Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What he said was historically incorrect apparently but I don't see it as anti-semitic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another classic case of people being accused of being anti-Semitic because they despise the state of Israel. Israel and Jews are two separate entities. Many Jews hate what policies Israel pursues. Israel is an apartheid state which commits atrocities daily and which has a culture of belligerence and social Darwinism. Israel is similar in so many ways to apartheid South Africa and there is still a media bias and status quo which magnifies Palestinian discretions and under reports Israeli oppression. A Palestinian child is shot by an Israeli soldier; its 'caught in crossfire.' An Israeli dies; its an unprovoked terrorist attack. It's time we woke up and smelled the propaganda. As for Andrew Neil, he is an incredibly biased man who does a very good job of maintaining credibility for his own beliefs, while rubbishing anything else. He once described Jeremy Corbyn's policies as 'Stalinist...' Words like that have such negative connotations and it is also entirely baseless. Propaganda. Semantics. Wake up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't think you can come to the conclusion Hitler was a Zionist from that Haavara Agreement, it was most likely Hitler aligning himself with any politician force that would get Jews out of Germany. However you can;t accuse people of anti-Semitism and expelling them just for having bad historical analysis. I think it is possible Ken Livingston is antisemtic and is equating Zionist and by extension Jews as being Neo-fascists with the supporting of the state of Israel. It's the flip side of the far right equating Jews as being Nazis and that Jews worked with Hitler to create a Jewish state.

    I think the question is: Does the cooperation between Hitler and a Zionist organisation mean Hitler was a Zionist? Most people would say no. People who say yes may well be prejudiced against Jews and want to tie Zionism with Fascism and then blame Jews as a whole.


    "
    She [Shah] talked about relocating Israel to America. She talked about what Hitler did being legal. And she talked about the Jews rallying. And she used the words Jews, not Israelis or Israel. You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?Livingstone: No. It’s completely over the top [but] it’s not antisemitic. Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. [He then] went mad and ending up killing 6 million Jews. But the simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians. And there is one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports: in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes, but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government."

    This is the problematic bit for me. It is an anti-Semitic statement which Ken doesn't seem to recognise.
    The problematic bit for me is that he more or less said that Hitler tried to play nice until 1939: "when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. [He then] went mad and ending up killing 6 million Jews."
    Whilst the attacks on the Jews started as soon as the Nazis came to power (Nazi militants had already started before) and their annihilation was marked in Mein Kampf. Hitler was already mad. The Haarava agreement was signed by the Zionists in a desperate attempt to save some German Jews - who couldn't go anywhere else.
    The suggestion that this agreement was signed between gentlemen is sickening.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Something Ken did say I agree with though is this.

    "Albert Einstein. When the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to America he [Einstein] warned American politicians: “Don’t talk to this man, because he’s too similar to the fascists who fought in the second world war”. Now if Naz or myself had said that today we would be denounced as antisemitic, but that was Albert Einstein. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...P=share_btn_tw
    The Likud was created in 1973. Einstein died in 1955.

    It's a reference to the letter signed by prominent American Jews against the visit of Menachem Begin, leader of the Herut in 1948. This party advocated territorial expansion through conquest (notably Jordan) and at first did not really believe in democracy. It was however ostracized by the other parties. I don't get why Livingstone mentioned this, perhaps to show that Jews were also "Nazis". :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Whilst the attacks on the Jews started as soon as the Nazis came to power (Nazi militants had already started before) and their annihilation was marked in Mein Kampf. Hitler was already mad. The Haarava agreement was signed by the Zionists in a desperate attempt to save some German Jews - who couldn't go anywhere else.
    The suggestion that this agreement was signed between gentlemen is sickening.
    The Nazi's had total and complete power in the early stages of 1933.

    This narrative that the agreement was signed, in a "desperate attempt to save some German Jews" is demonstrably false.

    There was no large-scale Jewish immigration from Germany to other countries, suggesting that the German Jews felt safe enough in 1933 to not immigrate. Only when Hitler invaded Poland, and started rounding up the "degenerates" is when the trickle of refugees became a flood of refugees, as people realised that Hitler was indeed intent on killing all the Jews (and all the degenerates) that he could lay his hands on.

    And you don't really need an agreement between the Zionists and the Third Reich to facilitate the "saving of Jews". Why would a genocidal dictator even sign that thing if he was intent on murdering every single German Jew?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Hitler was supportive of the Zionist aim of getting Jews to Palestine.

    You can't deal with facts, boy.
    What a gross simplification of the facts. Tsarist Russia created the Pale of Settlement not because they cared for the Jews, but rather because of their intolerable hatred of the Jews. Stalin's Soviet Union created the Jewish Autonomous Oblast not because they cared for Jews, but rather because of their blatant anti-Semitism. And the same goes for the Ghettos of Warsaw and Venice. Time and again throughout history in Europe, there have been attempts to segregate and remove the Jewish population from society or to migrate Jews en masse to get rid of what they considered the "Jewish problem".

