Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Ken Livingstone has warned he will take Labour to court if it expels him over alleged anti-Semitism.

He had told BBC Radio London last April that in Adolf Hitler’s policy in 1932 “was that Jews should be moved to Israel”. “He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews,” he told the Vanessa Feltz show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-judicial-review-labour-party-anti-semitism-michael-mansfield-imran-khan-jeremy-corbyn_uk_58d54dd5e4b03787d357fadb?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

This is the problem with the Far Left.

Israel did not exist in 1932, so ho could he move them to Israel?

Delusions. What he is referring to. Is the Haavara agreement between German Zionist Jews and the Nazi Germany. Of which many other zionists were against, but considering the hate many Germans Jews faced. You can hardly blame them for wanting to cut a deal, simply to get out of Germany with some of their property.

Which the Nazi's only did, to try and break the anti-Nazi boycott. It was also seen as a way of getting rid of Jews. Hitler never even supported the agreement and criticized this in 1932. He only supported the agreement between 1937-1939. Only 60,000 German Jews were able to emigrate to Palestine, of which the Nazi's exploited them of their money and property out of 522,000. There is nothing in the agreement that backs and supports the creation of a Jewish homeland or nation in former Judea and Israel.

The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky) and outside it.^[4] For German Jews, the agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some Nazi circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed "Jewish problem." The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-Nazi Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler's own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.
After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, the program was ended.

Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So how in anyway, was Hitler supporting Zionism, a belief in a Jewish homeland for the Jews in Israel, of which none existed at this present time? When his intention all along was to eradicate them? The Nazi's in the 1930's were not strong enough to start murdering Jews on any scale, as it could likely lead to war. They certainly persecuted the Jews and treated them as inferior Until Germany was strong enough to go to war.. So this agreement does not mean Hitler of the Nazis supported the ideology of Zionism. Like I say the Far Left are truly it seems Nazi apologists. I hope he does go to court, as he would need to show Hitler actively believed and supported a Jewish homeland for the Jews in its previous nation of Judea and Israel.

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I think you Zionists need to explain what you're so upset about. I mean - if Ken had said that Zionists supported Hitler, I could understand you lot being a bit upset, but he didn't say that. Jews who don't support Zionism don't have a reason to be upset either. John Mann said the remarks were grotesque, but then he thinks that Ken said Hitler was a Zionist. Even if he had been a Zionist, what would be offensive about that?

He claimed Hitler supported Zionism.

That was false and only said this because he constantly tries to deligitimize Israel and Jews.

You keep making for a piss poor defense.

So are you against the existence of Israel, if you do not support Zionism then?

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:50 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I think you Zionists need to explain what you're so upset about. I mean - if Ken had said that Zionists supported Hitler, I could understand you lot being a bit upset, but he didn't say that. Jews who don't support Zionism don't have a reason to be upset either. John Mann said the remarks were grotesque, but then he thinks that Ken said Hitler was a Zionist. Even if he had been a Zionist, what would be offensive about that?

He claimed Hitler supported Zionism.

That was false and only said this because he constantly tries to deligitimize Israel and Jews.

You keep making for a piss poor defense.

So are you against the existence of Israel, if you do not support Zionism then?

I just told you - I'm not against the existence of Israel, and I never said I was. I'm not a Zionist though.

He said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism", which he was via the Transfer Agreement.

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He claimed Hitler supported Zionism.

That was false and only said this because he constantly tries to deligitimize Israel and Jews.

You keep making for a piss poor defense.

So are you against the existence of Israel, if you do not support Zionism then?

I just told you - I'm not against the existence of Israel, and I never said I was. I'm not a Zionist though.

He said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism", which he was via the Transfer Agreement.

So you support Zionism, if you are not against the existence of Israel

Hitler was not supporting Zionism, as I have shown and countless Historians have shown.

This just proves again, this is more about you arguing with me, than admitting you are wrong.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I just told you - I'm not against the existence of Israel, and I never said I was. I'm not a Zionist though.

He said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism", which he was via the Transfer Agreement.

So you support Zionism, if you are not against the existence of Israel

Hitler was not supporting Zionism, as I have shown and countless Historians have shown.

This just proves again, this is more about you arguing with me, than admitting you are wrong.

So you think that anyone who doesn't oppose the existence of Israel is a Zionist? Now I know you're trolling, or you're a bit weird.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

Hitler was supporting the Zionists who wanted the Jews to move to Palestine. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you support Zionism, if you are not against the existence of Israel

Hitler was not supporting Zionism, as I have shown and countless Historians have shown.

This just proves again, this is more about you arguing with me, than admitting you are wrong.

So you think that anyone who doesn't oppose the existence of Israel is a Zionist? Now I know you're trolling, or you're a bit weird.

Hitler was supporting the Zionists who wanted the Jews to move to Palestine. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

Yes you would have to support Zionism, as Israel does now exist.

To not support, means you would be against the existence of Israel

Simple logic

So back to immature accusations and stirring for a fight, its why you ran away on the other thread when I offered a genera amnesty. lol

That was not claimed by Ken, he claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism, not Zionists.

