[Closed] Ken Livingstone steps in to calm antisemitism row in the Labour Party.

and to encourage his many anti-semitic followers

There would be no attacks on Gaza if they had elected a different government 10 years ago

Baby steps and all that

Chief Rabi again commented over the weekend on anti-semitism and in particular how it's been ignored by Universities for far too many years.

Too funny - he complained about "bashing" of Jews on UK campuses. For your reference, this is what "student bashing" looks like in Gaza:

[img] ?itok=mkChuQzk[/img]

Livingstone's statement was indeed deliberately provocative and done so with the deliberate intention to provoke controversy and to encourage his many anti-semitic followers

Wow. Are you judging everyone by your own standards?

"clod responding to a debate in one thing offering your advice about what anyone else should do is something rather different, hence my reply. "

I was actually trying to be helpful. Obviously I've failed. 🙁

@clod - ok perhaps I misread your intentions, if so i apologise

Labour's independent inquiry into anti-semitism doesn't look so independent. Shami has joined the Labour party and one of her team has already published his thoughts that accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour party are baseless ! Oh and they won't be asking Ken Livingstone for evidence. Sleep it under the carpet and kick it into the long grass.

Slightly better news is that at least Labour will publish tomorrow their report into Oxford University. Conveniently long after the May elections

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/labour-antisemitism-inquiry-shami-chakrabarti-not-seek-evidence-from-ken-livingstone ]Guardian link[/url]

"Conveniently long after the May elections"

Well, I think we've pretty much established that the whole anti-Semitism thing was brought up just in time to inflict maximum damage to Corbyn and Labour, and yes, it has had some effect. But the unintended side effect was that the whole 'is anti-Israel/Zionism actually anti-Semitism' debate was sparked up again, and many very intelligent commentators added their tuppence, and some not so intelligent ones spouted some opinions, and social media became flooded with 'have you seen what Israel are doing now?!' stuff. And many people became even more polarised. And divisions deepened. And nothing changed for the better.

Meanwhile, the media has pretty much ignored the racist Tory smear campaign against Sadiq Khan, the Housing and Planning Bill, possible electoral fraud by the tories, the junior doctors' battle with Jeremy Hunt, the academies u-turn, and a whole host of other stuff we should all really be concentrating on a lot more than some fringe politician not actually being anti-Semitic.

Have we done the 'Tory MP in Nazi stag do' yet?

[img] [/img]

http://www.****/news/article-2072639/Tory-MP-Aiden-Burley-Nazi-stag-night-French-ski-resort.html

Labour's independent inquiry [s]into anti-semitism doesn't look so independent[/s] is not the witch hunt I demand

FTFY

The guardian has been doing this campaign longer than you and hate corbyn just as much I bet its not open BTL to allow its readers to comment.

I think we've pretty much established that the whole anti-Semitism thing was brought up just in time to inflict maximum damage to Corbyn and Labour...

...Meanwhile, the media has pretty much ignored the racist Tory smear campaign against Sadiq Khan, the Housing and Planning Bill, possible electoral fraud by the tories, the junior doctors' battle with Jeremy Hunt, the academies u-turn, and a whole host of other stuff we s

I know, just look at how the bastard tories wheeled out Ken and got him to keep, constantly, mentioning Hitler in every interview, just to take the attention away from themselves.

Just another creeping tentacle in the worldwide Jewish conspiracy

Have we done the 'Tory MP in Nazi stag do' yet?

You mean the one that stood down at the last election.

Have we done the 'Tory MP in Nazi stag do' yet?

Yes and it was all Jeremy Corbyn's fault.

Have we done the Nazi Chancellor yet?

[img] [/img]

"Just another creeping tentacle in the worldwide Jewish conspiracy"

Really? Do you think that?

I thought it was more about just smearing Corbyn and Labour with anything possible. In this case, Ken handily provided them with an 'anti-Semitism' twig. Which they then thrashed around wildly, causing a few scratches, but I doubt any serious injury.

The media could have course chosen from any number of moderate voices, but then, that wouldn't have made such juicy headlines.

One good thing to have come from this fiasco, is that many people are now a bit more aware of just how low pro-Israel/Zionist will stoop to attempt to justify the actions of the Israeli government and military. So it seems the hasbara campaign has backfired somewhat. Give it a few weeks, Labour will publish their report, make a public show of 'dealing with anti-Semitism', and people will look for more twigs. The only people who have really suffered, is the Labour right. I'd imagine they are desperately trying to think how they can preserve their careers and future 'consultancy' opportunities.

"Have we done the Nazi Chancellor yet?"

Good call.

Have we done 'Ed Balls appears in several articles in the Jewish Chronicle' (any one of which you could have picked) yet?

