|
Post by themistocles on Apr 28, 2016 20:07:24 GMT
I disagree with all racism regardless who has said it... What do you mean by "as hes currently called" your not seriously accusing me of having multiple users are you ? Considering the fact you accuse anyone who suggest you are one of the many **************s as morons .. Yet you don't say a word when mumf is racist. How curious.... I'm saying you've posted under another well-known name before, not necessarily that you have multiple usernames. It's alright though mate, your secret's safe with me Go on then, who did I used to post under ?
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Apr 28, 2016 20:07:54 GMT
Agenda? Behave, if the best I can manage in promoting my agenda is posting on here, it's time to pack in. No need to pack it in. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech (another left wing trait.... Oh wait) and it'd be a shame to end political debate like this. I have no issue with you being pro Israel but ultimately, I will never accept their flagrant disregard for human life. Where have I been pro Israel? If defending a peoples right to live without foreign MP's saying they should be deported then I'd do the same for the Palestinians. History, especially the British, made a right fuck up of the middle east but we are where we are and the only solution will take give and take on both sides. They were very close back in the 90's, and Clinton's probably still spitting feathers that Arafat screwed up his legacy. The sad fact is that we're at least a generation away from the next opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 28, 2016 21:07:47 GMT
It's disappointing that some on here fail to understand the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Mind you certain posters have trouble defining and understanding racism.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Apr 28, 2016 21:24:45 GMT
For anyone still labouring under the misconception that anti-zionism is akin to anti-semitism, have a look at this True Torah JewsYou'll often see these lads supporting Free Palestine rallies outside the US embassy in London if you're ever that way. Obviously they don't represent mainstream thought amongst Jewish populations, but I think they demonstrate pretty well that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism. As for Livingston, he's a donkey. He's got no idea about diplomacy. Whilst what he said might be based on fact, it shows that he's got no idea about when to keep his mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 28, 2016 21:37:34 GMT
For anyone still labouring under the misconception that anti-zionism is akin to anti-semitism, have a look at this True Torah JewsYou'll often see these lads supporting Free Palestine rallies outside the US embassy in London if you're ever that way. Obviously they don't represent mainstream thought amongst Jewish populations, but I think they demonstrate pretty well that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism. As for Livingston, he's a donkey. He's got no idea about diplomacy. Whilst what he said might be based on fact, it shows that he's got no idea about when to keep his mouth shut. There's a slightly more mainstream and secular Jewish Anti-Zionist group but I can't link it just now. There has always been an organised and respected Jewish opposition to Zionism since its conception Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism but anti-Semites can and do, unfortunately, occasionally infiltrate Anti-Zionist groups. :-(
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 28, 2016 22:02:02 GMT
No need to pack it in. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech (another left wing trait.... Oh wait) and it'd be a shame to end political debate like this. I have no issue with you being pro Israel but ultimately, I will never accept their flagrant disregard for human life. Where have I been pro Israel? If defending a peoples right to live without foreign MP's saying they should be deported then I'd do the same for the Palestinians. History, especially the British, made a right fuck up of the middle east but we are where we are and the only solution will take give and take on both sides. They were very close back in the 90's, and Clinton's probably still spitting feathers that Arafat screwed up his legacy. The sad fact is that we're at least a generation away from the next opportunity. As I've already pointed out, her posts are quite evidently tongue in cheek criticism of Israel and America's cushy relationship. Are you actually suggesting otherwise? It's like when lunatic feminists tweet KillAllMen. Do you think they're literally suggesting that women go out with a gun and shoot every man they see? It's unpleasant but it's quite evidently not a serious suggestion. Arguably, KillAllMen is actually more offensive than what Naz Shah said.... It's hate speech for one. However, despite disliking feminists (another left wing trait *snigger*) I can also identify when something is being said tongue in cheek.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 28, 2016 22:11:29 GMT
No need to pack it in. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech (another left wing trait.... Oh wait) and it'd be a shame to end political debate like this. I have no issue with you being pro Israel but ultimately, I will never accept their flagrant disregard for human life. Where have I been pro Israel? If defending a peoples right to live without foreign MP's saying they should be deported then I'd do the same for the Palestinians. History, especially the British, made a right fuck up of the middle east but we are where we are and the only solution will take give and take on both sides. They were very close back in the 90's, and Clinton's probably still spitting feathers that Arafat screwed up his legacy. The sad fact is that we're at least a generation away from the next opportunity. Good post. Real pity about the failed peace deals. Not convinced it was all down to Arafat but he played a part for sure. Whatever else Bill Clinton may have been, he was a decent world leader and gave middle east peace as good a go as any US president ever has
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 28, 2016 22:29:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 28, 2016 22:49:28 GMT
It's disappointing that some on here fail to understand the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Mind you certain posters have trouble defining and understanding racism. I understand suggesting the entire jewish population should be transported to America and asking for support because the Jews are rallying in an opinion poll is straight out racism. I understand tweeting support for Hamas whose stated aim is to obliterate Israel is also a pretty good indicator. I understand when you tell a jewish reporter he is like a concentration camp guard it's a pretty good indicator, I understand when you start making comments about Hitler it's also a pretty good indicator. I understand you don't have a fucking clue about anything.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Apr 28, 2016 22:54:38 GMT
Kenn only has to break wind and the Tory press are accusing him of supporting the IRA..Hamas..ISIS..etc etc "Red Ken..The Most Evil Man Britain" So said The Sun newspaper. Must be true then.