Like I said, your view, would be that helping Muslim refugees is supporting Islam.

Which is absurd

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:06 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that anyone who doesn't oppose the existence of Israel is a Zionist? Now I know you're trolling, or you're a bit weird.

Hitler was supporting the Zionists who wanted the Jews to move to Palestine. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

Yes you would have to support Zionism, as Israel does now exist.

To not support, means you would be against the existence of Israel

Simple logic

So back to immature accusations and stirring for a fight, its why you ran away on the other thread when I offered a genera amnesty. lol

That was not claimed by Ken, he claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism, not Zionists.

Like I said, your view, would be that helping Muslim refugees is supporting Islam.

Which is absurd

This is hilarious. You called me antisemitic and a nazi apologist, and now you're calling me a Zionist. Make up your mind. Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

Great trolling there Didge. lol!

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes you would have to support Zionism, as Israel does now exist.

To not support, means you would be against the existence of Israel

Simple logic

So back to immature accusations and stirring for a fight, its why you ran away on the other thread when I offered a genera amnesty. lol

That was not claimed by Ken, he claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism, not Zionists.

Like I said, your view, would be that helping Muslim refugees is supporting Islam.

Which is absurd

This is hilarious. You called me antisemitic and a nazi apologist, and now you're calling me a Zionist. Make up your mind.

Great trolling there Didge.

Where did I call you antisemitic?

Never did

lol

So funny

Like I said, you would have to be a supporter of Zionism, because Israel exists and you support Israel existing.

You can still be a Nazi apologist

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This is hilarious. You called me antisemitic and a nazi apologist, and now you're calling me a Zionist. Make up your mind.

Great trolling there Didge.

Where did I call you antisemitic?

Never did

lol

So funny

Like I said, you would have to be a supporter of Zionism, because Israel exists and you support Israel existing.

You can still be a Nazi apologist

You didn't say this then?

Blimey, you might as well have stripped them naked and shoved them in the gas chambers Rags

So you think I want to murder Jews, that I admire holocaust deniers, that I'm a nazi apologist, and now you think I'm a Zionist.

I see you completely ignored Ken's further comments about what he meant. Your obsession is doing you no favours, especially now you've decided I'm a Zionist. lol!

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Where did I call you antisemitic?

Never did

lol

So funny

Like I said, you would have to be a supporter of Zionism, because Israel exists and you support Israel existing.

You can still be a Nazi apologist

You didn't say this then?

Blimey, you might as well have stripped them naked and shoved them in the gas chambers Rags

So you think I want to murder Jews, that I admire holocaust deniers, that I'm a nazi apologist, and now you think I'm a Zionist.

I see you completely ignored Ken's further comments about what he meant. Your obsession is doing you no favours, especially now you've decided I'm a Zionist.

So I never called you antisemitic

So you again lied

How many times is that today Rags?

Saying you might as well, is not saying you would Laughing

You are a Zionist, as you support the right of Israel to exist

The funniest thing here is this is more about you wanting to fight me than backing Ken, who has been resoundingly debunked by historians and myself

Is that ignoring the claim, where you also said he claimed he did not know the reporter was Jewish?

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't say this then?

So you think I want to murder Jews, that I admire holocaust deniers, that I'm a nazi apologist, and now you think I'm a Zionist.

I see you completely ignored Ken's further comments about what he meant. Your obsession is doing you no favours, especially now you've decided I'm a Zionist.

So I never called you antisemitic

So you again lied

How many times is that today Rags?

Saying you might as well, is not saying you would

You are a Zionist, as you support the right of Israel to exist

The funniest thing here is this is more about you wanting to fight me than backing Ken, who has been resoundingly debunked by historians and myself

Is that ignoring the claim, where you also said he claimed he did not know the reporter was Jewish?

You accused me of wanting to kill Jews - if that's not calling someone antisemitic, I don't know what is.

I'm still laughing at you calling me a Zionist. Now I know you have no idea what a Zionist is. Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

I posted loads of stuff about Ken and about the Transfer Agreement - it's you who's spammed the thread with the same posts over and over again, and it's you who's been abusing me.

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So I never called you antisemitic

So you again lied

How many times is that today Rags?

Saying you might as well, is not saying you would

You are a Zionist, as you support the right of Israel to exist

The funniest thing here is this is more about you wanting to fight me than backing Ken, who has been resoundingly debunked by historians and myself

Is that ignoring the claim, where you also said he claimed he did not know the reporter was Jewish?

You accused me of wanting to kill Jews - if that's not calling someone antisemitic, I don't know what is.

I'm still laughing at you calling me a Zionist. Now I know you have no idea what a Zionist is.

I posted loads of stuff about Ken and about the Transfer Agreement - it's you who's spammed the thread with the same posts over and over again, and it's you who's been abusing me.

I never accused you of anything, as how is saying you might as well, be an accusation?

Take your time on that

Zionism is the creation of a Jewish nation

This is on the first page of this very thread, are you claiming Zionism is something different?