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/20611/ed-balls-holocaust-education-best-investment

http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/balls-praises-jcoss-ethos

http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/balls-backs-primary-age-shoah-education

http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/44241/ed-balls-talks-glee-and-shadow-cabinet

Interesting just how quiet the media and tories have been over this:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/156666/senior-conservative-suspended-amid-antisemitism-speech-allegations

Before we descend into a 'dressing up as a Nazi' top trumps, the point is that if enough weight is thrown behind an allegation, it can can cause a lot of damage, even if untrue. Had the mainstream media hounded Boris Johnson for his remarks about Obama's racial heritage, in the same manner they went after Ken/Corbyn/Labour, then we'd have seen the former mayor under fire and possibly hounded out of office. But it's clear this media chooses it's targets according to the agenda set by those who pull the strings. This is to be expected when media outlets are owned and run by private groups/individuals, but int he case of the bBC, it's simply unacceptable. We need a fairer and more balanced media, as an aid to proper democracy, and we're not getting that. Instead, we're being bombarded with diversionary bollocks to distract us from what is really important (I'm not saying anti-Semitism isn't important, far from it, just that the amount of comment and coverage is grossly disproportionate). I don't want to live in a society where Richard Desmond, Paul Dacre, Rupert Murdoch etc are free to undermine democracy and equality. We need an impartial BBC to act as a foil to this propaganda, and we're being let down.

THe original story would have died if Ken hadn't reignited it - hence the existence of this thread. The problem isn't the media, and certainly not the BBC.

Had the mainstream media hounded Boris Johnson for his remarks about Obama's racial heritage,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2009/mar/04/obama-irish-brown-special

Fenton!

"The problem isn't the media, and certainly not the BBC."

Wow. Do you believe that?

This man thinks differently:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-bias-labour-sir-michael-lyons

it's clear this media chooses it's targets according to the agenda set by those who pull the strings.

there is some truth in this though the usual RW suspects will absolutely deny the obvious bias that only true blue specs prevents one seeing.
It can off course be overstated but at the time of anti semitism we have

The PM making factually untrue claims about a Muslim cleric supporting ISIS - to tarnish Sadiq Khan- under the privledge of the House of Commons

The "dog whistle" campaign against A Muslim that even senior tories criticised

The Tory party being taken to court over both electoral irregularities and their refusal to release the information

A Senior tory suspended for anti semitism

Still none of this gets the coverage of the "deeply embedded" problems in labour

Look who brought this issue back up again
Corby hating Guardian and then Corby Hating Jamby

Junky, I am not interested in a witch hunt. Labour made this worse for themselves by not publishing or indeed even commenting on the first investigation into the Oxford University allegations which where made by the head of the Oxford University Student Labour Society. They kicked that into the long grass and commissioned a second equity, which they then declined to publish commissioning a third enquiry. All of that smells very very dodgy to me.

As for the Conservatives or indeed any other organisation if there is a case to answer let's look into it (JY read @clod's link it's not clear at all what may or may not have been said).

@clod I can say I recall what was published back in 2009 about Ed Balls Education initiatives. I have not seen coverage of the Conservative allegation you mention but I would not the the allegations where made by Labour MP Naz Shah and as the speech where not given in English it seems there is some disagreement about exactly what was said.

Let us see what the Oxford University report says, also lets wait and see whether its the original report or whether it has been re-worked. I'd also be interested to know what justification is given as to why it wasn't published months ago

Wow. Do you believe that?

Yes. Permanent outrage sells papers which is the primary focus of a newspaper. I have some sympathy with Lyons's view but I think that is more a function of a bias of conventional wisdom that elections are won in the centre ground, not bias against him per se, the right have many of the same issues.

I am not interested in a witch hunt.

At least you have not been ageist about him for a while so small blessings and all that.

jambalaya - Member

They kicked that into the long grass and commissioned a second equity, which they then declined to publish commissioning a third enquiry. All of that smells very very dodgy to me.

I'm curious whether you believe this is true tbh. I suppose it's possible.

The original enquiry was a toothless internal affair run by Labour Students, which was folded into Baroness Royall's investigation. Of course, if the Party hadn't escalated matters and had left it in the hands of the student organisation, you'd be squealing about how they're "not taking it seriously" but when they do raise it to a higher level it's been "kicked into the long grass". TBH I also wonder if you know what that metaphor means.

That second investigation has just completed. I understand it's going to be released in the next few days, though I fully understand your dissatisfaction that they failed to release their findings before they existed. Such strict observance of the linear nature of time is, as you say, dodgy.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said Jamba. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

The NEC, as one might expect, have refused to publish Baroness Royall's report. Only releasing recommendations, rather than findings.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/144505485689/baroness-royall-inquiry

WHat another Tory disgruntled with the labour party...I am stunned by this revelation

Her full findings will be revealed as part of the report which will follow the inquiry being led by Shami Chakrabarti.