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 29, 2016 0:42:00 GMT
I must admit that I'm not fully on top of this story yet and the timeline. Eg. Who said what.... who leaked this.. and when..
I take a while to catch up. :-) and in any event I'm more interested in Palestine/Israel really.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of whats been said, there are local elections next week. Who stands to benefit from a poor Labour showing? The Tories? Maybe, but I suspect they would quite like to still be facing Mr Corbyn at the next General Election. Who else? - Isn't John Mann on the right of Labour?
Cui Bono?
I smell a coup in the making. Who most wants Corbyn out before the General Election - the right of the party that's who. A poor showing in the locals next week swiftly followed by a leadership challenge from the right - Perfick!
I don't normally do conspiracy, I prefer Occams Razor but those of us with historical experience of the Labour party will have some idea of the treachery the right are capable of. There is every chance they are behind this imo. Dirty business politics.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2016 5:00:41 GMT
Kenn only has to break wind and the Tory press are accusing him of supporting the IRA..Hamas..ISIS..etc etc "Red Ken..The Most Evil Man Britain" So said The Sun newspaper. Must be true then. I think if you are spending time clarifying your comments on Hitler, you've monumentally stupid, arrogant or vile. Here I think Ken is all three and throw in being massively wrong for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Apr 29, 2016 7:11:02 GMT
Kenn only has to break wind and the Tory press are accusing him of supporting the IRA..Hamas..ISIS..etc etc "Red Ken..The Most Evil Man Britain" So said The Sun newspaper. Must be true then. I think if you are spending time clarifying your comments on Hitler, you've monumentally stupid, arrogant or vile. Here I think Ken is all three and throw in being massively wrong for good measure. Stupid - not really Arrogant - absolutely Vile - no But hubris is a dangerous think for a politician especially high profile ones like Livingstone. Hubris is what leads him into thinking he can use media interviews to articulate nuanced arguments about Hitler's approach to Jews in Germany. Hubris is behind him saying ask me a question and I'll give you an answer. That ain't honesty. That's arrogance. He ain't done his party any favours other than creating a media shit storm right before a vital series of elections. In Scotland, there's a distinct chance Labour will come third behind the SNP (no surprise) and the Tories (which is sort of earth shattering up here!). Labour in Scotland aren't helped by the belief they are an inept party ran by a metropolitan elite detached from reality. Ken has simply reinforced that feeling.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Apr 29, 2016 9:05:38 GMT
All this episode really shows is how unfit for leadership Corbyn really is. Both sides have racists and other assorted idiots, just look at this thread, yet a minor comment someone made in error has him back and forth and all over the place with it. He has too many questionable viewpoints and no ability to bring people in to his vision. He cant even control those closest to him. This is the guy we might have to trust with our nuclear weapons one day, who we have to put in a room to negotiate with Putin. Its laughable.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Apr 29, 2016 13:06:44 GMT
Ok I am NOT NOT NOT anti-Semtic and Ken was losse-mouthed idiot bringing Hitler into the conversation but what is with this assumption that anti-Israel = anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic??
