Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/28/labour-has-serious-problem-with-antisemitism-peers-claim-politics-live ]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/28/labour-has-serious-problem-with-antisemitism-peers-claim-politics-live[/url]
More of the if you criticise Israel then you hate Jews
the real problem here is you cannot criticise Israel without being called a Jew hater.
In essence its easier to shout racist than defend what Israel does hence why we have to do this
Her post showing Israel in the USA was anti Israel at worst. its said nothing about jews
I have not massively followed the issue as I am tired of the slur of racism being used to stifle reasonable criticism - her point was not that reasonable but it is some way form the worst insult you will find on the internet or FB
TBh I think I could draw a picture of israel falling into the sea and not be a Jew hater
I would also like China overthrown and North Korea but I am not a racist I just hate what they do and what they stand for their race is irrelevant.
Ken will be like throwing petrol on a fire
[i]Ken will be like throwing petrol on a fire[/i]
Quite, Ken said: "Hitler was supporting Zionism before he went mad"
Ken has form on this, so whoever is the media controller at the top of Labour needs to get a grip and send someone to do the interview who isn't tainted and likely to say something idiotic.
the real problem here is you cannot criticise Israel without being called a Jew hater.
Yes you can. People do all the time rightly criticize Israeli policies, what one should avoid is using phrases that are obviously inflammatory such as "transportation" and "Finally solve the problem" which was the language used in the FB post that Naz Shah shared.
she was foolish.
Yes you can.
I am not 100% sure that is the case.
[quote=nickc said]
Yes you can. People do all the time rightly criticize Israeli policies, what one should avoid is using phrases that are obviously inflammatory such as "transportation" and "Finally solve the problem" which was the language used in the FB post that Naz Shah shared.
she was foolish.
+1
Her post showing Israel in the USA was anti Israel at worst. its said nothing about jews
I have not massively followed the issue as I am tired of the slur of racism being used to stifle reasonable criticism - her point was not that reasonable but it is some way form the worst insult you will find on the internet or FB
Good to see casual racism alive and well.
Nickc +1 more. Stupid terms to use in connection with any Jewish/Israeli related issue.
Iirc, this isn't the only anti-Semitic incident within the party.
the real problem here is you cannot criticise Israel without being called a Jew hater.
Yep, that's how I read it.
Nickc +1
And then Ken brought Hitler up 😯
The row now seems to be about whether Hitlers early work was 'a good thing' or not.
Ken went Full Godwin too soon, imo.
Labour have got a virtual open goal with the Tories divided and what do they choose to do? Ignore the ball and start a fight amongst themselves. Genius.
she was foolish.
Absolutely, but one person being an idiot is not the same as "Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism". Whole thing does seem to be blown out of proportion.
He can't help himself;
[i]Advocating the forced deportation of everyone in Israel is not anti-Semitic, merely "rude", says Ken Livingstone[/i]
nickc - MemberYes you can. People do all the time rightly criticize Israeli policies, what one should avoid is using phrases that are obviously inflammatory such as "transportation" and "Finally solve the problem" which was the language used in the FB post that Naz Shah shared.
she was foolish.
Totally agree with this. But... still not convinced this amounts to evidence of antisemitism, it could equally be explained by regular arseholeism. OTOH the "final solution" line doesn't read naturally, it feels very intentional. That goes way beyond tactless or ignorant, it's intentionally offensive. Antisemitic? Still not convinced. But it doesn't have to be antisemitic, to be totally out of order.
Ken is, and will always be, a pure fanny.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11458810/Murderers-daughter-Naz-Shah-tells-why-she-is-standing-for-Parliament.html ]Naz Shah[/url] will be a great loss to politics.
Other apologies for various pre-elctoral comments and deeds have been accepted and sometimes never given, Blair had a conviction to his name. I can't help but see the attacks on her as being racially motivated.
Good to see casual racism alive and well.