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

This now exists in the form of Israel

So if you support Israel to exist, you support Zionism, even if inadvertently, you still do Razz

You posted lots of drivel from him and I posted facts from historians, which you tried to poorlly dismiss

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:38 pm

So all along, you've been arguing about something you know nothing about! I think you need to bow out now Didge before you make a bigger fool of yourself. lol!

Not objecting to Israel existing is not Zionism. Next you'll be claiming that I've been defending Ken Livingstone because I'm a Zionist. It makes as much sense as all your other posts. Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 3489511464

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:39 pm

Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So funny

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:41 pm

Thorin wrote:Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So funny

So you think I'm part of a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. I must have been busy! Laughing

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So funny

So you think I'm part of a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. I must have been busy!

Never claimed you were

You support Israel existing, which is what Zionism is, about the existence of a Jewish nation, which now exists.

If you are against its existence, then you are against Zionism

Very simple really

So funny, when you can shown up

Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think I'm part of a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. I must have been busy!

Never claimed you were

You support Israel existing, which is what Zionism is, about the existence of a Jewish nation, which now exists.

If you are against its existence, then you are against Zionism

Very simple really

So funny, when you can shown up

You claimed I was a Zionist, and then you posted your definition of a Zionist. Get a grip Didge and stop backtracking.

I'll let you into a little secret - not everyone who lives in Israel is Jewish. Wink

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Never claimed you were

You support Israel existing, which is what Zionism is, about the existence of a Jewish nation, which now exists.

If you are against its existence, then you are against Zionism

Very simple really

So funny, when you can shown up

You claimed I was a Zionist, and then you posted your definition of a Zionist. Get a grip Didge and stop backtracking.

I'll let you into a little secret - not everyone who lives in Israel is Jewish.

Never claimed they were all Jewish, ha ha ha

Where did that crap come from?

Zionism, was about the creation of a Jewish state.

That is how Zionism formed

This Jewish state now exists

So if you support Israel existing, then you support Zionism, even if inadvertently.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:51 pm

I'm not a Zionist - you can accuse me all you like. lol!

by Guest Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not a Zionist - you can accuse me all you like.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 Laughing-gifs-pillow-cover

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:58 am

So you shot down your own argument. You said I'm supporting Zionism, and then you changed that to say I'm inadvertently supporting Zionism. Isn't that what Ken pretty much did? Why is it OK for you to do that and not him? Cool

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:39 pm

Ken Livingstone is kind of expecting to be expelled from the Labour party, but he is defiant.

And it’s clear the former Mayor of London is not bowing out without a fight. Asked what he will do if he’s ejected from the party at his hearing on Thursday, he replied: “I assume that it is set up to do that because that’s the composition of the report. I do expect that to happen.

“But then you go for judicial review,” he adds, defiantly. “The advice I’ve had legally is that they haven’t got a cat in hell’s chance of winning. They loathe and detest Jeremy [Corbyn]. They didn’t suspend me because I’m anti-Semitic; it was because I was defending Jeremy, which they consider a worse crime.”

I'm sure what it has to do with Corbyn tbh, but what is the actual charge? That he was not telling the truth? That he was telling the truth but he shouldn't have said it? That what he said was antisemitic? They can't succeed on the last one IMO, and the first one is still open to debate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-livingstone-interview-i-still-tend-to-say-what-i-believe-to-be-the-truth-it-s-my-big-weakness-a7651196.html

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:44 pm

As seen, what he claimed was not true, as Hitler did not support Zionism.

If it means he goes to court, even better. The holocaust denier David Irvine took Deborah E. Lipstadt to court, accusing her of libel. It ended up proving that he was a holocaust denier.

So I would love for him to go to court making his case that he claims Hitler supported Zionism.

All Labour has to do, just as Deborah E. Lipstadt did, is simple combat him with facts and Historians.

Great film on this court case, that I recommend people watch, called, "Denial"

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:09 pm

KL didn't say that Hitler supported Zionism, he said Hitler was supporting Zionism re the Jews being moved to Palestine - different thing.

Well let's see. John Mann claimed that Hitler never approved of allowing Jews to go to Palestine, and that he blocked any attempt to allow them to do so. Is that true? No, it's not. We know that the Nazi Government certainly signed an agreement with the Zionists specifically to allow Jews to go to Palestine with their money intact via some kind of deal. How likely is it that Hitler knew about that agreement, and how likely is it that he would allow it if he didn't agree with it? He certainly didn't block the agreement.

There are reports that he didn't like the agreement at first but became a supporter of it later on. I think it may well have been the other way round. The Zionists and the Nazis had a common goal - they both wanted Jews to leave Germany. The Zionists didn't waste much time after Hitler got in. Prior to that, what were the chances of German Jews moving to Palestine en masse voluntarily? Pretty low I'd say. After Hitler became Chancellor, the discrimination and persecution intensified, so they were likely to be more amenable to the idea.

There was also the issue of the boycott to consider, and Hitler didn't want Jews worldwide persuading anyone to boycott German goods.

