You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm confused as to how Ken Livingston is an anti-Semite.
Is my definition of anti-semitic / racism wrong (words/actions which devalue / mistreat a group based on their race /religion)?
I don't understand how his comments about Hitler supporting Zionism can be construed as anti semitic. They may be right or wrong and can be argued / discussed using the facts available (by people far more knowledgeable than me about 1930's Europe) but how is saying what he said construed as anti-semitic?
[i]Never, never criticize Muslims; only, only Christians. And Jews a little bit.[/i]
Alan Partidge
[img] 
/624[/img]
A Jew will disagree on principle with anything you say, no matter how right you may be. I say that from long experience with a Jewish colleague and some encounters with some of the Orthodox Jews in Manchester, who my colleague calls the "black-hatters".
"I'm confused as to how Ken Livingston is an anti-Semite."
I have no idea if he's an anti-Semite, but I'm pretty sure what he said wasn't anti-Semetic, and I'm not aware of anyone explaining why they think it was.
outofbreath - Member
"I'm confused as to how Ken Livingston is an anti-Semite."I have no idea if he's an anti-Semite, but I'm pretty sure what he said wasn't anti-Semetic, and I'm not aware of anyone explaining why they think it was.
Excellent explanation by David Baddiel here: -
I too am struggling with this.
Saying Hitler was a zionist may well be inaccurate. Are you a zionist if you say "all you jews go live somewhere else- Yes, Israel - works for me"? That doesn't sound like a zionist to me, that sounds like an anti-semite. So is Livingstone considered anti-semitic because he is being glib with the facts?
Good editorial write up in the Guardian as well.
"[i]A Jew will disagree on principle with anything you say, no matter how right you may be.[/i]"
I've had similar experiences with Turkish people. Is everyone a racist ?
"Excellent explanation"
It's not though, is it. a) It misquotes by using a misleading definition of 'supports' and b) 'tone'. Please.
Because Mr Baddiel puts it all so well:
(apologies there's an f-bomb or two in there. But they're the good, leftie kind)
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I have been swayed me on this issue, I started off thinking Livingston had nothing to answer for. I still don't believe that Livingston is anti-Semite, but he did say something foolish and was certainly less informed about a point in history than he thought.
a Jew will disagree on principle with anything you say, no matter how right you may be.
that goes for about two thirds of STW too
"Good editorial write up in the Guardian as well."
Once again it doesn't say why it's racist.
I started off thinking Livingston had nothing to answer for. I still don't believe that Livingston is anti-Semite, but he did say something foolish and was certainly less informed about a point in history than he thought.
I think the other telling point is Ken's subsequent stance. He was quick to apologise to mental health groups last year, and Peter Tatchell and certain moderate Islamic groups before that, when he caused offence.
But when he offends Jewish people (for the nth time)? They can shove it, and stop being such oversensitive little babies. This difference in attitude strongly infers anti-Semitism, even if not explicit, I think.
The transcript of what KL said is:
"[i]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.[/i]"
So he [b]didn't[/b] say Hitler was a Zionist just that he supported Zionism. This was part of The Haavara Agreement. Zionism as a political movement was for the establishment and self-determination of a Jewish state, Hitler wasn't about that. It was most likely political expediency to give the Nazis time to come up with their abomination of a "final solution".
I think essentially Hitler was Zionist in the sense that he wanted the Jews out of Germany - encouraging them to leave for Israel with 'some' of their belongings was one method. When that wasn't effective enough he just took to killing them instead. To call him a Zionist is at best glib and at worst grossly misleading.
With Ken is in fact an anti-semite or not... I couldn't say for sure but if he had any sense he would simply apologise and move on.
"So he didn't say Hitler was a Zionist just that he supported Zionism."
Yup, supported Zionism as an unintentional by-product. Not support in the sense of approved of. But even if he'd said Hitler actually approved of Zionism, that's hardly anti-Semitism.
"A Jew will disagree on principle with anything you say, no matter how right you may be."I've had similar experiences with Turkish people. Is everyone a racist ?
In my experience, everyone is racist, sexists, ageist and any other kind of "ist" you can think of or make up.