See if you criticise Israel then some person comes along as says you are a racist as they know its a deeply personal insult that will enrage the poster and it saves them the trouble of having to defend Israel
Thanks for proving my case so succinctly
Oh am I racist for disliking China and North Korea or is it just dislike of Israel that makes me a racist - I mean what other reason could I have except for anti Semitism
Its just done to stifle debate as who wants to listen to the views of a racist
the real problem here is you cannot criticise Israel without being called a Jew hater.
Of course you can and many Jewish people manage it ever day.
Word for word what he just said.
[i]"A real antisemite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel,"
and
[i]
the Holocaust was bad because it also affected "Communists like me".[/i]
Can someone take his shovel away now, the hole's big enough.
Of course you can and many Jewish people manage it ever day.
Aye only Jews can do this
Good to see causal racism is alive and well
"Quite, Ken said: "Hitler was supporting Zionism before he went mad""
Well, I think Ken Livingstone is referring to things like the Haavara Agreement:
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=haavara%20agreement
Plenty of reading there.
There does seem to be a concerted effort by certain groups, to effectively outlaw criticism of Israeli government policy and Zionism, as 'anti-Semitism'. The fact is, that there are a lot of people who are critical of Israel, who are anti-Semitic. But there are also many who aren't, and in fact many are Jewish themselves. Many who are opposed to such attempts at preventing freedom of speech, and actions such as the government's plan to force local authorities to not actively boycott Israeli services and goods (BDS).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f963eb2-d405-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54.html#axzz477P5LqqH
Far too often in such debates, we see groups such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews claiming to speak for all British Jews, which is false and misleading. Too often, such groups are asked for comment on matters such as this situation with Naz Shah, when they possibly aren't really an appropriate body to offer such comment. The BoD is a very right-wing organisation, which fully supports and endorses the actions and policies of the Israeli government, but chooses to ignore the atrocities caused by those actions and policies. There is no one 'Jewish voice' in the UK, or anywhere else. Media organisations simply love to sensationalise events, and such organisations as the BoD are perfect if you want a bit of a hot debate. They'll also choose particularly militant Hamas supporting groups as the counter, rather than seeking better informed and more rational commentators and thinkers.
Naz Shah is ill-educated and ignorant. Her naivete has been exposed harshly here, although I am struggling to see any genuine anti-Semitism on her part, just gullible thoughtlessness. There are some in her constituency and within the greater Labour party, who are deeply anti-Semitic however, and Labour simply must deal with this issue and expel those who are guilty. Full stop.
"Ken has form on this"
Ken Livingstone is an outspoken critic of Israel, and a supporter of the Palestinian people. There are times when he could perhaps choose his words more carefully, but he knows full well how to generate pubic interest, so will often use seemingly inflammatory language. He is not anti-Semitic in any way, however, despite any claims from the right.
We must consider that many proponents of Zionism are in fact extreme right-wing often religious fundamentalists, who are as hateful towards Arabs/Gentiles as many anti-Semites are towards Jews, or White Supremacists are towards Black people etc. Such people are being protected and even facilitated by the Israeli government (the Likud part contains many anti-Arab xenophobes), and beyond, by Western interests. TheUK is a supplier of weapons to the Israeli state. We, as UK citizens, are unwittingly complicit in the murder of innocent people on both sides of that conflict. Hence the need to challenge Israel.
I fear that the leaping on of Naz Shah's stupidity by pro-Israel groups and individuals, is yet another smokescreen to detract form the reality of what is happening in Israel and Palestine. Which is why Labour and anti-Israel organisations must ensure that they are completely blameless and without any cause for criticism. Which, as we are seeing, is almost impossible. And so it rumbles on. And people continue to die.