Later on, Hitler may well have become a little alarmed at the thought of so many Jews going to Palestine. It was not yet a Jewish State, but he perceived that a lot of Jewish people together would form a very powerful group - something he certainly didn't want. However, the agreement went on until at least 1939.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:15 pm

Well Zionism at the time was the creation of a Jewish nation, which was already part of the policy of Mandates under the supervision of the UK, through the League of Nations. Other Mandates included the creation of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan was created from the British Mandate for palestine. In fact, settlement was allowed for Jewish diaspora by the League of Nations. So Hitler could not have been supporting Zionism, as German Jews did not only flee to Palestine either. German Jews and other Jews were severely restricted by many other European nations and the US.

So how can Hitler be supporting Zionism, when he was exploiting rich German Jews and was done to counter boycotts. For Hitler to support Zionism, would be to support the creation of a Jewish state.

He never did that and hated the Jews.

So the bases for a Jewish state had been decided, as well as other nations by the League of Nations mandate.

So claiming that exploiting rich Jews of their wealth and wanting rid of Jews, is not supporting Zionism. To support Zionism, would be to back the creation of a Jewish nation, which as seen its well known he was against. Like I say to claim Jewish refugees settling in parts of the world is supporting Zionism, is like claiming to allow Muslim refugees to any nation is supporting Islamism.

Its blatantly absurd.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:22 pm

Thorin wrote:Well Zionism at the time was the creation of a Jewish nation, which was already part of the policy of Mandates under the supervision of the UK, through the League of Nations. Other Mandates included the creation of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan was created from the British Mandate for palestine. In fact, settlement was allowed for Jewish diaspora by the League of Nations. So Hitler could not have been supporting Zionism, as German Jews did not only flee to Palestine either. German Jews and other Jews were severely restricted by many other European nations and the US.

So how can Hitler be supporting Zionism, when he was exploiting rich German Jews and was done to counter boycotts. For Hitler to support Zionism, would be to support the creation of a Jewish state.

He never did that and hated the Jews.

So the bases for a Jewish state had been decided, as well as other nations by the League of Nations mandate.

So claiming that exploiting rich Jews of their wealth and wanting rid of Jews, is not supporting Zionism. To support Zionism, would be to back the creation of a Jewish nation, which as seen its well known he was against. Like I say to claim Jewish refugees settling in parts of the world is supporting Zionism, is like claiming to allow Muslim refugees to any nation is supporting Islamism.

Its blatantly absurd.

No - he could support Zionism for his own reasons - to get Jews out of Germany. The Zionists proposed a way to do that.

He didn't like Jews obviously, and that would include Jewish Zionists, but I think he would have been perfectly prepared to do a deal with them. After all, he couldn't really start attacking them and killing them straightaway, even if he wanted to, he had to consolidate his own position and counter all opposition to him.

Even thought he hated Jews, he could perhaps understand the Zionists. They wanted a homeland for Jews, and he wanted a homeland for Germans, yes?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Well Zionism at the time was the creation of a Jewish nation, which was already part of the policy of Mandates under the supervision of the UK, through the League of Nations. Other Mandates included the creation of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan was created from the British Mandate for palestine. In fact, settlement was allowed for Jewish diaspora by the League of Nations. So Hitler could not have been supporting Zionism, as German Jews did not only flee to Palestine either. German Jews and other Jews were severely restricted by many other European nations and the US.

So how can Hitler be supporting Zionism, when he was exploiting rich German Jews and was done to counter boycotts. For Hitler to support Zionism, would be to support the creation of a Jewish state.

He never did that and hated the Jews.

So the bases for a Jewish state had been decided, as well as other nations by the League of Nations mandate.

So claiming that exploiting rich Jews of their wealth and wanting rid of Jews, is not supporting Zionism. To support Zionism, would be to back the creation of a Jewish nation, which as seen its well known he was against. Like I say to claim Jewish refugees settling in parts of the world is supporting Zionism, is like claiming to allow Muslim refugees to any nation is supporting Islamism.

Its blatantly absurd.

No - he could support Zionism for his own reasons - to get Jews out of Germany. The Zionists proposed a way to do that.

He didn't like Jews obviously, and that would include Jewish Zionists, but I think he would have been perfectly prepared to do a deal with them. After all, he couldn't really start attacking them and killing them straightaway, even if he wanted to, he had to consolidate his own position and counter all opposition to him.

Even thought he hated Jews, he could perhaps understand the Zionists. They wanted a homeland for Jews, and he wanted a homeland for Germans, yes?

We have been over this already and I even asked you to back up Hitler supporting the creation of a Jewish state.

You never did and I showed you that in fact he publicly stated he was against any Jewish nations

As to your assumptions and hypothesis, still is not even understanding Hitler and his views on Jews, which go way back to the early years of his life.

The main factor is at the time, Zionism, was about the creation of a Jewish nation.

