Former London Mayor suspended from party

[rgs2001uk]

Not every Jew is an Israeli, not every Israeli is a Jew.

As an atheist I find the remarks from our non israeli american contingent to be laffable.

Nothing to do with with religion, more to do with a country and its (Zionist) roots.

[Jingthing]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

Pro zionists, muslims...same same start howling and playing the professional victims when they cant get their own way

When in doubt on a topic about Jew hating, add a pinch Muslim hating as well for good measure.

[Jingthing]

Is there still hope for Labour?

Herzog of Israel is quite the optimist:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Herzog-pens-letter-to-Corbyn-urges-Labor-delegation-to-visit-Yad-Vashem-452706

"While Ken Livingstone is surely anti-Semitic beyond hope of redemption, I'm sure there remain many Labor Party activists with a willingness to engage and better understand the scourge of anti-Semitism," Herzog said.

"By doing this, perhaps, we can ensure that the anti-Semitism expressed in recent days is not the example to set to the young British generation, but rather one of tolerance and acceptance of all people, regardless of faith."

[RabC]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

Get off your high horse and show me where I made any comment on Naz Shah, my comment was about Red Ken and the pro Israel lobby in the UK.

[rgs2001uk]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

Get off your high horse and show me where I made any comment on Naz Shah, my comment was about Red Ken and the pro Israel lobby in the UK.

Welcome to the ignore list, LOL, they cant silence the truth.

[Jingthing]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

Get off your high horse and show me where I made any comment on Naz Shah, my comment was about Red Ken and the pro Israel lobby in the UK.

So you're going off topic here, are you? It's completely ON TOPIC to ask you to confirm your support of "red Ken's" defense of the Naz Shah hate speech. No problem, there is no need for you to answer it. Just defending my question as totally ON TOPIC to the O.P.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Jingthing

[RabC]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

So you agree that Naz Shah's inflammatory proposal to relocate Israel to the United States is actually defensible?

Well, I find it hateful and atrocious.

Sure, it's something a nasty obsessive Israel demonizing troll would post on the comments section on the internet.

But it gets a little different when you're dealing with public officials, don't you think?

Get off your high horse and show me where I made any comment on Naz Shah, my comment was about Red Ken and the pro Israel lobby in the UK.

So you're going off topic here, are you? It's completely ON TOPIC to ask you to confirm your support of "red Ken's" defense of the Naz Shah hate speech. No problem, there is no need for you to answer it. Just defending my question as totally ON TOPIC to the O.P.

The thread is about Red Ken so how could I be off topic? Your willingness to only see what you want is true to form for Israel apologists cry elsewhere because I am not interested.

[Steely Dan]

That some people are all to willing even eager to believe Livingstone's assertions is very telling. It is a pretty straight forward job to de-bunk his claims as false. The so called Israel lobby myth depends on Livingstone's assertions to be true. Even the BBC can get this one right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36165298

[dexterm]

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

[Koosdedooes]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

Pro zionists, muslims...same same start howling and playing the professional victims when they cant get their own way

When in doubt on a topic about Jew hating, add a pinch Muslim hating as well for good measure.

My case rests, funny though i never mentioned anything about jews, i said pro zionist, but thanks for confirming something Edited May 1, 2016 by Koosdedooes

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies removed.

[dexterm]

That some people are all to willing even eager to believe Livingstone's assertions is very telling. It is a pretty straight forward job to de-bunk his claims as false. The so called Israel lobby myth depends on Livingstone's assertions to be true. Even the BBC can get this one right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36165298

I read your link. The Yale history professor Snyder displays appalling scholarship.

The first part of this so called straightforward debunking of what Ken Livingstone said is pathetic pedantry:

"It is inconceivable that Hitler could have wanted to move Jews to Israel, because there was no such place in 1932."

Even a junior high school student could have written that. Well, of course Israel did not exist then, but that does not mean Hitler's agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to deport Jews did not help populate Palestine so that it later became Israel.

The rest is just a straw man criticism hinging on the word "support". He is clearly part of the Israeli apologist lobby if you read his background.

