• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Livingstone did a lot for anti-racism - tellingly one of the first things that Boris Johnson did as Mayor was to take Ken's annual anti-racism festival and scale it down, rename it and change it's theme.


Ken made a reference to a pact between Hitler and Zionists. What he was referring to is a historical fact. The reason he was suspended is because he has a big gob and doesn't take account of the media bias, he is effectively suspended for his lack of savvy rather than any actual racism.


Boris Johnson on the other hand (the one who symbolically watered down Ken's anti-racist festival) has stated that the EU are trying to carry out Hitler's ultimate goals - and can happily carry on with his bid for leadership of the Conservative party.


Ken is a scapegoat. I back his suspension because at a time when the media want to string Labour up, you can't trust him not to say something that seems outrageous and sticking his head in the noose. But what he was referring to is a historical fact.




The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in the years 1933–1939.[1]

You mean he re-writes history (and likens Jewish journalists to Nazis). That is anti semitic as already defined because it is done with one purpose: to cause as much "distress" as possible. It seems you're doing the same thing.

This is an article the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain wrote in the Telegraph, it might explain things a bit better than I can:

The time has come to give the lie to a myth that has not only dominated recent headlines, but that has poisoned public discourse on anti-Semitism and Israel for decades.

It is astonishing to see figures on the hard Left of the British political spectrum presuming to define the relationship between Judaism and Zionism despite themselves being neither Jews nor Zionists. The likes of Ken Livingstone and Malia Boattia claim that Zionism is separate from Judaism as a faith; that it is purely political; that it is expansionist, colonialist and imperialist.

It is unclear why these people feel qualified to provide such an analysis of one of the axioms of Jewish belief. But let me be very clear. Their claims are a fiction. They are a wilful distortion of a noble and integral part of Judaism. Zionism is a belief in the right to Jewish self-determination in a land that has been at the centre of the Jewish world for more than 3,000 years. One can no more separate it from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.

“To those who so eagerly reach for a vicious Holocaust reference in order to exact the maximum amount of pain and offence upon “Zionists”, I say: You are spreading that ancient and insidious virus of anti-Semitism. Look around you”

Open a Jewish daily prayer book used in any part of the world and Zionism will leap out at you. The innumerable references to the land of Israel are inescapable and demonstrative. Throughout our collective history we have yearned for a chance to determine our own future, to revive an ancient language and return to rejoice in our love for this tiny sliver of land. Zionism is a movement celebrated by people right across the political spectrum, all over the world, and requires no endorsement or otherwise of the particular policies of any Israeli Government at any time.

But to those people who have nevertheless sought to redefine Zionism, who vilify and delegitimize it, I say: Be under no illusions – you are deeply insulting not only the Jewish community but countless others who instinctively reject the politics of distortion and demonisation. To those who so eagerly reach for a vicious Holocaust reference in order to exact the maximum amount of pain and offence upon “Zionists”, I say: You are spreading that ancient and insidious virus of anti-Semitism.

Look around you. There are many good people in our society who are no longer prepared quietly to endure your poisonous invective, simply because you used the word “Zionist” or “Zio” instead of the word “Jew”. There are many people who are now calling you out and forcing you to answer for your prejudice. There are many people, from all sectors of our society, who are demanding more responsibility, particularly from our politicians, for stamping out racism and anti-Semitism.

“It has never been clearer to me just how widely understood that truism is. Anti-Semitism is not just a problem for Jews; it is a problem for all of our society”
Comments from senior and long-standing members of the Labour Party, both Jewish and not, show just how severe the problem has now become. Everyone agrees that there must be no place for anti-Semitism in our politics and I welcome the inquiry recently announced by the Party’s leadership. And yet, I would sound an urgent note of caution.

In recent days, we have heard anti-Semitism in the Labour Party described variously as “a smear” and as “mood music” being manipulated by political opponents of Jeremy Corbyn. There has been nothing more disheartening in this story than the suggestion that this is more about politics than about substance. The worst of mistakes, in trying to address this problem, would be to treat it as a political attack which requires a political solution.

If this inquiry turns out to be no more than a sticking plaster, designed to placate and diffuse until after the elections this week, the problem will surely get worse and not better. Jeremy Corbyn has stated that his party “will not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form,” and I very much hope that this inquiry will deliver on that pledge and be followed by decisive action. All political parties share in the responsibility to rid our society of anti-Semitism but we cannot achieve that objective with political posturing or empty promises of action never to be fulfilled.