He never backed that and even ridiculed such an idea.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:27 pm

“on 16 January 1937 [well before Hitler, in Livingstone’s estimation, ‘went mad’] the Reich Minister of the Interior informed the German Foreign Office that it was planning to continue to support the policy of Jewish emigration regardless of the destination countries [including Palestine]. But after it began to emerge in early 1937 that Britain’s Peel Commission might opt for a Jewish state in Palestine, on 1 June the Foreign Minister, Neurath, sent guidelines to the embassies in London and Baghdad and to the Consul General in Jerusalem in which he made it crystal clear that he was against the formulation of a Jewish state or ‘anything resembling that state’”.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:43 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No - he could support Zionism for his own reasons - to get Jews out of Germany. The Zionists proposed a way to do that.

He didn't like Jews obviously, and that would include Jewish Zionists, but I think he would have been perfectly prepared to do a deal with them. After all, he couldn't really start attacking them and killing them straightaway, even if he wanted to, he had to consolidate his own position and counter all opposition to him.

Even thought he hated Jews, he could perhaps understand the Zionists. They wanted a homeland for Jews, and he wanted a homeland for Germans, yes?

We have been over this already and I even asked you to back up Hitler supporting the creation of a Jewish state.

You never did and I showed you that in fact he publicly stated he was against any Jewish nations

As to your assumptions and hypothesis, still is not even understanding Hitler and his views on Jews, which go way back to the early years of his life.

The main factor is at the time, Zionism, was about the creation of a Jewish nation.

He never backed that and even ridiculed such an idea.

I know we've been over it already, but you keep using that old straw man argument - that KL was saying Hitler wanted a Jewish State. That is not what he said, and it's clearly not what he meant. Unless you can move on, we will get nowhere. All KL needs to do is clarify what he said, which he already did anyway - quite publically.

I'm now discussing John Mann's claim that Hitler never wanted German Jews to be moved to Palestine. I would dispute that because there was clearly an agreement signed by the Nazi Government and the Zionists which enabled such a move. Are you suggesting that there was not?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:45 pm

Zionism at the time was for the creation of a Jewish nation in what was formerly Judea and Israel.

Are you disputing this?

I could give two shits about John Mann and if you want to discuss him, start a new thread

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:58 pm

Thorin wrote:Zionism at the time was for the creation of a Jewish nation in what was formerly Judea and Israel.

Are you disputing this?

I could give two shits about John Mann and if you want to discuss him, start a new thread

John Mann is very relevant to the whole thing as he's saying that KL was factually wrong.

You keep repeating the same tired old thing, so I'll ignore that.

Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. Where was he going to send them? Poland? No, he wanted Poland which he considered had been stolen from the German Empire. Austria? No - same reason. He wanted a German homeland without Jews in it.

This group of Zionists came up with a suggestion to move Jews to Palestine - a group willing to negotiate and willing to go along with the removal of Jews from Germany, as long as it was to Palestine. Why would he not go for that?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:03 pm

John Mann is nothing more than misdirection and irrelevant to what Ken said and is a separate issue.

You keep ignoring the one major factor in all this.

What Zionism is.

Hence why you have constantly run away from answering.

Even all the main left wing main media disagree with Ken on this and you astoundingly refuse to listen to the facts.

So as you refuse to answer, you will be starved of the debate, as its not going to be on your terms when you continually refuse to answer questions.

But Mr Livingstone's version of history contained several errors, as Timothy Snyder, Yale University history professor and author of Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, explains below.

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

Using the word "Israel" when what is meant was "the British mandate of Palestine" has the unfortunate consequence of stripping away the actual historical context and putting the words "Hitler" and "Israel" in the same sentence.

Hitler was not a supporter of Zionism.

He believed, on the contrary, that Zionism was one of many deliberately deceptive labels that Jews placed upon what he believed to be their endless striving for global power and the extermination of the human species.

'Categorically false'

From Hitler's point of view, Jews were precisely not normal human beings because they did not care about territory, but cared only about global domination.

"He was supporting Zionism" is categorically false and reveals a total and fundamental misunderstanding of what Hitler's anti-Semitism was all about.

Tens of thousands of German Jews did emigrate to Palestine before British policy made this all but impossible. And some German officials did take an interest in Zionism. But there was never a German policy to support Zionism or a future Israel.

On the contrary, the German orientation in the Middle East was to support Arab nationalism. The official German policy, enunciated clearly in 1937, was to oppose the creation of a State of Israel.

'Logically inconceivable'

Before, during and after 1932, Hitler referred to the Jews as a problem for the entire world, not simply for Germany.

When the Holocaust took place, the vast majority of Jews killed were people who lived beyond Germany.
Both in theory and in practice, Hitler's extermination of Jews was international, applied to millions of people. For this reason as well, it is logically inconceivable that his ideas could ever have been limited to sending German Jews to Palestine.

Well before 1932, in his book Mein Kampf, Hitler had made clear that the Jews were, in his view, a "spiritual pestilence" that had to be removed from the face of the earth in order to rescue the human species, the natural order of the planet, and God's creation.

It was not clear just how this could be carried out; but there is no sense in which the idea of deporting Jews to Palestine is sufficient to this vision.