IMagine a tory supporter delivering half truths about the Labour party
.....again I am stunned that it took me 30 seconds of googling and was in the top hit from the Jewish Chronicle.....Jesus you tories are obsessed , desperate and struggle with full disclosure.....oh the irony.

I rather enjoyed watching golden haired Heselinte abusing Goldened haired Boris myself...any views Tory boys? 😆

@Stoner thnaks for that link, I had been checking all day for the publication of report. Sadly we have not had the publication. From Junky's link (thanks also for posting)

Jeremy Newmark, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, said after the report's publication that he had met Baroness Royall and "I share her frustration that the full content of her report was suppressed by the NEC".

Labour MP John Mann, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: "For those who thought there wasn't an antisemitism issue in the Labour Party, this report shows there definitely is."

What is clear is that the report, as much as we have seen, has been rewritten since its original submission as it refers to events which post date it. There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.

The Guardian commentary is all about whether the recommendation that those found guilty of anti-semitism should not receive a life ban and its relevance to Livingstone. I actually think that is a discussion for another time. What was important now was to learn whether anti-semitism at the OULC was confirmed and in which instances and who was responsible.

Junky I read this and your post a a while ago, I decided it was best not to comment. Do you think in light of the seriousness of this your last sentence in particular and a "smiley" where appropriate ?

I don't think the issue between Tarzan and Bo jo was that serious

Forgive me for not giving it enough gravitas and not taking it seriously

Junky accepted and appreciated. Boris has been an idiot (other stronger words possible)

The Chilcot report will be published on July 6th I wonder when Shamri's report will be [s]published[/s] burried ?

There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.

Or that since a new report is on the way they want to issue one definitive one.

Still, it makes you think.

I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you

I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you

There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.

Or, indeed, none of the above
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/labour-antisemitism-party-jewish-chakrabarti

DrJ that piece from Royal doesn't say anything. I mean to say Labour isn't institutionally anti-semitic is a pretty obvious statement, hardly needed an inquiry for that. My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party. It is not that Jews don't "always" feel welcome in the Labour Party, that's double-speak as the issue is far more serious than that.

Still, it makes you think.

I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you

As I asked before, with Chilcot being published on July 6th I wonder when Shamri's report will see the light of day ? If that's at a time when the press isn't full of Chilcot speculation or picking over the contents I'll hold my hand up. I remain highly sceptical and as above very very depressed about the state of affairs.

jambalaya - Member
DrJ that piece from Royal doesn't say anything that I want it to

My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party. It is not that Jews don't "always" feel welcome in the Labour Party, that's double-speak as the issue is far more serious than that.

How is it double speak?

"don't always" can mean they feel welcome 1% of the time or 99% of the the time

I replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting

jambalaya - Member

I replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting

Poor lamb, you must feel awful that it failed to give the results you expected. What a strange life, to be depressed because your glorious dream of antisemitism has been dashed.

Poor lamb

Read John Mann's comments again, they know they problem exists, they know it's serious. They are covering it up.

My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party.

A clear - to me - attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise this very serious issue. Genuinely depressing. Really extremely depressing.

Yes if only everyone would join in your barrel scraping RW driven lefty hating jew bashing corby despising witch hunt 🙄

Just like zac did in the london election its a crude and blatant dog whistle campaign

Oh and he mocked you there nothing else

I am not responding to your fantasies anymore as the problem is your perception of reality not reality

EDIT:

you and this attitude are part of the problem

What about folk who say Islam is the greatest threat we face and insist, factually incorrectly, that Muslims dont need to obey the law?
Are they part of the problem ?

That is a shameful thing to say about a valued forum member like NW - like anyone thinks he is a racist or part of the problem- and is a disgusting smear; you should be ashamed of yourself.

I think the whole kipper movement has emboldened racists and bigots in this country

Boris or Ken using lazy Nazis comparisons not really racist but a symptom of the underlying issues

The PM was happy to describe migrants as a swarm, nicely dehumanising them, the brexit movement seems to be about scapegoating immigrants and eurocrats etc

Zac Goldsmith and Sir Linton Crosby appeared to revel in using racist smears against Saqiq Kahn

There seems to be a racism problem at Oxford uni, that for some reason they don't want to crack down on, when so many of our politicians are products of the Oxford privileged few it's no wonder that politics is so rotten, even the PM bemoaned the fact that Oxford had only 57 black students in its last intake

jambalaya - Member

More snide remarks. Northward you and this attitude are part of the problem.

I don't think you know what snide means. Snide is indirect and sneaky, my post was neither.

I remain, as ever, delighted to be part of your problem.

A clear - to me - attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise this very serious issue. Genuinely depressing. Really extremely depressing.

Not at all - rather an attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise your attitude to debate, which is to grab any issue that seems to cast Labour and JC in a bad light and then distort it to suit your agenda to the point of just inventing stuff.

