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 Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:16 am

Its pointless trying to educate someone so ignorant on history.

You have made yourself redundant in this debate Rags by again ignoring the facts. Claiming Jews whether zionists or not facing persecution, are being supported by having their wealth exploited to leave the country. Its shocking that you consider that support. Its sheer babble.
So you can continue to post what you like, whilst I will continue to posy up history for everyone else

I have said enough to show to everyone else to make up their minds and see for themselves how ridiculous you and Ken are on a topic you both know very little about.

Now some history for the forum for life for the Jews in Germany in the 1930's

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was named chancellor, the most powerful position in the German government, by the aged President Hindenburg, who hoped Hitler could lead the nation out of its grave political and economic crisis. Hitler was the leader of the right-wing National Socialist German Workers Party (called “the Nazi Party” for short). It was, by 1933, one of the strongest parties in Germany, even though — reflecting the country’s multiparty system — the Nazis had won only a plurality of 33 percent of the votes in the 1932 elections to the German parliament (Reichstag).

Once in power, Hitler moved quickly to end German democracy. He convinced his cabinet to invoke emergency clauses of the constitution that permitted the suspension of individual freedoms of press, speech, and assembly. Special security forces — the Gestapo, the Storm Troopers (SA), and the SS — murdered or arrested leaders of opposition political parties (Communists, socialists, and liberals). The Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 — forced through the Reichstag already purged of many political opponents –gave dictatorial powers to Hitler.

Also in 1933, the Nazis began to put into practice their racial ideology. The Nazis believed that the Germans were “racially superior” and that there was a struggle for survival between them and inferior races. They saw Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and the handicapped as a serious biological threat to the purity of the “German (Aryan) Race,” what they called the master race.

Jews, who numbered about 525,000 in Germany (less than one percent of the total population in 1933) were the principal target of Nazi hatred. The Nazis identified Jews as a race and defined this race as “inferior.” They also spewed hate-mongering propaganda that unfairly blamed Jews for Germany’s economic depression and the country’s defeat in World War I (1914-1918).

In 1933, new German laws forced Jews out of their civil service jobs, university and law court positions, and other areas of public life. In April 1933, laws proclaimed at Nuremberg made Jews second-class citizens. These Nuremberg Laws defined Jews, not by their religion or by how they wanted to identify themselves, but by the religious affiliation of their grandparents. Between 1937 and 1939, new anti-Jewish regulations segregated Jews further and made daily life very difficult for them. Jews could not attend public schools; go to theaters, cinema, or vacation resorts; or reside or even walk in certain sections of German cities.

Also between 1937 and 1939, Jews increasingly were forced from Germany’s economic life. The Nazis either seized Jewish businesses and properties outright or forced Jews to sell them at bargain prices. In November 1938, the Nazis organized a riot (pogrom), known as Kristallnacht (the “Night of Broken Glass”). This attack against German and Austrian Jews included the physical destruction of synagogues and Jewish-owned stores, the arrest of Jewish men, the vandalization of homes, and the murder of individuals.

Non-Jewish Targets of Persecution

Although Jews were the main target of Nazi hatred, the Nazis persecuted other groups they viewed as racially or genetically “inferior.” Nazi racial ideology was buttressed by scientists who advocated “selective breeding” (eugenics) to “improve” the human race. Laws passed between 1933 and 1935 aimed to reduce the future number of genetic “inferiors” through involuntary sterilization programs: 320,000 to 350,000 individuals judged physically or mentally handicapped were subjected to surgical or radiation procedures so they could not have children. Supporters of sterilization also argued that the handicapped burdened the community with the costs of their care. Many of Germany’s 30,000 Roma (Gypsies) were also eventually sterilized and prohibited, along with Blacks, from intermarrying with Germans. About 500 children of mixed African-German backgrounds were also sterilized. New laws combined traditional prejudices with the racism of the Nazis, which defined Roma by “race” and as “criminal and asocial.”

A Nazi propaganda poster against the disabled. (Grafeneck Euthanasia Museum/Flickr)

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/1933-1939-early-stages-of-persecution/

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:22 am

Thorin wrote:Its pointless trying to educated someone so ignorant on history.

You have made yourself redundant in this debate Rags by again ignoring the facts. Claiming Jews whether zionists or not facing persecution, are being supported by having their wealth exploited to leave the country. Its shocking that you consider that support. Its sheer babble.

