DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Should those that promote genocide be no platformed?
Labour & Anti-Semitism.
- Thread starter cantsin
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Tbh the day to day reality for most Palestinians in the Gaza strip is living on a diet which doesn't allow you to do that much. It is living not knowing when or why the Zionist entity will kill someone you know or are related to. It is a life of living on hold in the world's biggest prisons.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
rather more than that, surely.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Indeed but where are we now?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
On a bus
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
The point as I'm sure we're all aware is that the state of Israel is arguably committing genocide. The state has it's cheerleaders in the form of zionists. Should they have the right to a platform? At the moment they fucking pwn the platform.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
You may find a few clues in my last few posts.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Hitler won an election in 1932? Back to the history books with you
A few remarks on this Livingstone buisness.
There are a lot of Jews who identify with Israel and like the aspect of Zionist ideology which favours a state for Jews and/or as a safe place and/or as a way of preserving Jewish identity and/or see it in religious terms of return to their homeland and/or have family there. But very few are on board with the weirdness of the Zionist movement of the 1930's which was a minority movement with odd ideas about the "negation of the diaspora" and recreating Jewishness in a different mold and which had certain dubious dealings with Nazism (although I think these are often overstated). I think this is the source of the offence caused by Livingstone. Nobody has pointed this out which means either that I'm completely wrong on this or there is an unwillingness of many people (Zionists, pro-Zionists, various fence sitters and sympathisers and for that matter those who just want to focus their ire on Livingstone for whatever reason) to distance themselves from the real head bangers. And to be fair Livingstone's remarks were so crude nobody needs to go out of their way to explain what is wrong with them.
Now I don't actually care that much about the impact on the Labour Party. So I'm going to focus on the question of anti-semitism. Livingstone's remarks were 1) a weird non sequitur of the type which raises alarm bells (he's talking about Hitler all of a sudden wtf!) 2) they cause offense I beilieve primarily for the reason I have outlined 3) they could be read as absolving Hitler to some extent (I think these readings are contrived) but 4) they aren't actually anti-semitic in their own right.
What interests me is that accusations of bigotry substitute for political criticism. There is a different but parallel phenomenon with Zac Goldsmith's criticisms of Sadiq Khan and accusations of Islamophobia. I think this can only cause confusion and should be combatted. You don't have to bigotted to cause offense. And what offends the mainstream of a community or self-appointed community leaders may be just as much about questioning minds within that community clashing with the conservativism of that community.
The upshot with respect to anti-semitism is that debates around anti-semitism now become debates about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is assumed that Jews are offended when certain boundaries are crossed with respect to critism or rejection of Israel. The question now becomes what are those boundaries and when you have marked out those boundaries when have they been crossed? The only way to see if Israel is being unfairly maligned or "singled out" is to look at the realities. All of a sudden you have to be an expert on Israel-Palestine before you can tell what anti-semitism is. This is a state of affairs mostly driven by Zionists themselves. They don't just want to use anti-semitism to deflect from the Israel-Palestine conflict but also they (perhaps unintentionally) use the Israel-Palestine conflict to deflect from discussion of anti-semitism.
There are a lot of Jews who identify with Israel and like the aspect of Zionist ideology which favours a state for Jews and/or as a safe place and/or as a way of preserving Jewish identity and/or see it in religious terms of return to their homeland and/or have family there. But very few are on board with the weirdness of the Zionist movement of the 1930's which was a minority movement with odd ideas about the "negation of the diaspora" and recreating Jewishness in a different mold and which had certain dubious dealings with Nazism (although I think these are often overstated). I think this is the source of the offence caused by Livingstone. Nobody has pointed this out which means either that I'm completely wrong on this or there is an unwillingness of many people (Zionists, pro-Zionists, various fence sitters and sympathisers and for that matter those who just want to focus their ire on Livingstone for whatever reason) to distance themselves from the real head bangers. And to be fair Livingstone's remarks were so crude nobody needs to go out of their way to explain what is wrong with them.
Now I don't actually care that much about the impact on the Labour Party. So I'm going to focus on the question of anti-semitism. Livingstone's remarks were 1) a weird non sequitur of the type which raises alarm bells (he's talking about Hitler all of a sudden wtf!) 2) they cause offense I beilieve primarily for the reason I have outlined 3) they could be read as absolving Hitler to some extent (I think these readings are contrived) but 4) they aren't actually anti-semitic in their own right.
What interests me is that accusations of bigotry substitute for political criticism. There is a different but parallel phenomenon with Zac Goldsmith's criticisms of Sadiq Khan and accusations of Islamophobia. I think this can only cause confusion and should be combatted. You don't have to bigotted to cause offense. And what offends the mainstream of a community or self-appointed community leaders may be just as much about questioning minds within that community clashing with the conservativism of that community.