DrJ stop trying to cast this as a party political,issue, in doing so you are part of the problem

Here are a selection of quotes from Senior Labour Party figures commenting on the issue (Tom Watson and Baroness Royall) and the OU Jewish Society as well as a Parliamentary declaration signed by Gordon Brown - this has been a long standing issue which has gotten much worse under Corbyn for the very obvious reason that his stance on meeting terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas as well as his support for the dangerous mish-mash coalition of Stop the War has emboldened anti-semites to be more public, more active or indeed to join the party. Plus of course we have the statement from John Mann Chairman of the All-Party Group Against Anti-Semitism, I repeat it again

[b]John Mann[/b]

For those who thought there wasn't an antisemitism issue in the Labour Party, this report shows there [b]definitely is:[/b]

[b]Baroness Royall[/b] on her report: "There is too often a culture of intolerance where Jews are concerned and there are [b]clear incidents of antisemitism[/b]"

I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.  

[b]Tom Watson[/b]

As Labour’s Deputy Leader, I will fight to ensure that Britain's Jews always feel safe as a key part of this country and my party.[b] I will fight to ensure that Zionism is not used as a term of abuse. Or as a code word for Jews. [/b]I will fight to ensure that the right to Jewish national self-determination is preserved and respected. Jews are the target of antisemitism – but I will fight to ensure that they are not left to oppose it alone. I am committed to that fight. Whatever it takes.

[b]The Oxford University Jewish society[/b] said: "We remain concerned at the [b]lack of any specificity[/b] regarding the events investigated. Some of these allegations are shocking and severe.

We are deeply disappointed that there have now been two reports into OULC, and both times the [b]Labour Party has refused to publish any detail on specific incidents.[/b]

By suppressing these reports, the Party threatens to undermine its credibility when it comes to tackling anti-semitism within the Labour movement."

2009 London Declaration, signed by the then [b]Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, [/b]
“Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and [b]target the state of Israel as a Jewish collectivity[/b]; 

Its a cover-up, the reports have confirmed numerous instances of anti-semitism including by members of Momentum Corbyn's campaign group within the Labour Party.

jambalaya - Member

I replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting

If only that were true....

The only person you're convincing is yourself!

DrJ stop trying to cast this as a party political,issue, in doing so you are part of the problem

* anyone who said Jews were our greatest threat and did not have to obey the law would be anti semitic in your eyes - they would in mine to be clear - but you can say this about islam and that's s fine. Makes you think - if only you would think 🙄

For the record Livingstone appeared before Parliamentary select commitee invesitgating anti-semitism to explain himself

Chukka Umana is on the committee,

In a fractious exchange, Umunna, the Labour MP for Streatham told Livingstone: “By needlessly and repeatedly offending Jewish people in this way, you’ve not only betrayed our Labour values, you betray your legacy as mayor, because all you are now going to be remembered for is becoming [b]a pin-up for the kind of prejudice that our party was built to fight against. That’s a huge shame and it’s an embarrassment.[/b]”

Earlier, Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said that he had heard Livingstone’s comments about Hitler and Zionism with “complete disbelief” and regarded them as “hateful”.

Accusing Livingstone of bigotry and of being “plainly antisemitic”, he said: “His views are utterly repellant to our community. If Livingstone had made his remarks about any other group, he would be labelled as a political pariah, and that’s what I think he is.”

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/ken-livingstone-i-didnt-say-hitler-was-a-zionist ]Guardian Link[/url]

Isn't that supposed to be a forum to investigate what was said and why it was said, not what Chuka thinks personally about Ken?

He sat there and figuratively drove a knife into Kens chest, and twisted it. Oppotunistic agenda?

I can only imagine if he had said, as you did about muslims that jews are the greatest threat to our way of life and they dont have to obey the law

Ken is a dick, his comment was stupid and it gave fuel to false flag fliers like yourself but anti semitism is a BS claim what he said was either true or it was false it was not anti semitic.

OH and for balance the title of the article is
[b]Ken Livingstone: 'I didn't say Hitler was a Zionist'[/b]

You then ignored EVERYTHING TO CHERRY PICK THe bad bit you big ball of bias you:roll:
the full article to your quote

Ken Livingstone has robustly defended his claim that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism, saying he had been deliberately misrepresented by people who wanted to discredit Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

“If I had said Hitler was a Zionist, I would apologise for that because it’s rubbish,” said the former mayor of London when faced with hostile questioning by MPs.

“If I’d said it, I would agree it was abhorrent. But I didn’t say it. I was stating a simple historical fact.”

But Labour MP Chuka Umunna said Livingstone’s comments had made him a “shame and embarrassment” to the party.

In evidence to the home affairs select committee, Livingstone said that in a radio interview with Vanessa Feltz he had said that Hitler had supported Zionism in the early 1930s as a way of ridding Germany of thousands of Jews. That was not the same as saying Hitler was a Zionist, he added.