I have said enough to show to everyone else to make up their minds and see for themselves how ridiculous you and Ken are on a topic you both know very little about.

Now some history for the forum for life for the Jews in Germany in the 1930's

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was named chancellor, the most powerful position in the German government, by the aged President Hindenburg, who hoped Hitler could lead the nation out of its grave political and economic crisis. Hitler was the leader of the right-wing National Socialist German Workers Party (called “the Nazi Party” for short). It was, by 1933, one of the strongest parties in Germany, even though — reflecting the country’s multiparty system — the Nazis had won only a plurality of 33 percent of the votes in the 1932 elections to the German parliament (Reichstag).

Once in power, Hitler moved quickly to end German democracy. He convinced his cabinet to invoke emergency clauses of the constitution that permitted the suspension of individual freedoms of press, speech, and assembly. Special security forces — the Gestapo, the Storm Troopers (SA), and the SS — murdered or arrested leaders of opposition political parties (Communists, socialists, and liberals). The Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 — forced through the Reichstag already purged of many political opponents –gave dictatorial powers to Hitler.

Also in 1933, the Nazis began to put into practice their racial ideology. The Nazis believed that the Germans were “racially superior” and that there was a struggle for survival between them and inferior races. They saw Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and the handicapped as a serious biological threat to the purity of the “German (Aryan) Race,” what they called the master race.

Jews, who numbered about 525,000 in Germany (less than one percent of the total population in 1933) were the principal target of Nazi hatred. The Nazis identified Jews as a race and defined this race as “inferior.” They also spewed hate-mongering propaganda that unfairly blamed Jews for Germany’s economic depression and the country’s defeat in World War I (1914-1918).

In 1933, new German laws forced Jews out of their civil service jobs, university and law court positions, and other areas of public life. In April 1933, laws proclaimed at Nuremberg made Jews second-class citizens. These Nuremberg Laws defined Jews, not by their religion or by how they wanted to identify themselves, but by the religious affiliation of their grandparents. Between 1937 and 1939, new anti-Jewish regulations segregated Jews further and made daily life very difficult for them. Jews could not attend public schools; go to theaters, cinema, or vacation resorts; or reside or even walk in certain sections of German cities.
Also between 1937 and 1939, Jews increasingly were forced from Germany’s economic life. The Nazis either seized Jewish businesses and properties outright or forced Jews to sell them at bargain prices. In November 1938, the Nazis organized a riot (pogrom), known as Kristallnacht (the “Night of Broken Glass”). This attack against German and Austrian Jews included the physical destruction of synagogues and Jewish-owned stores, the arrest of Jewish men, the vandalization of homes, and the murder of individuals.
Non-Jewish Targets of Persecution

A Nazi propaganda poster against the disabled. (Grafeneck Euthanasia Museum/Flickr)
Although Jews were the main target of Nazi hatred, the Nazis persecuted other groups they viewed as racially or genetically “inferior.” Nazi racial ideology was buttressed by scientists who advocated “selective breeding” (eugenics) to “improve” the human race. Laws passed between 1933 and 1935 aimed to reduce the future number of genetic “inferiors” through involuntary sterilization programs: 320,000 to 350,000 individuals judged physically or mentally handicapped were subjected to surgical or radiation procedures so they could not have children. Supporters of sterilization also argued that the handicapped burdened the community with the costs of their care. Many of Germany’s 30,000 Roma (Gypsies) were also eventually sterilized and prohibited, along with Blacks, from intermarrying with Germans. About 500 children of mixed African-German backgrounds were also sterilized. New laws combined traditional prejudices with the racism of the Nazis, which defined Roma by “race” and as “criminal and asocial.”

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/1933-1939-early-stages-of-persecution/

Once again, you are obsessed about what others think. For a start, nobody else but you and I have posted in this thread, so I assume they're not interested. Secondly, what are they going to do if they disagree with me? Roll their eyes? That will surely ruin my life - not. Laughing

How about you put your own views instead of spamming the thread with quotes from others. Let's hear your own thoughts.

I'm glad you highlighted the number of Jews living in Germany at the time. As you know, the number of Jews living in the areas which the nazis invaded was vastly greater - hence the policy of encouraging them to leave was no longer practical or feasible for Hitler.

You appear to be implying that I'm claiming that Hitler liked Jews and was being kind to them. I've never claimed that, as you well know.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:25 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Its pointless trying to educated someone so ignorant on history.