OTOH the "final solution" line doesn't read naturally, it feels very intentional. That goes way beyond tactless or ignorant, it's intentionally offensive. Antisemitic? Still not convinced. But it doesn't have to be antisemitic, to be totally out of order.
yes Northwind, I think you're spot on, I don't think that phrase in that article was put there by accident, I tend towards the belief that it was placed carefully and would be ignored by most, but immediately picked up by the the people for whom it was intended (Jewish people), as you rightly point out, racism and arsehole-ism tend to go hand in hand
Good to see Israel is still using the anti-Semite / Racist card every time they want to discredit someone whose critical of their treatment of Palestinians....
See if you criticise Israel then some person comes along as says you are a racist as they know its a deeply personal insult that will enrage the poster and it saves them the trouble of having to defend Israel
Read what she supported - for someone who routinely calls anyone who questions immigration levels a bigot it is pretty bloody rich for you to call foul in a pretty clear cut case. Her draft [url= https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/labour-hq-deleted-references-to-anti-semitism-from-naz-shahs?utm_term=.sjPkqrOaYR#.tfXNJXV9xy ]apology [/url]was very good and hits the nail on the head, unfortunately it was toned down.
@ nickc
There will never ever be a thread where Israel is discussed and folk are not accused of racism/anti Semitism
I can say lets overthrow North korea and china as they are pariah nations.
No one will ever accuse me of racism for that. Replace those countries with Israel ...what do you think happens now?
Its just to stifle debate and make us discuss racism
I don't think most people disagree with you JY - questioning Israel's behaviour is not anti-Jewish.
The issue is that Ken (who has form) has chosen to defend something that contains so many anti-Jewish elements in a way that includes saying 'That Mr Hitler really had a good heart but went a bit bonkers towards the end'. What did he expect the outcome to be?
What did anyone think his involvement would bring but Labour Party disarray and the Tories sitting back ont here NHS, BREXIT, Academy and Taxation issues and laughing their socks off.
Labour have an open goal on so many policy areas at the moment and yet, as always, take their eye off the ball. It's a farce.
@ mefty Defend your claim I am casual racist
You seem to think I am not on every other issue but this one. Indeed that is a bit rich but its not my principles that have moved due to the specific race in question.
I am not going to stop criticising Israel just because folk lazily shout racist.
Yes Junky, lazy (mostly) right wing Israeli politicians and apologists do it all the time, agreed. But...There is still genuine outspoken criticism of Israeli foreign policy that can be found.
However, that shouldn't excuse one from going out of ones way to insult, and anyone with half an intellect would see how those words used about a Jewish state would be seen as inflammatory.
Great post clodhopper, thanks
Of course you can and many Jewish people manage it ever day.
And are promptly labelled "self hating".
More of the if you criticise Israel then you hate Jewsthe real problem here is you cannot criticise Israel without being called a Jew hater.
The problem is that many who claim to be anti-zionist are exactly the same as those cockends who say "I have nothing against the blacks, its just that they should go back where they came from" - hiding behind semantics.
It doesn't work - people see through it.
BTW when did she make these FB posts?
Who has raised the issue?
Why has the media jumped on it?
You seem to think I am not on every other issue
I don't think that at all, I think you are a partisan idiot who can't see an obvious problem when so many others, including Naz Shah, can.
a detailed rebuttal of the "labour is the home of anti-Semites" accusation.
looking forward to part II.
Well at least I have been elevated from casual racist to "partisan idiot" now - such a strong defence of Israel by personally attacking me . Thanks for your kind words - they are ok though as I am not a jew so you just hate me rather than my race 🙄
Little to be gained from trading increasingly personal insults so I politely refuse your kind offer.
anyone with half an intellect would see how those words used about a Jewish state would be seen as inflammatory
Hold on a minute. Some people are not as aware of how other people will interpret their words as others. It's very easy to have a thought, and choose words to articulate it in a way that seems clear to yourself, but others don't follow the same link and draw a different conclusion.
Happens to me all the time.
[i] so you just hate me rather than my race[/i]
personal detestation is so much better - it feels like some real thought's gone into it 😉
"The issue is that Ken (who has form) has chosen to defend something that contains so many anti-Jewish elements in a way that includes saying 'That Mr Hitler really had a good heart but went a bit bonkers towards the end'. What did he expect the outcome to be?"