He told MPs who are investigating antisemitism: “If I could go back in time and avoid referring to Hitler and Zionism in Vanessa Feltz’s interview, I would. I would go back and remove it because it allowed all the anti-Jeremy people in the Labour party to start whipping this up as an even bigger issue.

“I regret using it because it became this hysterical issue in the midst of our campaign to do well in the local elections and the next day virtually every front page was about me and antisemitism.”

Livingstone’s comments about Hitler and Zionism came amid a spate of suspensions of Labour party officials and activists for making allegedly antisemitic comments on social media. The former mayor was suspended from the party.

Since then, Livingstone told MPs, that “I can’t get down the street without people stopping me and saying we know what you said is true, don’t give in”. Those supporting him were “disproportionately” Jewish, he added.

He conceded that Jewish people had been offended by his remarks “because they have been told a lie”.

He added: [b]“A handful of Labour MPs used this issue, deliberately lied about what I said, and smeared me because they wished to undermine the leader of the Labour party. It’s that simple. And they should be the ones who are suspended.”
[/b]

[b]Livingstone repeated earlier claims that in his 47 years in the Labour party, he had not encountered antisemitism or racism. “Let’s be honest, if you’re a bigot, the Labour party is not the natural place for you to sign up,” he said.

He had been accused of antisemitism because of his long record of criticism of Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, he said. “Criticising Israel does not mean you’re a Jew-hater.”[/b]

Several times he came close to an apology of sorts. “If anyone’s been hurt by what I said, of course I’m sorry. But I came into politics to tell the truth, and I’ve never knowingly lied.”

[quote=Junkyard ]Several times he came close to an apology of sorts. “If anyone’s been hurt by what I said, of course I’m sorry. But I came into politics to tell the truth, and I’ve never knowingly lied.”

Ah, the politicians apology

So if Ken is referring to the Haavara agreement, and this wiki page is accurate :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

where exactly is Ken wrong?

So - He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler [i]was[/i] a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler [i]supported[/i] zionism 🙄

How many angels [i]can[/i] dance on a pinhead?

I haven't watched it all, because it made me want to smash things:

He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler was a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler supported zionism

but what is technically innaccurate about that?

from what I can see he supported zionism with that agreement because it was a means to an end, not because he was a zionist. And that's what Ken said.

ninfan - Member

So - He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler was a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler supported zionism

How many angels can dance on a pinhead?

It is two different things, to be fair. To give another example, Andrew Wylie started the campaign Tories For Corbyn, he supported Corbyn's campaign for Labour leader but certainly isn't a Corbynist, he supported something he completely disagrees with for his own reasons. You can support a cause without being part of it or even identifying with it.

It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind. OTOH I'm yet to see a compelling explanation of why his comments are deemed to be antisemitic. Chukka's "It just is, it's obvious" is no better or worse than most.

It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind

This, Livingstone is one of those politicians who seem to sometimes forget that there's a camera pointing at him (perhaps that's what happens when you've been the public glare so long, who knows...), and news editors who will take what he sort of sounds like he's saying and run with it.

It surely must be covered in "Politician 101" : Hitler- how NOT to talk about him...

sometimes forget that there's a camera pointing at him

@nick in my view he knows exactly when the camera is pointing at him, in fact he positively courts the attention. He was well aware Labour was embroilled in an anti-semitism row after Oxford Uni Labour Club incidents - he was on the radio to speak about it - and he did all he could to inflame the situation. He intended to be as offensive as he could be in as public a way as possible.

[quote=Northwind ]It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind. OTOH I'm yet to see a compelling explanation of why his comments are deemed to be antisemitic.

A good summary. Stupid comment he's a idiot for making - and he should make a proper apology because it clearly is going to offend a lot of people. But not anti-semitic - it doesn't have to be to be offensive. TBH those making a big deal out of claiming it is anti-semitic are just as big idiots (that or they're just as publicity hungry as him).

Surprise surprise this thread has popped up again, and surprise surprise; the same certain individuals are back to continue pushing their own agenda on here...

"I haven't watched it all, because it made me want to smash things:"

It's ok; Chuka Umunna has that effect on most people. Vile, slimy, self-serving *. The sooner Labour kick the likes of him and John Mann out, the better. To say that Livingstone is an 'embarrassment' to Labour; Ken has been campaigning against racism, homophobia and injustice his entire political career. Umunna is a Blairite right-wing ex-City boy who has zero interest in anything other than furthering his own career and lining his own pockets. It's people like Umunna that are an embarrassment to the Left, not Livingstone.

And what the * is Jonathan Arkush doing on that panel? The Board of Deputies is a right-wing organisation which presents itself as 'representing British Jewery', which is a false and dishonest claim. The BoD supports the illegal occupation of Palestine, and defends the Israelis government and military's actions. Arkush is a nasty little right-wing stooge who will look for any opportunity to smear the Left, and should have no place in what should be a balanced and open inquiry.