You have made yourself redundant in this debate Rags by again ignoring the facts. Claiming Jews whether zionists or not facing persecution, are being supported by having their wealth exploited to leave the country. Its shocking that you consider that support. Its sheer babble.

I have said enough to show to everyone else to make up their minds and see for themselves how ridiculous you and Ken are on a topic you both know very little about.

Now some history for the forum for life for the Jews in Germany in the 1930's

Once again, you are obsessed about what others think. For a start, nobody else but you and I have posted in this thread, so I assume they're not interested. Secondly, what are they going to do if they disagree with me? Roll their eyes? That will surely ruin my life - not.

How about you put your own views instead of spamming the thread with quotes from others. Let's hear your own thoughts.

I'm glad you highlighted the number of Jews living in Germany at the time. As you know, the number of Jews living in the areas which the nazis invaded was vastly greater - hence the policy of encouraging them to leave was no longer practical or feasible.

You appear to be implying that I'm claiming that Hitler liked Jews and was being kind to them. I've never claimed that, as you well know.

Just going to highlight the above, as being the worst apologist stance on Nazism, around the view point around Jews during the holocaust, so she cannot delete this.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:29 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Once again, you are obsessed about what others think. For a start, nobody else but you and I have posted in this thread, so I assume they're not interested. Secondly, what are they going to do if they disagree with me? Roll their eyes? That will surely ruin my life - not.

How about you put your own views instead of spamming the thread with quotes from others. Let's hear your own thoughts.

I'm glad you highlighted the number of Jews living in Germany at the time. As you know, the number of Jews living in the areas which the nazis invaded was vastly greater - hence the policy of encouraging them to leave was no longer practical or feasible.

You appear to be implying that I'm claiming that Hitler liked Jews and was being kind to them. I've never claimed that, as you well know.

Just going to highlight the above, as being the worst apologist stance on Nazism, around the view point around Jews during the holocaust, so she cannot delete this.

How is that apologist? It's merely a comment on the reasons that the nazis came up with another solution later.

We are of course talking about what happened before the war and before the mass murder of Jews in camps. Don't let facts get in the way of your spamming though.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:32 am

"No longer practical or feasible" Rags says.

Wow, talk about defending the murder of millions of people during the holocaust not only against the Jews, but the Roma, homosexuals etc.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:39 am

Thorin wrote:"No longer practical or feasible" Rags says.

Wow, talk about defending the murder of millions of people during the holocaust not only against the Jews, but the Roma, homosexuals etc.

Well it wasn't - for Hitler. We're talking about what Hitler supported or didn't support, right?

He could see that encouraging Jews to move to Palestine and other countries was a way to get rid of them from Germany, but what did he think when millions of Jews came under the control of the Nazis later on?

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:41 am

I've edited the post to make it clear what I meant - in the hope that you won't spend the next 6 months accusing me of being a Holocaust supporter. Wink

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:44 am

So now backtracking from her apologist defense of Nazism. Claiming Jews of which some were Zionists some were not is supporting Zionism, by exploiting rich Jews of their wealth.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:47 am

Thorin wrote:So now backtracking from her apologist defense of Nazism. Claiming Jews of which some were Zionists some were not is supporting Zionism, by exploiting rich Jews of their wealth.

I'm not backtracking, I'm merely clarifying what I meant because you have form for twisting what others say and introducing red herrings. That is exactly what you did re Ken - twisted his words and introduced irrelevant points.

The rest of your post is gibberish.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:47 am

Anyway, I am off out, all can read my views and make their own mind up on this.

Have a great day everyone

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:48 am

Thorin wrote:Anyway, I am off out, all can read my views and make their own mind up on this.

Have a great day everyone

Make up their mind about what? I doubt anyone here is reading it - reading pages and pages of your spamming, red herrings, and general idiocy isn't for everyone. Laughing

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:45 pm

The former mayor of London Ken Livingstone has defended his explosive claim that Adolf Hitler was ‘a Zionist’ by citing Lenni Brenner’s book Zionism in the Age of Dictators. According to Livingstone – now suspended from the UK Labour Party – ‘Lenni’s book shows a shared common belief between the Nazis and the Zionists … they wanted to preserve their ethnic purity and that’s why they had a working relationship.’ In this comprehensive critique Paul Bogdanor skewers Brenner’s many factual manipulations and pseudo-scholarship and explains why his work is a fixture of antizionist and antisemitic propaganda about the Holocaust on both the far left and on the far right, avidly followed by those convinced that ‘Zionists’ are to blame for all evil in the world.