I'm NOT anti-Zionist either but I'm totally anti the way Israel the state has conducted itself in my lifetime, its treatment of Palestinians remains obscene. So did I just say something anti-Semitic there?? Just mad.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 29, 2016 13:18:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 29, 2016 13:18:35 GMT
I think if you are spending time clarifying your comments on Hitler, you've monumentally stupid, arrogant or vile. Here I think Ken is all three and throw in being massively wrong for good measure. Stupid - not really Arrogant - absolutely Vile - no But hubris is a dangerous think for a politician especially high profile ones like Livingstone. Hubris is what leads him into thinking he can use media interviews to articulate nuanced arguments about Hitler's approach to Jews in Germany. Hubris is behind him saying ask me a question and I'll give you an answer. That ain't honesty. That's arrogance. He ain't done his party any favours other than creating a media shit storm right before a vital series of elections. In Scotland, there's a distinct chance Labour will come third behind the SNP (no surprise) and the Tories (which is sort of earth shattering up here!). Labour in Scotland aren't helped by the belief they are an inept party ran by a metropolitan elite detached from reality. Ken has simply reinforced that feeling. I'll stick with stupid on two counts, his job was to go round trying to calm the water instead he throw petrol onto the camp fire and stupid again because his argument is incorrect (see below) if someone had say sent a map of say Bradford superimposed onto Pakistan or Saudi saying you want Sharia Law here you go "sorted", do you think Ken would be on the news arguing it wasn't racist and it was factually correct because there isn't Sharia Law in the UK, he'd be correctly shouting racist from every news channel going. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36165298
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Apr 29, 2016 13:31:48 GMT
The dozy cow's just merged it
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 29, 2016 13:45:19 GMT
Ok I am NOT NOT NOT anti-Semtic and Ken was losse-mouthed idiot bringing Hitler into the conversation but what is with this assumption that anti-Israel = anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic?? I'm NOT anti-Zionist either but I'm totally anti the way Israel the state has conducted itself in my lifetime, its treatment of Palestinians remains obscene. So did I just say something anti-Semitic there?? Just mad. have you read/heard anything either he or Shah said sal? i presume you have, in which case why are you so flippantly glossing over the actual comments that DID get him into trouble (saying Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that's why he wanted them re-located to Israel, then he just went a bit mad later on and killed them all instead...and you dress that up as a bit "loose mouthed"??????????????? absolutely staggering!!!) and pretending he's been labelled as anti-semitic just by saying their treatment of Palestinians is wrong? you've completely misrepresented what actually happened there! Shah herself has apologised for her comments and admitted they came out of ignorance on her part and she never should have said any of them. for you to gloss over Ken saying Hitler was a Jewish supporter and Shah comparing Israel to the Nazis as if we can just ignore those comments and pretend they're actualy being pilloried for standing up against the Israeli state is just nonsense! you can easily stand up against the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians WITHOUT the need of bringing up the Nazis or Hitler. for ANYONE (let alone politicians) to claim Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that Israel is similar to the Nazi state is crass, distasteful, hugely insensitive to the entire Jewish faith and SHOULD be publicly called out as being so. tell you what though, you gloss over the salient facts as being a case of someone simply being "loose lipped" and just hope no-one else knows what he actually said eh? If either had simply said the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians was terrible (which you appear to be trying to make out is really all that happened) then NEITHER would have been labelled anti-semites and you damn well know it!
