Livingston, Labour and Anti-semitism
- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just checked the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent and the Telegraph headlines (i'm over my free limit for full articles)
Perhaps live news coverage in the UK is different but two things struck me
None of the papers have conducted a fact check and investigated the Hitler/Nazi links with Zionist movement. Surely, the first thing a media person should do is find out if what was alleged was true or not, particularly when a person tells you to check the facts on what he alleges.
None of the papers have disclosed that John Mann chairs an All-Party Committee on Anti-Semitism and has received an award from a US Jewish group for his campaigning. He isn't just any MP but has a political role in confronting Livingstone
Oh, and just who did organise that camera crew to be present and why were they not stopped filming because a few weeks ago the BBC itself was forbidden to film in the corridors due to a protest going on in the background and Mann was certainly protesting.
I think without being an expert Livingston is guilty of misrepresenting the actual context of the Holocaust. Who said Hitler went mad and it resulted in 6 million deaths. I don't think history or any expert supports that interpretation. There are two hypothesis…that genocide was always the intent or that it was the result of an opportunity that arose within the brutality of the Eastern Front. None, afaik, is based on the sanity of one person – Hitler.
Mann cites Dachau, the first concentration camp, in his argument with Livingstone. It was set up as a political prison for communists, social democrats and trade unionists, not to imprison Jews and certainly not as an extermination camp
My opinion. The outrage and publicity is to equate all anti-zionism with anti-semitism, which was Livingstone's point if very badly expressed and it is very much the strategy of the Israeli government and its supporters to deflect criticism too. How much coverage is there that Israel has just rebuffed a French proposal to re-start peace talks?
We are anti-Judaism, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti- all religion. We are also anti-theocracies and who can deny that Israel is de facto, like all Middle Eastern countries, a theocratic state rather than a secular democracy it claims to be.
As an after-thought i would be interested in a time-line of the beginning of the anti-semitism claims against Labour and the start of the BDS movement.I know the Tories have passed a law forbidding certain public bodies from participating citing it as anti-semitic and not anti-zionistI know from someone i worked with who was ex-USDAW EC and on their trustee board for their pension fund who explained to me that the law stopped them from divesting from apartheid South Africa…they were duty bound to invest where there was profit to be made. I know the EU has passed a weak and easily flouted label regulation on produce from illegal settlements on the West BankI think there maybe some truth that this is all a warning shot across Corbyn's bow to tow the line with Israel.
I see the Guardian have revealed that Livngstone was influenced by a book written by a Marxist Trotskyist…sufficient evidence for it to be dismissed. I was going to quote Amazon's blurb on the book but praise in book reviews from the Times, London Review of Books, is selective.What i do note that the Guardian does not mention anything other than the political background of the writer, not mentioning he is Jewish and brought up in an orthodox family. Nor mention of any of his other books nor his human rights activities. Preferring to cite critics who question his academic/scholarly authority. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-marxist-book-lenni-brenner-defence-israel-commentsHere is an article by the author http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/24/zionism-in-the-age-of-the-dictators/I still note that the media still declines to fact-check for themselves. An editorial decision not to touch on any controversy and risk the consequences? I believe so. Whether this is a anti-Labour Corbyn campaign or a pro-Israel one, i'm divided upon. Probably two birds with one stone.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I see the Guardian have revealed that Livngstone was influenced by a book written by a Marxist Trotskyist…sufficient evidence for it to be dismissed.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/ken-livingstone-marxist-book-lenni-brenner-defence-israel-commentsI see that one historian, "Thomas Webber, a professor of history and international affairs and an expert on the Hitler era, Jewish relations and German history", is quoted in the article as more or less conceding Livingston's claim that "Hitler supported Zionism":
Quote:Commenting on the broader points made by Livingstone about the extent of Zionist contacts with the Nazi party, Webber said: “As far as I am aware there were contacts, but they did not involve Hitler himself.“The way to look at it is the bigger context. What was Hitler’s goal from the making of Hitler until the final solution? The point is that Hitler’s preferred final solution well into the 1930s was to get the Jews out of Germany by whatever means it takes.“Hitler was of course shifting policy and was not quite clear himself about how it came about. In that sense it is certainly clear that Hitler had no plan to kill Jews but wanted to get them out. I don’t think it is accurate as Ken Livingstone says – or at least is quoted as saying – that in 1932, before Hitler went mad or something like that, that he wanted to send them to Israel. There was no Israel at that point".I doubt that Livingston is anti-semitic, probably just anti-Israel and anti-Zionist even if that's the same thing is some people's eyes. His crime seems to be to have been to have raised his head above the parapet.