Edited May 1, 2016 by dexterm

[SheungWan]

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Readers will notice that as far as the cheerleaders are concerned there is a zero problem in the Labour Party. As Niall Ferguson tweeted, a fatal combination of Islamists and Trots.

https://youtu.be/v4w7j_TM3sE

[Morch]

From Ken Livingstone's interview..

“As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

Sounds like the well-orchestrated campaign of the Israeli apologists on this forum. Throw enough mud and you hope some of it will stick, or at least obfuscate the issue being discussed.

So the "issue" being discussed is not Ken Livingstone's actual comments, but rather an alleged well-orchestrated campaign by the Israeli lobby? Or better yet, a alleged well-orchestrated campaign on this forum?

Do go on about obfuscation of topics while derailing them, spread accusations at forum members while whinging about mud being thrown, pull a victim card and blame others for doing it....anything goes. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but carries some entertainment value.

[Morch]

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

Exactly.

NOT the same.

Also, Netanyahu STRONGLY retracted the statement soon after that massive blunder.

What actually happened was that Netanyahu had correctly tried to communicate the historical facts about the Grand Mufti's real role of supporting the genocide of Jews from his exile in Berlin ... but he stumbled VERY BADLY to suggest that the genocide was the Mufti's idea. That part was WRONG, WRONG, and more WRONG:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/middleeast/netanyahu-retracts-assertion-that-palestinian-inspired-holocaust.html?_r=0

Netanyahu Retracts Assertion That Palestinian Inspired Holocaust

“The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941.”

He went on: “Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

Another point, the Mufti DID indeed request that Hitler go into the Middle East and murder all the Jews there after he was done with Europe, but of course Hitler got distracted with losing the war closer to home.

To add, this clarification is on topic to this thread. That is because Livingstone and the obsessive Israel demonization agenda is lamely trying to use the Netanyahu blunder as an excuse for his horrifically wrong statement (which he piggishly refuses to retract). So he's doubling down on his offense.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

There were a few links detailing all the inaccuracies with Livingstone's statement. Many others can be found, and (as usual) even the link your provide does not quite prove the claim, but posted to enhance such an impression.

Livingstone's statement is not much different than the posting tactic observed above. A soundbite which gives the impression of being factual, and which skips the complexities of things it alludes to.

The 1932 elections were not quite that clear cut an affair. Hitler's views on Jews and Zionism were aired on Mein Kampf, published prior to 1932. The early Nazi policies and dealings with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany were due to economic constraints. Asserting that as "supporting Zionism" is devoid of any integrity: Zionism in the sense of creating a prosperous Jewish state was not on the Nazi agenda.

1. Ken Livingstone direct quote: "He was supporting Zionism".

2. Dexterm interpretation: "He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism"".

3. Dexterm making it "real": "what he said about Hitler's actions"

4. Obligatory spin: "the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words"

5. Desired QED: Livingstone words being "perfectly true"

Livingstone said what he said. Damage control effort = fail. Altering Livingstone's statement while claiming others twist words is the usual dishonest fare.

Livingstone words being "perfectly true" is an exaggeration at best. But then, nothing out of the norm. And now for the predictable whinging: "nitpicking" (after applying same to Livingstone's words and criticism of), "besmirching" (as if that's not the essence of the above post), overt or hidden claims of "campaign".

[Thorgal]

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Netanyahu didn't quote Zionism.

Livingstone quoted Zionism. And can't be labelled as antisemitic...

You've debunked this duality in your previous post.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Thorgal

[Morch]

That some people are all to willing even eager to believe Livingstone's assertions is very telling. It is a pretty straight forward job to de-bunk his claims as false. The so called Israel lobby myth depends on Livingstone's assertions to be true. Even the BBC can get this one right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36165298

I read your link. The Yale history professor Snyder displays appalling scholarship.

The first part of this so called straightforward debunking of what Ken Livingstone said is pathetic pedantry:

"It is inconceivable that Hitler could have wanted to move Jews to Israel, because there was no such place in 1932."