In April 2016, Britain was rocked by scandals involving antisemitism in the opposition Labour Party. There were complaints that student members had been dismissing Jewish colleagues as ‘Zios’. Numerous party activists were suspended or expelled for offences such as stating that Jews had ‘big noses’, that Hitler was the ‘Zionist god’, that socialists had to address ‘the Jewish Question’, or that Jews were behind the slave trade and ISIS. A Member of Parliament was obliged to issue an apology after proposing the ‘transportation’ of millions of Israeli Jews to America.

Into this maelstrom stepped former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who denied the existence of any antisemitism in the party, and volunteered that Hitler ‘was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.’ For this, and for related comments, he too was suspended from the Labour Party.

To justify his claims, Livingstone invoked Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, a book published by Lenni Brenner in 1983. Livingstone had written in his memoirs that Brenner’s work ‘helped form my view of Zionism and its history’ (Livingstone 2011: 223). The book is a fixture of antizionist and antisemitic propaganda about the Holocaust on both the far left and on the far right, and Brenner has a cult following among those convinced that ‘Zionists’ are to blame for all evil in the world.

Lenni Brenner’s Background and Importance
Brenner was born to an Orthodox Jewish family in 1937. By his teenage years, he was an atheist and a Marxist. In the 1960s he was arrested repeatedly for his activities in the civil rights movement and for marijuana possession, ultimately spending several years in prison. An acquaintance from those years remembered him as ‘a non-student “Marxist agitator” who would stand near the Bancroft strip and rail about the Pope, the Bay of Pigs, and marijuana, indifferent to the fact that most passersby thought he was “certifiably crazy”’ (Berkleyan, 2004).

During the 1980s, Brenner worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist faction of the Palestinian Liberation Movement (PLO). Brenner himself is a Trotskyist. He is the author of an attack on the Democratic Party and a book on the American Founders’ views on church-state separation. But it is for his vitriolic assaults on Zionists and the American Jewish community that he is best known. These include Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, as well as The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism From Jabotinsky to Shamir, Jews in America Today, and 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis (Brenner 1983; Brenner 1984a; Brenner 1986; Brenner 2002a).

Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators sought to document his claims that Zionism is a reactionary ideology with many similarities to fascism and Nazism; that Zionists have always betrayed the Jewish masses, whose interests were, in reality, defended by the Bolsheviks and their legitimate heirs, the Trotskyists; and that during the 1930s and 1940s all branches of Zionism attempted to collaborate with the fascists and Nazis. According to Brenner, the Zionists were to blame for the collapse of the Weimar Republic; they supported Japanese imperial expansion in Asia; and – worst of all – they contributed to the Holocaust, which some of them welcomed as a step towards the creation of a reactionary and racist Jewish state in Palestine (Brenner 1983: 27-37, 183-6, 238, 263-4, 269). In his own words, by the time of the Holocaust, ‘Zionism had come full turn: instead of Zionism being the hope of the Jews, their blood was to be the political salvation of Zionism.’ (Brenner 1983: 238)
Brenner was not writing in a vacuum. For many years before the publication of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, the Soviet bloc had been waging an antisemitic campaign with the same themes. The Soviet propagandists were, however, far cruder. Whereas Brenner was content to pose questions – for example, ‘Who Helped Kill 450,000 Jews?’ (Brenner 1983: 263) – the Soviets gave explicit answers: the Zionists did. They spoke of ‘the true role of the Zionists in organising the mass destruction of Jews’ (IJA 1978: 69). ‘Together with the Nazis,’ they proclaimed, ‘the Zionists bear responsibility for the destruction of the Jews in 1941-45 in Europe. The blood of millions is on their hands and on their conscience.’ (IJA 1978: 69)
The myth of the Zionist-Nazi conspiracy to exterminate the Jews of Europe, as invented by the Soviets and as refashioned by Brenner, could become as dangerous as Holocaust denial. Whereas far-right deniers accuse Jews of inventing the Holocaust in order to discredit the Nazis, far-left falsifiers accuse a group of Jews of perpetrating the Holocaust in collaboration with the Nazis. If the far-leftists were correct, this group of Jews would be guilty of the most horrible crime ever committed. Given the inflammatory potential of the collaboration libel, it is essential to expose the pseudo-scholarly apparatus employed by its foremost living exponent.

