Naz Shah suspended from Parliament for anti Jewish rants.

[foxy lady 10]

I just heard this morning that a group of Jewish Labour supporters have made a statement saying that they do not consider Livingstone's speech to be Anti-Semitic.

 

Oh well. That's alright then.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36157027

[sutty27 10]

Y

 

I just heard this morning that a group of Jewish Labour supporters have made a statement saying that they do not consider Livingstone's speech to be Anti-Semitic.

 

I also can't figure out why his speech is described as Anti-Semitic.

Edited April 30, 2016 by sutty27

[foxy lady 10]

I also can't figure out why his speech is described as Anti-Semitic.

 

I think that is the problem, especially as everyone virtually else seems to be able to work it out without any difficulty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-labour-racism-london

 

But the important thing is the party needs an internal conflict about it, something Red Ken was setting about with some relish today.

[sutty27 10]

I think that is the problem, especially as everyone virtually else seems to be able to work it out without any difficulty.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-labour-racism-london

 

But the important thing is the party needs an internal conflict about it, something Red Ken was setting about with some relish today.

 

Every one else can't work it out though, and so far no one that claims they can can explain why his comments were Anti-Semitic.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Apparently it's getting worse for Labour, Jeremy Corbyn shares that same vegetarian beliefs as Hitler!

[RonJeremy 10]

I also can't figure out why his speech is described as Anti-Semitic.

 

I can't see what was antisemitic either.

[sutty27 10]

I can't see what was antisemitic either.

 

I do wish someone would explain it to me then I could join in with the lynching.

 

Herd mentality comes to mind, someone describes him as anti-Semitic and people jump on the bandwagon without understanding why.

Edited April 30, 2016 by sutty27

[milquetoast1 10]

Every one else can't work it out though, and so far no one that claims they can can explain why his comments were Anti-Semitic.

 

You can't figure out why repeating the anti-Semite's often repeated myth that "Hitler was a Zionist" is anti-Semetic? Really?

[sutty27 10]

You can't figure out why repeating the anti-Semite's often repeated myth that "Hitler was a Zionist" is anti-Semetic? Really?

 

Were they his exact words or an assumed meaning to some different words?

 

This is what ids reported.

 

The former London mayor was suspended from the Labour party on Thursday after saying Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36177333

Edited April 30, 2016 by sutty27

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Taken from here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/ken-livingstones-slurs

 

There are three main reasons why introducing Hitler into debates about Israel should be considered anti-Semitic. First, and most obviously, even in the worst possible interpretation of what Israel has done to the Palestinians, it does not remotely resemble what the Nazis did to the Jews. The scale and purpose are incomparably different, in ways so glaring that they ought not to need spelling out. Israel’s abuses against the Palestinians occur within a territorial and political conflict, albeit one in which, unquestionably, great and indefensible wrongs have been done; the Holocaust was an attempt at ethnic annihilation in which 6m people were murdered. I once heard a well-educated man who should have known better lament the fact that, after what happened to them during the second world war, the Jews have gone on more or less to do the same thing to the Palestinians, “only without all the killing.” The industrialised killing, however, was not an incidental part of it. To pretend an equivalence grotesquely exaggerates Israel’s guilt and renders the crimes of Nazism routine.

 

This being so—and since there are other, much more appropriate historical comparators for Israeli policy—it is reasonable to assume that the likes of Mr Livingstone choose this one at least partly because it is hurtful. After all, while it lacks all merit as a tool of analysis, its capacity to offend is immense. Anyone who struggles to understand why this is so should ponder how they would feel if acquaintances constantly likened their mishaps to the worst thing that ever happened to them. My bad day in the office—it’s just like when your mum died in agony, isn’t it? Why would someone make such a comparison? Remember that the vast majority of Jews in the world have relatives who were killed in the Holocaust, and often, for older Jews, fairly close relatives. For them it is not some abstract talking point or rhetorical crutch.

 

Last, and most important, the comparison is inexcusable because it suggests some sort of cosmic karma. “The Jews”, the thinking often goes, have failed to learn the moral lesson of Nazism and so are uniquely deficient. More than that, though, in an irrational, retrospective sense—since the Jews who were killed by the Nazis died before Israel even existed—the motif implies that the Holocaust was almost a form of rough justice. Yes, yes, the Jews had a bad time under the Nazis, runs the twisted, unspoken argument, but look what they have done to the Palestinians. So, you know, history and the Jews are sort of quits. Right?

[milquetoast1 10]

Were they his exact words or an assumed meaning to some different words?

 

He said that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism before he went mad, and killed 6 million Jews.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-marxist-book-lenni-brenner-defence-israel-comments

 

He's clearly a fan of the conspirational re-writer of history that is Lenni Brenner, and citing him in his defence. But Lenni Brenner only has credibility with people like Livingstone, and Nick Griffin , who are so far off to the left and right that they end up meeting in agreement in the racist backside of politics.

[sutty27 10]

He said that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism before he went mad, and killed 6 million Jews.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-marxist-book-lenni-brenner-defence-israel-comments

 

He's clearly a fan of the conspirational re-writer of history that is Lenni Brenner, and citing him in his defence. But Lenni Brenner only has credibility with people like Livingstone, and Nick Griffin , who are so far off to the left and right that they end up meeting in agreement in the racist backside of politics.

 

So is the Haavara agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933 a conspiracy theory.

 

HAAVARA, a company for the transfer of Jewish property from Nazi Germany to Palestine. The Trust and Transfer Office Haavara Ltd., was established in Tel Aviv, following an agreement with the German government in August 1933, to facilitate the emigration of Jews to Palestine by allowing the transfer of their capital in the form of German export goods.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08075.html