Even a junior high school student could have written that. Well, of course Israel did not exist then, but that does not mean Hitler's agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany to deport Jews did not help populate Palestine so that it later became Israel.

The rest is just a straw man criticism hinging on the word "support". He is clearly part of the Israeli apologist lobby if you read his background.

Of course, Snyder's "appalling scholarship" cannot compete with your own prowess at pseudo-history, often displayed on this forum.

Attempting do dispense all inaccuracies found in Livingstone's statement as pedantry, nitpicking, twisting of words etc. is just a cop out from facing facts. Both yourself and Livingstone seem to favor a simplified approach to historical detail - one that focuses on tags, headlines and impressions.

And of course, anyone not playing the same tune is "clearly part of the Israeli apologist lobby" (which seems to be a cross between the the assumed real world lobby and forum members). Probably doesn't count as "besmirching" in your double standard book.

Other instances of scholarly criticism of Livingstone's statement were previously linked. More easily found on the net. Guess they are all part of that great conspiracy overtly alluded to. Now where and when were such stories popular....

[Morch]

Not surprising that the usual suspects on this forum have chimed in as cheerleaders for the nasty Ken Livingstone and his new new friend George Galloway. About time the Labour Party did something about loser Ken trying like Gorgeous George to carve out a similar niche for himself in his political dotage.

Was requested to Livingstone if he should apologise to the Jewish community for the hurt and offense he's caused.

His answer :

"How can I have hurt and offended the Jewish community when the Prime Minister of Israel (has) said exactly the same thing (as I said.) If the Prime Minister of Israel can say, two days before, exactly what I said, it can't mean that I'm antisemitic - and he's certainly not antisemitic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/16-times-ken-livingstone-refused-to-apologise-for-hitler-comment/

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/

The cheerleaders must have missed that usual suspect too...

Only thing is that Netanyahu's inane assertions were broadly rejected and debunked, including by members of his own party. Also, Netanyahu did not go as far as claiming Hitler supported Zionism. So not quite the same reaction, and not "exactly the same" as Livingstone said.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Netanyahu didn't quote Zionism.

Livingstone quoted Zionism. And can't be labelled as antisemitic...

You've debunked this duality in your previous post.

I never said all instances of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are the same. The two are not always the same, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Straw man much?

[Morch]

I NEVER thought I would ever find myself agreeing with anything Red Ken said, just goes to prove how wrong I was.

The history revisionsts can rewrite history all they want, they cant rewrite the truth.

Thankfully in Thailand I can avail myself of a multitude of History channels that dont spread the same propoganda.

Sounds like an amazing conspiracy theory theme park.

All the related sources available in Thailand are also available elsewhere.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

I never said all instances of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are the same. The two are not always the same, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Straw man much?

(Edited to allow reply)

Here is a rough guide to determining when speech is "just" anti-Zionism and not Jew hating as well. Anti-Zionism that indeed has bled into Jew hating is very, very, common. But it is true, not always --

http://forward.com/opinion/israel/339372/5-ways-to-know-if-your-anti-zionist-comment-is-anti-semitic/

5 Ways To Know If Your Anti-Zionist Comment Is Anti-Semitic

I usually prefer to use the phrase "Jew hating" on this forum instead of anti-semitism because of repeated absurd assertions that anti-semitism isn't specifically only about Jews, which is total rubbish ... but to avoid such idiocies, using "Jew hating" deflects that.

Here is the same issue discussed at a rather higher level. As you can see separating when speech is "just" anti-Zionist and not also Jew hating isn't always a simple matter. Of course, it is obvious that real deal Jew haters just love to use anti-Zionism as a code and a cover (implausible deniability) so I reckon such people won't be pleased to see this issue examined too closely.

http://forward.com/opinion/337349/how-long-can-distinction-between-anti-zionism-and-anti-semitism-survive/

I say that because the line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is becoming ever thinner and more porous, and it may disappear altogether, erased by pressures from the left and right, from within and outside the Jewish community, pushed by demographic trends that already connect the fate of diasporic Jews with Israel whether they like it or not.