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

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:07 pm

I know what Zionism is Didge, the problem is that you keep obsessing about the literal meaning re Ken's words. Remember this was a radio interview - he wasn't reading from a script, and he might not have chosen the words that you would have liked. He clearly meant that Hitler was assisting the Zionists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-livingstone-repeats-hitler-zionism-remarks-keith-vaz-while-defending-keith-vaz-a7228441.html

Now are you going to move on, or are you going to keep banging on about the meaning of "supporting Zionism"? If you look up the word "support", you will see that it can mean a variety of things.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:09 pm

You certainly do not know what Zionism is.

The reality is that Livingstone’s latest attempt to defend his comments that “Hitler supported Zionism” in 1932 before going “mad and killing six million Jews” is in line with his previous controversial remarks, invoking dubious history to support his claims.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that Livingstone appears to conflate multiple mistaken notions to suggest Hitler “supported” Zionism – as if at some stage he had felt positively towards a strand of Jewish political thought which even in the 1930s encapsulated different and competing ideas and individuals.

The reality is that Hitler had harboured hostile views towards Jews since the 1920s, which coalesced first in the antisemitism of Mein Kampf, published in the middle of the decade.

There is a twisted kernel of truth at the heart of Livingstone’s claims when he alludes to the so-called Haavara (transfer) Agreement, although it took place in 1933 not 1932 as Livingstone suggests.

Deeply controversial amid a Jewish European boycott of German trade, it saw an agreement between Germany and German Zionists to facilitate the emigration of Jews to British Mandate Palestine – not Israel as Livingstone states, which did not exist until 1948 - by ensuring would-be Jewish emigrants could transfer part of their property.

As Yf’aat Weiss explains in an essay for the Holocaust Memorial centre at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the Haavara agreement allowed “German Jews emigrating to Palestine to retain some of the value of their property in Germany by purchasing German goods for the Yishuv [the Jewish settlement in Mandatory Palestine], which would redeem them in Palestine local currency”.

Its context, as Weiss points out, was as a deal forged under the threat of Nazi persecution. Following the end of Jewish emancipation in Germany, she writes: “German Jewry had to formulate survival tactics vis-à-vis the Nazi government of their own country.”

The interest of some in the Zionist movement was to flee the rampant and increasingly dangerous antisemitism of the National Socialists, but the German interest in the Haavara agreement was both fear that the Jewish boycott of Germany might have wider economic effects - ultimately a misplaced anxiety - and a desire to push German Jews to flee.

The Haavara agreement was designed to encourage the emigration of Jews from Germany in line with National Socialist policies, but it did not have in mind the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine, a key tenet of Zionism.

Indeed, by late 1937 an anti-Nazi German official involved in administering the agreement suggested that fear in Nazi circles that it might lead to a Jewish state, to which Hitler was implacably opposed, was leading to suggestions “it should be terminated.”

Fatally for his garbled argument, in the final analysis Livingstone confuses agency and intention. Hitler wanted neither Jews in Germany nor in their own state. The Nazi vision was for the Jews to be removed from any kind of political influence. He facilitated some emigration in pursuit of a policy of ethnic cleansing to “concentrate” German Jews elsewhere.

None of which amounts “to Hitler’s support for Zionism”, no matter how complex the history.

As the Haaretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer summed up Livingstone’s three days of interventions: “His historical version of the Holocaust was only slightly more bizarre than his contention that someone who only hates Jews living in Israel – but not outside it – cannot be considered an anti-Semite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/livingstone-muddies-history-to-support-hitler-and-zionism-claims

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:19 pm

Thorin wrote:

Before, during and after 1932, Hitler referred to the Jews as a problem for the entire world, not simply for Germany.

When the Holocaust took place, the vast majority of Jews killed were people who lived beyond Germany.
Both in theory and in practice, Hitler's extermination of Jews was international, applied to millions of people. For this reason as well, it is logically inconceivable that his ideas could ever have been limited to sending German Jews to Palestine.

Well before 1932, in his book Mein Kampf, Hitler had made clear that the Jews were, in his view, a "spiritual pestilence" that had to be removed from the face of the earth in order to rescue the human species, the natural order of the planet, and God's creation.

It was not clear just how this could be carried out; but there is no sense in which the idea of deporting Jews to Palestine is sufficient to this vision.

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

Indeed Hitler did think Jews were a problem worldwide, so what was he going to do about that? He couldn't go off and kill them all could he? He couldn't kill them all in Germany and all the surrounding countries he had his eye on - not at first. He could only try to move them out of Germany, but where? He didn't want them in Poland or Austria - he thought of those countries as belonging to Germany. Which other countries would accept them? Why not Palestine? He had a group of Zionists who also wanted them out of Germany - into Palestine. Perfect solution at the beginning.

Re Mein Kampf, Hitler started that in 1925 when he was in prison. He was a rabble rouser, the leader of a fringe party. He had ambitions, of course he did, but he couldn't know that he would succeed in taking over Germany eight years later, so I don't see the book as a plan.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:20 pm

I know what Zionism is - it's you who doesn't. You said I supported Zionism, and that I was a Zionist, merely because I have nothing against the existence of the State of Israel.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:20 pm

So Rags claims Hitler assisted Zionists, with a policy to exploit them of their money through a fear of persecution. Driving them to leave the country.

