Ken Livingstone

Freedom of speech is important, but of course most - all here I'm sure - would agree there must be some limits, and anything amounting to racial slurs would be one limit. The question is whether comments such as KL's fall within that category. Some think yes, some think no, some think maybe. I doubt we'll get much further than that, so I'm off out to enjoy some sunshine instead!

I would explain further Annie but I know you would only find it offensive.

Sorry don't understand your post Trisher, to illiterate remember ? And I may waffle if I try to reply yes?

The Chief Rabbi will present (as many bodies do) the history of his race with a particular bias. To draw another parallel what do you suppose Russian historians say about Stalin? Would you expect a balanced view?
The best way to find out about history is to look at a variety of accounts, if possible access original documents but if this can't be done make sure that you always read more than one account.

The chief rabbi needs to do some googling or join this forum

Googling the word "Zionism" is interesting, . In the widest accepted sense of the word i.e. that a separate state was considered if not actively encouraged by Hitler, KL's statement that Hitler supported Zionism is at least worthy of consideration. But I agree with thatbags that discussion and debate should be allowed and encouraged and it disturbs me that the Labour Party should shut itself down to any debate with the accusation of anti-semitism. There are many who consider the treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel completely unacceptable and it is well known that KL has always been at the forefront of these. The question of whether the accusation of anti-semitism is being used to quell the opposition to Israel has to come into this. The danger is that imposing a restriction on free speech results in a back lash which may in fact encourage anti-semitism and feed into the beliefs of some extremists.

Some here need to contact The Jewish Cronicle and the chief Rabbi and put them straight on the history of their race, the German Jews and Hitler

TriciaF is right. I have orthodox Jew friends who consider the word "Zionist" as contempt. Originally, the Zionist groups were political and more concerned about setting up a Jewish homeland than religion. Some of them, like the Stern Gang, were terrorists. They had offered to come to an arrangement with Germany and Italy, so that they could fight against the British.

Have a nice day annie!

Good heavens Daphne, you expect me to understand links? Did you not read the post yesterday when a kind poster saud because I am dyslexic she needed to explain things to me differently to others ,

Zionists are not accepted as Jews by authodox Jews?

You're right, niggly. It was late when I posted. Thanks for clarifying.

You're also right about the anti-semitism in other countries. Ironically, Germany was probably quite low on the list at the beginning of the twentieth century.

PS Good morning anniebach and thanks for the snipey comment. Have you read the links I posted?

I don't know much about this subject, but this is interesting:
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_stateThe British Uganda Program was a plan to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland. The offer was first made by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to Theodore Herzl's Zionist group in 1903. He offered 5,000 square miles (13,000 km2) of the Mau Plateau in what is today Kenya."
Also, as someone mentioned earlier, there are many different opinions among Jews - 70 Jews, 70 opinions.
And the big question , who is a Jew? Many religious Jews don't accept Zionists as Jews, because most of them are completely secular.

That point about widespread and ancient European anti-semitism is an important one, niggly. It makes me think that part of the excessive outrage when anyone says anything "offensive" about Hitler and that revolting and shameful period of European history is, quite simply, shame.

We are ashamed of ourselves (rightly so) for allowing the Holocaust to happen. It wasn't just Hitler and the Nazis who were in the wrong.

But we like to have some scapegoats to lay all the blame and shame on.

It was actually Madagascar not Mozambique, but it obviously came to nothing. No annie Hitler didn't care about Jews but saw this as a way of removing them from Germany before coming to his later appalling solution. Sadly most countries particularly in eastern Europe were deeply anti semitic and had been for centuries so any plans for removing Jews was actually applauded. It's hard for us 80 years along the line to understand the mindset of people all those years ago, but history tells us that this was the case.

Interesting point, fitzy, which I don't think anyone else has elucidated so clearly.

I am still left with the feeling that even if KL is wrong historically and believes things that are mistaken, a move to stop him saying what he thinks is wrong. How will we know what stupid and/or wrong ideas people hold (about anything, not just Hitler) if they are not allowed to express them? How can we fight such stupidity and wrongheadedness if we don't know what it is because nobody can say it?

Does the Labour Party feel that KL is somehow speaking "for the Labour Party" rather than for himself? That is the only reason I can think of that would justify his expulsion from the Party. There must be lots of political party members in all political parties who hold equally daft ideas about a whole range of subjects.

The other thing that worries me about this episode and similar episodes where the whole argument against something someone has said is that it is offensive. Saying, in effect or actually, "you can't say that" is, quite simply, just as stupid and wrongheaded as anything. Argue with facts, with reason, with, you know, arguments. I'm offended is not an argument; it's a whine.