Brenner’s Falsifications of History
A few of Brenner’s factual manipulations will be examined below. Clearly, it is impossible to do justice to any of these issues in the space available; each could be the subject of an entire volume. Still, the discussion will suffice to illustrate Brenner’s historical ‘method’ and Livingstone’s foolishness in relying on it.

(i) ‘Over-concern’ for the fate of Germany’s Jews
Interviewed on the BBC shortly after his initial outburst, Livingstone claimed that Hitler’s policy towards Jews in 1932 ‘was to deport them all to Israel’. He spoke of ‘private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this’ (Livingstone 2016a). In fact there was no Zionist-Nazi ‘dialogue’ in 1932; there was no deal to ‘deport’ Germany’s Jewish population; and there was no State of Israel until 1948.

Negotiations between the Labour Zionists and the Nazi regime began in 1933; at issue was the opportunity to help German Jews emigrate to Palestine without losing almost everything they had. Far from being ‘private’ and ‘confidential’, the resulting Transfer Agreement caused intense public controversy within the Zionist movement, as Brenner himself made clear (Brenner 1983: 64, 66-7). But, as Brenner was forced to concede, ‘Once Hitler had triumphed inside Germany, the position of the Jews was hopeless; all that was left for them was to go into exile and continue the fight from there.’ (Brenner 1983: 55)

The moral dilemma facing the Labour Zionists was whether to help German Jews leave with a fraction of their funds or to join a futile boycott of Germany, which meant abandoning Jews and their assets to the Nazis. The Labour Zionists may be dismissed as naive for entering these talks, but their motives were not unreasonable.
Brenner, of course, saw the Zionists as evil. His trump card in his attack on the Transfer Agreement was the fact that two-thirds of German Jews seeking Palestine certificates in the years between 1933 and 1935 were turned down (Brenner 1983: 145). However, as his source pointed out, Jewish Agency representatives were forced to reject these applications because of the British quota, which limited the number of immigration permits regardless of the plight of Diaspora Jews (Margaliot 1977: 253).

Brenner scorned as ‘capitalists’ the thousands of desperate human beings who were rescued thanks to the agreement (Brenner 1983: 65). In his opinion, it would have been better to forget about saving Germany’s Jewish population: ‘Every genuine opponent of Nazism understood that once Hitler had taken power and had German Jewry in his claws, the struggle against him could not possibly be curbed by an over-concern for their fate; they were essentially prisoners of war. The battle still had to go on. Naturally no one wished those unfortunates any more grief than necessary, but to have brought the campaign against Nazism to a standstill out of concern for the German Jews would only have accelerated Hitler’s further march into Europe.’ (Brenner 1983: 76)

To Brenner, the Labour Zionists of the 1930s, who disagreed with his pronouncement made from the comfort of post-war America, were guilty of ‘boycott-scabbing and outright collaboration’ with Hitler (Brenner 1983: 65).

(ii) Zionists who ‘agreed’ with Nazi ideology
According to Brenner, ‘the German Zionists agreed with two fundamental elements in Nazi ideology,’ namely ‘that the Jews would never be part of the German volk and, therefore, they did not belong on German soil’. This being the case, ‘it was inevitable that some Zionists would believe an accommodation possible.’ (Brenner 1983: 35)