Humans' brains are dominated by what they see, therefore they make assumptions based on their observations. So if you see a West Indian, female pensioner, you will automatically register all those details and make a judgement of that person based on your experiences. The problems occur when people make the wrong judgement.
His views are at least arguable, but why couldn't he keep his trap shut instead of throwing more petrol on the fire?
"His views are at least arguable, but why couldn't he keep his trap shut instead of throwing more petrol on the fire?"
A cynic might say because then he wouldn't get any publicity.
My issue with it is that he’s having “anti-Semite” screamed at him because he dares to criticise Israel. It is Israel’s first and best weapon in dealing with criticism in the West and the pro-Israeli elements within the Labour Party are persecuting him for it.
He might as well be banned from the Labour party under anti-automobile rules for stating the Nazi party thought the motorway was a good idea.
Hitler was Zionist in the sense that he wanted the Jews out of Germany
or in other words, not Zionist 🙄
That's like saying Im a lesbian because I like getting giggidty with women.
"That's like saying Im a lesbian because I like getting giggidty with women."
Assuming you are a terrible shag, you could be (unintentionally) supporting Lesbianism by getting giggidty with women. Which is pretty much what KL said.
or in other words, not Zionist
Yes, that was rather my point - apologies if it wasn't clear enough.
He was a Zionist in the same way that a murderer is an 'advocate of euthanasia'
ie not.
No, Hitler supported Zionism, in the same way that a murderer supports Coffin makers.
why couldn't he keep his trap shut instead of throwing more petrol on the fire?
http://howlongsincekenlivingstonementionedhitler.com
Note - Only records days, so may be out of date already.
Sorry Gavin. I mis-lesbianed
livingston is a dick, the sooner hes out of the picture the better
one wonders how much this is playing into israels hands too
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/israeli-spy-shai-masot-not-expelled/
Really??
'globalti - Member
A Jew will disagree on principle with anything you say, no matter how right you may be.'
+1 for Livingstone being a dick rather than an anti-semite, based on his public pronouncements anyway.
He's like an internet clever dick who's not half as clever as he thinks. We all know the type, eh?
I think Baddiel is over-reaching a bit there, but he's right to highlight Ken's lack of empathy and dismissive tone as the real problem.
Disappointed that the thread title isn't 'Ken! Livingston!' 🙂
I'm agreeing with cha****ng - having heard the report I wasn't sure how those comments - on their own - were anti-Semitic. But I didn't fancy starting a thread on it, can never tell which set of pitch fork wielding internet heroes will be on here...
A plus one from me for P-Jay. Being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic, despite the state of Israel's PR people trying to equate the two. (After all the Palestinian Arabs are also Semites).
OP I sent you a personal message.
Ken Livingstone has a lot of form on this issue, that provides important and relevant context. On the midst of Naz Shah's MP suspension from Labour he waded in suggesting Hitler supported Zionism. This is deeply offensive to many Jews. To suggest that the most evil leader of our time who directly ensured the murder of 6 millions Jews somehow supported the creation of a Jewish state was designed to offend most deeply Jews, it was a targetted remark. It sought to delegitimise the right of Jews to a state of their own. The author of the book he quoted is a known Holocaust denier.
[quote=MSP ]I have been swayed me on this issue, I started off thinking Livingston had nothing to answer for. I still don't believe that Livingston is anti-Semite, but he did say something foolish and was certainly less informed about a point in history than he thought.
this baddiel's article is great till he decides to conflate zionism and Jew as interchangeable terms
they are not and one can dislike zionism without disliking jews in much the same way one can dislike the ISIS caliphate and not hate Muslims
I also think its BS to say the left dont object to anti semitism
Being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic
Yes it is. Look at the definitions. We don't suggest that Christians are not entiled to a Christian Stats, eg Italy, Spain or Ireland. We don't suggest that Muslims have no right to chose to run Saudi Arabia under Sharira Law.
and we dont suggest jews do not have a right to a state we simply criticise what the state does in the same way I criticise saudi for what ot does
Though the former is apparently racist against jews and the later legitimate concerns about abuses
Its tiresome to get sidetracked by folk doing this BS as its easier to attack as racist than defend ISrael's actions
New settlements announced again for example
Being anti-Zionist is not anti-SemiticYes it is.
