Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour & Anti-Semitism.

The only thing we can be confident in is that, whatever he says, it's going to make it all worse.
actually it's about right. But fuck knows why he didn't issue it last night.

Ken Livingstone’s comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.

Labour’s independently elected national constitutional committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.

It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action.

Since initiating the disciplinary process, I have not interfered with it and respect the independence of the party’s disciplinary bodies. But Ken’s subsequent comments and actions will now be considered by the national executive committee after representations from party members.
 
actually it's about right. But fuck knows why he didn't issue it last night.

Ken Livingstone’s comments have been grossly insensitive, and he has caused deep offence and hurt to the Jewish community.

Labour’s independently elected national constitutional committee has found Ken guilty of bringing the party into disrepute and suspended him for two years.

It is deeply disappointing that, despite his long record of standing up to racism, Ken has failed to acknowledge or apologise for the hurt he has caused. Many people are understandably upset that he has continued to make offensive remarks which could open him to further disciplinary action.

Since initiating the disciplinary process, I have not interfered with it and respect the independence of the party’s disciplinary bodies. But Ken’s subsequent comments and actions will now be considered by the national executive committee after representations from party members.
Yup, a pretty sensible and reasoned position. I don't think he should have said anything last night - might have looked like he'd had advance notice of the outcome- but first thing this morning would look right. What was he waiting for? To see how it went down? To keep the story going as long as possible?
 
Not impressed myself, why the need to say that "the Jewish community" is offended & hurt. Could've just stuck to the actual charge of bringing the party into disrepute ?
 
Jesus wept. I (ahem) rejoined the LP on a wave of (misguided) optimism...only to be shown the door during the leadership contest. Whew...dodged a bullet. Embarrassingly pitiful shenanigans of a privileged bubble dwelling subset of humanity. In the 70s, it would have been key parties, infidelity and whispered conferences in the sauna. Heartily sick of the meandering concerns of Westminster. Pathetically entitled careerists all round (annoyed with myself for clicking on any posts in P&P which refer to Labour- boredom and exhaustion after 3 days nana duty). Off to plot to cleanse my soul and plant sweet peas.
 
I feel deeply embarrassed to be involved with Labour at the moment. The excruciating social media posts from people who should know better defending Livingstone 'he only posted historical fact' etc, the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of scheduling your local election launch on the same day, the dreadful finger-wagging Corbyn interview where he blames everything on the media, the loyal footsoldiers who are adamant that everything is going completely fine if it wasn't for those pesky Blairites... I just want to wake up and find there's nice grinning ineffectual Andy Burnham in charge and the left never got the chance to show just how badly it could fuck up an opportunity, and I wasn't stupid enough to join the party and vote for Corbyn, twice.
 
Livingstone has proven himself a tendentious idiot who has read one book and decided he needs to go no further. He used to be a very skillful politician, so his loss of political instinct and the basic ability to communicate is pretty odd. The conspicuous bad faith and performative disgust of his right wing critics to me is equally repellent though. Unfortunately Livingstone can't seem to stop playing the role they have written for him.
 
I feel deeply embarrassed to be involved with Labour at the moment. The excruciating social media posts from people who should know better defending Livingstone 'he only posted historical fact' etc,
Part of the problem is that it is [based on] fact, that's why it keeps cropping up. It tends to be deployed (on the left) as a way of showing that Zionists have always been complete and utter fucking shits. It's unnecessary because Zionism stands condemned by the actions of Israel, not because some unsuspecting zealots in the thirties thought they could do a deal with the Nazis. It's stupid because it ignores the absolute heroism of other Zionists in the camps, the ghettos and the underground. But the worst problem is once you've brought Hitler in you can't get rid of him* and instead of denouncing today's Zionism you spend all your time defending "historical fact." Just as Livingstone is still doing.