To substantiate these assertions, he invoked the historian Stephen Poppel, who in fact wrote the exact opposite on the very page he cited. In Poppel’s words, even though there was a split in German Zionist opinion between those who believed in the existence of ‘moderate elements’ in the Nazi Party and those who did not, ‘Zionists were unanimous in condemning Nazi brutality and racism.’ (Poppel 1976: 161)
Poppel proceeded to quote from an official declaration of the German Zionist Federation (ZVfD) in September 1932. The declaration stated in part: ‘Zionism condemns a nationalism whose foundations include the conviction of the inferiority of other national groups. Against this nationalism, which would use the power of the state to deny freedom and the possibility of existence to men who happen to be of a different sort or a different opinion, Zionism… sets… the true national idea: constructive effort and the development of the creative energies of a nation, not a battle of different groups of men against one another… we demand the protection of full equality and freedom, and of the development of our own nature.’ (Poppel 1976: 161-2)
This disposed of Brenner’s fiction about Zionists agreeing with Nazis ‘that the Jews would never be part of the German volk and, therefore, they did not belong on German soil’. Brenner’s fantasy, to repeat, was rejected by the very scholar he cited, and the evidence against it was available on the very page from which he quoted.
(iii) ‘Favoured children’ of the Nazis
Brenner attacked the German Zionists of the 1930s as ‘mimics of the Nazis’, ‘confirmed racists’, and ‘the ideological jackals of Nazism’ (Brenner 1983: 52, 55). One of the documents he used to establish this was an article by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, published in 1937 after his escape from the Third Reich. Brenner’s quotations from Prinz included these lines: ‘Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal!’ (Brenner 1983: 47) The passage appeared to suggest a belief on the part of Prinz that Zionists and Nazis had common goals. But Brenner ignored what Prinz wrote next about the real aims of the Zionists: ‘We believed in the slim possibility of saving the German Jews…’ In contrast, the Nazi government’s ‘only attitude toward Jews was one of humiliation, degradation, and the spirit of the Sturmer….’ (Prinz 1937). So, Prinz expressly denied the existence of any common objectives.
Brenner failed to mention this. But later in his book he did not neglect to quote an apparently damning confession by Prinz: the German Zionists appeared to be ‘considered as the favoured children of the Nazi Government’, which ‘asked for a “more Zionist behaviour”’ from Germany’s Jewish community (Prinz 1937). In Brenner’s view, these lines showed that ‘The Nazis preferred the Zionists to all other Jews.’ (Brenner 1983: 88) Yet immediately after the words in question, Prinz went on to say: ‘But the Nazi attitude toward the Zionists was only a façade. In reality, the Zionists were and are miserably treated… During the years, Zionists have frequently been arrested. Zionist meetings were forbidden or dissolved… Zionist officials were and still are frequently called to the Gestapo and examined in not very polite terms. In brief, the seeming pro-Zionist attitude of the German Government is not an expression of, and should not be confused with, cooperation on the part of one side or the other.’ (Prinz 1937) None of this was divulged in Brenner’s book. By selective quotation, Brenner simply reversed the meaning of his source.

(iv) The Haganah’s ‘offer to spy for the SS’
Brenner accused the Zionists of offering espionage services to the Third Reich before World War II. In his version of events, ‘A Haganah agent, Feivel Polkes’ reached Berlin in February 1937 and opened negotiations with Adolf Eichmann; the meetings were recorded by the SS; and Polkes invited Eichmann to visit Palestine (Brenner 1983: 93-4, 98-9). As Brenner put it, ‘Polkes had proposed that the Haganah act as spies for the Nazis’, and ‘The Labour Zionists were receiving Adolf Eichmann as their guest in Palestine and offering to spy for the SS.’ (Brenner 1983: 99, 176)

According to Brenner, the SS report on the meetings proved that Polkes was acting on behalf of the Haganah when he offered to act as an informer. A review of the report – later republished by Brenner himself – exposes this claim as a falsehood. The SS report included some highly relevant details: ‘In the beginning, [Polkes] didn’t know that he was dealing with a [Nazi] Security Service agent… He stated that he is ready to serve Germany and supply information as long as this does not oppose his political goal… His standing promises that important information and material will reach us regarding world Jewry’s plans.’ (SS 1937: 113-14)

Clearly, Polkes could not have been sent by the Haganah to contact the Nazis, as he did not at first know that he was in contact with the Nazis. And, as the report makes clear, Polkes was offering to become a Nazi spy against his fellow Jews, not for the Haganah.
As is now known, the Polkes-Eichmann meetings were fiercely denounced within the Haganah when they came to light; Polkes was removed from all positions within the group; and nothing of significance ever emerged from the encounters (Nicosia 2008: 126). But the relevant point here is this: Brenner’s claims about the Haganah offering to spy for the Nazis and inviting Eichmann to visit Palestine were false, as shown by the very document he was citing.

(v) Lehi’s ‘collusion with the Fascists and the Nazis’
Brenner devoted a chapter to the 1941 offer to the Nazis by Avraham Stern’s Lehi. Stern proposed to join the war on Germany’s side in return for the release of all Jews from Nazi Europe and their emigration to a Jewish state.