...

We already see how easily anti-Zionism can devolve into anti-Semitism — something the Regents acknowledged: “Opposition to Zionism often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.”

Edited May 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[SheungWan]

for all I loathe red Ken at least he will stand up to the pervasive pro Israel lobby.

I NEVER thought I would ever find myself agreeing with anything Red Ken said, just goes to prove how wrong I was.

The history revisionsts can rewrite history all they want, they cant rewrite the truth.

Thankfully in Thailand I can avail myself of a multitude of History channels that dont spread the same propoganda.

Maybe while you nad Dexterm are availing yourselves of the 'multitude of history channels' you might reference Antony Beevor who says 'To describe Adolf Hitler as a Zionist is 'grotesque'' On the other hand you might have better luck with the likes of David Irving, not quite a historian in the academic manner, but adequate for those pursuing a slightly different agenda. As for Ken, his redness taking on a tinge of brown.

Edited May 1, 2016 by SheungWan

[Grouse]

Goodness me, the Jews are a tad touchy!

The erudition spouted here on Israeli history is terrific and exceeds the knowledge of any other section of history by an order of magnitude!

Ken, that well known tosser, made an off the cuff comment. So what?

I am not anti Jew anymore than I am anti Christian! BUT I do object to many Israeli actions over the years. Does that make me an anti-Semite? I wouldn't lose any sleep; call me what you like. I consider myself a Jehova's bystander!

These days I feel guilty if I make a comment getting into a lift manufactured by Schindler!

No doubt I'll get beaten around the head and body with a Talmud!

I must say I haven't been to a decent bar mitzvah in yonks......

[Scott]

Please stick to the topic.

[Steely Dan]

Goodness me, the Jews are a tad touchy!

The erudition spouted here on Israeli history is terrific and exceeds the knowledge of any other section of history by an order of magnitude!

Ken, that well known tosser, made an off the cuff comment. So what?

I am not anti Jew anymore than I am anti Christian! BUT I do object to many Israeli actions over the years. Does that make me an anti-Semite? I wouldn't lose any sleep; call me what you like. I consider myself a Jehova's bystander!

These days I feel guilty if I make a comment getting into a lift manufactured by Schindler!

No doubt I'll get beaten around the head and body with a Talmud!

I must say I haven't been to a decent bar mitzvah in yonks......

Schindler's lift, yes that one always makes me smile. As with most things context is everything. What someone says or writes does not necessarily reflect their true views. When you view what someone has written over a period of time and who they consort with gives a far better picture. The EU used to have a list of guidelines defining antisemitism, if you use these as a reference to see how frequently someone's comments would qualify as per EU guidelines you get a good idea, whether you do this with Ken Livingstone's words or indeed those of anyone posting here.

Having said all that Ken Livingstone is as you say a tosser, barely worthy of a thread dedicated to something he said. There is a bigger picture however and that is the rapidly emerging pattern of antisemitism within Corbyn's Labour Party. The predictable deflections are to blame this on Zionists, on disgruntled Blairites or on the right. There is always someone else to blame.

In not sure of who your political allegiances are with, but from your own perspective do you consider Labour has an antisemitism problem and do you think they are perceived to have one?

Edited May 1, 2016 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

... not sure of who your political allegiances are with, but from your own perspective do you consider Labour has an antisemitism problem and do you think they are perceived to have one?

Here is one informed response to that:

A prominent British journalist said Saturday that the UK Labour party did not have a “problem with anti-Semitism” — amid an intense row involving the suspension of several party members for alleged anti-Semitic comments, including most recently Ken Livingstone — rather that the party, and more generally, the Left, had a “chronic condition.”

...

British historian and journalist Andrew Roberts wrote Thursday that Livingstone knew full well that Hitler was no Zionist and that his remarks were intentionally made to offend as many Jews as possible.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/prominent-uk-journalist-anti-semitism-in-labour-a-chronic-condition-not-just-a-problem/

Edited May 1, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

... not sure of who your political allegiances are with, but from your own perspective do you consider Labour has an antisemitism problem and do you think they are perceived to have one?

