Ken Livingstone

That was to Iam64

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

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

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.

According to the Bible, Jews are God's chosen people.
Hence antagonism towards Jews from other nations.

Yes and of course there is institutional prejudice experienced by our black fellow citizens.

Prejudice against Jews in the UK in recent years would seem to be an unusual example of prejudice without discrimination. So while they may suffer things like vandalism or insults there would seem to be no barriers to them succeeding in the workplace, public life etc. This is different to other groups who are subject to prejudice and discrimination in the workforce etc.- women, older people, muslims, West Indians, and possibly, still, Lesbian/gay/ transgender people. (depending on the industry). There is a long list.
There may be an exception for orthodox Jews who sometimes dress differently and may impose constraints on their families. e.g. living near a synagogue.

Just wondered if there is still a block on non-Christian? Or even Catholic.?

whitewave Looking at the current Windsors, it seems unlikely that any of them would ever consider marrying a Jew, a Muslim, a black man or woman or, heaven forbid, a member of the Labour Party!

Would there be an issue if a Windsor directly in li e wanted to marry a Jew?

Jane10 I think a few years ago there was a question on a UK exam paper (not sure what level or what exam) asking why Jews had been so comprehensively persecuted throughout history and throughout the world. There was a huge outcry about the question being anti-Semitic. I felt that it would have been deeply thought provoking and a useful sounding board for young people to consider prejudice, bullying, aggression, fairness, justice, proper research, propaganda, etc.

There would, of course, have been those who answered with suggestions that Jews deserved this persecution – they caused Jesus to be killed, they manipulated the economy, they sacrificed children, they had too much political power, they had a disproportionate amount of money, they were plotting world control, they claimed to be the Chosen Race, and so on and so on. I firmly believe that such candidates would have failed the exam – or at least that kind of answer unless they described such things as the idiotic perceptions of various misguided peoples rather than the reality.

That's not a "perhaps" thatbags.

What would amuse me is if someone whexpresses anti-semitic sentiment turned out to have Jewish forebears. It's perfectly possible. I'm thinking of Daniel Deronda.

Perhaps the fact that Jewish law did not prohibit earning interest from loans during a time when Christian law did is another source of resentment, and possibly one of the reasons for the perception of Jewish wealth.

Another 'reason' given for historical anti-semitism is that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. Who was also a Jew. It's all a bit weird. I suspect that the wealth and power explanation is probably nearer the truth and it is resentement that fueled historical anti-semitism in a similar way to how resentment fuels anti-capitalist feeling nowadays.

Its amazing how unpopular the Jews seem to have been throughout history. I remember, on learning about the holocaust, asking my Mum what the Jews had actually done to make them so unwanted everywhere. She couldn't really answer. Its intrigued me ever since.
That documentary last year by I think Trevor somebody showed that Jewish people held a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth compared to their population in UK. With money comes power. Do they wield significant influence? Is resentment against that behind apparent antisemitism? Sorry. I don't mean to go off the topic but there seems to be so many potential agendas around the 'smearing' of the Labour party.

I remember looking at those maps when I got bored during church services as a child.

Quite frankly, they're ancient history and there's been all sorts of ethnic churn since then.

I decided not to post that, but it posted anyway.

As far as 'loose cannons' go, I seem to remember that Ed Miliband managed to keep Ken from uttering some of his more extreme views when he was leader.

It is such a long and complicated history.
The Promised land was Canaan which covered a much larger area than present-day Israel.
This link shows the changing boundaries - the comments at the end of the link in no way reflect my own views, it is for a reference and interest only:

www.ascensionministries.net/israelAndThePromisedLand.php

Thanks, daphne. A bit late now to google all that. I just looked at the maps in the back of my mum's family bible, and noticed that there used to be quite a large area called Israel, north of Judea.
These maps are pre-christian.

dj, There were various 'Israel's in biblical times, not always called Israel and only roughly corresponding to the current state of Israel.

I'd put a link, but the Link Police might jump on me and I'm a scaredy cat. Anyway, you're a big girl and know how to use Google. ;-)

The whole area was conquered in the 7th century and the population was predominantly Muslim with other substantial minorities until the 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire was on the losing side in WW1.

Various groups (Zionists in the original meaning of the word) wanted a Jewish homeland centred on Jerusalem throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century. They didn't stand much chance when the Ottomans were in control, but put increasing pressure on various governments (including the British) after WW1. Ironically, they were considered to be terrorists. The Jewish Agency bought up land in the area and the British, who had a mandate in Palestine, wrote the Balfour Declaration, but dragged their feet about establishing a homeland.

WW2 forced the issue, which is why some people think that Israel was born out of guilt - they have a point. The British have nothing to be proud about, because they refused to open up Palestine during the pre-war years as a safe haven for persecuted European Jews. The Nazis wanted to rid Germany of Jews and were very happy to pack them off to Palestine. It was win win for them, because the Jews were forced to leave their money and possessions in Germany.

Invading Poland presented the Nazis with a bigger problem. Polish Jews were generally poor and couldn't afford to emigrate, so the Nazis tried to starve and intimidate them. Some locals helped with murdering some of them, but this wasn't quick or effective enough for the Nazis, so the idea of the death camps was born.

Historians are correct that there was no state of Israel until 1948. However, many people just accepted that the area was called Israel, because that's what the Jews themselves called it. Ironically, today many countries don't recognise Palestine as a sovereign country and the situation isn't that different. I suspect that's the point LIvingstone was trying to get across, but he managed to be offensive and his facts were muddled.

"And with respect, I think DJ must hold the record for links, not infrequently without commentary,"

This was your comment, Alea, which is what I commented on.

The Diaspora | Jewish Virtual Library
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org › History

This might cover what you want to know although I will admit I haven't read it through carefully myself yet.

"The Jewish diaspora (Hebrew: Tfutza, תפוצה) or Exile (Hebrew: Galut, גלות; Yiddish: Golus) refers to the dispersion of Israelites, Judahites, and later Jews out of what is considered their ancestral homeland (the Land of Israel) and the communities built by them across the world."

I think this is what you were referring to Whitewave?
As I read it, he Jews started to lose their homeland round about 70 AD when the Romans started driving them out.

posting links and comments to counter an argument or comment- (often NOT accompanied by any information or explanation at all) is not being 'vocal', nor is it playing political ping-pong. As said, I find both insulting- and add absolutely nothing to the debate, that is for sure

It's not me complaining about links without explanations! Take that up with Granjura