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Apr 29, 2016 13:58:12 GMT
Ok I am NOT NOT NOT anti-Semtic and Ken was losse-mouthed idiot bringing Hitler into the conversation but what is with this assumption that anti-Israel = anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic?? I'm NOT anti-Zionist either but I'm totally anti the way Israel the state has conducted itself in my lifetime, its treatment of Palestinians remains obscene. So did I just say something anti-Semitic there?? Just mad. have you read/heard anything either he or Shah said sal? i presume you have, in which case why are you so flippantly glossing over the actual comments that DID get him into trouble (saying Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that's why he wanted them re-located to Israel, then he just went a bit mad later on and killed them all instead...and you dress that up as a bit "loose mouthed"??????????????? absolutely staggering!!!) and pretending he's been labelled as anti-semitic just by saying their treatment of Palestinians is wrong? you've completely misrepresented what actually happened there! Shah herself has apologised for her comments and admitted they came out of ignorance on her part and she never should have said any of them. for you to gloss over Ken saying Hitler was a Jewish supporter and Shah comparing Israel to the Nazis as if we can just ignore those comments and pretend they're actualy being pilloried for standing up against the Israeli state is just nonsense! you can easily stand up against the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians WITHOUT the need of bringing up the Nazis or Hitler. for ANYONE (let alone politicians) to claim Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that Israel is similar to the Nazi state is crass, distasteful, hugely insensitive to the entire Jewish faith and SHOULD be publicly called out as being so. tell you what though, you gloss over the salient facts as being a case of someone simply being "loose lipped" and just hope no-one else knows what he actually said eh? If either had simply said the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians was terrible (which you appear to be trying to make out is really all that happened) then NEITHER would have been labelled anti-semites and you damn well know it! If I gave the impression I was glossing over I apoliogise, didn't mean to give that sense at all - Ken was an idiot and if he really believes that I'll be revising my opinion of him. My issue was with the way people who criticise Israel the state risk being branded anti-Semitic, which I find incredibly unacceptable. Honestly I don;t think we're disagreeing here are we?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 29, 2016 14:15:28 GMT
have you read/heard anything either he or Shah said sal? i presume you have, in which case why are you so flippantly glossing over the actual comments that DID get him into trouble (saying Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that's why he wanted them re-located to Israel, then he just went a bit mad later on and killed them all instead...and you dress that up as a bit "loose mouthed"??????????????? absolutely staggering!!!) and pretending he's been labelled as anti-semitic just by saying their treatment of Palestinians is wrong? you've completely misrepresented what actually happened there! Shah herself has apologised for her comments and admitted they came out of ignorance on her part and she never should have said any of them. for you to gloss over Ken saying Hitler was a Jewish supporter and Shah comparing Israel to the Nazis as if we can just ignore those comments and pretend they're actualy being pilloried for standing up against the Israeli state is just nonsense! you can easily stand up against the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians WITHOUT the need of bringing up the Nazis or Hitler. for ANYONE (let alone politicians) to claim Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that Israel is similar to the Nazi state is crass, distasteful, hugely insensitive to the entire Jewish faith and SHOULD be publicly called out as being so. tell you what though, you gloss over the salient facts as being a case of someone simply being "loose lipped" and just hope no-one else knows what he actually said eh? If either had simply said the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians was terrible (which you appear to be trying to make out is really all that happened) then NEITHER would have been labelled anti-semites and you damn well know it! If I gave the impression I was glossing over I apoliogise, didn't mean to give that sense at all - Ken was an idiot and if he really believes that I'll be revising my opinion of him. My issue was with the way people who criticise Israel the state risk being branded anti-Semitic, which I find incredibly unacceptable. Honestly I don;t think we're disagreeing here are we? do they? really sal, do they? as ive said, it isn't criticising the Israeli state that have led to them being branded anti-semitic...plenty of people have done so without having anti-semitisim thrown at them and plenty will again in the future. it's not criticism that gives an anti-semitic impression it's HOW you criticise that does that.....it's the comments regarding Hitler (and the seeming complete re-writing of history and the treatment of Jews in Germany during the early 30s) by Ken and the comparison of Israel to the Nazi's by Shah that have given them those labels NOTHING else! they have not been branded as anything simply for criticising a state, it's because they chose to criticise a state AND offend an entire faith in the process that (strangely enough) has led to massive offence being caused. let's not try to dress this up as PC gone mad in a world where you can't saying anything without being racist. they both easily could have criticised the state and the way they have treated the Palestinians WITHOUT being labelled anti-semites. out of interest, when Donald Trump has managed to offend entire faiths in his election campaign have you been as defensive about him and his comments? as i said above, this isn't about sticking up for Ken because you support his politics. this is about general common decency and the way you approach and deal with such sensitive matters. that should supercede any political loyalty in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Apr 29, 2016 15:00:42 GMT
I don’t really believe people who insist that their loathing is directed solely at Israel, rather than at Jews, everyone likes someone to hate. I think it has something to do with the identification of Jewish people with financial greed and a sort of underhand cunning. I can't come up with a better explanation anyway
|
|
|
Post by bringontheclowns on Apr 29, 2016 15:51:53 GMT
It's not exactly shahs first brush with anti semitism The denial of the murders of Israeli children by rock throwing Palestinian youths, or the appointment of Mohammed shabbir as an advisor, ate far more damping than any tweets As for livingstone,for me it's not how he tried to defend her, though that was sick enough for most, it's why defend her at all Why would anyone defend naz shah and her blatant anti semetic views, unless they held those same views As for the OP, and why her tweets were not picked up earlier, they probably were, and ignored by the party officials Naz shah was not the choosen by the people of Bradford west, but forced on them She got 13 votes out of 350, the winner polled 195, then, after doing all the hard work, getting the nomination for a seat she was nailed on to win, withdrew
|
|
|
Post by capto on Apr 29, 2016 16:25:35 GMT
if you are critical if Israeli foreign policy vis-à-vis the Arabs, are you anti-Semitic? if you are not critical of Israeli foreign policy, do you support their treatment of the Palestinians? if you support Israel, are you then racist against the Arabs? If you support the Arabs / Palestinians, then are you anti-Semitic?