* see what I did there? :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem is that it is fact, that's why it keeps cropping up..
What's a fact - that Hitler "supported Zionism' '?
I do agree with your main point that the real problem is stupidity, and distraction from addressing the current situation in Israel / Palestine.
But here, have a bit of Mein Kampf, seeing as we're doing this, thanks to Ken. This is not exactly what I'd call supportive.
Screen Shot 2017-04-05 at 18.51.09.png
 
What's a fact - that Hitler "supported Zionism' '?
I do agree with your main point that the real problem is stupidity, and distraction from addressing the current situation in Israel / Palestine.
But here, have a bit of Mein Kampf, seeing as we're doing this, thanks to Ken. This is not exactly what I'd call supportive.
View attachment 103666
See what I did there!? :cool:
 
Last edited:
What's a fact - that Hitler "supported Zionism' '?
I do agree with your main point that the real problem is stupidity, and distraction from addressing the current situation in Israel / Palestine.
But here, have a bit of Mein Kampf, seeing as we're doing this, thanks to Ken. This is not exactly what I'd call supportive.
View attachment 103666

Well exactly. You can make a similar argument that Hitler supported the British, because he talked so fondly of aspects of the Empire in his book (and in his recorded private conversations during the war), and invited various British figures and groups over to Germany during the 1930s.
 
Livingstone has proven himself a tendentious idiot who has read one book and decided he needs to go no further. He used to be a very skillful politician, so his loss of political instinct and the basic ability to communicate is pretty odd. The conspicuous bad faith and performative disgust of his right wing critics to me is equally repellent though. Unfortunately Livingstone can't seem to stop playing the role they have written for him.
Talking of his critics, and critics of the Labour Party, the guardian is going crazy about this. Right now about half their front page is on Livingstone and, inevitably, how shit Corbyn is, and for the matter the LP in general. Livingstone is a tit, and one with dodgy views at that, but the sight of the vultures circling is not a pretty one.
 
David Baddiel's post on this is pretty good.



Here is the problem with what Livingstone said. Because a lot of people – the good people, of course, of the British Left – have been tweeting me to tell me that Ken just “stated a fact.”

Ken Livingstone did not state a fact. The statement “Hitler supported Zionism” is not a fact. It’s an interpretation. An interpretation of a particular historical moment, which is that, in the 30s, the forced emigration of Jews from Germany was pushed further along by various Nazi economic incentives allowing those who fled to Palestine to get some of their stolen assets back once in Palestine. So that is not Adolf Hitler supporting the idea of a Jewish state (even writing that sounds ridiculous). It is the Nazis taking advantage of the terror and despair of fleeing refugees, so as to get more of them to leave more quickly. It is just the thin edge of the wedge of Nazi horror. And the real problem, in a way, is the tone, of Livingstone, when giving this interpretation. There’s no sympathy. No compassion – no sense of the tragedy behind this. It’s just complacently presented as a deal, that Hitler made with German Zionists, and therefore – and this of course is the point, the banal, shit point – a way of consolidating that Zionism is bad. Through an association with the top bad thing, Hitler.

What’s weird here is I am not, as some of you may know, a Zionist. I’m an atheist and I don’t hold with religion being the basis for statehood. And obviously, as all Jews have to say now, when talking about this fucking subject, I do not support the appalling actions of the present Israeli government.

Mainly, in truth, though, I don’t care that much about Israel. I think, in fact, that it is anti-Semitic to assume that I have to care, or think about, or have a position on Israel, a country that, in the words of Morrissey, says nothing to me about my life. I don’t even think it’s a very Jewish place. In The Infidel, my film, a character whilst describing various types of Jews, says “And then Israelis – Jews without angst, without guilt – so not really Jews at all.”

But: I do care about anti-Semitism. And the problem is that an awful lot of anti-Semites – often unconsciously – do conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Indeed, they often just conflate Israelis with Jews. Yesterday on Twitter, a chap called Kenard wrote to me that:

Ken is an irrelevance with little influence, unlike a large number of Israeli's who dominate the media and have done for decades.


It’s clear, isn’t it, that Kenard really wants to say: Jews. But because he has a vague awareness that that isn’t allowed any more, he just substitutes the word Israelis. Or Israeli’s, because he doesn’t understand grammar as well as racism.