I think this is the root of the problem. Different people have slightly different beliefs / understandings / definitions of Semitism and Zionism and where your personal definitions are determines whether you think Ken was being anti-semitic or not.
this baddiel's article is great till he decides to conflate zionism and Jew as interchangeable termsthey are not and one can dislike zionism without disliking jews in much the same way one can dislike the ISIS caliphate and not hate Muslims
However the issue is that many people do deliberately use them interchangeably in order to mean the other
To use your own example, it would be like BNP claiming that their opposition to fundementalist Islamic preachers is entirely unrelated to skin colour.
Yes it is. Look at the definitions. We don't suggest that Christians are not entiled to a Christian Stats, eg Italy, Spain or Ireland. We don't suggest that Muslims have no right to chose to run Saudi Arabia under Sharira Law.
Are you saying that if I think the forced Palestinian exodus to make way for the Israeli state was a pretty sucky state of affairs for the Palestinians I'm anti-semitic as well as anti-zionist?
We don't suggest that Christians are not entiled to a Christian Stats, eg Italy, Spain or Ireland.
I have no idea about Spain or Italy but while Ireland has previously been almost exclusively Christian, and of that, predominantly Catholic, it is not a "Christian State" in the way you're implying. Its constitution forbids the state from creating an established church. It even recognises the Jewish congregations in the constitution. You've made this statement previously and been corrected on it. You will of course, in your wilful ignorance, make it again.
Here is an example
You can be against Israel's policy for example in the West Bank without being anti-Zionist. Being anti-Zionist means you believe Israel should not exist and what is more that Jews have no right to a state anywhere. Unless you hold and pursue a similar agenda against all religions and peoples you are being anti-Semitic as you are only targetting Jews.
I don't much care for Iran and it's policies but I believe Muslims are perfectly entitled to live under Sharia Law if they choose.
the forced Palestinian exodus to make way for the Israeli state
As opposed to the mass exodus of the Jewish people to make way for the Palestinians* that would have occurred otherwise?
*So much as you could call them that, to quote the Peel Commission:
[i]The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.[/i]
I think Ken is anti-semitic you don't bring Hitler and Jews into a conversation unless you aim to offend (plus he is wrong on his history which suggests it was deliberate).
However, I do agree that being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic.
Are you saying that if I think the forced Palestinian exodus to make way for the Israeli state was a pretty sucky state of affairs for the Palestinians I'm anti-semitic as well as anti-zionist?
Not at all. You are perfectly entitled to think that was wrong and that the League of Nations got that wrong.
At the same time as 700,000 Palestinian Arabs where forced (some say many chose) to leave the new state of Israel (British Palestine at the time) 800,000 Jews where expelled accross North Africa from Arab countries. 25% of modern Israel are Arabs, not everyone left (chose to leave). I'd also add that those 700,000 has grown to 6 million claiming refugee status today.
Got a retweet from David Baddiel today...
always quite liked him on the Mary Whitehouse experience and Skinner and Baddiel, but he went down in my estimations a bit:
Of course, the limited amount of characters on twitter can sometimes rob you of empathy and context, but even so:
(Disturbing though it may be, it's worth questioning):
[b]
Why did Leopold von Mildenstein, one of key Nazis involved in collaboration with Zionists avoid prosecution due to work with the CIA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Mildenstein [/b]
(bit in brackets is the bit that wouldn't fit in the tweet.)
I'll let you guess what 3 words he used...
Just. ****. Off.
❓
Good detective work 😉
That whole CIA thing bugs me though, especially with Allen Dulles' role in ensuring continued funding of the Nazis throughout WW2 via his asset, President of the Bank of International Settlements, Thomas McKittrick
[b]Thomas McKittrick, an American banker, was president of the BIS. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, McKittrick’s position, the history notes, “became difficult”. But McKittrick managed to keep the bank in business, thanks in part to his friend Allen Dulles, the US spymaster based in Berne. McKittrick was an asset of Dulles, known as Codename 644, and frequently passed him information that he had garnered from Emil Puhl, who was a frequent visitor to Basel and often met McKittrick.Declassified documents in the American intelligence archives reveal an even more disturbing story. Under an intelligence operation known as the “Harvard Plan”, McKittrick was in contact with Nazi industrialists, working towards what the US documents, dated February 1945, describe as a “close cooperation between the Allied and German business world”.
