|
Post by brilittle on Apr 29, 2016 19:51:09 GMT
You really believe that Ken Livingstone is anti-semetic then?
I don't by any means. Whatever Hitlers intentions were (and nobody has any doubt they were sinister) he did encourage talk of a home state for Jews, and a movement that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland is also known as Zionism is it not? Therefore Hitler at one point supported Zionism.
Saying instead he "supported the Jews" is a completely different kettle of fish. It's sterotypical racism from yourself if you are unable to differentiate between Jews and Zionists. Your outrage is ironic.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 29, 2016 21:21:19 GMT
You really believe that Ken Livingstone is anti-semetic then? I don't by any means. Whatever Hitlers intentions were (and nobody has any doubt they were sinister) he did encourage talk of a home state for Jews, and a movement that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland is also known as Zionism is it not? Therefore Hitler at one point supported Zionism. Saying instead he "supported the Jews" is a completely different kettle of fish. It's sterotypical racism from yourself if you are unable to differentiate between Jews and Zionists. Your outrage is ironic. plenty of box ticking again woof woof
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Apr 29, 2016 22:00:18 GMT
It's quite ironic that the President of the United States is happy to get behind the Remain Camp whilst at the same time arming the Israeli's up to the teeth so they can massively and disproportionately react to any Palestinian aggression.
Maybe that should be the subject of debate rather than the semantical differences between British politicians.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Apr 29, 2016 23:00:43 GMT
It's quite ironic that the President of the United States is happy to get behind the Remain Camp whilst at the same time arming the Israeli's up to the teeth so they can massively and disproportionately react to any Palestinian aggression. Maybe that should be the subject of debate rather than the semantical differences between British politicians. It's not US arms that is most valuable to Israel. There's something else the US does for them. A clue...
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Apr 29, 2016 23:02:37 GMT
The Palestinians have had a truly miserable time since 48. Betrayed and left in the lurch by this country, kicked about as a political football both by Arab nationalism and various Arab leader's pride and regional ambitions.
Often poorly led by their own leaders and subjected to the political whim of the politics of the countries they are forced to reside in.
Now split politically and preyed upon by an extremist fundamentalism driven both by outside agents and the poverty of their circumstance and expectation.
A proud, decent and cheerful people even in that poverty and in the weakness of their situation, forced to negotiate some means of existence with an unsympathetic Israel which has the backing of the world superpower.
What chance they?
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 9:39:41 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! You're misquoting him mate - he didn't say Hitler was a "supporter of the Jews" anywhere that I've seen. That's what the Tories would like us all to believe but it didn't happen as far as I'm aware. NB. before some fuckwit (not you) accuses me of being an apologist or anti-semitic, I'm not saying I approve of or agree with Livingstone's comments. But they are being widely exaggerated and misquoted
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 9:51:09 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! You're misquoting him mate - he didn't say Hitler was a "supporter of the Jews" anywhere that I've seen. That's what the Tories would like us all to believe but it didn't happen as far as I'm aware. NB. before some fuckwit (not you) accuses me of being an apologist or anti-semitic, I'm not saying I approve of or agree with Livingstone's comments. But they are being widely exaggerated and misquoted Already addressed on the previous page mate. His comments referred to a specific agreement hitler made in 1933 and make no mistake, the nazis made NO distinction between jews and zionists. They simply wanted them out of the country. Livingstone said hitler was a "zionist supporter". As mentioned in my previous post, if you look at the historical agreement livingstone was referring to, his comments and the offence those comments would cause are not widely exaggerated at all. You can't judge his comments and language on a contemporary basis when he was describing a historical event where those terms were interchangeable. As even galloway said, livingstone's comments were (at the very best) incredibly "ill judged" and are also pig ignorant of the context and reality of the agreement hitler signed. It's a complete misinterpretation of the facts and a rewriting of history
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 9:59:43 GMT
You're misquoting him mate - he didn't say Hitler was a "supporter of the Jews" anywhere that I've seen. That's what the Tories would like us all to believe but it didn't happen as far as I'm aware. NB. before some fuckwit (not you) accuses me of being an apologist or anti-semitic, I'm not saying I approve of or agree with Livingstone's comments. But they are being widely exaggerated and misquoted Already addressed on the previous page mate. His comments referred to a specific agreement hitler made in 1933 and make no mistake, the nazis made NO distinction between jews and zionists. They simply wanted them out of the country. Livingstone said he was a "zionist supporter". As mentioned in my previous post, if you look at the historical agreement livingstone was referring to, his comments and the offence those comments would cause are not widely exaggerated at all. You can't judge his comments and language on a contemporary basis when he was describing a historical event where those terms were interchangeable. As even galloway said, livingstone's comments were (at the very best) incredibly "ill judged" and are also pig ignorant of the context and reality of the agreement hitler signed. It's a complete misinterpretation of the facts and a rewriting of history Sorry, so it is! I agree that his comments were ludicrous mate, I'm not disputing that. But irrespective of the situation in the 1930s, in today's context there's a BIG difference between saying Hitler supported Jews and Hitler supported Zionism.