or, as a sign i saw recently said: I've got nothing against God ... It's his fan club I can't stand (or, in this case, fan clubs?)
|
|
|
Post by bringontheclowns on Apr 29, 2016 17:01:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 29, 2016 17:13:38 GMT
I don’t really believe people who insist that their loathing is directed solely at Israel, rather than at Jews, everyone likes someone to hate. I think it has something to do with the identification of Jewish people with financial greed and a sort of underhand cunning. I can't come up with a better explanation anyway Dunno about that mate. There is plenty to be critical about with Israeli policy not born out of that sort of base anti-semitism. I think the nudge-nudge wink-wink state policy towards settlements on the West Bank and the housing policies around the Holy areas are pretty reprehensible for a start. I'll declare my hand - I'm sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. That doesn't make me anti-Semitic. I've met families 3 generations old unfortunate enough to never have lived outside a camp since the Nakhba 1948. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by brilittle on Apr 29, 2016 18:17:25 GMT
Ok I am NOT NOT NOT anti-Semtic and Ken was losse-mouthed idiot bringing Hitler into the conversation but what is with this assumption that anti-Israel = anti-Zionist = anti-Semitic?? I'm NOT anti-Zionist either but I'm totally anti the way Israel the state has conducted itself in my lifetime, its treatment of Palestinians remains obscene. So did I just say something anti-Semitic there?? Just mad. have you read/heard anything either he or Shah said sal? i presume you have, in which case why are you so flippantly glossing over the actual comments that DID get him into trouble ( saying Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that's why he wanted them re-located to Israel, then he just went a bit mad later on and killed them all instead...and you dress that up as a bit "loose mouthed"??????????????? absolutely staggering!!!) and pretending he's been labelled as anti-semitic just by saying their treatment of Palestinians is wrong? you've completely misrepresented what actually happened there! Shah herself has apologised for her comments and admitted they came out of ignorance on her part and she never should have said any of them. for you to gloss over Ken saying Hitler was a Jewish supporter and Shah comparing Israel to the Nazis as if we can just ignore those comments and pretend they're actualy being pilloried for standing up against the Israeli state is just nonsense! you can easily stand up against the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians WITHOUT the need of bringing up the Nazis or Hitler. for ANYONE (let alone politicians) to claim Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that Israel is similar to the Nazi state is crass, distasteful, hugely insensitive to the entire Jewish faith and SHOULD be publicly called out as being so. tell you what though, you gloss over the salient facts as being a case of someone simply being "loose lipped" and just hope no-one else knows what he actually said eh? If either had simply said the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians was terrible (which you appear to be trying to make out is really all that happened) then NEITHER would have been labelled anti-semites and you damn well know it! Did he really say that. I'm sure i heard the interview when it aired on radio 4 and they were not his words.............was this a different interview? I seem to recall him saying that "Hitler supported the Jews being deported to Palestine in 1932(or 1933)" but that would be a completely different take on the one you quoted. I've not read up on it though so it's more probable you are correct as it's pushed you to mention this in such terms.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 29, 2016 18:40:31 GMT
have you read/heard anything either he or Shah said sal? i presume you have, in which case why are you so flippantly glossing over the actual comments that DID get him into trouble ( saying Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that's why he wanted them re-located to Israel, then he just went a bit mad later on and killed them all instead...and you dress that up as a bit "loose mouthed"??????????????? absolutely staggering!!!) and pretending he's been labelled as anti-semitic just by saying their treatment of Palestinians is wrong? you've completely misrepresented what actually happened there! Shah herself has apologised for her comments and admitted they came out of ignorance on her part and she never should have said any of them. for you to gloss over Ken saying Hitler was a Jewish supporter and Shah comparing Israel to the Nazis as if we can just ignore those comments and pretend they're actualy being pilloried for standing up against the Israeli state is just nonsense! you can easily stand up against the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians WITHOUT the need of bringing up the Nazis or Hitler. for ANYONE (let alone politicians) to claim Hitler was actually a supporter of the Jews and that Israel is similar to the Nazi state is crass, distasteful, hugely insensitive to the entire Jewish faith and SHOULD be publicly called out as being so. tell you what though, you gloss over the salient facts as being a case of someone simply being "loose lipped" and just hope no-one else knows what he actually said eh? If either had simply said the Israeli state's treatment of the Palestinians was terrible (which you appear to be trying to make out is really all that happened) then NEITHER would have been labelled anti-semites and you damn well know it! Did he really say that. I'm sure i heard the interview when it aired on radio 4 and they were not his words.............was this a different interview? I seem to recall him saying that "Hitler supported the Jews being deported to Palestine in 1932(or 1933)" but that would be a completely different take on the one you quoted. I've not read up on it though so it's more probable you are correct as it's pushed you to mention this in such terms. He said that Hitler was a supporter of zionism. Now that isn't even strictly true... although Nazi Germany had the Havaara (sp.) agreement drawn up to facilitate the voluntary emigration of jews...and that was due to the huge amount of anti-semitism they faced by remaining in germany not because they actually wanted to leave.... (which Hitler publicly opposed anyway in 1933) the agreement stated they could only leave if they gave all of their possessions to the german state before leaving and then could pay 1000 pounds sterling (again, to the nazis) to have their goods "exported" from germany at a later date (most of the time the money was paid to germany but the goods never sent). The agreement was only drawn up as nazi germany saw the anti-nazi boycott across europe at the time as a risk to their economy. Hitler made no secret that he disagreed with it vehemently at the time however as it was giving extra rights to jews to escape a poverty stricken situation he blamed them for. The idea that he was any kind of supporter to the faith or their cause is ludicrous, factually incorrect and must be sickening for any jewish person to hear. Dress it up how you want, he dropped a proper bollock....all he needed to say was he disagreed with the israeli state and the way they handled affairs and this would have been forgotten about within minutes. You start dragging hitler into it and stating he supporting their cause??? That's just showing what a loony he really is! If further proof was needed how crazy a thing it was to say, even galloway (whilst defending him) said it was incredibly ill judged and even he wouldn't have used the imagery that livingstone had. The ONLY fact livingstone had right was that it was hitler that signed the agreement but to state he therefore supported them and that was why he was doing it is just disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by brilittle on Apr 29, 2016 18:53:15 GMT
Did he really say that. I'm sure i heard the interview when it aired on radio 4 and they were not his words.............was this a different interview? I seem to recall him saying that "Hitler supported the Jews being deported to Palestine in 1932(or 1933)" but that would be a completely different take on the one you quoted. I've not read up on it though so it's more probable you are correct as it's pushed you to mention this in such terms. He said that Hitler was a supporter of zionism. Now that isn't even strictly true... although Nazi Germany had the Havaara (sp.) agreement drawn up to facilitate the voluntary emigration of jews...and that was due to the huge amount of anti-semitism they faced by remaining in germany not because they actually wanted to leave.... (which Hitler publicly opposed anyway in 1933) the agreement stated they could only leave if they gave all of their possessions to the german state before leaving and then could pay 1000 pounds sterling (again, to the nazis) to have their goods "exported" from germany at a later date (most of the time the money was paid to germany but the goods never sent). The agreement was only drawn up as nazi germany saw the anti-nazi boycott across europe at the time as a risk to their economy. Hitler made no secret that he disagreed with it vehemently at the time however as it was giving extra rights to jews to escape a poverty stricken situation he blamed them for. The idea that he was any kind of supporter to the faith or their cause is ludicrous, factually incorrect and must be sickening for any jewish person to hear. Dress it up how you want, he dropped a proper bollock....all he needed to say was he disagreed with the israeli state and the way they handled affairs and this would have been forgotten about within minutes. You start dragging hitler into it and stating he supporting their cause??? That's just showing what a loony he really is! If further proof was needed how crazy a thing it was to say, even galloway (whilst defending him) said it was incredibly ill judged and