Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ken was far too simplistic to (I'd say) the point of being essentially incorrect in what he said. I think I get what he was getting at. In fact, is what he said really that different from Netanyahu's on the Holocaust last October, other than that Livingstone said they Hitler wanted the Jews deported to Israel specifically (Netanyahu didn't specify, just said he wanted them deported)? In fact, I'd say Netanyahu was more wrong, as he was implying that it was still Nazi policy to only deport the Jews rather than exterminate them in late 1941, by which time large-scale massacres were already occurring (though the 'Final Solution' had not yet been formally devised), whereas Ken is talking about significantly earlier, in the early 1930s. Still, he should have known better - it was obvious what kind of reaction he'd get.

    That said, most of the attacks on him have been pathetic. There was inaccuracy and lack of nuance in what he said, which merited a legitimate response, but instead it's been sensationalist nonsense. John Mann, for example, seems to be pushing the kind of strong intentionalist view of the Holocaust long discredited dismissed by scholars of the Holocaust.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Ken Livingstone is the latest victim of this witch-hunt.

    There are anti-Semites in every political party, and they should be suspended, investigated and if found to be anti-Semitic, should be expelled from the party.

    However, Livingstone was simply (but perhaps stupidly) pointing out a historical fact. He was referring to the Haavara Agreement, which:



    Nothing Livingstone said was anti-Semitic. Naz Shah's insinuation, on Facebook, that Jewish people should be forcibly relocated to the United States, was an anti-Semitic comment, although I don't think that she is personally anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is right that she has been suspended.

    Once again, however, many people, including the totality of the mainstream media, are trying to conflate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism.
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I completely understand where you're coming from, and I don't think we really disagree. Hitler wasn't a Zionist - he was supporting Zionism to achieve his own political aims, of course. But, crucially, this is what Ken Livingstone - in his characteristically rambling manner - was saying. In the transcript, Livingstone says:



    The key word is supporting - he was simply pointing out that he was supporting Zionism by doing so, not that Hitler was actually a Zionist.

    Livingstone later confirmed this:



    Livingstone isn't anti-Semitic, and I think he's right to criticise really-existing Zionism (Zionism in action) and the policies of the state of Israel. Even if he was trying to associate Zionism with Nazism, there's nothing anti-Semitic about that, although as you point out, there could be. In Livingstone's case, I don't think it is: he was stupidly and untactfully pointing out a historical fact and a historical policy.

    EDIT: Or, were you saying that you were coming to my conclusion? In which case, I've just restated what you said.
    EXCUSE ME. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? Firstly Hitler was no real supporter of Zionism, he 'supported' it because he wanted people murdered or deported. To use that to defend someone is despicable.

    And Ken Livingstone has a long history of making anti semitic comments such as liking a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Indeed, which is why comparing Zionism - or at least some Zionists and some Zionist actions - with German fascism is a valid point to make, in my view, although I'd say that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine perpetrated when Israel was founded has many more parallels with Milosevic than with German fascism.
    Absolutely correct. While I think Nazi comparisons aren't invalid in and of themselves, there has developed a bad trend of trying to prove how bad anyone you dislike is by associating or comparing them with the Nazis, often in ridiculously sensationalist fashion. Zionism is indeed, at its core, an ethnic nationalist movement, as you say, comparable the Serb nationalism of the 1990s.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And to add my own thoughts, as someone who is Jewish, what Ken said in and of itself was just repeating fact, its the way he used it to defend Naz Shah, someone who wanted all Jews moved out of Israel to the US, which was despicable. He should have been condemning what she said and by bringing in Hitler he was digging himself into a hole. Can you imagine someone saying I want all supporters of Assad deported to say Australia?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelly1000)
    And to add my own thoughts, as someone who is Jewish, what Ken said in and of itself was just repeating fact, its the way he used it to defend Naz Shah, someone who wanted all Jews moved out of Israel to the US, which was despicable. Can you imagine someone saying I want all supporters of Assad deported to say Australia?
    This is the way I saw it. His defence of Naz Shah's indefensible comments was the problem rather than what he said himself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbynazi party.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Andrew Neil - *Tries to give examples from members which are not known which he thinks are anti-Semitism*

    Ken Livingstone - *Sets the record straight*

    Andrew Neil - *Quickly moves on*


    I don't think the British electorate actually cares about anti-Semitism.
    If they don't then they should the Jews have never done anything to us unlike a certain other religion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    How dangerous it has become to have an opinion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelly1000)

    And Ken Livingstone has a long history of making anti semitic comments such as liking a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
    As much as I hate Ken, he didn't know the journalist was a Jew.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It's a sorry state of affairs but people in this day and age are only concerned about themselves.

    It's the same for any group. The politicians have us clamoring over each other because they present the treasury as having finite resources, and they sit back and watch each group in the community tear each other part in order to be the ones to receive the money.

    As such, people are only concerned about themselves and only when they think they have "made it", do they start caring about other people or groups.
    Utter crap. Stop making excuses for your bigotry - if what you said was acceptable you wouldn't have edited the post. :teehee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Utter crap. Stop making excuses for your bigotry - if what you said was acceptable you wouldn't have edited the post. :teehee:
    Which post was edited?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jelly1000)
    EXCUSE ME. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? Firstly Hitler was no real supporter of Zionism, he 'supported' it because he wanted people murdered or deported. To use that to defend someone is despicable.