Well, Ken won't apologise for something he didn't say. I think all his haters and opponents are simply going to have to accept that and move on. We all know exactly why such a big fuss was made of Ken's comments, and it failed to cause the damage to Labour that the Right had hoped for.

Meanwhile; Israel has appointed an extreme right-winger as Defence Minister, a vile man who has called for the beheading of Palestinians and for them to be forcibly expelled from their homeland. I don't hear Umunna, Arkush and co talking about that.

@clod - Board of Deputies - you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title. Quite an important word that Jewish. Whether you consider it a left or right wing organisation is irrelevant. What Ken is going to have to accept is that the Labour Party have kicked him out for his remarks, I see no way back for him ever.

As for the Israeli government's appointment that's a side effect of coalition politics, what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic. Thes inquiry is not a discussion of what is happening in Israel and neither is Shakri's investigation (the third one and very likely it will try and be buried by Labour under cover of Chilcott being released)

Northward, I will have a crack at answering that. Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis. That is very offensive to Jewish people and it is offensive to me as well. He has done so by quoting one book fro one author as his justification and source and setting that against the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic.

Again imagine if a left winger described Jews as you describe islam those espousing questionable and racist views are not on the left they are in the mirror.

Your false flag operation ,on here, has failed no one has fallen for it

He intended to be as offensive as he could be in as public a way as possible

"you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title"

No I haven't.

"what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic."

No they haven't.

"Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis."

No he wasn't, and you know this. So stop trying to claim it as fact!

"Thes inquiry is not a discussion of what is happening in Israel"

Well it ****ing should be, because innocent people are being forced from their homes, being falsely imprisoned, and being tortured and killed. Which is what angers many people, myself and Ken Livingstone included. That's what Ken's comments are all about. We're fed up with Britain etc turning a blind eye to Israeli government and military oppression of Palestinian people, and as long as that continues, we'll continue to oppose and be critical of Israeli government policy. Bleating on about non-existent 'anti-Semitism' the way you, Arkush and others are, is to deliberately distract people's attention from what's going on. Well, sorry, but we can see what's going on, and your attempts to create a smokescreen aren't working.

Junky Ken is trying to be smart, say something offensive but have a defensive. He is very deliberate in his actions.

Clod. It's called the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Just maybe we may get a decent review from Shamri and get to see it in full but I doubt it. I've seen first hand examples of how campaigners on the left have been anti-semitic. Britain, the EU and the US do no such thing as turn a blind eye to Israel. What they do is understand and support Israel's right to exist and its right to security. This isn't a thread about Israel,mwe have had plenty of those. This is a thread about anti-semitism in the Labour Party and Ken Livingston is particular. What you are suggesting Clod is that investigating and exposing anti-semitism should be secondary to critising Isreal and by suggesting such you are attempting to brish over what is a very seriois and imo material issue

Just to be clear I don't care where this anti-semitism exists, there is no left/right agenda here whatsoever. Remember it was John Mann's reaction which really brought this to the public's attention

"Clod. It's called the Board of Deputies of British Jews."

I know. I've already mentioned this on page one of this thread:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ken-livingstone-steps-in-to-calm-antisemitism-row-in-the-labour-party#post-7668380

So, please explain how I've '[b]deliberately[/b] removed the word 'Jewish' from his job title' (which is 'director', surely?).

"Britain, the EU and the US do no such thing as turn a blind eye to Israel. "

Wow.

"What they do is understand and support Israel's [s]right to exist and its right to security[/s] desire for expansionism and the massive market for weapons, which benefits western economies by billions of pounds, which in turn benefits politicians/shareholders in those industries."

I believe that's called 'Fixing It For You'.

"This is a thread about anti-semitism in the Labour Party and Ken Livingston is particular"

We've already established Ken said nothing that is actually anti-Semitic. What you're ignoring, is the root of criticism of Israel/Zionism, stems from that nation's horrific and disgusting treatment of innocent people.

'Defending their right to exist' my arse. Tell me what this has to do with 'defending their right to exist':

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/israel-cuts-water-supplies-west-bank-ramadan-160614205022059.html

Ken is a dick who said something stupid. End of Everything else is about you are your loathsome agenda of hate.

I've seen first hand examples of how campaigners on the left have been anti-semitic.

No one on the left has been anywhere near as offensive about Jews as you have been about Islam Heal thyself of thy on hatred it I starting to consume you.

"What you are suggesting Clod is that investigating and exposing anti-semitism should be secondary to critising Isreal and by suggesting such you are attempting to brish over what is a very seriois and imo material issue"

That's completely untrue, anyone on this forum can see that, you are just making shit up to support your own pathetically weak argument. That's actually offensive.

jambalaya - Member

Northward, I will have a crack at answering that. Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis.