The last 10 days have lifted the lid on a challenging issue, but if anything, I feel optimistic about the way that this problem has been received. Jews are frequently compared to the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”, an enduring signal for when the world is failing to meet its obligations in tackling bigotry. It has never been clearer to me just how widely understood that truism is.

Anti-Semitism is not just a problem for Jews; it is a problem for all of our society. I draw a great deal of comfort from the very strong response that this sorry affair has elicited. There must be no corner of Britain today in which anti-Semitism can lurk.
 
Last edited:
So what do we call Zionists who want to expand Israel all the way to the Euphrates river and believe it is their right to wage war on Arabs in order to do so........ Jewish extremists perhaps.
 
You mean he re-writes history (and likens Jewish journalists to Nazis). That is anti semitic as already defined because it is done with one purpose: to cause as much "distress" as possible. It seems you're doing the same thing.

This is an article the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain wrote in the Telegraph, it might explain things a bit better than I can:

Historically left wingers would call people Nazis or fascists as an insult - to people that were not actually either of these things - because to someone on the left, to call someone a Nazi is to call them the thing that the insult giver would least want to be. It's an insult.


If someone calls you a dick head they don't literally think your head is a dick - it's an insult.


By using the generic insult of Nazi to someone who was Jewish he was very foolish to use that insult - he would have been better calling them a dick head as he did intend to insult them as they were involved in a heated disagreement.


That you now think I am anti-Semitic just because I explained that Livingstone's reference was factually correct (but politically naive) shows how blinkered you have become on this.
 
So what do we call Zionists who want to expand Israel all the way to the Euphrates river and believe it is their right to wage war on Arabs in order to do so........ Jewish extremists perhaps.

I'm not sure what you would call them. They're definitely extremists though. I've always called them zealots because, for the most part, they're also very religious people/nutters. It is important, however, to understand that their views are nothing to do with zionism. They may also be zionist, but they're extremists as well.
 
Historically left wingers would call people Nazis or fascists as an insult - to people that were not actually either of these things - because to someone on the left, to call someone a Nazi is to call them the thing that the insult giver would least want to be. It's an insult.


If someone calls you a dick head they don't literally think your head is a dick - it's an insult.


By using the generic insult of Nazi to someone who was Jewish he was very foolish to use that insult - he would have been better calling them a dick head as he did intend to insult them as they were involved in a heated disagreement.


That you now think I am anti-Semitic just because I explained that Livingstone's reference was factually correct (but politically naive) shows how blinkered you have become on this.

You're doing it again. You're telling a victim whether or not they have the right to be offended. The dick head argument is ridiculous, and not really any different to the argument put forward by right wing extremists.

Let's be very clear here, the idiot Ken Livingston did that for one reason, and one reason only: to cause maximum offence, and that is anti-semitic. It is even specifically mentioned in the worldwide definition of anti-semitism. He also wasn't factually correct. He's re-writing history, and the fact that you can't see that, and can't recognise anti-semitism when it is staring you in the face shows how blinkered you've become on this.
 
You're doing it again. You're telling a victim whether or not they have the right to be offended. The dick head argument is ridiculous, and not really any different to the argument put forward by right wing extremists.

Let's be very clear here, the idiot Ken Livingston did that for one reason, and one reason only: to cause maximum offence, and that is anti-semitic. It is even specifically mentioned in the worldwide definition of anti-semitism. He also wasn't factually correct. He's re-writing history, and the fact that you can't see that, and can't recognise anti-semitism when it is staring you in the face shows how blinkered you've become on this.
Ha - touché


You are not the victim and I'm discussing with you not anyone else.


The point for me in the first incident from years ago is:
Did he intend to offend - yes
Did he intend to offend because they were Jewish - very unlikely


In the second incident from a couple of weeks ago is factually correct, the only issue in reality as far as I am concerned is the stupid timing in him stating this fact.


For me - get him out of sight because he is unpredictable and at the moment unhelpful - but don't condemn him for something he isn't
 
Ha - touché


You are not the victim and I'm discussing with you not anyone else.


The point for me in the first incident from years ago is:
Did he intend to offend - yes
Did he intend to offend because they were Jewish - yes


In the second incident from a couple of weeks ago is factually correct, the only issue in reality as far as I am concerned is the stupid timing in him stating this fact.