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 10:01:24 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! You're misquoting him mate - he didn't say Hitler was a "supporter of the Jews" anywhere that I've seen. That's what the Tories would like us all to believe but it didn't happen as far as I'm aware. NB. before some fuckwit (not you) accuses me of being an apologist or anti-semitic, I'm not saying I approve of or agree with Livingstone's comments. But they are being widely exaggerated and misquoted Livingstone should know better but the overblown response is all fairly standard fare from the Tory's, the right wing press and the remnants of Blair's New Labour project.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 10:11:08 GMT
You're misquoting him mate - he didn't say Hitler was a "supporter of the Jews" anywhere that I've seen. That's what the Tories would like us all to believe but it didn't happen as far as I'm aware. NB. before some fuckwit (not you) accuses me of being an apologist or anti-semitic, I'm not saying I approve of or agree with Livingstone's comments. But they are being widely exaggerated and misquoted Livingstone should know better but the overblown response is all fairly standard fare from the Tory's, the right wing press and the remnants of Blair's New Labour project. Yup. Many different agendas at work here. There's the pro-Israel lobby trying to further their ambition to make it impossible to discuss any aspect of Israel without being accused of racism. Then there are those who want Corbyn to fail.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 10:17:25 GMT
Already addressed on the previous page mate. His comments referred to a specific agreement hitler made in 1933 and make no mistake, the nazis made NO distinction between jews and zionists. They simply wanted them out of the country. Livingstone said he was a "zionist supporter". As mentioned in my previous post, if you look at the historical agreement livingstone was referring to, his comments and the offence those comments would cause are not widely exaggerated at all. You can't judge his comments and language on a contemporary basis when he was describing a historical event where those terms were interchangeable. As even galloway said, livingstone's comments were (at the very best) incredibly "ill judged" and are also pig ignorant of the context and reality of the agreement hitler signed. It's a complete misinterpretation of the facts and a rewriting of history Sorry, so it is! I agree that his comments were ludicrous mate, I'm not disputing that. But irrespective of the situation in the 1930s, in today's context there's a BIG difference between saying Hitler supported Jews and Hitler supported Zionism. Not in terms of offence caused there isn't. To claim Hitler tried to deport every single jew (not just zionists) out of germany because he was actually helping and supporting the zionist cause????? And then to say his later mass slaughter of them was because he went "a bit mad"!! Whether it's modern day terminology we're using or not it's a simply disgusting statement for livingstone to make. If you want to slag off the israeli state then crack on Ken...but if you're discussing a jewish state and movement then it's probably best NOT to mention hitler...oh yeah and definitely don't claim he actually supported that jewish movement and the rest of history have subsequently just got him wrong, he was just a bit misunderstood maybe.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 10:23:55 GMT
Sorry, so it is! I agree that his comments were ludicrous mate, I'm not disputing that. But irrespective of the situation in the 1930s, in today's context there's a BIG difference between saying Hitler supported Jews and Hitler supported Zionism. Not in terms of offence caused there isn't. To claim Hitler tried to deport every single jew (not just zionists) out of germany because he was actually helping and supporting the zionist cause????? And then to say his later mass slaughter of them was because he went "a bit mad"!! Whether it's modern day terminology we're using or not it's a simply disgusting statement for livingstone to make. Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were.