Thanks for at least making the attempt- but you must be aware of how weak this argument is? Saying "Hitler supported zionism" simply doesn't infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler- support [i]from[/i] someone doesn't align you with them. David Cameron supports Villa, that doesn't mean Villa are aligned with the Conservative Party. OR West Ham for that matter.

Incidentally, Jonathan Arkush is on record on behalf of the Board of Deputies that the definition of anti-semitism should include anti-israel sentiment. That's a big deal- and relevant both when considering what it really means when he says someone is an antisemite, and when considering his personal position and the position of the Board of Deputies in the wider debate.

Oh, on that note,

jambalaya - Member

@clod - Board of Deputies - you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title. Quite an important word that Jewish.

You may just not be aware of this but they generally refer to themselves as the Board of Deputies- take a look at their website if you doubt it. (I used to deal with the Board of Deputies Charitable Foundation). Might be worth considering just how quickly you leapt to this conclusion...

Northwind one of the recommendations of the first Labour report into anti-semitism is that the Party adopt a definition of anti-semitism based on what the recipient feels. So its not up to Ken, its up to what Jewish people think as to whether there is an accusation to answer. Labour thought so thats why Ken's suspended. This plus he has long term "form" here.

Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic as it lumps in all Israeli's (80% being Jewish) together. Its like seeking to discriminate against Brits/UK because you don't like one specific government.

Board of Deputies of British Jews - thats what is says on the website, each member being put forward by their local synagogue. Cross Party. Seems like the pefrect representatives on a Parliamentary Committee investigation anti-semirism

"Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic "

You seem incapable of answering questions put to you, regarding your absurd and offensive statements, yet come up with even more rubbish.

BoD, as I've already pointed out, is a right-wing organisation which supports Israeli expansionism and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people. I know many Jewish people, and most of them are deeply critical of the BoD, and angry that this organisation claims to represent all British Jews. It doesn't. Why haven't other Jewish groups been asked to attend? Don't they have an equal voice?

You seem incapable of answering questions put to you, regarding your absurd and offensive statements, yet come up with even more rubbish.

I believe the answer to all 'awkward' questions is "you are being anti-Semitic".....

So its not up to Ken, its up to what Jewish people think as to whether there is an accusation to answer.

Cool I know a muslim who thinks what you said about islam was nothing short of racism. its not up to you to decide if it was or it wasn't you just have to accept it was and apologise

Will you ?

I feel certain you wont be racist and say only Jewish people can do this and you will accept all faiths can do this and therefore now you are a racist...its a compelling argument isn't it

Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic as it lumps in all Israeli's (80% being Jewish) together.

Its like seeking to discriminate against Brits/UK because you don't like one specific government

YOu have to be trolling with this it is an argument that makes no sense

you criticised israel,so you criticised all jews, so you are racist because one Jew said so.
Its BS

jambalaya - Member

Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic

And there we have it- a very overdue admission from you of why you see anti-semitism everywhere.

Especially ironic considering that up the page you were accusing "The Left" of confusing the two, now you say they're the same thing.

Its about expressing views about countries actions. A person can criticise say the foreign policy of this country or our actions without
1) discriminating
2) being a racist

Just yesterday you seemed to be saying pretty much the opposite about Labour party members who expressed concern over immigration policies

The Board of Deputies - use the definition of anti-semitism which has been asopted by the European Union

There is quite a lot here in the evidence from Arkrush and from Angus Robertson I watched the first 1.5hrs

Robertson and the SNP believes Livingstone's remarks who wholy unacceptable and had he been a member of the SNP he would have been expelled. (Robertson appears after around an hour)

From Arkrush

With regard to Livingstone's remarks around 11:40 @Northwind althugh there are numerous QA throughout

There is also extensive comment on how with Corbyn being leader there has been a draw for those with anti-semtic views to either join the party or to speak up publically when previoisly they would have kept quiet. This is due to Corbyn's support and leadership of Stop-the-War for example and him inviting Hamas and Hezbollah to Westminster and describing them as friends, something the Board have repeatedly asked him to step away from and that he has refused to do so
The board also hold reservations about Chakrabatis decison to join the Labour Party and her clear objective to work in the interests of the Labour Party (creating a question of impartiaility)

All of these are issues I have raised previously on STW

[url= http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/55be8924-0d03-4b3e-a966-687266bddfe2 ]Parliamentary Commitee - session 2pm - 4:45pm[/url]

It sort of travels from making yourself look really desperate and silly to vaguely insulting to everyone that you think might believe any of this stuff jamba. Anyway, I thought you were too depressed to talk about your failure to expose endemic anti-semitism anymore. What happened?

the definition of anti-semitism which has been adopted by the European Union

Google this phrase
Does not exist nor did it ever include criticism of Israel

In 2005, the EUMC[ European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia] published a working definition of antisemitism, whose stated purpose was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism." In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'. A spokesperson stated that the document had never been viewed as a valid definition and that "We are not aware of any official definition".[19][20]

The working definition stated: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_Agency#Report:_Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism
this thread is not a debate its just a place for you to air your prejudice.

