Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Buzzer's point possibly has some relevance for the thread but until he explains it and explains that relevance then we won't know.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ken Livingston
- Thread starter kas_tippler
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
If I stated Qatar is a Muslim state I doubt you'd be attempting to pull me up on it but I can still go to church on a Sunday if I wish.I asked because you described Israel as a Jewish state which suggests exclusivity. I don't know why you subsequently ask me - other than a rather dim-witted attempt to WUM - whether I think Israel should exist.
And because anyone that thinks Israel should exist is a Zionist which was pertinent to Buzzer's post and you'd just asked me it yourself.
Hope that clears it up for you as it appears you're struggling today.
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
I agree with you about Galloway. His rants do IMHO spill too far over from supporting Palestine towards demonizing /persecuting Isreal, but I think Livingston was just genuinely clumsy in his use of facts, words, and analogy. Maybe he should be vilified, because as a public figure and politician he should frankly be more professional and better at his job. The problem with trying to critisise the foreign policy of a nation which is founded upon a religion is that criticism can be twisted into some sort of xenophobic/racist attack. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of folk in isreal are perfectly nice, but just like the US, Saudi, and palestine (and I'm sure there are other examples) there are a small number of extreme individuals who seem hell bent on war.No we don't know it. What he was saying or inferring was that Hitler wasn't that ill disposed to Jews initially and wanted to help them emigrate from Germany to what was then Palestine (although he used the word 'Israel' which completely demonstrates his lack of any grasp of historical facts and kills his argument stone dead).
He's also saying that somehow Hitler went mad later on and ordered the extermination of the Jews. Again, this simply isn't true. Hitler made his views on Jews clear in Mein Kampf and that it had to be (in his eyes) 'them' or 'us'. The Holocaust came about as part of an escalating process which involved the start of the war and the invasion of Poland in 1939, when Jews were herded into ghettos and then Russia, when mass killings started. But Hitler was still afraid of upsetting the USA. Once the USA was in the war, there was no further barrier to mass extermination and the orders to start the industrialised killing of Jews were given.
Galloway and Livingstone claim and probably genuinely believe they aren't anti-semitic. But they're like people who say (and I've heard people say this) "Well I don't like Jews but you're one of the OK ones".
Now instead of just saying they're right, like a parrot or broken record, how about using some facts to back up your argument that they are indeed right? Good luck with that.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
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.
Thanks. So storm in a teacup then. I think what matters is what Hitler did, not what he may or may not have thought 10 years earlier, unless thinking is a crime? And Ken didn't in any way condone what Hitler did, did he.
Clearly bloody stupid of him - an experienced politician - to have got drawn into this when this sort of reaction is almost inevitable. But it's hardly an admission that he's a closet Jew-hating Nazi. The reaction says more about the people who have seized upon it than it says about Livingstone imho. And I am certainly not his biggest fan, by the way!
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
Spot on.Thanks. So storm in a teacup then. I think what matters is what Hitler did, not what he may or may not have thought 10 years earlier, unless thinking is a crime? And Ken didn't in any way condone what Hitler did, did he.
Clearly bloody stupid of him - an experienced politician - to have got drawn into this when this sort of reaction is almost inevitable. But it's hardly an admission that he's a closet Jew-hating Nazi. The reaction says more about the people who have seized upon it than it says about Livingstone imho. And I am certainly not his biggest fan, by the way!
Monkfish
Well-Known Member
If I ever go on a racist rant I'm going after the Muslims and not the Jews, you get much less heat
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
And if you do it on Facebook or the Daily Mail website you actually get loads of likes or thumbs up.If I ever go on a racist rant I'm going after the Muslims and not the Jews, you get much less heat
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
And if you do it on Facebook or the Daily Mail website you actually get loads of likes or thumbs up.
And a nice fatwa to go with it, so you can spend your life in hiding. Perfect :-)
The Chinese had it right when religion of any kind was strongly discouraged or even banned. There is no god (of course, it's bleeding obvious) and if it was just an innocuous waste of time then fine, but since it's the cause of so much pain and suffering, we'd be better off if it was just banned.
Monkfish
Well-Known Member
That's not a problem, but could be for any Monkfishes in the phone bookAnd a nice fatwa to go with it, so you can spend your life in hiding. Perfect :-)