So that’s the problem with Ken Livingstone’s statement. The interchangeability of the words Zionist with the word Jew means that in saying Zionism Is Bad, which is what Livingstone wants to do, he emboldens Kenard, and all those like him. And, of course, he also, as I’ve said many times, reveals that sense that runs deep in the Left, that the Jews don’t quite fit into the category of The Oppressed, and so therefore don’t deserve the same protections and sympathy as other minorities in the face of racism against them. Livingstone himself has said this in the creepingly insinuating comment that anti-Semitism and racism are “not exactly the same thing”.

Anyway. Facebook provides too much space, really, for all this. I’ll leave with the words, shall I, of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, before he went mad, of course, according to Ken. So exactly in that period when he was, as we know, supporting Zionism. This is what Adolf said in there. I may have as much of a tin ear for meaning as Ken has for anti-Semitism, but I can’t, for the life of me, make this out to be as pro the idea of the creation of a Jewish state as Livingstone insists it is:

“While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."
 
19force8 Just asking you because you're one of the many people who've been saying that Ken was just stating a fact: Have you changed your mind about this now having looked at it a bit more?
 
19force8 Just asking you because you're one of the many people who've been saying that Ken was just stating a fact: Have you changed your mind about this now having looked at it a bit more?
You did notice that in my little post above I referred to defending "historical fact" didn't you?

The quotes were there to show I wasn't talking about it in the same way Ken does. If that's not good enough, I'll accept the distinction wasn't sufficiently clear and I'm perfectly happy to go back and change the first sentence to read "is based on fact." However I think that would detract from one of the purposes of the post which was to explain and demonstrate how and why mention of Hitler derails a topic.

Your call. :)
 
bimble* I suspect your last post was in response to some doubt at my "liking" David Baddiel's facebook piece.

[* got it on the third try]

I think Baddiel covers more of the ground I did earlier, only better [DB's was better that is, not mine]. There is a point I disagree on though.

When Baddiel writes:
Livingstone himself has said this in the creepingly insinuating comment that anti-Semitism and racism are “not exactly the same thing”.
He is, I think, suggesting a lacuna in Ken's anti-racism. However, this might be a point of agreement between Ken and the Zionists. For instance Howard Jacobson has said that anti-Semitism is "unlike other racisms."

Also, you only have to look at the IHRA definition to see how differently some see it to other racisms.
 
Last edited:
David Baddiel's post on this is pretty good.



Here is the problem with what Livingstone said. Because a lot of people – the good people, of course, of the British Left – have been tweeting me to tell me that Ken just “stated a fact.”

Ken Livingstone did not state a fact. The statement “Hitler supported Zionism” is not a fact. It’s an interpretation. An interpretation of a particular historical moment, which is that, in the 30s, the forced emigration of Jews from Germany was pushed further along by various Nazi economic incentives allowing those who fled to Palestine to get some of their stolen assets back once in Palestine. So that is not Adolf Hitler supporting the idea of a Jewish state (even writing that sounds ridiculous). It is the Nazis taking advantage of the terror and despair of fleeing refugees, so as to get more of them to leave more quickly. It is just the thin edge of the wedge of Nazi horror. And the real problem, in a way, is the tone, of Livingstone, when giving this interpretation. There’s no sympathy. No compassion – no sense of the tragedy behind this. It’s just complacently presented as a deal, that Hitler made with German Zionists, and therefore – and this of course is the point, the banal, shit point – a way of consolidating that Zionism is bad. Through an association with the top bad thing, Hitler.

What’s weird here is I am not, as some of you may know, a Zionist. I’m an atheist and I don’t hold with religion being the basis for statehood. And obviously, as all Jews have to say now, when talking about this fucking subject, I do not support the appalling actions of the present Israeli government.

Mainly, in truth, though, I don’t care that much about Israel. I think, in fact, that it is anti-Semitic to assume that I have to care, or think about, or have a position on Israel, a country that, in the words of Morrissey, says nothing to me about my life. I don’t even think it’s a very Jewish place. In The Infidel, my film, a character whilst describing various types of Jews, says “And then Israelis – Jews without angst, without guilt – so not really Jews at all.”