|
|
|
Post by uknorse on Apr 30, 2016 10:25:09 GMT
livingstones a cunt of the highest order, hes an IRA sympathizer, and has very close links to islamic extremists
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 10:30:34 GMT
Not in terms of offence caused there isn't. To claim Hitler tried to deport every single jew (not just zionists) out of germany because he was actually helping and supporting the zionist cause????? And then to say his later mass slaughter of them was because he went "a bit mad"!! Whether it's modern day terminology we're using or not it's a simply disgusting statement for livingstone to make. Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were. Oh the facts...? Largely irrelevant when morbid conjecture and false allegations can do the job in a far more effective way. It is OK to ignore the facts these days and embellish a little storyline of our own, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 10:31:52 GMT
Not in terms of offence caused there isn't. To claim Hitler tried to deport every single jew (not just zionists) out of germany because he was actually helping and supporting the zionist cause????? And then to say his later mass slaughter of them was because he went "a bit mad"!! Whether it's modern day terminology we're using or not it's a simply disgusting statement for livingstone to make. Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were. Not really. That's why i posted about the agreement itself. Without understanding the agreement, WHY nazi germany actually signed up to it and the language that was used at the time it would be more difficult for people to understand jusy why his comments are so offensive. As i said you can't say "Well Livingstone meant just zionists not jews when referring to the agreement" when what he's referring back to made no distinction between the 2! It's not like Ken is some uneducated thicko who doesn't realise this. WE in our society distinguish between the 2 but the nazi agreement HE referenced didn't!!! It's massively important people realise that or, again, his complete rewrite of what happened back then is complete. Context and terminology of the time he was referencing is absolutely essential!!! You can't say "Well what hitler meant by those terms back then isn't important...based on my terminology what he did was technically supporting their cause so he was helping them out"
|
|
|
Post by themistocles on Apr 30, 2016 11:05:33 GMT
Take a look at @skynews's Tweet:
"I've always defend minorities" we know you do Ken, IRA Hamas Hezbollah..
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 30, 2016 11:45:20 GMT
Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were. Oh the facts...? Largely irrelevant when morbid conjecture and false allegations can do the job in a far more effective way. It is OK to ignore the facts these days and embellish a little storyline of our own, isn't it? Seems that facts are irrelevant, when you have people like Stephen Fry directing a factual film and altering facts, FFS the name of the dog was nigger fact however that appears to be acceptable these days.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 11:53:39 GMT
Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were. Not really. That's why i posted about the agreement itself. Without understanding the agreement, WHY nazi germany actually signed up to it and the language that was used at the time it would be more difficult for people to understand jusy why his comments are so offensive. As i said you can't say "Well Livingstone meant just zionists not jews when referring to the agreement" when what he's referring back to made no distinction between the 2! It's not like Ken is some uneducated thicko who doesn't realise this. WE in our society distinguish between the 2 but the nazi agreement HE referenced didn't!!! It's massively important people realise that or, again, his complete rewrite of what happened back then is complete. Context and terminology of the time he was referencing is absolutely essential!!! You can't say "Well what hitler meant by those terms back then isn't important...based on my terminology what he did was technically supporting their cause so he was helping them out" Well we'll have to agree to disagree about the implication of you not quoting the comments verbatim. The point that Livingstone was trying to make - clumsily - was that criticising Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. He attempted to illustrate this by pointing out that some of the most anti-semitic people of all time supported the concept of Zionism. Which is true, although many on here and in the right-wing press gloss over this to make the comments seem more racist. What he's referring back to DOES distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews. The Haavara Agreement was an agreement that was signed between the Zionist Federation Of Germany and the Nazi government, amongst others - but not by mainstream Jewish organisations. There were at that time, and still are today, many Jews to whom the very concept of Zionism is an aberration.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 12:00:00 GMT
Oh the facts...? Largely irrelevant when morbid conjecture and false allegations can do the job in a far more effective way. It is OK to ignore the facts these days and embellish a little storyline of our own, isn't it? Seems that facts are irrelevant, when you have people like Stephen Fry directing a factual film and altering facts, FFS the name of the dog was nigger fact however that appears to be acceptable these days. Insightful and relevant as ever carps. You're now comparing Jews to dogs, you daft Nazi nobhead
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 12:07:08 GMT
Like I say, in terms of the sentiment of Livingstone's comments I agree. But you misquoted him in order to make his comments sound (even) more provocative than they were. Oh the facts...? Largely irrelevant when morbid conjecture and false allegations can do the job in a far more effective way. It is OK to ignore the facts these days and embellish a little storyline of our own, isn't it? I'm beginning to think that Corbyn's mountain is simply too high. I hope I'm wrong. I just don't see what chance he has against the full force of the right-wing misinformation machine. If people were better educated it would help; but then carpslayer rocks up talking about labradors like some mumbling senile old wreck who lives in the back of a car and it makes you realise the scale of the task.