You're being disingenuous here, to reinforce yourself. Livingstone was referring to the Haavara Agreement, which Hitler's government supported. That's actually a historical fact. I agree that his choice of words was poor, but he has never 'defended' Hitler as you and others seem to suggest. And if you really want to be pedantic; Naz Shah hasn't actually said anything herself that is genuinely anti-Semitic. She did share material that is offensive, I agree. She's been an utter idiot. But both her and Livingstone are vehemently opposed to the Israeli regime, which is causing the deaths of countless innocent people and facilitating racially-motivated murder. I'd much rather people got outraged about that.
"The problem is that many who claim to be anti-zionist are exactly the same as those cockends who say "I have nothing against the blacks, its just that they should go back where they came from" - hiding behind semantics."
Some, maybe, Not 'many'. The vast majority of 'anti-Zionists' are opposed to a racist supremacist ideology*, not a race or religion. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately obfuscate matters.
*I appreciate that Zionism is not one uniform single thing, but a very complex and multi-layered concept and ideology. I refer here to 'Zionism' being used as an excuse for oppression, displacement and murder of innocent people.
Is there a full transcript of the interview knocking about? There seems to be a lot of outrage among certain Labour MPs, but aside from some clumsy phrasing from Livingstone, I can't actually find the comment that makes him a raving anti-semite.
I wonder how many of the Labour MPs calling for his suspension happen to fall in the anti-Corbyn camp?
clodhopper - anyone bringing Hitler into a debate on anti-semetism in today's 'sound bite' news media is on to a loser.
The sort of nuances you're trying to convey are lost.
the message that gets through is one of suggesting that "Hitler wasn't as bad as he's made out" which in the context of trying to calm down a debate on anti-jewish propaganda that was shared by an MP is pouring petrol on the flames.
Ken knows all this.
Whatever he feels about Israel airing it today was calculated to a) raise Ken's own profile and b) damage Corbyn as leader and the rest of the Labour party a week before an election.
Well at least I have been elevated from casual racist to "partisan idiot" now
You are one because of the other, and I don't hate idiots, I just think they are idiots.
"clodhopper - anyone bringing Hitler into a debate on anti-semetism in today's 'sound bite' news media is on to a loser."
Why? Do you think it's important to ignore historical fact? Livingstone was making the point that Zionism, in the form that exists in Israel which is used to justify murder and oppression, was in fact supported by Hitler. IE, what Livingstone sees as a vile, xenophobic ideology, was supported by a vile xenophobe.
"the message that gets through is one of suggesting that "Hitler wasn't as bad as he's made out" which in the context of trying to calm down a debate on anti-jewish propaganda that was shared by an MP is pouring petrol on the flames."
Bullshit. You and others have chosen to take this view; not everyone shares it.
@molgrips, sure, but using words like "final solution" when discussing Israel or Jewish people is so obviously crass and clearly intended to elicit the response that it got.
no?
People who oppose Zionism are equally likely to have heroes amongst Marx, Trotsky, Luxembourg, Ygael Gluckstein, Ernest Mandel. Anti-Semitism doesn't come into it.
I used to see a guy quite frequently from the Friends of Israel. His attitude was that all ethnic groups are in competition with one another. Hence self promotion, group promotion, justifying the unjustifiable, self referencing and name dropping are all very legitimate activities. Any criticism must be put down as racist as it shuts it up most effectively.
I wonder how many of the Labour MPs calling for his suspension happen to fall in the anti-Corbyn camp?
By no means all, see Jon Lansman's, one of Corbyn's biggest allies, [url= https://twitter.com/jonlansman ]twitter feed[/url].
The original comments are definitely dodgy and probably anti-semitic. Ken Livingstone is a bit of a tit however it's simply a historical fact that there was a pact between zionists and the nazis.
