right or wrong. If there’s going to be discussion, it should be about that, rather than the assumed insult/racism of making the statement.
“If he makes a statement about a period in history, it’s either right or wrong. If there’s going to be discussion, it should be about that, rather than the assumed insult/racism of making the statement.”
Why? Surely the issue is why he said it and what it possibly reveals about him? Just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to say it.
Surely MT you would agree the Truth, Facts, Reality and Evidence is the most important issue here? After all, the truth shall set you free…..
Next it will be “politically incorrect” to mention that the Jewish Ghetto Police helped the Germans crush the Warsaw Uprising in 1943, not to mention helped in summarily executions and oppression…..
Unfortunately the media thinks political correctness is more important….
I would hope such political correctness never reaches the shores of the Emerald Isle but I wont be holding my breath….
You should read this, Ryan
Agreed MT, probably ill-judged.
I think that is exactly the point. Why would Livingstone think of saying Hitler was a Zionist at all? How would it advance his argument?
Furthermore just because his (Hitler’s) aims coincided with the aims of Zionism does not make him a Zionist.
It looks very much like a casually provocative remark which is why some think (given his past remarks) he may be harbouring feelings of anti-Semitism.
Perhaps he doesn’t even know he is doing it.