Now posted as a pastiche of the Party's view on Zionism over the years.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/04/socialism-v-zionism.html
At our stall in Kingston yesterday three people came up to us separately to tell us that they thought Livingstone was being unfairly accused of anti-semitism because all he had done was re-state a historical fact (about the Nazis in the 1930s supporting the Zionist idea of establishing a Jewish State and that discussions between them and the Zionists took place). It's difficult to understand why the Zionists would want to deny this as it was a logical thing to do to further their aim. It looks as if the media and the pro-Israel lobby may have misjudged the public mood and that Livingstone will come out of this vindicated and Zionism discredited.
i note that some of the historians are being nuanced with their criticisms.That Israel was not created so Hitler couldn't have supported Jews going to Israel…Just to the British mandate of Palestine. That Hitler opposed the creation of an actual State but just wanted someplace to send them to …There were various homelands proposed…Uganda..a Jewish autonomous state in Siberia, Oblast, …even Japan got in on the act and offered territory called the Fugu Plan…And the Nazis suggested Madagascar which did have Hitler's approval… the British also suggested what is now Guyana …And Tasmania was open to resettling Jewish refugees. – all available on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_stateJust how strong the movement is for second Jewish state (Judah) if Israel makes a deal to close the West Bank settlements I'm not sure of. Has the media misjudged the public mood, as you suggest…or are they busy creating a new public mood…?Used to be the right wing Tories like the Daily Mail that were anti-semites…now they are making out that Labour is…If i recall and i might be wrong…one reason Robin Cook got dumped as foreign minister was the Israeli lobby as he was seen as pro-palestinan http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/18/world/netanyahu-angrily-cancels-dinner-with-visiting-briton.htmlAnyway, as our blog indicates that the leaders of Zionism were happy to do deals with anti-semites other than the Nazis to encourage emigration or strengthen the state of Israel.Maybe we should drop a line to the media in a press release…and to Ken… We have already been accused of in a comment on the blog as being the anti-semites of Clapham …
Of all the various problems in the world, the small border dispute between Israel and Palestine is not one we should really be flexing much energy about…
If only we could relegate it to a small border dispute.I think half a century or more has shown that it is often the centre of politics…in the USA and in the EU and the UK . For a population of 6 million or so, Israel punches well above its weight in diplomatic circles. As do the 4 million-odd Palestinians.I'm very happy to take advantage of media attention to declare a plague on both your houses and both your religions in the hope it attracts visitors to our website and social media.Our case against nationalism and religion is well suited for the Israeli Zionist V Palestinian Nationalist rivalry.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We are anti-Judaism, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti- all religion. We are also anti-theocracies and who can deny that Israel is de facto, like all Middle Eastern countries, a theocratic state rather than a secular democracy it claims to be.In other words, we are opposed to all institutionalised ignorance.
1933: Zionists sign a deal with Hitler – The Transfer Agreement The Transfer Agreement – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32941.htm
This is, of course, the fact that Livingstone hinges his case upon whereas his critics said it was a deal forced upon the Zionists by circumstances (pretty much like the deal the SS Himmler tried to make much later…trucks for Jews) and Hitler was pretty much against it, and he certainly wouldn't have approved the establishment of a sovereign Jewish State. Historians will line up on both sides over its importance and relevance. Another part of Livingston's case will be that a breakaway from the Stern Gang actually approached Germany during the war for an alliance against the British in the Mandate. Shamir a prime minister of Israel was a member of this group but justified by his supporters because he joined after the attempt was made but his critics say he knew about the deal and others in the pipeline when he did join. Our blog makes it clear that Zionism itself collaborated with anti-semites from its foundation and with its fear-mongering to encourage emigration to Palestine and later Israel can be described as anti-semite, itself . I very much admire Norman Finkelstein who wrote the "Holocaust Industry" although i don't agree with the 2-state solution which he does but his attempts to remove the face of legitimacy from Israel is to be applauded.
I can't see how, on the basis of what he said (stating a verified fact), the Labour Party can find Livingstone guilty of anti-semitism but they're in a bind. If they don't find him guilty the media/zionist/Israeli rat pack will accuse the party of failing to deal with anti-semitism within its ranks which would be a vote loser. Historical accuracy or losing votes: which will Labour chose? Some of the more ambitious, career-minded politicians in it have already chosen.
Norman Finkelstein's interview on the Naz Shah/Livingstone controversy. As i said in a previous post, his viewpoint is commendable https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda
Looking for something else I found this from last year's general election:http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/israel-is-racist-and-apartheidist-twickenham-green-candidate-faces-backlash-after-ignorant-claims/The fact that the media did not raise a hue and cry about "anti-semitism" in the Green Party and call for it to be rooted out (even the Board of Deputies only accused the candidate of ignorance) suggests that the current fuss is part of the media's (and a section of the Labour Party's) campaign against Corbyn and is being used as a stick to beat him. And of course it has given the pro-Israeli lobby the chance to reinforce its view that any criticism of Israel is "anti-semitic" as a way of intimidating those tempted to make such a criticism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.