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 12:15:29 GMT
Seems that facts are irrelevant, when you have people like Stephen Fry directing a factual film and altering facts, FFS the name of the dog was nigger fact however that appears to be acceptable these days. Insightful and relevant as ever carps. You're now comparing Jews to dogs, you daft Nazi nobhead Where would we be without the laser guided insight and critical thinking of our favourite little goldfish? Round and round he goes eating his own poo, surveying the world from his little glass bubble on a Normacot kitchen shelf...
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 12:22:57 GMT
Oh the facts...? Largely irrelevant when morbid conjecture and false allegations can do the job in a far more effective way. It is OK to ignore the facts these days and embellish a little storyline of our own, isn't it? I'm beginning to think that Corbyn's mountain is simply too high. I hope I'm wrong. I just don't see what chance he has against the full force of the right-wing misinformation machine. If people were better educated it would help; but then carpslayer rocks up talking about labradors like some mumbling senile old wreck who lives in the back of a car and it makes you realise the scale of the task. Totally empathise with those sentiments MM. We live in a hostile world of ignorance and bigotry, some of which is reflected into these very pages by a few uneducated individuals who have little grasp of the real damage they cause.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 12:26:33 GMT
Not really. That's why i posted about the agreement itself. Without understanding the agreement, WHY nazi germany actually signed up to it and the language that was used at the time it would be more difficult for people to understand jusy why his comments are so offensive. As i said you can't say "Well Livingstone meant just zionists not jews when referring to the agreement" when what he's referring back to made no distinction between the 2! It's not like Ken is some uneducated thicko who doesn't realise this. WE in our society distinguish between the 2 but the nazi agreement HE referenced didn't!!! It's massively important people realise that or, again, his complete rewrite of what happened back then is complete. Context and terminology of the time he was referencing is absolutely essential!!! You can't say "Well what hitler meant by those terms back then isn't important...based on my terminology what he did was technically supporting their cause so he was helping them out" Well we'll have to agree to disagree about the implication of you not quoting the comments verbatim. The point that Livingstone was trying to make - clumsily - was that criticising Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. He attempted to illustrate this by pointing out that some of the most anti-semitic people of all time supported the concept of Zionism. Which is true, although many on here and in the right-wing press gloss over this to make the comments seem more racist. What he's referring back to DOES distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews. The Haavara Agreement was an agreement that was signed between the Zionist Federation Of Germany and the Nazi government, amongst others - but not by mainstream Jewish organisations. There were at that time, and still are today, many Jews to whom the very concept of Zionism is an aberration. The agreement didn't make a distinction between the 2 in the sense that it didn't relate specifically to zionists and zionists only. It was made simply to get jews out of germany, nothing more. To state the idea that it was in support of the zionist cause is disgusting. The zionist federation signed it as it was a way of all jews escaping the persecution they were facing in germany!!! It was by the way also agreed with and signed by the anglo-palestine bank on the direction of The Jewish agency....it was an agreement that related to ALL jews, zionist or otherwise. You're falling into the same trap livingstone has..simply looking at the fact that "Zionists" want to return to their homeland, hitler signed an agreement which technically allowed that to happen and thinking "Oh well everyone's a winner then, he's obviously supporting them". It's completely glossing over the context, the state of persecution ALL jews in germany were facing (it's not as if it was a case that unless you could prove you actually were a zionist then they wouldn't merrily send you on your way because you were just a jew...it was done so germany could "get rid") and the real reasons the germans drew up the agreement i.e. to convince the world the rumours of anti-semitism in germany weren't true and therefore stop the anti-nazi trade boycott across europe. Those that left germany weren't doing so because of zionist beliefs with a big thanks to nazi germany for allowing it to happen, they were doing it (both jews and zionists) because they were in fear of their lives for god's sake! You say yourself that some jews find zionism abhorrent..yet they still used the zionist agreement to get out of germany. What does that tell you exactly??? They disagreed with zionism yet still took this as a chance to get the hell out of the country regardless!!!! They were terrified of the govt who ran their home country so were willing to go against their own religious beliefs so they could escape! To dress it up as anything else is abhorrent. You can't just look at history in terms of cold,hard facts and dates without looking at the context of the society and govt. of the time and reasons behind those historical decisions. It's PRECISELY that which leads to historical events being completely misinterpreted and rewritten and what happened in nazi germany is NOT something that should ever fall foul to that.
