Ken Livingston

[The perfect fumble]

Ive stayed out of this thread, as I generally do these days, as no good ever comes of them.

Livingstone spoke terribly and his remarks were such I can understand they will have caused offence. And what's more he probably knew it when he was making them which was stupid of him.

But can we have the same level of sensitivity about the perceived persecution of a religious minority next time there is a 'all Muslims are rapists and terrorists' thread please?

We are all on here a collection of relatively wealthy, safe, and secure, westerners with, again relatively, a piss easy life. We're never going to solve the problems of Jewish or Muslim persecution from behind our keyboards so let's debate politely and sensibly or otherwise it just becomes yet another point scoring thread.

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

That is a first for me.

Being accused (if I've read your post correctly -apologies if not) of being pro-Israel

It's why I stay away from these threads these days.

 

[The perfect fumble]

That is a first for me.

Being accused (if I've read your post correctly -apologies if not) of being pro-Israel

It's why I stay away from these threads these days.

I'm not accusing you of anything, believe me.

I used your post to open up the debate.

 

[Helmet Cole]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Racist ;-)

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I'm not accusing you of anything, believe me.

I used your post to open up the debate.

In that case I apologise.

 

[goatboy]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

we have a winner

 

[jimharri]

Poor old Ken, suffering from amnesia now.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

Poor old Ken, suffering from amnesia now.

I'm really surprised Sky have written a non story to squeeze the most drama out of this.

 

[west didsblue]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Criticism of the legal system, government and judiciary in Saudi Arabia and criticism of the actions of the Saudi state doesn't make you Islamophobic in the same way that criticism of these same elements in Israel doesn't make you antisemitic or even anti zionist. There is no problem with this and people across the political spectrum often strongly criticise both of these countries. A line is crossed when the legitimacy of the existence of a state is questioned which was the gist of Naz Shah's comments two years ago which were supported by Ken Livingstone.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Very interesting & thought provoking post.

Re your point about Saudi, which is a very good one, the way of life there is intrinsically bound up with their version of Islam. And a number of other countries are the same to a greater or lesser degree. So if you find it repellent then you could be seen as Islamaphobic. But does that mean you hate all Muslims simply because they're Muslim in the same way an anti-semite hates Jews simply because they're Jewish? Probably not, as you yourself point out. But if you do hate Muslims and disguise that by attacking countries like Saudi Arabia & Pakistan rather than the religion or its adherents then you are probably Islamaphobic. So it's a grey area.

As for Zionism, it's a political movement largely but founded in religion. It came out of the Tsarist anti-Jewish pogroms of the late 19th century and a realisation that any sort of emancipation or acceptance by non-Jews was probably unrealistic. The Dreyfus affair was a further reminder that, even though Jews were granted legal equality in places like France and the German states, they were far from social equality. The argument was that they would only have that in their own state. Obviously that Jewish state was to be in what is now Israel (although there was an alternative plan to settle in East Africa, which was rejected). The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home. So prior to 1948, Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine. Since then, with the establishment of such a state, it can only be support for its continued existence and by saying you're "anti-Zionist" then by definition you're expressing a desire to see the destruction of Israel. That's very different to legitimately criticising the actions of the Israeli government.

Your description of claiming a land as their own in opposition to another group is profoundly misleading however and based on the entirely incorrect view that they "took it" off the indiginous people who were already there. The area was under the rule of the Ottomans at the time and many Jews still lived there and had done for centuries. You make it sound (as others do) that the Jews invaded a sovereign territory and justified that in much the way that China justified its invasion and annexation of Tibet or that Iraq used in its invasion of Kuwait. Zionism can be more closely compared to the desire of what were then Indian Muslims for a state of their own, which became Pakistan after a partition in the same year that Israel was founded. Israel has a perfectly legal basis of establishment and meets all the requirements for a legally constituted sovereign state. It was not created via invasion as you suggest.

Whether it's a political or religious belief (and it's clearly somewhere between the two) using Hitler as an example of a Zionist is crass in the extreme and grossly offensive. It doesn't in itself make Livingstone an anti-semite, as I think I said before. But he does have a habit of being offensive towards Jews in general as this comment and his comparison of a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard shows. He knows exactly what he's saying and his claims have been shown to have little historical justification. Why he should have decided to pour fuel on the fire of an issue that was already coming under control is completely bemusing. He must have known it wasn't going to help Corbyn in any way so you wonder what his motivation was.