We should hear things we find offensive. We should hear things that make us doubt previously held beliefs or views. We should learn how to win an argument with reason, not with complaining. It's good for us to have our thoughts, beliefs, views and ideas challenged. 'Safe', verbally offence-free spaces are silly.

Disclaimer: this is not a defence of physical threats of violence.

Yes dd and pen between you, you have helped clarify what my opinion is about the matter

Dsphne, I doubt you would just dismiss it if your grandparents abd extended family had been gassed, but perhaps you would

Zionists are Jews, Hitler supported Zionists, = Hitler supported Jews .

My take was that people assumed KL's statement was intended by him to imply that the creation of a national homeland for Jewish people must be a bad thing because even Adolf Hitler supported it. Clearly, whatever Hitler thought it is a huge distortion of the facts to suggest he was in any way a true supporter of anything that might be considered by anyone to be beneficial to any Jewish people, so if that's what KL was trying to imply, it was rightly condemned as offensive. But this is just an assumption on my part - not so much around what KL actually meant (but I can't see what other point he might have been trying to make) but more around what people assumed he meant and why they got so upset.

I do understand why Jewish people are offended and think KL should be expelled from the party. It's not just the historical (in)accuracy which offends them. It's coming up with Hitler ( or actually some other Nazi) said X so this means Y. Hitler also said Jews should be hanged in the streets in 1932. Jews who were able to leave in the 1930s were robbed of all their possessions. Not exactly zioniism. KL should keep his mouth shut

Hitler hated Jews. He also hated Arabs, which is why he wasn't bothered about sending Jews to Palestine. At one point, he wanted to set up a Jewish homeland in Mozambique. he didn't care where they went so long as they weren't in Germany and the parts of Europe annexed by Germany.

I'm really not quite sure what point Livingstone was trying to make. Hitler certainly wasn't a Zionist in any sense of the word.

Nevertheless, Livingstone wasn't completely wrong. There was an agreement to allow Jews to go to Palestine and some Zionists were opposed to it.

Meanwhile, the Soviets were also anti-semitic and carrying out their own Jewish "programmes". They were responsible for propaganda blaming the Zionists for the demise of the Jews.

Livingstone seems to have latched on to a book by Lenni Brenner, a Marxist/Trotskyist, who claims that Hitler was a Zionist (link below). Most serious historians dismiss Brenner.

Livingstone seems to have got his facts right,but his interpretation is mangled up.

Three links (sorry they're long):

fathomjournal.org/an-antisemitic-hoax-lenni-brenner-on-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html

www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.717126

I must admit that I don't really understand why Livingstone has offended Jews. Personally, I'd just dismiss his claims as bonkers, which they are.

I try to keep out of debates about Palestine as it is such a personal issue and I get a bit het up!

Hitler, I believe, flirted with the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine as a way of getting rid of Jews from Europe and supported the Haavara Agreement.The Haavara Agreement, I believe, required the confiscataion of goods and money form Jewish people wanting to move to Palestine. So not exactly a friendly supporter! But as KL said, Hitler then became more despotic/tyrannical and decided that was not enough and the Holocaust plans took shape.

I do not believe KL said Hitler was a Zionist, he said Hitler supported Zionism for a while & there is a subtle difference in that. That is not an anti-Semetic statement.

It is hard to challenge the politics of Zionism without being perceived as anti-Jewish. I do not think KL is anti Jewish but he is strongly opposed to the aggressive Zionist government politics and pro Palestinian. For some Jewish people that is enough to hang,draw and quarter anyone. I know Jewish people who are pro-Zionism and those who oppose it.

I do understand that the former Western Allied countries, in particular, find it very hard to oppose the current Israeli government because of the appalling atrocities that were the Holocaust. I am not a denier in any way but I am 100% pro Palestinian. The Zionist governments, and their allies, have destroyed the lands, homes, livelihoods of the Palestinians and undermine their history, society and culture. The world has stood by, because of their guilt about the Holocaust, and allowed it to happen. This has made Zionists very powerful and they will hit out at anyone who they see as Palestinian supporters.
KLs 'crime' is to be a supporter of Palestine not anti -Jewish.

True Niggly but it has nothing to do with Livingstone and what Hitler said about the Jews , we all know what his attitude was to the Jews in Germany but Livingstone connects Hitler with the Zionists , did the Zionists not want a homeland , did hitler care enough to want the same for the same reasons ?

Sorry Haavara agreement.

If you read the Haavarna agreement you can find from that exactly what Hitlers attitude was to the Jewish population in Germany. It is true that Palestinian Arabs were not favourable to idea of a Jewish state. When Israel was born in 1948 it was almost immediately attacked by opposing Arab opinion. It's certainly always been a very complex and extremely difficult part of the world and continues to be so.