That says it all really.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:23 pm

Here's a question for you Didge. You're a fan of Zionism, yes? You think the Jews should have a homeland. What do you think of Hitler's view that the Germans should have a homeland which should incorporate all Germans? Obviously, you don't agree with his methods, but what do you think of the actual concept?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:29 pm

Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:39 pm

Thorin wrote:Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

In Palestine, Jews weren't the majority though, not then. It could be said that Hitler did a lot to advance the Zionist cause, yes? The majority of the population in the West Bank is not Jewish, so you agree it should be independent?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

In Palestine, Jews weren't the majority though, not then. It could be said that Hitler did a lot to advance the Zionist cause, yes? The majority of the population in the West Bank is not Jewish, so you agree it should be independent?

Again Jews had been living in the British Mandate for Palestine for centuries. The League of nations allowed for the Jewish diaspora, to settle in lands, that they bought legally
How can he have done loads to advance the cause, when the British allowed unrestricted immigration of Arabs to the area? If he had, over 6 million Jews would have been allowed to settle
Bang goes your argument.
The population of Jews in the West bank and East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948. Jordan then actively settled countless Arabs in the areas they occupied, as did Egypt in Gaza. Are you saying Israel should maintain a policy of making the West bank and East Jerusalem Judenrein, started by Jordan?

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:54 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

In Palestine, Jews weren't the majority though, not then. It could be said that Hitler did a lot to advance the Zionist cause, yes? The majority of the population in the West Bank is not Jewish, so you agree it should be independent?

Again Jews had been living in the British Mandate for Palestine for centuries. The League of nations allowed for the Jewish diaspora, to settle in lands, that they bought legally
How can he have done loads to advance the cause, when the British allowed unrestricted immigration of Arabs to the area? If he had, over 6 million Jews would have been allowed to settle
Bang goes your argument.
The population of Jews in the West bank and East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948. Jordan then actively settled countless Arabs in the areas they occupied, as did Egypt in Gaza. Are you saying Israel should maintain a policy of making the West bank and East Jerusalem Judenrein, started by Jordan?

The Jews weren't a majority at the time though were they? You said you agree with self determination based on a majority.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:58 pm

Oh and I have always backed a two state solution, as I back self determination, even though I disagree with Fatah, Hamas and PLO policies, all people have a right to self determination and a nation. This includes the modern Palestinian Arab people to have a nation.

Though do you think the Palestinian state when created, should be Judenrein?

Surely then the resettlement of Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, should not be an issue for peace and a future Palestinian nation then?

But it is an issue.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Again Jews had been living in the British Mandate for Palestine for centuries. The League of nations allowed for the Jewish diaspora, to settle in lands, that they bought legally
How can he have done loads to advance the cause, when the British allowed unrestricted immigration of Arabs to the area? If he had, over 6 million Jews would have been allowed to settle
Bang goes your argument.
The population of Jews in the West bank and East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948. Jordan then actively settled countless Arabs in the areas they occupied, as did Egypt in Gaza. Are you saying Israel should maintain a policy of making the West bank and East Jerusalem Judenrein, started by Jordan?

The Jews weren't a majority at the time though were they? You said you agree with self determination based on a majority.

That is not what I said.

Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

Jews were also a majority in parts of the British Mandate.

So you want to split hairs on this

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The Jews weren't a majority at the time though were they? You said you agree with self determination based on a majority.

That is not what I said.

Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

Jews were also a majority in parts of the British Mandate.

So you want to split hairs on this

In Palestine, were Jews a majority in 1933? The Zionists wanted a homeland for the Jews, so how were they going to achieve that unless Jews became a majority?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is not what I said.

Germany had a home and a nation.
It lost land rightfully, to the Polish, you had self determination.
As did other peoples.
In these areas, these peoples were the majority, within that land.
I back self determination.
Both Hitler and Stalin were against Polish Self Determination and invaded Poland, starting the second World War. Britain and France went to war with Germany in defense of Polish self determination.

Ironically, the same problem happened to Israel, where the Arabs were against Jewish self determination and invaded the newly formed Israel and lost.

Jews were also a majority in parts of the British Mandate.

So you want to split hairs on this

In Palestine, were Jews a majority in 1933? The Zionists wanted a homeland for the Jews, so how were they going to achieve that unless Jews became a majority?

Why do they need to be a majority?

Lets look at the Mandate of Palestine and the original agreement.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 1922-mandate_for_palestine

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 5 1922-mandate_for_palestine

Already 77% of the Mandate was given to the Arabs in what is now called Jordan.
Who as ruled by a Hashemite minority, whilst the majority are of now classed as Palestinian Arabs.
So are you against the formation of Jordan, as it was formed under a minority people?
The rest was meant to be for the Jews to create a home, but clearly 77% of the land was not enough.
You are ignoring why the mandates were formed under the League of Nations, to control these areas, until a time to create nations for peoples.