And there is most definitely a concerted and well-funded campaign to brand any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.
"the message that gets through is one of suggesting that "Hitler wasn't as bad as he's made out"
Ridiculous straw man.
Hitler hardly went bonkers towards the end, within a year of getting into power anti-Jewish legislation was starting to be passed.
But you really have to query why the labour leadership are allowing Ken to do press on this issue when he isn't elected and has previous. It was an internal issue, deal with it and move on, now its exploded and shows really poor judgement on behalf of the party leadership.
[i]Why? Do you think it's important to ignore historical fact?"[/i]
The only historic fact that 99% of people will recognise in asscoiation with hitler is WW2 and the genocide. His 'early work' beyond burnign books etc is unknown to them.
To suggest that people should be educated is all well and good but Ken chose not to give the background to his claims in the interview he gave. the result is what you see now.
[i]You and others have chosen to take this view; not everyone shares it. [/i]
There's holocaust deniers all over social media saying what a great job Ken's done today. Yes, not everyone believes that linking Hitler to the Israeli state is not, at the very least, in poor taste but other than historians taking a very long term and objective view they'll *tend* to have issues which might be seen as difficult to justify by others.
I'll reiterate;
Anyone using Hitler in the defence of an anti-semitic article is likely not to be well received by a large proportion of the population.
why the labour leadership are allowing Ken to do press on this issue
I doubt that Livingstone has any interest in the views of the Labour press team when it comes to agreeing to do interviews. He's an embarrassment and an opportunity rolled into one, depending on your allegiance.
Well said Grum. I imagine Corbyn's office are all currently sitting with their heads in their hands, wishing Livingstone had never opened his gob. But I think the real danger here is that such words get labelled 'anti-Semitic' when they really aren't, and yet again the focus is shifted away from Israel.
The reality is, that every single day, Palestinian homes are bulldozed, and Palestinians abused, beaten and even killed. Palestinian children are put in jail and abused. Israeli police and armed forces routinely abuse Human Rights legislation. Israelis guilty of murder are protected by a xenophobic state. Arabs are second class citizens in their own homeland. Racism and prejudice are rife. And yes; there are elements like Hamas born of hate, which also commit atrocities on innocent people.
But we aren't discussing that, because we're too busy foaming at the mouth at what some gobby fringe politician said.
Far more worrying is that any attempt at discussion is shouted down in such an unpleasant way.
>>During the interview, Livingstone said Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”
Seems to be sound ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html) and is hardly defending hitler.
>>Challenged about his comments on BBC News, Livingstone said people should not confuse criticising the government of Israel with being antisemitic. He said you would not find anyone in the Labour party saying anything antisemitic without being expelled recently.
Nothing offensive there.
>> and claimed there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic”.
Which is exactly what seems to be happening here. For stating some historically accurate facts and that it is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel there are loud calls for for Livingstone to be expelled for being....yes, an anti-semite.
See if you criticise Israel then some person comes along as says you are a racist as they know its a deeply personal insult that will enrage the poster and it saves them the trouble of having to defend Israel
Oh the irony. I wouldn't for one minute call you a racist but you have used this strategy on countless occasions.
And in all of this, no-one seems to be asking 'what is causing this apparent rise in anti-Semitism'?
Livingstone has been suspended by the party...
Ken's work is done. He has whipped up a load of hysteria, and will now quietly sit back and watch the flames rise. There will now be far more debate surrounding Israel than if he'd not said anything at all. Which is what Livingstone wanted- he believes that Labour aren't addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict adequately, and has now created a situation where there will be increased polarisation amongst people, and increased debate. He'll no doubt do very well from TV/Media appearances etc. Whatever you think of his comments, he's played this very well for himself personally. I just wish he'd use his undoubted intellect more effectively, but then maybe he thinks the only way to crack a nut is with a sledgehammer.
