Ken Livingstone

I'm just catching up with this thread and feeling increasingly uncomfortable. The references to Jewish people having disproportionate amounts of wealth alongside the suggestion that any prejudice they may experience isn't as serious as that experienced by other groups because Jewish people still seem to succeed.

It hasnt been about what they do, but about who they are.

Yes, I feel that too, time to get back to the OP...?

That was to Iam64

Any predjuduce jews experience now is not the same as other groups on the receiving end if predjuduce . There are very powerful Jews involved in politics, banking, media,

Some people were angry when trump said he would ban Muslims, if he had said he would ban Jews he would be toast.

It's so wrong that no one can now condemn Israel for their treatment of Palastine.

We rant and rave that Muslims in this country must obey our laws, speak out language etc , but we mustn't condemn Israel for occupying another country

The reason is money, some Jews bank roll political parties here and in America, who is going to bit the hand which feeds them,

I am not sure there is much left to say.
We seem to be going around in circles, and apart from constant repetition, it seems to me to be a tad distastful to worry like a dog over a bone a subject with such sad and disastrous connotations. It seems somehow to belittle those experiences that people have suffered like prejudice, slavery, torture and death if we keep on and on.

I am not happy doing that

I agree whitewave, but do you not agree the main reason is because of the anger of some who see Israel's treatment of Palastine and any criticism has now been turned into accusations of racism ? This is wrong

quite frankly those maps are ancient history
I realise that, and had put the link on for djen out of interest, as she mentioned ancient maps, although they do not add to the discussion.

whitewave I agree

I am finding it disturbing that so much (and frankly, much of which is verging on anti-Semitic) is still coming out of the woodwork on a subject which had, I think 2 lengthy threads so recently and which engendered considerable hot air, not to say rancour .
This thread, (I imagine, because I read the words) was meant to be about Ken Livingstone, his motivation for saying what he did, the effect it is having on the Labour Party and inevitably on Thursday's elections, not a rerun of the whole anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist debate.

But Alea, they cannot be separated , if we discussed the BNP the colonisation of countries would be part of it

How can the motivation of why Livenston said what he did be discussed without speaking of the possible causes. Else we should just have polls - was Livingston wrong , answer yes or no

But the same old, same old is coming round again.
I am more interested in whether Livingstone is a loose cannon or a wiley and cunning politician and whether he "mis-spoke" or had a subtle agenda. You don't normally expect party supporters, especially those with experience of public office, to shoot themselves in the foot like that.

I met KL several times when he was leading the GLC because the school where I was teaching was one of the closest to County Hall so we were often on the itinerary for visiting dignitaries.

He was a very personable chap. Polite, not smarmy, shy etc. and the people I knew who worked for him said he was a really decent person.

I think that he has had a drink problem and maybe personal issues . However that does not excuse, but may explain, stupid, hurtful and aggravating comments about Nazis , Jews and Hitler.

It is clear that if Hitler did endorse the concept of Zionism it was certainly not for any altruistic reason! It was to rid his Aryan Europe of Jews.

KL is really passed his sell by date...could he have some mental health decline? He needs to be put out to pasture and be censured for his very inappropriate remarks.

Your final para makes a lot of sense (not that the rest doesn't!)
Mental decline or "tired and emotional" would both be possible scenarios.

I guess that some politicians are not unlike any member of the general public who have held an influential job/role in an organisation. Some get to the end of their working life and say "Phew..I will be pleased to disappear into the background and not be in the cut and thrust of working life". Others like to keep going and stick oars in, make pronouncements etc.from the sidelines that are possible outdated, not backed by current information/practice etc etc and end up looking a bit foolish and sounding like a stuck record.

The man is only aged about 72, why judge him as passed his sell by date ? Should Gerald Kaufman who is father of the house and aged 85 be dismissed as passed his sell by date, Dennis is 83, Nicholas Soames 68, Churchill was 71 the war started , he was PM aged 81 , is the queen passed her sell by date because she is 90

It isn't his age, it's his increasing inability to reign in his ego or to stop making offensive, inflammatory remarks. I'm sure you know that though.

It's not down to age Anniebach but mental faculties. Just because a person is a public figure does not make them immune to dementia of whatever sort.
Dementia can hit in a person's middle age too - e.g. 50's
Arrogance and the inability to think first before speaking, sadly afflicts even younger people

Then we can question Boris Johnsons mental faculties Alea, his comment on 'water melon smiles ' upset some , and his reminder that Obama was part Kenyan was offensive . Farage who said he was stuck on the M4 because of immigration . Cameron in PMQ telling another MP to buy a smarter suit ! An intelligent poster on this forum telling someone to piss off , because people say things some disagree with does not mean that person has dementia , mentally ill or past their sell buy date

I have no idea what's going on inside Ken Livingstone's head. However, I suspect he's said, however undiplomatically, what some other people think,

In some ways there are parallels between what Palestinians are now experiencing with what Jews throughout history have suffered. The Israeli state discriminates against them and confiscated land which had been in Palestinian families for generations.

We read all the time about people not wanting immigrants. How would it be if thousands of immigrants descended on us and, in some cases, took over our villages and farms by force? I don't think many of us would be happy, especially if they were of a people we had historically disliked intensely.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about who legitimately 'owns' Israel based on ancient history. We all know why the state of Israel was created. It's there now and somehow or other people need to live together. It seems that the current Israeli leadership doesn't want to compromise and/or find a 'two state' solution and has expansionist ambitions. I don't suppose Gazans would have voted for Hamas if Israel had been more conciliatory, so now there's an impasse.

All of this has spilled over into global politics and has become muddled with historic stereotypes and rivalries. Livingstone isn't the only one to have conflated a number of issues. I have read that Labour supporters find it difficult sometimes to see Jews as victims, because (unlike other victims) many of them are very successful - hence the stories about Jewish conspiracies and the rest of it. I think there may be at least a grain of truth in people not seeing Jews as victims.

Whatever the reason for what Livingstone has said and done, he should have known how damaging it would be for the Labour Party, especially with all the accusations of antisemitism flying around. However right he might have been about what he said, he must have known that it was inflammatory.

ab, I agree. Others seems to get away with offensive remarks all the time.

Jews have been victims, they no longer are victims , to deny the haulicaust is vile, to condemn Israel for the treatment of the Palestinians is speaking the truth ,it is vile. What they are saying really is - if you criticise us you are anti Semitic , I see this a form of playing the race card

So do I, ab, but if I were a politician, I don't think I'd be saying it.

I sometimes think, and I could be wrong, that the definiton of the word racism has changed in recent years.

It used to mean hate, and now doesnt?

So I am not sure, and could be wrong that what Ken Livingstone said, doesnt come under the heading of racism???

As I've said before, not all Jews that criticise the Israeli govt. for their actions towards the Palestinians say it's antisemitism. Among them my husband.
But as with Muslims, there's a reluctance to speak openly in criticism of one's own race.
Personally I think many people are antisemitic, just don't usually talk about it. The reasons for it are very complex. We've all got prejudices.
And on the other hand there are are probably many more in the world who have never met a Jew, and couldn't care less about the matter.

Obieone , I don't think it was racist