Thus while Allied soldiers were fighting through Europe, McKittrick was cutting deals to keep the Germany economy strong. This was happening with what the US documents describe as “the full assistance” of the State Department.[/b]
Bear in mind Dulles went on to become head of the CIA...
I'd also add that those 700,000 has grown to 6 million claiming refugee status today.
See - Genocide!
@deadly I know we diasgree on this but Ireland is a Catholic State much like Spain and Italy. It's as much a Catholic state as Saudi Arabia is an Islamic one.
@convert as a follow up I appreciate you think the forced exodus of the 700,000 was wrong but the solution is to 1) eradicate the state of Israel and/or 2) prevent Jews from having a nation state anywhere ? There is research which has shown many Arabs left as they did not wish to remain in a "Jewish land" (remember it was Trans Jordan and the Easten part which became Jordan was 100% Arab) and many where of the belief that the Arab nations would destroy the Jewish state so where getting away from what they saw as the battlefield before the fighting started.
Anti-Israel ... being against Israeli policy, eg West Bank / Gaza OR wanting to see eradication of Israel ?
Anti-Zionist .. being against Jews having a state anywhere, defacto eradication of Israel.
Finally as for the forced exodus it was the Jews who where forced to leave the Jewish Kingdoms of Solomon and David and saw their first and second Temples in Jerusalem destroyed. It depends how fear back in history you want to go, 1948 vs 600 BC or various periods inbetween. The city of Medinah in Saudi was a Jewish city conquered by the Prophet Mohammed where he established Islam. At some point you have to draw a line and say things have changed. The Jews are not trying to reclaim it.
Funny thing is, the matters Ken Livingstone raised regarding collaboration between Nazis and Zionists also tie in to Saudi Arabia...
Adolf Eichmann credited Leopold von Mildenstein's role as "the specialist for the Jewish affairs" as being the breakthrough in his career; Eichmann went on to become one of the key architects of the Holocaust.
John Loftus, an extremely meticulous and knowledgeable Nazi Hunter has stated that Adolf Eichmann had a meeting with Harry St John Philby (British Spy and Father of Kim Philby, who among other things has been linked to the Kincora scandal) in the mid 1930s
Aside from being a member of the British intelligence services, St John Philby was a key adviser to Ibn Saud, wahhabist and founder of the Saudi Monarchy...
It's as much a Catholic state as Saudi Arabia is an Islamic one.
You really did just write that didn't you. I'm not concerned whether you agree with me or not. Read the constitution. it's religiosity is down to history and there is some religious bollocks in the pre-amble but it is not state sanctioned. Youre implying that it's a "Christian State" in the way that Israel is a Jewish state. It's not. As for the comparison to Saudi Arabia...I don't know where to start or finish with that.
jambalaya - Member
Here is an exampleYou can be against Israel's policy for example in the West Bank without being anti-Zionist. Being anti-Zionist means you believe Israel should not exist and what is more that Jews have no right to a state anywhere
Well; when my 10 year old leaves his nice bike in the park he doesn't get to play with it for a while. Maybe we should apply the same to Israel? Use white phosphorus on a UN aid station;No international recognition for the pariah state of Israel for a few months. I am proud to be what you would call an anti-Semite ( because that is the label you throw about on here) based on your interpretation of it being anybody who is opposed to the regular racist,murderous actions of the Israeli state.
Jambybollocks rides again.
I know we diasgree on this but Ireland is a Catholic State much like Spain and Italy. It's as much a Catholic state as Saudi Arabia is an Islamic one.
Its not you and he disagreeing its you and the actual facts disagreeing
here is th eopening article of Saudis constitution
I await you providing a similar statement from Ireland ...you cannot because what you are saying is completely and utterly factually untrue and its constitution clearly states it cannot endorse any religionArticle 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.111
Why do you "debate" if you wish to ignore the actual facts and why do you keep repeating things that have been shown to be completely false?
It must actually take you effort to ignore facts