    Hitler did not care for Zionist ideals but rather wanted, like many leaders before in Europe, to find a quick solution to get rid of Jewish people and solve the "Jewish problem".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What a gross simplification of the facts. Tsarist Russia created the Pale of Settlement not because they cared for the Jews, but rather because of their intolerable hatred of the Jews. Stalin's Soviet Union created the Jewish Autonomous Oblast not because they cared for Jews, but rather because of their blatant anti-Semitism. And the same goes for the Ghettos of Warsaw and Venice. Time and again throughout history in Europe, there have been attempts to segregate and remove the Jewish population from society or to migrate Jews en masse to get rid of what they considered the "Jewish problem".

    Hitler did not care for Zionist ideals but rather wanted, like many leaders before in Europe, to find a quick solution to get rid of Jewish people and solve the "Jewish problem".
    Hitler was supportive of the Havaara Agreement, an agreement that sought to relocate German Jews to Palestine which is the principle which Zionism is founded upon.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Hitler was supportive of the Havaara Agreement, an agreement that sought to relocate German Jews to Palestine which is the principle which Zionism is founded upon.
    You stated that Hitler was supportive of the Zionist aim of getting Jewish people to Palestine. This is patently false. They did not support the aim of sending Jews to Palestine. Hence why the Nazi's also proposed the Madagascar Plan, whereby they would ship the Jews to Madagascar.

    The Zionist aim and Hitlers aim in the signing of the Haavara Agreement were two different aims. It is clear Hitler's aim was different when Jewish people were sent to concentration camps. The aims was to solve the "Jewish problem". Hitler did not sign the Haavara Agreement because he cared for the Zionist goals of establishing a Jewish state or because he wanted Jewish people to settle in Palestine. Hitler would quite happily have also sent the Jews to Madagascar. The Haavara Agreement merely provided a quick and easy solution for Hitler to solve the "Jewish problem".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    You stated that Hitler was supportive of the Zionist aim of getting Jewish people to Palestine. This is patently false. They did not support the aim of sending Jews to Palestine. Hence why the Nazi's also proposed the Madagascar Plan, whereby they would ship the Jews to Madagascar.

    The Zionist aim and Hitlers aim in the signing of the Haavara Agreement were two different aims. It is clear Hitler's aim was different when Jewish people were sent to concentration camps. The aims was to solve the "Jewish problem". Hitler did not sign the Haavara Agreement because he cared for the Zionist goals of establishing a Jewish state or because he wanted Jewish people to settle in Palestine. Hitler would quite happily have also sent the Jews to Madagascar. The Haavara Agreement merely provided a quick and easy solution for Hitler to solve the "Jewish problem".
    Hitler was supportive of the Zionist aim, vis-a-vis Havaara Agreement.

    The extent may be disputed but he clearly saw Zionism as a solution to his Jewish problem.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mat' Stu')
    Another classic case of people being accused of being anti-Semitic because they despise the state of Israel. Israel and Jews are two separate entities. Many Jews hate what policies Israel pursues.
    Whilst everybody should be free to criticise Israel the State, the ideology of Zionism or Judaism the religion, I think some of the comments mentioned were clearly anti-semitic. That said, when one is going to make a comment on a sensitive topic, and knows fully well that the statement could be misunderstood, it would be wise to emphasise what is and isn't meant when one makes their point.


    Israel is an apartheid state which commits atrocities daily and which has a culture of belligerence and social Darwinism. Israel is similar in so many ways to apartheid South Africa and there is still a media bias and status quo which magnifies Palestinian discretions and under reports Israeli oppression. A Palestinian child is shot by an Israeli soldier; its 'caught in crossfire.' An Israeli dies; its an unprovoked terrorist attack. It's time we woke up and smelled the propaganda.
    Others would argue that all criticism is always targeted towards Israel and never Lebanon. Palestinians in Lebanon have effectively been stuck in refugee camps for some 50 years or more, as well as having being banned from a load of careers, they receive constant discrimination, the law prohibits them from owning a property, they are deprived of access to health care and Palestinians trying to escape Syria have been prevented from crossing the border. Some have gone as far as to compare the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon as similar to the apartheid system in South Africa.

    Criticisms can be made of both sides of the argument.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Hitler was supportive of the Zionist aim, vis-a-vis Havaara Agreement.

    The extent may be disputed but he clearly saw Zionism as a solution to his Jewish problem.
    The Zionist aim was not to solve the "Jewish problem", but that was most certainly Hitlers aim. Their aims were different. But they both found an agreement upon which they could both work towards their own, but different, goals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The Zionist aim was not to solve the "Jewish problem", but that was most certainly Hitlers aim. Their aims were different. But they both found an agreement upon which they could both work towards their own, but different, goals.
    The aim of both groups was to "get rid" of German Jews.

    One wanted them to go to strictly Palestine,
    The other really didn't care where they went as long as it was out of Germany.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Stalin's Soviet Union created the Jewish Autonomous Oblast not because they cared for Jews, but rather because of their blatant anti-Semitism.
    Stalin created the JAO because that was the Soviet nationalities policy. The policy of creating a specific administrative area for a specific ethnic group was what they did throughout the whole country, it wasn't unique to Jews.