Here is one informed response to that:

A prominent British journalist said Saturday that the UK Labour party did not have a “problem with anti-Semitism” — amid an intense row involving the suspension of several party members for alleged anti-Semitic comments, including most recently Ken Livingstone — rather that the party, and more generally, the Left, had a “chronic condition.”

...

British historian and journalist Andrew Roberts wrote Thursday that Livingstone knew full well that Hitler was no Zionist and that his remarks were intentionally made to offend as many Jews as possible.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/prominent-uk-journalist-anti-semitism-in-labour-a-chronic-condition-not-just-a-problem/

Andrew Roberts is hardly unbiased, and apparently another great mind reader who can see into Livingstone's true intentions. He should be on the stage. It's amazing the number of Israeli apologists who can hear what Livinstone said, but know what he really means. A classic smear campaign.

'Ideologically, he describes himself as "extremely right-wing"'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts_(historian)#cite_note-3

...and is notorious for defending another great European colonialist project.

Edited May 2, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

This is what Ken Livingstone actually said about Hitler..

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

He did not say Hitler was a Zionist, as in fully paid up member. He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism", as indeed they were.

"The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הסכם העברה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

Ken regrets mentioning Hitler because of course the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words, causing such a fuss. But what he said about Hitler's actions in the early 1930s were perfectly true; his collusion with the Zionist Federation of Germany in the transfer agreement did help German Jews to migrate to Palestine at the time.

There were a few links detailing all the inaccuracies with Livingstone's statement. Many others can be found, and (as usual) even the link your provide does not quite prove the claim, but posted to enhance such an impression.

Livingstone's statement is not much different than the posting tactic observed above. A soundbite which gives the impression of being factual, and which skips the complexities of things it alludes to.

The 1932 elections were not quite that clear cut an affair. Hitler's views on Jews and Zionism were aired on Mein Kampf, published prior to 1932. The early Nazi policies and dealings with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany were due to economic constraints. Asserting that as "supporting Zionism" is devoid of any integrity: Zionism in the sense of creating a prosperous Jewish state was not on the Nazi agenda.

1. Ken Livingstone direct quote: "He was supporting Zionism".

2. Dexterm interpretation: "He implies that Hitler's actions were "supporting Zionism"".

3. Dexterm making it "real": "what he said about Hitler's actions"

4. Obligatory spin: "the Israeli lobby have pounced upon and twisted his words"

5. Desired QED: Livingstone words being "perfectly true"

Livingstone said what he said. Damage control effort = fail. Altering Livingstone's statement while claiming others twist words is the usual dishonest fare.

Livingstone words being "perfectly true" is an exaggeration at best. But then, nothing out of the norm. And now for the predictable whinging: "nitpicking" (after applying same to Livingstone's words and criticism of), "besmirching" (as if that's not the essence of the above post), overt or hidden claims of "campaign".

Plenty of hot air and obfuscation as usual

Did the Haavara Agreement aka "transfer agreement" between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany signed on 25 August 1933. help/aid/assist/facilitate/support the migration of Jews into Palestine?

Straight yes or no? (but perhaps that's too much to ask of you)

That is the point that Ken Livingstone was making, mind readers notwithstanding.

I don't believe for one minute that the racist monster Hitler was a Zionist, any more than the Zionist Federation of Germany were Nazis. But they were both prepared to sup with their own personal devils to achieve their aims.

Edited May 2, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

I agree with George Galloway that this buildup of the anti semitism witch hunt in the Labor Party of the last few months culminating in the orchestrated attack on Ken Lingstone, is really a smokescreen to unseat Jeremy Corbyn.

'They're trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there's a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn'

"They will say with all this chaos, we can't go on like this, we need a new leader."

"This is an entirely synthetic crisis," he said. "Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong, everything he said was the truth, historic fact, proven."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-george-galloway-ken-livingstone-hitler-comments-historical-fact-a7006321.html

Edited May 2, 2016 by dexterm