even he wouldn't have used the imagery that livingstone had. The ONLY fact livingstone had right was that it was hitler that signed the agreement but to state he therefore supported them and that was why he was doing it is just disgraceful. I've just read the transcripts. Although you've now clairifed what was said, what you have did in your previous post Mick is to substitute where he said "Zionism" for "Jews". Not just once in your post but 3 times. Thus, sweepingly juxtaposing Jews with Zionists. That was you who did that, not Ken Livingstone. Why would you be so judgemental towards the Jews whilst at the same time critisisng others for your percieved anti=semitism? Obviously i know you are not doing this, but it's the same kind of small potatoes that this whole episode is based upon. Nobody really believes that Ken Livingstone of all people is an out and out racist do they, it's just a brilliant opportunity for those who oppose him to stick the boot in, the machine whirrls at full pace for such matters. Compare this to blatant islamaphobic rants from certain members of the Conservatives and how widely and deeply these get reported and you have the state of the nation in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 29, 2016 19:09:54 GMT
He said that Hitler was a supporter of zionism. Now that isn't even strictly true... although Nazi Germany had the Havaara (sp.) agreement drawn up to facilitate the voluntary emigration of jews...and that was due to the huge amount of anti-semitism they faced by remaining in germany not because they actually wanted to leave.... (which Hitler publicly opposed anyway in 1933) the agreement stated they could only leave if they gave all of their possessions to the german state before leaving and then could pay 1000 pounds sterling (again, to the nazis) to have their goods "exported" from germany at a later date (most of the time the money was paid to germany but the goods never sent). The agreement was only drawn up as nazi germany saw the anti-nazi boycott across europe at the time as a risk to their economy. Hitler made no secret that he disagreed with it vehemently at the time however as it was giving extra rights to jews to escape a poverty stricken situation he blamed them for. The idea that he was any kind of supporter to the faith or their cause is ludicrous, factually incorrect and must be sickening for any jewish person to hear. Dress it up how you want, he dropped a proper bollock....all he needed to say was he disagreed with the israeli state and the way they handled affairs and this would have been forgotten about within minutes. You start dragging hitler into it and stating he supporting their cause??? That's just showing what a loony he really is! If further proof was needed how crazy a thing it was to say, even galloway (whilst defending him) said it was incredibly ill judged and even he wouldn't have used the imagery that livingstone had. The ONLY fact livingstone had right was that it was hitler that signed the agreement but to state he therefore supported them and that was why he was doing it is just disgraceful. I've just read the transcripts. Although you've now clairifed what was said, what you have did in your previous post Mick is to substitute where he said "Zionism" for "Jews". Not just once in your post but 3 times. Thus, sweepingly juxtaposing Jews with Zionists. That was you who did that, not Ken Livingstone. Why would you be so judgemental towards the Jews whilst at the same time critisisng others for your percieved anti=semitism? Obviously i know you are not doing this, but it's the same kind of small potatoes that this whole episode is based upon. Nobody really believes that Ken Livingstone of all people is an out and out racist do they, it's just a brilliant opportunity for those who oppose him to stick the boot in, the machine whirrls at full pace for such matters. Compare this to blatant islamaphobic rants from certain members of the Conservatives and how widely and deeply these get reported and you have the state of the nation in a nutshell. I take your point but what you have to remember is that the agreement set up by the nazis was never really for zionists in the true sense; it was simply a way of getting jews out of their country whilst giving the impression they were actually aiding the zionist cause. As i said, it was done largely for PR due to the europe wide nazi boycott of trade to hide the persecution of jews (not zionists) within germany. Those that left didn't do so due to zionism but due to fear of their lives if they remained in germany. I don't see any way that livingstone's belief that this displayed hitler's support of zionists (rather than jews) is any more pallatable whethter the word "jew" or "zionist" is used. He was referring specifically to this agreement and, let's be clear, that agreement was about jews NOT simply zionists. You can't judge what he said by current context when what he was specifically referring to was a historical agreement from 80 years ago. It's a hugely offensive thing to say by him
|
|