The upshot with respect to anti-semitism is that debates around anti-semitism now become debates about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is assumed that Jews are offended when certain boundaries are crossed with respect to critism or rejection of Israel. The question now becomes what are those boundaries and when you have marked out those boundaries when have they been crossed? The only way to see if Israel is being unfairly maligned or "singled out" is to look at the realities. All of a sudden you have to be an expert on Israel-Palestine before you can tell what anti-semitism is. This is a state of affairs mostly driven by Zionists themselves. They don't just want to use anti-semitism to deflect from the Israel-Palestine conflict but also they (perhaps unintentionally) use the Israel-Palestine conflict to deflect from discussion of anti-semitism.
And if I'm right on this then there will be little impact on the Labour Party electorally except for the impact of the infighting. The Maquis have scored a big victory but they aren't going to be able to capitlise on it. Not many people are interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict so few people are going to be interested in Israel-Palestine related anti-semitism. How many people can be bothered to work all that out? This whole thing is an argument between various Guardian reading weirdos.
gosub
~#
I prefered the thinking in the post before, the"Maquis" didnt score a big victory, if anything the faux rage of Mann looked plastic. Livingstone was an entirely self inflected wound.
So Ken got the year wrong but was still correct?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Do you think Hitler was a sane chap before say 1933 but then went a bit mad when he got into power? That's what it being technically correct entails. Now, given past comments of yours i wouldn't be surprised if you did.
gosub
~#
I think there's been a lot of groundwork put into this. Not just by the Maquis or course. But the whole idea of rampant left wing anti-semitism has been pushed for years if not decades. Livingstone's self-inflicted wound would not have had such dramatic effect if it had not been for that groundwork.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In terms of Khan saying he fears electoral damage - i don't think that he does. Attempting to panic a) supporters and members to go out and get the vote out and b) labour voters who think the victory is already in the bag who might have been considering not turning out in the immediate days before an election is one of the oldest tricks in the book. So another counter-political tactic. And it's all been about tactics really.
Hitler was mental, my grandmother was a Jew and escaped nazi Germany, however, did Hitler say that jews should go to Isreal as Ken suggested or not?
(Also, please give examples of past comments which suggest I think Hitler was in anyway sane or reasonable, if you cannot I suggest you wind back the bullshit.)
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Hmm, I don't know about left wing anti-Semitism, but I do think support for the Palestinian cause is stronger on the left and the Israel regime finds it hard to reconcile that support except by waving the anti-Semite banner at them. Are there many pro Palestinians on the right?
As a white man I feel modern laws against me raping my wife and inciting racial hatred are offensive and targetting others like me just trying to get on. Don't get me started on ethics in games journalism.
Sure that's the thinking. But the more interesting question is what are the politics of those who are attracted to anti-semitic themes with respect to the Israel-Palestine question? I think they come from the left, the right and the center.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's bullshit of the same low order of most of his stuff in the last 5-6 years.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I suggest that you look at what he said and what he said being technically correct would mean - he said 'before hitler went mad' - which, to be technically correct as you suggest, means that before say 1932/3 he was sane. Which you now say he wasn't - which throws your suggestion that he was technically correct in what he said into serious doubt. If by technically correct you mean he massed together a series of context free half-remembered facts (for no reason whatsoever) then added a clearly bollocks and quite ridiculous claim on the end then you would be right. is that what you meant?
I think we've all see the eliminationist logic that you have attempted to apply recently, and how that mirrors the sort of anti-jewish propoganda the nazis specialised in - and i imagine that you think you were sane in doing so. So no, it wouldn't have surprised me to see you argue that this incorrect bit you describe as technically correct (hitler being a sensible chap before 1932/3). As i said, you actually have to or take back your claim that it's technically correct. Which is to be?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The problem being that the current iteration of Zionist nationalism in the state of Israel posits an absolute right to the land currently occupied. It's not a solid foundation for a "solution", and has allowed the sort of mendacity that successive "peace processes" have descended into.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It sort of feels like this was the whole point of the exercise.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
She may have been hurt by their comments, but I'll nail my colours to the mast here and say that if Jews do come to harm, it'll be because of the spinning that the likes of Mann and the media have put on their comments, not because of the comments themselves.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. Not sure about that. Your points 1) and 4) are somewhat contradictory. I do think it's revealing of something extremely unpleasant that someone like Livingstone should be spouting ignorant-pub-bore history like this. 'actually anti-semitic in their own right'? So dickish that they might as well be. Smells from that direction are very bad.
Point here is the dogwhistle stuff, surely - Goldsmith's leaflets aimed at Hindus, for example. They don't say 'I'm not a Pakistani', but they might as well do.
Bimble pointed this out earlier - and yes, its intention is not to counter anti-semitism so much as to exploit it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
One thing that the issue has never been, is "simple". To say that it is...well, it's your usual shallow approach to any question, isn't it? You don't take account of what is meant by "Jewish", of what is meant (by various Jews, not by you) by "Zionism", or what is meant by "Israel".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It'd take one to know one, and Regev was happy to pervert history in his day.
Similar threads