"The reality is, that every single day..."
and we're on to the 'whataboutery'.
the issue is whether what an MP shared on facebook before becoming an MP was anti-semitic. Her original apology acknowledged it was and gave reasons. Ken's trying to say it wasn't 'because Hitler' (obviously it's more nuanced than that).
I'm all for criticising Israel, I think it's one of the most repressive and generally repellant governments in the world. I'm careful not to use language that might make me sound anti-Jewish when I do so though. Ken chose not to be and this is the result.
wwaswas; You are aware that those are simply your own views, and not facts, don't you? It would be helpful if you were to state 'In my opinion' in accompaniment to your posts.
You'll need to be more specific about which bits you think are opinions disguised as facts.
and if you could do the same for your posts that would be great.
" Ken's trying to say it wasn't 'because Hitler' "
That bit for starters. That's your own interpretation, not fact. Others have different views.
"I'm careful not to use language that might make me sound anti-Jewish when I do so though. Ken chose not to be and this is the result."
Ken hasn't said anything that is 'anti-Jewish'.
"and we're on to the 'whataboutery'."
So you say. But isn't this all ultimately about the actions of the Israeli government? Which is without question the catalyst for the wave of anger (and at times the increase in anti-Semitism, sadly) directed towards that state? That thing that we aren't actually discussing, because we're too busy arguing about what a gobby self-publicising fringe politician has to say?
Ken's trying to say it wasn't 'because Hitler' (obviously it's more nuanced than that).
In fact so much more nuanced that it renders the first bit of your sentence utterly stupid.
Ken bringing up Hitler's alliance with the Zionists may have been inappropriate and ill-advised, it is however a fact - one of those things that very few people know about, and it seems like you're not allowed to mention. Why is that?
There is a big issuein Sweden about islamists joining the Swedish Green Party and Labour party. Out of pure coincidence, these are the two parties that are actively on the Palestinian side and denounce Israel and its policies in various forms.
The type of islamists that are pally with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and think that shaking women's hands is beneath them and whatnot.
This is the top of the iceberg.
[i] isn't this all ultimately about the actions of the Israeli government[/i]
well the premise of this particular thread was Ken joining the debate in attempt to calm things down as they'd got a bit heated...
[i]
Ken hasn't said anything that is 'anti-Jewish'.[/i]
I said that the way he presented what he was saying made him sound anti-Jewish.
I'll repeat: anyone using Hitler in the context of anti-semitism/anti-Israel debates needs to be very careful, Ken wasn't (in my opinion and, from what I've seen elsewhere this is shared widely enough for it to be considered 'a fact')
[i]
Ken bringing up Hitler's alliance with the Zionists may have been inappropriate and ill-advised, it is however a fact - one of those things that very few people know about[/i]
this is exactly my point - a little known fact that he didn't care to explain just threw in a remark. The fact is that most people, not knowing this little known fact (or it would be a widely known fact), will assume he's saying something a bit daft about Hitler and the Jews. the fact is that this is what has happened.
I think the thing that's missing here is human behaviour. Often when a person dislikes another person, they don't say it outright as that might be rude, but they try to prevoke argument using careful language.
This is what Ken Livingstone is doing here. For example when he compares the lives lost by Palestinians to Israeli's ratio to be a reason to cry war crimes, when our own and the US government have done far worse in the middle east without the threat of the terrorists being on the doorstep!
His remarks to compare to Hitler are just obviously there as a middle finger up to show how much popular backing he has, that he can be openly anti-semitic and get away with it.
I can assure you he does not care about the Palestinians, he is using the issue as a cover to be anti-semitic and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.
this is exactly my point - a little known fact that he didn't care to explain just threw in a remark. The fact is that most people, not knowing this little known fact (or it would be a widely known fact), will assume he's saying something a bit daft about Hitler and the Jews. the fact is that this is what has happened.
I already said I think his comments were ill-advised, but you're basically arguing that you can't say stuff that's true because stupid people don't know it's true and won't bother to find out. Hmmm....