    And Ken Livingstone has a long history of making anti semitic comments such as liking a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
    This was established post facto so it couldn't have been anti-semitic.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Most definitely. His mealy-mouthed justifications are disgusting. I'd encourage you to go to iPlayer to watch the whole thing, it just gets better and better.

    Sadiq Khan has now called for Livingstone to be suspended, as have Chris Bryant and Jess Philips.

    If he is, I don't see how Corbyn's leadership can survive; Livingstone is one of his closest allies, the man he installed in the key position of managing the foreign policy review.

    It's also amazing how Livingstone continued to assert basically that Hitler was pro-Zionism.

    And I agree re Andrew Neil; Livingstone was well and truly "brillo'd"
    I've watched the whole thing now, and gone back and watched the original interview where he said about Hitler supporting Zionist policies. What I think the issue here is, more so than the actual content, is the same point Andrew Neil made, what's the point? Why in a discussion about antisemitism in the labour party is he having a discussion about Hitler. He said he was having a historical debate, but as Clegg pointed out firstly he is not a historian and secondly he is a politician and so must be careful with his words. He certainly was not doing that. I simply cannot comprehend how he managed to turn a debate about antisemitic comments in the party into whether or not Hitler supported the creation of the state of Israel ( Not that it mattered, John Mann destroyed him on that point anyway)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Incredible scenes. This YouTube video only covers part of it, the thrashing continues as they Nick Clegg and Jo Coburn then tag team him, then they invite John Mann (who confronted Livingstone in the corridors of the BBC) to wipe the floor with him.

    If you want to see the whole thing, go to iPlayer and watch BBC2 live (you can rewind to watch Daily Politics)

    I don't view Ken Livingston as trashed. It's the first time I've really respected anything he had said as he appears to be sincere person saying what he believes as opposed to what a mass media machine tells him to say.

    I couldn't believe the scenes of the person confronting him near parliament. It almost wreaks of an illuminati man trying to control the situation and control the perception of lemmings by shouting disgraceful! Disgraceful!

    Well there are lot of non-brainwashed people like me - who will not tolerate the control of the past, present and future by suppressing discussion, opinions and points of view, under the ethos that it might offend someone.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I've watched the whole thing now, and gone back and watched the original interview where he said about Hitler supporting Zionist policies. What I think the issue here is, more so than the actual content, is the same point Andrew Neil made, what's the point? Why in a discussion about antisemitism in the labour party is he having a discussion about Hitler. He said he was having a historical debate, but as Clegg pointed out firstly he is not a historian and secondly he is a politician and so must be careful with his words. He certainly was not doing that. I simply cannot comprehend how he managed to turn a debate about antisemitic comments in the party into whether or not Hitler supported the creation of the state of Israel ( Not that it mattered, John Mann destroyed him on that point anyway)
    It takes brave people to break taboos and orthodoxies on opinions. Why should things always be "off limits".

    Who is one person to dictate to another what is off limits. We already have the state in area of our lives. Do we now need it to regulate offensiveness? Are we to be told what we can and cannot think or say? I am a sovereign being and have natural rights. This is a clear infringement of those rights. No no no!




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Ken Livingstone is the latest victim of this witch-hunt.

    There are anti-Semites in every political party, and they should be suspended, investigated and if found to be anti-Semitic, should be expelled from the party.

    However, Livingstone was simply (but perhaps stupidly) pointing out a historical fact. He was referring to the Haavara Agreement, which:



    Nothing Livingstone said was anti-Semitic. Naz Shah's insinuation, on Facebook, that Jewish people should be forcibly relocated to the United States, was an anti-Semitic comment, although I don't think that she is personally anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is right that she has been suspended.

    Once again, however, many people, including the totality of the mainstream media, are trying to conflate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism.
    So you see nothing with "A real anti-Semite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their neighbour in Golders Green"? Or with defending Naz Shah's comments?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think the media just blows it out of proportion to be honest, what naz shah said was worse
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So glad this idiot has been suspended. I just hope Corbyn will do more to root out antisemitism before the media asks him to.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    It takes brave people to break taboos and orthodoxies on opinions. Why should things always be "off limits".

    Who is one person to dictate to another what is off limits. We already have the state in area of our lives. Do we now need it to regulate offensiveness? Are we to be told what we can and cannot think or say? I am a sovereign being and have natural rights. This is a clear infringement of those rights. No no no!




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Things aren't off limits, but politicians must be careful with their words. You are giving interviews to the country at large, this is not some theoretical conversation in a lecture theater or down the pub. Sure you have your rights, but what most people fail to understand is that rights bring about obligations too. Freedom of speech is not unlimited and does not give you the right to call for mass racial deportations, attack people for alleged racial features or applaud mass murdering dictators.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    You have to view this through the prism of the state Labour is in post Corbyn's election, and the mortally vicious internecine strife within the party between left and right.

    The attacks on KL were from the right (Sadiq Khan is an exception for obvious reasons) and he is a proxy for Corbyn himself. Everyone knows that Corbyn shares much of Kens 'worldview. Obviously the media love it and blow it all up into a $hitstorm...

    This is what you get when you elect a weak incompetent as leader. Chaos.

    All this while the Tories are tearing themselves apart over Europe. It would be funny if the Labour left's anti semitism wasn't so vile...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.