Ken Livingston

west didsblue said:
Simple really. You said Livingstone just quoted facts. He didn't, he got part of it completely wrong.
Click to expand...
Leave it now mate, the point is he's not said anything wrong
He was supporting Zionism in a way that's why they had an agreement in 1933, that's a fact !
 
Bluebee2 said:
Leave it now mate, the point is he's not said anything wrong
He was supporting Zionism in a way that's why they had an agreement in 1933, that's a fact !
Click to expand...
Yes I'll leave it there as you clearly haven't understood my point and I can only say it so many times before it gets boring.
 
Bluebee2 said:
Leave it now mate, the point is he's not said anything wrong
He was supporting Zionism in a way that's why they had an agreement in 1933, that's a fact !
Click to expand...
The point is that you really haven't got a fucking clue and are just wumming. So give it a rest. For one thing, there was no Israel in 1932 so that's certainly not a historical fact, plus he didn't care where the Jews went as long as they weren't in Germany. He certainly wouldn't have supported the idea of a Jewish state, which is what Zionism is. Livingstone's comment was ridiculous in the extreme and has no relationship with any facts.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The point is that you really haven't got a fucking clue and are just wumming. So give it a rest. For one thing, there was no Israel in 1932 so that's certainly not a historical fact, plus he didn't care where the Jews went as long as they weren't in Germany. He certainly wouldn't have supported the idea of a Jewish state, which is what Zionism is. Livingstone's comment was ridiculous in the extreme and has no relationship with any facts.
Click to expand...

Is George Galloway wumming then? Or just wrong?
 
worsleyweb said:
Is George Galloway wumming then? Or just wrong?
Click to expand...
ZqSGbBu.jpg
 
worsleyweb said:
Is George Galloway wumming then? Or just wrong?
Click to expand...
He's largely wrong.

Hitler didn't sign the Haavara Agreement - it was the Finance Ministry - and was actually critical of it as it appeared to aid the Jews in Palestine, which he certainly had no intention of doing. It was only later on, around 1937, that he thought it might be a good idea but only because it would cause problems for the British, who were faced with the Arab Revolt over Jewish immigration to Palestine.

By that time, immigration of Jews to Palestine had more or less been stopped in any great numbers and the British were more concerned with placating the Arabs. Sending Jews there had the benefit (from a German point of view) of wrecking and relationship between the British and Arabs and therefore threatened British strategic interests in a key part of the world. It was an extension of a pre-Nazi agreement signed in 1932. There was also a boycott of German goods by many Jews, in protest against anti-semitic acts in Germany. It wasn't significant in economic terms but was embarrassing for Germany and they were worried about the impact it could have. The agreement was a convoluted way of breaking that boycott so to use the Haavara Agreement to state that Hitler supported Zionism is downright misleading at best.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The point is that you really haven't got a fucking clue and are just wumming. So give it a rest. For one thing, there was no Israel in 1932 so that's certainly not a historical fact, plus he didn't care where the Jews went as long as they weren't in Germany. He certainly wouldn't have supported the idea of a Jewish state, which is what Zionism is. Livingstone's comment was ridiculous in the extreme and has no relationship with any facts.
Click to expand...
Really, I never mentioned Israel so you give it a "fucking" rest if you want it like that or a decent debate about something that happened in history, you really are tiresome as you obviously have a view that nobody else can have a view on something.
 
Bluebee2 said:
Really, I never mentioned Israel so you give it a "fucking" rest if you want it like that or a decent debate about something that happened in history, you really are tiresome as you obviously have a view that nobody else can have a view on something.
Click to expand...
No but Livingstone incorrectly referred to Israel amongst his other inaccurate "facts".
 
Bluebee2 said:
Really, I never mentioned Israel so you give it a "fucking" rest if you want it like that or a decent debate about something that happened in history, you really are tiresome as you obviously have a view that nobody else can have a view on something.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to have a view but not to quote "facts" that are wrong. If you do, you will get pulled up. As west didsblue points out, Livingstone referred to "Israel", which didn't exist until 1948. And neither was Hitler a supporter of Zionism. And if you don't believe me, read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36165298

I'll quote some of it.
Hitler was not a supporter of 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.

"He was supporting Zionism" is categorically false and reveals a total and fundamental misunderstanding of what Hitler's anti-Semitism was all about. Tens of thousands of German Jews did emigrate to Palestine before British policy made this all but impossible. And some German officials did take an interest in Zionism. But there was never a German policy to support Zionism or a future Israel.
Click to expand...

So he isn't quoting "facts".
 
You both know what he meant, Livingstone is far from racist or a antis emetic as can be, Galloway is spot on and you both know it !
 
I'm surprised that the focus is on his Nazi comments, which just seem to me to fall into the "peculiar ramblings" category. I though his comments about hating Israeli's but not jews living in Golders Green were worse.
 
Being completely uninformed in these matters, I honestly struggle to see what all the fuss is about based on what he said.

Clearly I am missing something, but what's wrong with saying Hitler wanted to send all the Jews to Israel before he went mad and killed millions of them? I don't know whether the statement is true or not, but where's the anti-semitism in saying it? I don't get it (and I don't mean to offend anyone).
 
Chippy_boy said:
Being completely uninformed in these matters, I honestly struggle to see what all the fuss is about based on what he said.

Clearly I am missing something, but what's wrong with saying Hitler wanted to send all the Jews to Israel before he went mad and killed millions of them? I don't know whether the statement is true or not, but where's the anti-semitism in saying it? I don't get it (and I don't mean to offend anyone).
Click to expand...

I think the gist of it is saying hitler was a Zionist. A Zionist being someone who supports Jews and the state of Israel. My understanding is it is crass in the extreme to accuse hitter of doing anything in support of the Jews. He only supported an arrangement to get them to Israel for his own benefit and not because he was a supporter of Israel. Pb - please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Is anybody surprise an mp or someone associated with politics is a ****,they al seem like cunts to me,I don't get involved and I don't vote ,they IMO are only interest in what's in it for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top