For example when he compares the lives lost by Palestinians to Israeli's ratio to be a reason to cry war crimes, when our own and the US government have done far worse in the middle east without the threat of the terrorists being on the doorstep!
Two wrongs, etc....
"I can assure you"
Somehow, I'm not feeling very assured. I wonder why?
I feel that I've foolishly allowed myself to become embroiled in an online argument, which sadly, inevitably, will probably descend into egotistical clashes and an outlet for individual insecurities and frustrations if left to run it's natural course, as happens more or less every time such a subject comes up.
So for that reason, I'm out.
solamanda - Memberthey try to prevoke argument using careful language. This is what Ken Livingstone is doing here.
If that's careful language I wonder what careless language would look like. quklwerbh cefb8o0, probably.
The evidence that Ken or Naz are anti-semites seems wafer thin. Just another witch hunt and suspending them is just playing to the mob IMHO.
During the interview, Livingstone said Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”
But its wrong, he didn't go mad he hated jews from the beginning and supporting zionism was an excuse to force them out.
If we want a debate about Israels policies and likewise Iran's, feel free, but Ken wasn't doing that, he was just stirring up trouble on an issue that weakens Labour, for no gain but his own notoriety.
when our own and the US government have done far worse in the middle east without the threat of the terrorists being on the doorstep!
But Ken is completely consistent in this - he's said he thinks Blair should stand trial for war crimes and that our actions in the Middle East made the UK more dangerous.
http://gu.com/p/4ekfp?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I see Ken's been suspended by Labour. Wouldn't you think they'd rather have him inside the tent, urinating outwards...
[i]You can't say stuff that's true because stupid people don't know it's true[/i]
I've repeatedly said he *chose* not to give context and background.
You don't have to be stupid to not know a fact. I suspect Stephen Hawking (as an example) wasn't aware of it.
Anyone relying on a little known fact when introducing Hitler to an argument on anti-semitism and expecting everyone to scurry off to wkipedia to validate the statement is naive and, maybe, only stupid peiople would expect it to happen?
In possibly related news, Diane Abbott is busy today. @deletedbymps
I see Ken's been suspended by Labour. Wouldn't you think they'd rather have him inside the tent, urinating outwards...
That isn't an option - you can have Ken outside, pissing in, or Ken in and still pissing all over the place.
Netanyahu - "Hitler wasn't a bad man, it was the Palestinians that persuaded him to start the holocaust"
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525
If we could just do away with all the religious bollocks, we wouldn't have this issue.
No one labels you racist if you are anti European Union or even anti United Kingdom. There's no or not enough religion involved. Anti Israel though and (literally) god help you.
Still though, was listening to Ken on the radio this morning and did think he was digging a very big hole there.
Have to agree with dragon,!?!? Ken's a liability these days, he was way past it the last time he ran for mayor, that should've signalled his retirement.
The whole anti-Semitism nonsense is just another attempt by the blairites to bash Corbs, as the Torys wreck the NHS, you'd think they should be focusing on that
[url= http://newsthump.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ed-miliband-good-at-lots-of-things-small.jp g" target="_blank">http://newsthump.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ed-miliband-good-at-lots-of-things-small.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
And now for a statment from a Jewish political organisation:
[i]"Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.
A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.
The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:
• The Conservative Party
• Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources
• Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community
• Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.
The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.
The Jewish Socialists’ Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.
We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism."[/i]
It's quite eye-opening and not at all surprising that the labour right would rather smear their own party with the spectre of anti-semitism just before an election rather than attack the tories. Ken Livingstone a racist? Anti-semite? Hitler Apologist? FFS I've never heard such ridiculous rubbish. It seems to me his only crime is not knowing when to keep his mouth shut.
[url= http://newsthump.com/2016/04/28/ku-klux-klan-big-supporters-of-blacklivesmatter-claims-ken-livingstone/ ]KKK big supporters of #BlackLivesMatter says Ken[/url]