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 12:40:44 GMT
Well we'll have to agree to disagree about the implication of you not quoting the comments verbatim. The point that Livingstone was trying to make - clumsily - was that criticising Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. He attempted to illustrate this by pointing out that some of the most anti-semitic people of all time supported the concept of Zionism. Which is true, although many on here and in the right-wing press gloss over this to make the comments seem more racist. What he's referring back to DOES distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews. The Haavara Agreement was an agreement that was signed between the Zionist Federation Of Germany and the Nazi government, amongst others - but not by mainstream Jewish organisations. There were at that time, and still are today, many Jews to whom the very concept of Zionism is an aberration. The agreement didn't make a distinction between the 2 in the sense that it didn't relate specifically to zionists and zionists only. It was made simply to get jews out of germany, nothing more. To state the idea that it was in support of the zionist cause is disgusting. The zionist federation signed it as it was a way of all jews escaping the persecution they were facing in germany!!! It was by the way also agreed with and signed by the anglo-palestine bank on the direction of The Jewish agency....it was an agreement that related to ALL jews, zionist or otherwise. You're falling into the same trap livingstone has..simply looking at the fact that "Zionists" want to return to their homeland, hitler signed an agreement which technically allowed that to happen and thinking "Oh well everyone's a winner then". It's completely glossing over the context, the state of persecution ALL jews in germany were facing (it's not as if it was a case that unless you could prove you actually were a zionist then they wouldn't merrily send you on your way because you were just a jew...it was done so germany could "get rid") and the real reasons the germans drew up the agreement i.e. to convince the world the rumours of anti-semitism in germany weren't true and therefore stop the anti-nazi trade boycott across europe. Those that left germany weren't doing so because of zionist beliefs with a big thanks to nazi germany for allowing it to happen, they were doing it (both jews and zionists) because they were in fear of their lives for god's sake! To dress it up as anything else is abhorrent. You can't just look at history in terms of cold,hard facts and dates without looking at the context of the society and govt. of the time and reasons behind those historical decisions. It's PRECISELY that which leads to historical events being completely misinterpreted and rewritten and what happened in nazi germany is NOT something that should ever fall foul to that. Mick, I think you need to take on board what MM is saying here. He's talking sense.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 12:44:38 GMT
The agreement didn't make a distinction between the 2 in the sense that it didn't relate specifically to zionists and zionists only. It was made simply to get jews out of germany, nothing more. To state the idea that it was in support of the zionist cause is disgusting. The zionist federation signed it as it was a way of all jews escaping the persecution they were facing in germany!!! It was by the way also agreed with and signed by the anglo-palestine bank on the direction of The Jewish agency....it was an agreement that related to ALL jews, zionist or otherwise. You're falling into the same trap livingstone has..simply looking at the fact that "Zionists" want to return to their homeland, hitler signed an agreement which technically allowed that to happen and thinking "Oh well everyone's a winner then". It's completely glossing over the context, the state of persecution ALL jews in germany were facing (it's not as if it was a case that unless you could prove you actually were a zionist then they wouldn't merrily send you on your way because you were just a jew...it was done so germany could "get rid") and the real reasons the germans drew up the agreement i.e. to convince the world the rumours of anti-semitism in germany weren't true and therefore stop the anti-nazi trade boycott across europe. Those that left germany weren't doing so because of zionist beliefs with a big thanks to nazi germany for allowing it to happen, they were doing it (both jews and zionists) because they were in fear of their lives for god's sake! To dress it up as anything else is abhorrent. You can't just look at history in terms of cold,hard facts and dates without looking at the context of the society and govt. of the time and reasons behind those historical decisions. It's PRECISELY that which leads to historical events being completely misinterpreted and rewritten and what happened in nazi germany is NOT something that should ever fall foul to that. Mick, I think you need to take on board what MM is saying here. He's talking sense. But he's factually incorrect! It WAS agreed by mainstrean Jewish organisations and it's vompletely failing to understand the context of why the agreement was made by the nazis and why so many jews got out under the agreement. You CANNOT look at history WITHOUT context of the time you're talking about. any kind of historical analysis CANNOT be done like that precisely because it leads to rewriting of history due to complete misinterpretation of the facts! It was NOT an agreement relating simply to zionists AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! The nazis did NOT care if you were zionist or simply jew, they wanted you out regardless!!! What it looks like to me is people using their own political allegiances to desperately grasp at straws in order to defend politicians from their own political side. As i said, this supercedes that...it's about common decency and respecting the memory of what actually happened in it's entirity NOT just dates, names and that'll do without even looking at the context behind those things.