For me - get him out of sight because he is unpredictable and at the moment unhelpful - but don't condemn him for something he isn't

Edited for accuracy. I'm not the victim, but most Jews would consider themselves to be given how offensive (to them) what he said is. He's re-writing history with the sole purpose of causing offence. He's done something that is within the definition of anti-semitism. He's anti-semitic.

Moreover, intent isn't the issue. (If he is being anti-semitic without even knowing it then he's also ignorant.) We've had this debate on other forms of racism.
 
With regard to the journalist incident, KL made it very clear that he didn't know that the journo who was doorstepping him was actually Jewish.

In any case he was suspended and reinstated after the incident was invesigated.
 
With regard to the journalist incident, KL made it very clear that he didn't know that the journo who was doorstepping him was actually Jewish.

In any case he was suspended and reinstated after the incident was invesigated.

Then he's also a liar:

From the Mail:

Mr Livingstone is no stranger to finding himself in hot water - in 2006 a High Court judge said he made 'unnecessarily offensive' and 'indefensible' remarks likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
He made his remarks after a party at City Hall marking 20 years since former Culture Secretary Chris Smith's became Britain's first openly gay MP.
When Mr Livingstone was asked by Mr Finegold, whether he had enjoyed the party, the mayor likened him to a 'German war criminal'.
When Mr Finegold told him he was Jewish and found his remarks offensive, Mr Livingstone said: 'Well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard - you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?'


From the Guardian:

Mr Livingstone is said to have baited the reporter, asking if he was "a German war criminal".

On learning that Mr Finegold is Jewish, the mayor apparently said: "You are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

With the furore growing around him, Mr Livingstone has steadfastly refused to apologise to Mr Finegold

Surely if he wasn't doing it to cause offence he could have apologised?
 
Edited for accuracy. I'm not the victim, but most Jews would consider themselves to be given how offensive (to them) what he said is. He's re-writing history with the sole purpose of causing offence. He's done something that is within the definition of anti-semitism. He's anti-semitic.

Moreover, intent isn't the issue. (If he is being anti-semitic without even knowing it then he's also ignorant.) We've had this debate on other forms of racism.
Changing what I wrote is not the way to discuss things.
What he said about Hitler's connection to Zionism is not re-writing history, it is history. A strange anomaly of history but still true.
I would say intent is massively important when insulting someone. To do something without intent is very different to something with intent.
 
Changing what I wrote is not the way to discuss things.
What he said about Hitler's connection to Zionism is not re-writing history, it is history. A strange anomaly of history but still true.
I would say intent is massively important when insulting someone. To do something without intent is very different to something with intent.

It's re-writing history.

Intent only seems to be important with anti-semitism. We've discussed other forms of racism in the past where it has been debated that it is up to the victim to say whether or not they are offended, and saying there was no intention of causing offence isn't relevant. If someone called a black person the N word, but then turned round and said, but I didn't mean to cause offence, would you say that person wasn't racist? We've agreed in the past that that person would be racist. Why doesn't the same hold true with anti-semitism?
 
Changing what I wrote is not the way to discuss things.
What he said about Hitler's connection to Zionism is not re-writing history, it is history. A strange anomaly of history but still true.
I would say intent is massively important when insulting someone. To do something without intent is very different to something with intent.


Can you, and other apologists for Ken not recognise that his use of such an example is a parallel with right wingers of the 60/70 and 80s who spoke of "send them home" in 100% race and colour discrimination. It wasn't right in 1937, the 60/70/80s AND it isn't right now for someone to give tacit support and verbal encouragement to such; like people trafficking isn't it? And it sends out a message that such things are acceptable.
Ken isn't thick or stupid BUT the way he spoke suggests he maybe antisemitic.
 
It's re-writing history.

Intent only seems to be important with anti-semitism. We've discussed other forms of racism in the past where it has been debated that it is up to the victim to say whether or not they are offended, and saying there was no intention of causing offence isn't relevant. If someone called a black person the N word, but then turned round and said, but I didn't mean to cause offence, would you say that person wasn't racist? We've agreed in the past that that person would be racist. Why doesn't the same hold true with anti-semitism?
If you read the two things below - can you tell me how he is re-writing history? If you state it was a stupid thing to say and the timing of him saying it was provocative - then I would agree. But I can't he how what he was referring to is not fact.