Northwind just so its absolutely clear the European Union thinks BDS is anti-semitic, it also has in its definition of anti-semitism the broad critism of Israel - ie without explixitly differentialing specific government polcies from the state as a whole.

We see anti-semitism being increasingly prevelent not least in the use of the word Zionist as an attempt to conceal, eg zionist media, zionists control the government etc. To be clear a Zionist simply means believing the right of Jews to have their own country.

@clod I interpreted your post as deliberately excluding the world Jew or Jewish for a reason. If that wasn't the case then I retract that. I thought I had answered your questions but if not feel free to repeat it again. What I wouod ask from you is you really need to stop seeing this issue as an attack on the left by the right, thats being in denial.

also has in its definition of anti-semitism the broad critism of Israel

Very interesting thread.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with some of the attacks on Israel, both on the forum and elsewhere, which can sometimes come across as an attack on the people of Israel, rather than an attack on the current government and those who support it.

Just occasionally mind, but it is there, as it is in many other threads concerning other countries.
We often don't seem to be able to distinguish between a country, it's government and it's people.

However.
We have the right to criticise the Israeli government, or to discuss Zionism without being called anti Semitic.

Expressing revulsion at the actions of a government does not imply prejudice against the faith of the majority of it's citizens.

Jambs, I've met many of the posters on this thread.
If any of them are anti Semites I'll eat my Surly.

jambalaya - Member

Northwind just so its absolutely clear the European Union thinks BDS is anti-semitic, it also has in its definition of anti-semitism the broad critism of Israel

You brought up BDS seemingly at random, I've made no reference to it so why you point to it as if it supports your argument, I have no idea. Though since you mention it, I can find nothing to support your claim that the EU considers BDS to be anti-semitic. Anyway, it's a random tangent.

For the rest, no, that's just an outright lie. The EU's working definition of criticism can be found here: http://www.antisem.eu/projects/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/ and inevitably does not say what you pretend it does. In fact it takes great pains to make that clear.

Criticism of Israel can be founded in anti-semitism and can contain or conceal anti-semitic sentiment- but the attempt to label all criticism of Israel as antisemitic is an attack on legitimate discussion and free speech. It is cowardly, cynical, anti-democratic, and an open admission that you choose not to make a counter argument using facts or debate.

It's also offensive to me personally- as a critic of Israel you have now declared me an anti-semite, and to make it simple, **** you.

It is, ironically, also damaging to the campaign against genuine antisemitism, as is the frequent connection with anti-islamic racism. You can't fight injustice with injustice- many fools have tried, it only breeds more.

"Robertson and the SNP believes Livingstone's remarks who wholy unacceptable and had he been a member of the SNP he would have been expelled. "

Ooh, then I dare say he'll find this a bit embarrassing:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/143628/scottish-mp-paul-monaghan-apologises-over-antisemitic-tweet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-politician-apologises-unreservedly-for-anti-semitic-tweet-a6732756.html

Both are still members of the SNP.

But notice how no-one mentions this. Interesting. It's almost as though they aren't actually all that bothered about anti-Semitism, and just want to attack Corbyn and the Left...

"It's also offensive to me personally- as a critic of Israel you have now declared me an anti-semite, and to make it simple, **** you."

You see, jamba; you can't just invent your own rules to suit your own argument. It doesn't work like that. You've attempted to present yourself as some sort of 'impartial' commentator without an agenda, but you're so piss poor at actually doing this, that you've actually only made yourself look like a reactionary rabid anti-left right-winger. Your claims of having no agenda are absolutely laughable. You've singularly failed to sufficiently answer a single question put to you. You can't even do your homework properly on the info you present to support your own views. You are rapidly becoming a laughing stock. Then, you insult people by making offensive claims that they are anti-Semitic and/or condone anti Semitism.

Time for you to withdraw from this thread, I feel. Your continued input can serve no purpose unless you are prepared to accept that you don't have the last word on things, and that your views are simply opinion, not fact. And that others might actually have a more objective, balanced view than you.

I began here feeling that the treatment you get from others was unfair. I now take that back. I hope you can go away and become better educated on this issue, and less narrow-minded. I really do.

Criticism of [s]Israel[/s] multiculturalism can be founded in [s]anti-semitism[/s] racism and can contain or conceal [s]anti-semitic[/s] racist sentiment- but the attempt to label all criticism of [s]Israel[/s] multiculturalism as [s]antisemitic[/s] racism is an attack on legitimate discussion and free speech. It is cowardly, cynical, anti-democratic, and an open admission that you choose not to make a counter argument using facts or debate.

For balance, you could also replace with immigration, Islam, the EU or 'black youth' - yet look what happens whenever anyone tries to discuss any of those issues.