Ken Livingston

[Bodicoteblue]

I didn't question the freedom of people to parade through the streets with banners showing a mass murder like Stalin.

I'm pleased they do so we all know what warped and nasty minds they have.

But why would anyone vote for a party headed by a man who attends such a march and rally?

And he has worrying links with people who are virulently anti-Semitic.

Labour stinks.


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism

Perhaps most people in this great nation are capable of separating what they see in newspapers and TV and can make up their own minds about the policies and motivations of mainstream politicians , both left and right, and maybe don't believe that every fringe group that attends political rallies are representative of those leaders.

 

[urmston]

More news from Labour.

Anti-Semitism Row: Now Two Councillors Suspended

Livingstone and Shah are probably the tip of the iceberg.

http://news.sky.com/story/1688489/anti-semitism-row-now-two-councillors-suspended

A vote for Labour is a vote in support of these people.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Labour=socialism=national socialism=Nazis.
Surely this is easy for anyone to understand? A vote for corbyn is a vote for Hitler. Every time someone votes labour a kitten and probably at least one Jew dies. How we can stand by and watch this happen is beyond me. Thankfully we have the upstanding moral crusaders of tabloid journalism to make us aware of this scandal.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Anti zionist - yes
A load of bollocks - yes
Antisemitic - no

Ah! But there is lies the rub, you see Galloway questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel, Anti-Semitism has now defined/re-defined to state that anyone who holds such views is anti-Semitic.

Because, as Prestwich_Blue stated in a previous post....

"The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home"

"Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine"

" by saying you're "anti-Zionist" then by definition you're expressing a desire to see the destruction of Israel.

The general definition of anti-Semitism is..."anti-Semitism is hostility or prejudice against Jews

So, as Galloway is questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel and that legitimacy stems from "The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home" then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that anyone who questions Israel's legitimacy, something " The Jewish religion is....completely wedded to" must be anti-Semitic, because to question her legitimacy is to question what it is to be a Jew, which falls neatly under the general definition shown above about holding prejudice against Jews.

I once had a long conversation with a Jewish mate of mine many years ago, he was a left winger, but held the opinion that it was not possible to be a Jew and not a Zionist.

This problem with anti-Semitism that Labour is supposed to have, stems from a very real unresolved dichotomy, not that you'd know it from this media shit storm, but it is a dichotomy for Jews as well.

Are these two absolutes?

1. To be Jewish one must be a Zionist.

2. Anti-Zionism is the same as Anti-Semitism.

 

[Helmet Cole]

...and so another kitten dies :-(

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You're trying to reduce complex arguments to gross simplifications and using hyperbole instead of rational debate. There's no point in trying to engage as all you're doing is putting words into other people's mouths. This is about Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and anti-semitism in the Labour Party, not a general debate about Israel & Palestine or semantics about anti-Zionism. Galloway isn't a member of the Labour party therefore his views aren't relevant.

Stick to the topic in here and, should you wish to widen the debate, start a new one with a different remit. But I'm bringing down the guillotine on this line of discussion.

 

[The perfect fumble]

...and so another kitten dies :-(

It's only a matter of time before we get "Corbyn rapes nuns and eats babies"

 

[The perfect fumble]

You're trying to reduce complex arguments to gross simplifications and using hyperbole instead of rational debate. There's no point in trying to engage as all you're doing is putting words into other people's mouths. This is about Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and anti-semitism in the Labour Party, not a general debate about Israel & Palestine or semantics about anti-Zionism. Galloway isn't a member of the Labour party therefore his views aren't relevant.

Stick to the topic in here and, should you wish to widen the debate, start a new one with a different remit. But I'm bringing down the guillotine on this line of discussion.

I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable, but that's debate for you.

 

[Helmet Cole]

It's only a matter of time before we get "Corbyn rapes nuns and eats babies"

It beggars belief that corbyn gets away with assisting in the wholesale slaughter of Jews while dave gets hung out to dry for having what was only really a " posh wank" with a pigs head. This country is going to the dogs and is turning into Stalinist Russia cbefore our eyes.

 

[Helmet Cole]

You're trying to reduce complex arguments to gross simplifications and using hyperbole instead of rational debate. There's no point in trying to engage as all you're doing is putting words into other people's mouths. This is about Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and anti-semitism in the Labour Party, not a general debate about Israel & Palestine or semantics about anti-Zionism. Galloway isn't a member of the Labour party therefore his views aren't relevant.

Stick to the topic in here and, should you wish to widen the debate, start a new one with a different remit. But I'm bringing down the guillotine on this line of discussion.

Tbf pb he makes clearly argued and good points. Surely its the semantics and language used which has caused all this - unless you really think the labour party is some sort of Nazi enclave in which case I can't help.