Now in 1937 the Arabs in the rest of the British Mandate who had been demanding more territory, were offered a state, that was bigger, than the UN partition of 1948. In both cases they refused and refused to allow for the self determination of the Jews. After this Israel declared independence and was attacked by countless Arab nations. Jordan occupied the are they called the West Bank and Egypt what is known As Gaza. At no point did the Arabs living there call for a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza. In 1964 the PLO formed (when a Palestinian arab people first started) and its charter called for the removal of the Israel stated and backed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, by Jordan and Egypt. Only after the Arab nations lost the 1967, did they then add the West Bank and Gaza for the claim to a nation. Since then the Palestinian Arabs have refused the chance to have a nation multiple times.

So you tell me, why was not 77% of the Mandate not enough?

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:43 pm

Thorin wrote:Oh and I have always backed a two state solution, as I back self determination, even though I disagree with Fatah, Hamas and PLO policies, all people have a right to self determination and a nation. This includes the modern Palestinian Arab people to have a nation.

Though do you think the Palestinian state when created, should be Judenrein?

Surely then the resettlement of Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, should not be an issue for peace and a future Palestinian nation then?

But it is an issue.

No answer Rags?

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:49 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

In Palestine, were Jews a majority in 1933? The Zionists wanted a homeland for the Jews, so how were they going to achieve that unless Jews became a majority?

Why do they need to be a majority?

Lets look at the Mandate of Palestine and the original agreement.

Already 77% was given to the Arabs in what is now called Jordan.
Who as ruled by a Hashemite minority, whilst the majority are of now classed as Palestinian Arabs.
So are you against the formation of Jordan, as it was formed under a minority people?
The rest was meant to be for the Jews to create a home, but clearly 77% of the land was not enough.
You are ignoring why the mandates were formed under the League of Nations, to control these areas, until a time to create nations for peoples.

Now in 1937 the Arabs in the rest of the British Mandate who had been demanding more territory, were offered a state, that was bigger, than the UN partition of 1948. In both cases they refused and refused to allow for the self determination of the Jews. After this Israel declared independence and was attacked by countless Arab nations. Jordan occupied the are they called the West Bank and Egypt what is known As Gaza. At no point did the Arabs living there call for a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza. In 1964 the PLO formed (when a Palestinian arab people first started) and its charter called for the removal of the Israel stated and backed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, by Jordan and Egypt. Only after the Arab nations lost the 1967, did they then add the West Bank and Gaza for the claim to a nation. Since then the Palestinian Arabs have refused the chance to have a nation multiple times.

So you tell me, why was not 77% of the Mandate not enough?

I think it would be better to exclude Trans-Jordan/Jordan for the purposes of the discussion. It was part of the British mandate, But I mean the area to the west of the Jordan.

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:50 pm

As for why Jews needed to be a majority in order to create a Jewish State or Jewish homeland, how could they do that if they were in a minority?

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Oh and I have always backed a two state solution, as I back self determination, even though I disagree with Fatah, Hamas and PLO policies, all people have a right to self determination and a nation. This includes the modern Palestinian Arab people to have a nation.

Though do you think the Palestinian state when created, should be Judenrein?

Surely then the resettlement of Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, should not be an issue for peace and a future Palestinian nation then?

But it is an issue.

No answer Rags?

I don't have a problem with that post Didge.

by Guest Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Why do they need to be a majority?

Lets look at the Mandate of Palestine and the original agreement.

Already 77% was given to the Arabs in what is now called Jordan.
Who as ruled by a Hashemite minority, whilst the majority are of now classed as Palestinian Arabs.
So are you against the formation of Jordan, as it was formed under a minority people?
The rest was meant to be for the Jews to create a home, but clearly 77% of the land was not enough.
You are ignoring why the mandates were formed under the League of Nations, to control these areas, until a time to create nations for peoples.

Now in 1937 the Arabs in the rest of the British Mandate who had been demanding more territory, were offered a state, that was bigger, than the UN partition of 1948. In both cases they refused and refused to allow for the self determination of the Jews. After this Israel declared independence and was attacked by countless Arab nations. Jordan occupied the are they called the West Bank and Egypt what is known As Gaza. At no point did the Arabs living there call for a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza. In 1964 the PLO formed (when a Palestinian arab people first started) and its charter called for the removal of the Israel stated and backed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, by Jordan and Egypt. Only after the Arab nations lost the 1967, did they then add the West Bank and Gaza for the claim to a nation. Since then the Palestinian Arabs have refused the chance to have a nation multiple times.

So you tell me, why was not 77% of the Mandate not enough?

I think it would be better to exclude Trans-Jordan/Jordan for the purposes of the discussion. It was part of the British mandate, But I mean the area to the west of the Jordan.

Really, why?
It was meant to be all for a Jewish home as Mandates had been set up for many Arab nations.

You are trying to white wash history.

So why was 77% not enough?

Then after this in 1937, was over 50% of the then British Mandate not enough for the Arabs?

Again in the 1947?

by Sponsored content