|
|
gokun
Spectator
Posts: 46
|
Post by gokun on Apr 30, 2016 12:48:11 GMT
Mick, I think you need to take on board what MM is saying here. He's talking sense. But he's factually incorrect! It WAS agreed by mainstrean Jewish organisations and it's vompletely failing to understand the context of why the agreement was made by the nazis and why so many jews got out under the agreement. You CANNOT look at history WITHOUT context of the time you're talking about. any kind of historical analysis CANNOT be done like that precisely because it leads to rewriting of history due to complete misinterpretation of the facts! OK, fair enough. Interpretation plays a large part in the way you view this.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 30, 2016 13:44:40 GMT
to clarify though before things are taken out of context (and so far this thread, or at least the last couple of pages, has been refreshingly civil so i want it to stay that way before the usual posters start presuming things just so they can have a pop!):
1) do i think Livingstone IS an anti-semite? No - i think it's far too easy to label people nowadays when they've simply made a huge error of judgment but just 1 dropped bollock doesn't make you a full sex change patient as it were.
2) Do i think he was wrong to criticise the Israeli govt. for their actions? No - he has every right to that opinion, no state is above criticism regardless of their religious history or stance
The ONLY thing i have an issue with is the idea that Hitler signed the agreement because he was a "zionist supporter" based on; they want their own state, hitler allowed them to move to that state so therefore 2+2 MUST=4.
The agreement was absolutely 100% NOTHING more than a PR friendly form of ethnic cleansing....the germans were able to hide their persecution of the Jews by looking as if they supported the zionist cause which meant theire treatment of all Jews was put under far less scrutiny at the time, that therefore led to far less anti-nazi boycott of trade and increased their economy, they made a massive amount of money from the german jews who left germany and got what they wanted i.e. masses of jews (not simply zioniats) leaving their country (which was solely down to fear NOT any zionist beliefs).
it's that re-writing of history that i (and many others) find absolutely appalling. it's the equivalent of saying that if i beat up a man simply because he tried to stab me and i was defending myself and he then turns out to be Muslim then therefore Britain's first can say i'm a supporter of theirs. It's ludicrous logic! it's the reasons behind the actions you take that determine whether you "Support" something, not simply the end result of what you did.
NOTHING else he said i took issue with but that statement was insensitive, disgraceful and (in the context of what he was saying about criticising the Israeli govt) 100% unnecessary in the first place..he had literally no need to even mention Hitler and if he hadn't (in the same way that Shah could easily NOT have compared the Israeli's to the nazi's way back when) it would have all have been forgotten about pretty damn quickly.
i simply find it baffling that a man of Livingstone's standing and experince could make such a monumental gaffe. i don't think he really is anti-semitic but he MUST have known how many would see his comments re: Hitler in that way, he's not that naive!