    This isn't a defence of Soviet nationalities policy, it was both wrong at the time and proved to be catastrophic when the USSR fell apart in 1991. But it's quite a stretch to say it was specifically anti-Semitic.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The aim of both groups was to "get rid" of German Jews.

    One wanted them to go to strictly Palestine,
    The other really didn't care where they went as long as it was out of Germany.
    The Zionists goal was never to get rid of German Jews.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Stalin created the JAO because that was the Soviet nationalities policy. The policy of creating a specific administrative area for a specific ethnic group was what they did throughout the whole country, it wasn't unique to Jews.

    This isn't a defence of Soviet nationalities policy, it was both wrong at the time and proved to be catastrophic when the USSR fell apart in 1991. But it's quite a stretch to say it was specifically anti-Semitic.
    The Jewish population of the Soviet Union had no connection to the region. Maybe I am wrong, but all other groups were given region in which they had some historical connection to. This was a far flung corner of the nation which they had no connection to. Not to mention that throughout Russian history, under the Tsars, it was a common policy to send people into exile in the far-flung corners of Siberia. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but surely if any region were to be chosen, it would be the Pale of Settlement where the Jewish population had long been settled?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The Nazi's had total and complete power in the early stages of 1933.
    So?

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    This narrative that the agreement was signed, in a "desperate attempt to save some German Jews" is demonstrably false.
    Please demonstrate.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    There was no large-scale Jewish immigration from Germany to other countries, suggesting that the German Jews felt safe enough in 1933 to not immigrate. Only when Hitler invaded Poland, and started rounding up the "degenerates" is when the trickle of refugees became a flood of refugees, as people realised that Hitler was indeed intent on killing all the Jews (and all the degenerates) that he could lay his hands on.
    Jews didn't emigrate to other countries because they could not do it, not because they were happy in Germany. Most other countries had quotas and did not want to increase them as they were in a middle of a terrible economic crisis.

    Hitler didn't wait 1939 to attack the Jews:

    1933 (April): boycott of Jewish goods and stores, Civil Service Law (banning Jews from most professions).
    1935: Nuremberg Laws ostracizing Jews from society.
    1938: Aryanisation of the economy. Jews are forced to sell their business at a vile price.
    1938 (10 Nov): Crystal night (pogroms)

    Indeed, Jews must have felt really safe under Nazi Germany before 1939.

    On the top of that, Jews had to pay extortionately high taxes to emigrate. Since Jews had been ruined by the legislation mentioned above, they couldn't afford to pay the Flight Tax and the cost of a relocation abroad.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And you don't really need an agreement between the Zionists and the Third Reich to facilitate the "saving of Jews". Why would a genocidal dictator even sign that thing if he was intent on murdering every single German Jew?
    Because in 1933, Nazis could not do what they wanted. The German Army was weak and they would have been unable to defend the country if the League of Nations, or France and Britain, had decided an intervention. They had to start "low".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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.
    I don't believe that Mr. Livingston was applauding Hitler. He was simply referring to a historical fact relating to deportations/ incentives/ disincentives whatever you want to call them for Jews to move from Germany to Palestine in the 30s.

    What could possibly be wrong with a fact. If there's anything wrong, it's with the people who can't deal with a fact.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    What he said was historically incorrect apparently but I don't see it as anti-semitic.
    No what he said was historically correct. Go and check you facts. You have used the word apparently which says you haven't checked. We live in a double speed nation. All facts need to be checked and preferably cross checked.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Which post was edited?
    huh, my mistake

    doesn't change the fact that your post was *******s
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    *Sigh* I find it quite embarrassing for us as a country, to start a witch hunt when someone criticises Israel.

    One issue is for many in the middle east, european community etc, view the current state of Israel as incredibly similar to how the Nazi regime started. The holocaust does not excuse Israel from human rights crimes and war crimes. But criticising them and stating this is apparently anti-semitic in many peoples eyes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brillo100)
    I don't believe that Mr. Livingston was applauding Hitler. He was simply referring to a historical fact relating to deportations/ incentives/ disincentives whatever you want to call them for Jews to move from Germany to Palestine in the 30s.
    The Nazis wanted Jews to emigrate so much that they made a "Flight Tax" which forced emigrants to give most - up to 99% in 1939 - of their property to be allowed to leave.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    *Sigh* I find it quite embarrassing for us as a country, to start a witch hunt when someone criticises Israel.

    One issue is for many in the middle east, european community etc, view the current state of Israel as incredibly similar to how the Nazi regime started. The holocaust does not excuse Israel from human rights crimes and war crimes. But criticising them and stating this is apparently anti-semitic in many peoples eyes.
    I have criticised Israel many times, yet I have never been accused of antisemitism. There must be a way to do it. I'm sure that saying Hitler supported Zionism is not the proper way.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I have criticised Israel many times, yet I have never been accused of antisemitism. There must be a way to do it. I'm sure that saying Hitler supported Zionism is not the proper way.
    Well he did technically. He didn't share their reasoning, more of, it's one way to remove Jews from the country, with jews technically doing it albeit with government grants and support.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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