I ask this question in light of the current furore to beset Corbyn and the Labour Party, regarding remarks made first by Naz Shah who posted two years ago on Facebook "Solution for Isreal-Palestine conflict - relocate Isreal into US". Followed then by Ken Livingstone, in an attempt to support Shah, quote : "When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Isreal. He was supporting Zionism - this before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million jews"
The newspapers, TV and radio news are going ballistic about the issue, screaming from just about every front page about racism and anti-simitism, insinuating that the Labour Party is full of anti-semitism. Theres now suspensions from the party and Corby on the back foot, and apparently the whole of the PLP in uproar
Is this an overreaction to what I consider, in the first instance a very silly error of judgement from Shah, a stupid 6th form gaff from someone who should know better, followed by an equally daft remark from Livingstone.
I'm not for one moment defending the two miscreants, however, is what was said really anti-semitism or just people voicing an opinion. After all there are many who regard our very own UK as being the 53rd state of America, so why is it anti-semitic to say almost the same thing about Isreal (I realise there is a slight difference)
And with regard to Livingstones remark, Benjamin Natanyahu said very much the same thing last year in a speech where he said that Hitler did not want to kill the Jews, he wanted to deport them, the implication being that if they did so they would all go to Palestine. So why must Livingstone be hung drawn and quartered for make the same point as Natanyahu????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ZWyvK5Fqc
and : http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525
My personal view is that I cant help thinking there is something going on here. Why when the Tories are in a shambles and hopelessly divided over Europe and with the elections coming up in May, do we have the media foaming at the mouth and throwing more mud at Corbyn? Or is it that we must under no cir***stance say anything against Isreal, even in jest, for fear of being branded an anti-simite and racist.
There is such a special sensitivity around the Israeli issue.
I dont know what else to say at this point but I do feel that in the world of politics it has become something of a huge symbolic nature and a way of scapegoating anyone the establishment reject.
I ask this question in light of the current furore to beset Corbyn and the Labour Party, regarding remarks made first by Naz Shah who posted two years ago on Facebook "Solution for Isreal-Palestine conflict - relocate Isreal into US". Followed then by Ken Livingstone, in an attempt to support Shah, quote : "When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Isreal. He was supporting Zionism - this before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million jews"
The newspapers, TV and radio news are going ballistic about the issue, screaming from just about every front page about racism and anti-simitism, insinuating that the Labour Party is full of anti-semitism. Theres now suspensions from the party and Corby on the back foot, and apparently the whole of the PLP in uproar
Is this an overreaction to what I consider, in the first instance a very silly error of judgement from Shah, a stupid 6th form gaff from someone who should know better, followed by an equally daft remark from Livingstone.
I'm not for one moment defending the two miscreants, however, is what was said really anti-semitism or just people voicing an opinion. After all there are many who regard our very own UK as being the 53rd state of America, so why is it anti-semitic to say almost the same thing about Isreal (I realise there is a slight difference)
And with regard to Livingstones remark, Benjamin Natanyahu said very much the same thing last year in a speech where he said that Hitler did not want to kill the Jews, he wanted to deport them, the implication being that if they did so they would all go to Palestine. So why must Livingstone be hung drawn and quartered for make the same point as Natanyahu????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ZWyvK5Fqc
and : http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525
My personal view is that I cant help thinking there is something going on here. Why when the Tories are in a shambles and hopelessly divided over Europe and with the elections coming up in May, do we have the media foaming at the mouth and throwing more mud at Corbyn? Or is it that we must under no cir***stance say anything against Isreal, even in jest, for fear of being branded an anti-simite and racist.
I'd be interested to hear your views
Couldn't agre more Towdlad, firstly, the behaviour of John Mann is a disgrace, or it's a calculated knives in the back attack on Corbyn, i suspect the latter, as i think Corbyn has been gaining ground rapidly, this has also come along very conveniently when the government was being hammered from all sides, regarding the doctors strike, the hillsborough enquiry and much more.
I agree about John Mann, he is always the first to start jumping up and down and putting in his two pen'orth. He's entitled to his view but he does it in a way which is always very public and always very damaging to the party, and is mana from heaven as far as the press is concerned. He must have grand career designs for himself and keen to climb the ladder to the upper echelons of the elite PLP with all that it brings including an ermine coat-either that or he's the party 5th columnist
I said what I think of John Mann on the SYP thread. He is the worst kind of politician - populist, soundbites, lots of words but nothing constructive to say. On the matter of Israel, I don't think it is too complicated. Naz Shah was stupid to put up such a ridiculous post. Livingstone was inviting trouble wading in like he did. Hitler wasn't a Zionist. He wrote about destroying the Jews well before he began to think pragmatically about relocating them. Zionism and Hitler's brand of fascism for a while offered each other a mutually convenient solution. Hitler was very pragmatic - the Nazi-Soviet Pact being another example. We must be free to criticise the State of Israel and even question it's right to exist as a State without being branded anti-Semitic. The two things are very different. To be honest I think Corbyn has been disappointingly weak through this crisis which isn't really a crisis at all. A very junior MP and a has been have both said daft things. That's about the size of it as far as I can see.
Theres an interesting book by Miko Peled called 'The Generals Son'. Peled was a militaristic hawk, an Isreali Jew brought up in a Zionist tradition and whose father was a high ranking general in the 1967 war, the family was a friend of Netanyaho.
Everything changed when a 13 year old niece was killed by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. He became a peace activist and befriended many Palestinians and discovered a fresh insight into the difficulties and horror faced by Palestinians on a daily basis.
Fascinating reading and describes how Palestinians are forced to live and I was shocked by the brutality which is far worse than I ever imagined.
For anyone interested there are many videos of Peled speaking of his experiences on Youtube here is one