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 14:27:12 GMT
Well we'll have to agree to disagree about the implication of you not quoting the comments verbatim. The point that Livingstone was trying to make - clumsily - was that criticising Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. He attempted to illustrate this by pointing out that some of the most anti-semitic people of all time supported the concept of Zionism. Which is true, although many on here and in the right-wing press gloss over this to make the comments seem more racist. What he's referring back to DOES distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews. The Haavara Agreement was an agreement that was signed between the Zionist Federation Of Germany and the Nazi government, amongst others - but not by mainstream Jewish organisations. There were at that time, and still are today, many Jews to whom the very concept of Zionism is an aberration. The agreement didn't make a distinction between the 2 in the sense that it didn't relate specifically to zionists and zionists only. It was made simply to get jews out of germany, nothing more. To state the idea that it was in support of the zionist cause is disgusting. The zionist federation signed it as it was a way of all jews escaping the persecution they were facing in germany!!! It was by the way also agreed with and signed by the anglo-palestine bank on the direction of The Jewish agency....it was an agreement that related to ALL jews, zionist or otherwise. You're falling into the same trap livingstone has..simply looking at the fact that "Zionists" want to return to their homeland, hitler signed an agreement which technically allowed that to happen and thinking "Oh well everyone's a winner then, he's obviously supporting them". It's completely glossing over the context, the state of persecution ALL jews in germany were facing (it's not as if it was a case that unless you could prove you actually were a zionist then they wouldn't merrily send you on your way because you were just a jew...it was done so germany could "get rid") and the real reasons the germans drew up the agreement i.e. to convince the world the rumours of anti-semitism in germany weren't true and therefore stop the anti-nazi trade boycott across europe. Those that left germany weren't doing so because of zionist beliefs with a big thanks to nazi germany for allowing it to happen, they were doing it (both jews and zionists) because they were in fear of their lives for god's sake! You say yourself that some jews find zionism abhorrent..yet they still used the zionist agreement to get out of germany. What does that tell you exactly??? They disagreed with zionism yet still took this as a chance to get the hell out of the country regardless!!!! They were terrified of the govt who ran their home country so were willing to go against their own religious beliefs so they could escape! To dress it up as anything else is abhorrent. You can't just look at history in terms of cold,hard facts and dates without looking at the context of the society and govt. of the time and reasons behind those historical decisions. It's PRECISELY that which leads to historical events being completely misinterpreted and rewritten and what happened in nazi germany is NOT something that should ever fall foul to that. Mate I know the period of history well and I'm really not falling into any trap - I'm simply explaining what I think Livingstone was TRYING to say. Which is that Nazis supported the CONCEPT of Zionism, albeit for very dishonourable reasons - it gave them a means to achieve a completely abhorrent objective, namely the removal of Jews from Germany. He was making that point in an ATTEMPT to illustrate that Zionism is very different to Judaism. I've also made it abundantly clear that I disapprove of how he said that. It's inexcusable and he's rightly been suspended. I'm just personally uncomfortable with misquoting people, that's all. I don't doubt that your intentions are noble but I think it's best practice to not do that. It muddies the water. I don't believe for a minute that Ken is racist. I think he got drawn into a discussion that a better politician would've avoided like the plague because it's very hard to come out of it intact - as he's now finding. Was he stupid? Yes. Naive? Maybe. Arrogant, as Partick has said? Unquestionably. Acting out of loyalty to a colleague? Maybe. The irony is we're now getting drawn into that same discussion and we're arguing over something we fundamentally agree on As I say, very difficult one to come out of intact....
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 30, 2016 16:30:24 GMT
I'm beginning to think that Corbyn's mountain is simply too high. I hope I'm wrong. I just don't see what chance he has against the full force of the right-wing misinformation machine. If people were better educated it would help; but then carpslayer rocks up talking about labradors like some mumbling senile old wreck who lives in the back of a car and it makes you realise the scale of the task. Totally empathise with those sentiments MM. We live in a hostile world of ignorance and bigotry, some of which is reflected into these very pages by a few uneducated individuals who have little grasp of the real damage they cause. Fortunately I think the worst offenders cause a lot less damage in the real world than they'd like to believe. They act like kings on here but they're actually nothing more than an ongoing mild embarrassment to the club
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 30, 2016 16:50:13 GMT
£@#&!n'e!!, there are some long sentences on this thread
|
|