Ken Livingstone, claimed that Adolf Hitler was initially a supporter of Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”






The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in the years 1933–1939.
 
Can you, and other apologists for Ken not recognise that his use of such an example is a parallel with right wingers of the 60/70 and 80s who spoke of "send them home" in 100% race and colour discrimination. It wasn't right in 1937, the 60/70/80s AND it isn't right now for someone to give tacit support and verbal encouragement to such; like people trafficking isn't it? And it sends out a message that such things are acceptable.
Ken isn't thick or stupid BUT the way he spoke suggests he maybe antisemitic.
No. No parallels at all.
What he said was ill judged and badly timed and I support him being suspended from the party. But I will defend him against claims that he is racist.
He is a gobshite and he will never learn when to shut up sadly. But not a racist.
 
If you read the two things below - can you tell me how he is re-writing history? If you state it was a stupid thing to say and the timing of him saying it was provocative - then I would agree. But I can't he how what he was referring to is not fact.




Ken Livingstone, claimed that Adolf Hitler was initially a supporter of Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”






The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in the years 1933–1939.

Hitler didn't care one jot about the Jews, he wanted them out of Germany (and any territories he invaded). To start with he wanted to forcibly eject them. He didn't care if they wanted to go to the middle east or not, he just wanted all Jews out of his land. He didn't care if they were Zionists themselves or not, and didn't care if they wanted to go to Israel or not. They could have gone to America for all he cared. He certainly didn't care if they formed their own country. That is not supporting Zionism at all. The fact that some Zionists tried to negotiate with the devil to save their lives is neither here nor there, and Hitler shouldn't be given any "credit" for that.

You might want to read this, it makes the point(s) far better than me:

BBC
 
Last edited:
Hitler didn't care one jot about the Jews, he wanted them out of Germany (and any territories he invaded). To start with he wanted to forcibly eject them. He didn't care if they wanted to go to the middle east or not, he just wanted all Jews out of his land. He didn't care if they were Zionists themselves or not, and didn't care if they wanted to go to Israel or not. They could have gone to America for all he cared. He certainly didn't care if they formed their own country. That is not supporting Zionism at all. The fact that some Zionists tried to negotiate with the devil to save their lives is neither here nor there, and Hitler shouldn't be given any "credit" for that.

You might want to read this, it makes the point(s) far better than me:

BBC
No one will doubt his motives were to rid Germany of the Jewish people, but initially he did that by supporting Zionism, and then by committing genocide. Which is what Livingstone said. So what he said was correct but inadvisable to say it in the current climate.
 
No one will doubt his motives were to rid Germany of the Jewish people, but initially he did that by supporting Zionism, and then by committing genocide. Which is what Livingstone said. So what he said was correct but inadvisable to say it in the current climate.

How much clearer do you need it? HITLER DID NOT SUPPORT ZIONISM.

He believed, on the contrary, that Zionism was one of many deliberately deceptive labels that Jews placed upon what he believed to be their endless striving for global power and the extermination of the human species.

The official German policy, enunciated clearly in 1937, was to oppose the creation of a State of Israel.

Those quotes came from a professor of history who has written books on the subject. Are you seriously suggesting you know more than him, or that he is wrong?
 
How much clearer do you need it? HITLER DID NOT SUPPORT ZIONISM.





Those quotes came from a professor of history who has written books on the subject. Are you seriously suggesting you know more than him, or that he is wrong?

I think capslock will help me understand - that may be the way forward!

When someone is being interviewed on a radio show they usually have time for soundbites rather than a full analysis of the kind you would get from a historian. I'm sure if the interview had gone into detail on that subject then why Hitler supported Jews leaving Germany would have been discussed - but I would have thought that was pretty obvious and you don't have to be a historian to work that out (though I do have a history degree so in some ways I guess I am a historian!)
 
So what point are making? Hitler didn't support the Jewish right to self determination. His party was against that. Moreover, he wanted to rid the world of Jews. This was stated in Mein Kampf. Which bit of that is zionist?

If I've understood you correctly you're conceding that point, but saying it's because this was a TV/radio interview and they didn't have time to go into detail. That says to me that you're now accepting that point, but defending the indefensible. It also begs the question as to why we haven't had an apology from the idiot yet. The reason can really only be because he still can't see he's done anything wrong; something you at least seem to be realising.
 
Back
Top