But: I do care about anti-Semitism. And the problem is that an awful lot of anti-Semites – often unconsciously – do conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Indeed, they often just conflate Israelis with Jews. Yesterday on Twitter, a chap called Kenard wrote to me that:

Ken is an irrelevance with little influence, unlike a large number of Israeli's who dominate the media and have done for decades.


It’s clear, isn’t it, that Kenard really wants to say: Jews. But because he has a vague awareness that that isn’t allowed any more, he just substitutes the word Israelis. Or Israeli’s, because he doesn’t understand grammar as well as racism.

So that’s the problem with Ken Livingstone’s statement. The interchangeability of the words Zionist with the word Jew means that in saying Zionism Is Bad, which is what Livingstone wants to do, he emboldens Kenard, and all those like him. And, of course, he also, as I’ve said many times, reveals that sense that runs deep in the Left, that the Jews don’t quite fit into the category of The Oppressed, and so therefore don’t deserve the same protections and sympathy as other minorities in the face of racism against them. Livingstone himself has said this in the creepingly insinuating comment that anti-Semitism and racism are “not exactly the same thing”.

Anyway. Facebook provides too much space, really, for all this. I’ll leave with the words, shall I, of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, before he went mad, of course, according to Ken. So exactly in that period when he was, as we know, supporting Zionism. This is what Adolf said in there. I may have as much of a tin ear for meaning as Ken has for anti-Semitism, but I can’t, for the life of me, make this out to be as pro the idea of the creation of a Jewish state as Livingstone insists it is:

“While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."


really impressed by nearly all of this, respect to DB ( after going in assuming his anti-Corbynism would shape it to some degree - which it doesn't appear to, at all ) , and then to read no less than Kirk Degiorgio popping up in the comments, digging in further, straight to the economics .( Ken should take frickin' note. )

Kirk Degiorgio "It is the Nazis taking advantage of the terror and despair of fleeing refugees, so as to get more of them to leave more quickly" - I know you are summarising David - but I would add that more important to the Nazis than Jews leaving quickly, was the component of the agreement that stipulated Jewish assets could only be "traded" back for German goods once in Palestine. It was as much about circumventing the boycott of Nazi goods as getting Jews out of the country. That anyone - especially a self-proclaimed Socialist and 'life-long anti-racist" - can interpret this as Hitler supporting Zionism or that there was equal power 'real collaboration' between them is appalling and offensive.
 
Last edited:
You did notice that in my little post above I referred to defending "historical fact" didn't you?

The quotes were there to show I wasn't talking about it in the same way Ken does. If that's not good enough, I'll accept the distinction wasn't sufficiently clear and I'm perfectly happy to go back and change the first sentence to read "is based on fact." However I think that would detract from one of the purposes of the post which was to explain and demonstrate how and why mention of Hitler derails a topic.

Your call. :)

Not sure what you mean here. I was referring to your post where you said "Part of the problem is that it is fact, that's why it keeps cropping up".
I think you meant by 'fact' Livingstone's oft repeated assertion that 'Hitler supported Zionism'.
So yeah was checking to see if you had changed your view on that, seeing as you 'liked' the David Baddiel thing, where he tries to explain why this is not, in fact, a fact.
 
The idiots drifting around soc media purportedly supporting JC, whilst RTing Icke + spouting anti sem drivel etc, are nothing to do with the labour movement / LP .
Those idiots, there's an awful lot of them. Are you suggesting they're not really supporters of JC & co but false flag accounts?
 
Not sure what you mean here. I was referring to your post where you said "Part of the problem is that it is fact, that's why it keeps cropping up".
I think you meant by 'fact' Livingstone's oft repeated assertion that 'Hitler supported Zionism'.
So yeah was checking to see if you had changed your view on that, seeing as you 'liked' the David Baddiel thing, where he tries to explain why this is not, in fact, a fact.
I know subtlety is lost on you, but try reading the whole of that post, not just quoting selectively from it. Then read the post you just replied to in which I told you how I would change the original if you couldn't see the point I was making after I explained it. Since you can't, I've made the change.
 
Back
Top Bottom