Three points must be kept in mind. First, Lehi was – at the time of this proposal – a minuscule fringe group of no more than a few dozen members, reviled and hunted by the larger Zionist groups in Palestine. Second, no reply ever came from the Nazis, so there was never any actual collaboration. Third – and most important – at the time of the proposal, Stern believed that Hitler’s intention was to deport Europe’s Jews to Madagascar; he knew nothing of any Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews (Heller 1995: 317n46).

Brenner’s reaction to Stern’s offer was predictable: ‘There can be no better proof than this,’ he concluded, ‘that the heritage of Zionist collusion with the Fascists and the Nazis, and the philosophies underlying it, carries through to contemporary Israel’ (Brenner 1983: 269). He quoted from a broadcast made by Lehi in defence of its policies. That broadcast distinguished ‘persecutors’ from ‘enemies’, arguing that whereas the Nazis were persecutors, Britain was the real enemy (Brenner 1983: 266).

What Brenner did not tell his readers is that the broadcast did not advocate collaboration with the Nazis. On the contrary, the broadcast argued against joining British forces overseas because Jewish youth were needed in Palestine ‘to guard our brethren here from the Arab terrorists that are awaiting Hitler’s victory, as well as the persecutor himself should he invade and set up an oppressive regime’ (Sicker 1972: 32-3). Far from offering to fight for the Nazis, the Lehi broadcast promised to fight against them. Brenner did not mention this. Nor did he reveal that, according to the article he was quoting, Lehi’s views on the war were anathema to everyone else in the Zionist movement; all of the other Zionist groups wanted to join the anti-Nazi struggle. The official Jewish leadership in Palestine, stated Brenner’s source, ‘fought vigorously for maximum mobilization of Palestinian Jews into the British forces’ (Sicker 1972: 33). Brenner did not mention that either: it would have disproved his narrative of Zionist-Nazi collusion.

(vi) Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust
David Ben-Gurion’s role in rescue efforts during the Holocaust has been much debated. Brenner’s summary of the issue was a masterpiece of deceptive phrasing: ‘Ben-Gurion talked of “requests” that the Allies should threaten retribution and try and rescue Jews, particularly children, or exchange Germans for Jews, etc. In the same breath, he continued to call for concentration on building support for the Jewish Army proposal. The Jewish Agency just soldiered on; no special effort was made for the rescue operation.’ (Brenner 1983: 232-3)

Brenner insinuated that Ben-Gurion was vague and non-committal about his rescue ideas, and that his demand for a Jewish army was somehow inconsistent with them. Turning to Brenner’s source, we find Ben-Gurion’s actual words quoted as follows: ‘We must limit ourselves to focusing on a few issues which can be adapted to demands for the Jewish people as a whole, and to gaining for them the support of the enlightened world. They are: (a) cessation of the slaughter and rescue of the Jews; (b) enabling the Jewish people to fight as Jews against Hitler. It is also our duty to request that the Allies threaten the Nazis with individual and collective retribution for massacres of Jews. We must try to increase the scope of exchanges [of German exiles for Jews]… We must particularly stress the rescue of children, but we ought not to be satisfied with children alone: every Jew who can possibly be rescued must be saved.’
Thus, Ben-Gurion spoke of ‘demands’, not ‘requests’, as Brenner would have it, and his genuine concern for rescue is apparent. As for the proposal for a Jewish army, Ben-Gurion had this to say: ‘There are hosts of stateless Jews, and there are also Jews in neutral countries. We must ask permission for them to fight as a Jewish army against Hitler, in addition to the Jewish army in Eretz Yisrael, whose task is mainly to defend the country.’ (Gelber 1979: 195-6)
So, Ben-Gurion’s call for a Jewish army was not a distraction from rescue, as Brenner implied; instead, it was integral to the Zionist support for the Allied war against Nazi Germany. This is itself sufficient to refute the central claim of Brenner’s book about the Zionist movement’s ‘collaboration’ with the Third Reich.

(vii) The Gruenbaum Speech
The head of the Jewish Agency’s official rescue committee in Palestine during the Holocaust was Yitzhak Gruenbaum. He is remembered both for rejecting Zionist demands to use Zionist funds for rescue operations, and, conversely, for being one of the first to call on the Allies to bomb Auschwitz.

Gruenbaum’s speech to the Zionist Executive in early 1943 is often quoted in antizionist propaganda relating to the Holocaust. His remarks included the lines: ‘We have to stand before this wave that is putting Zionist activity into the second row… we do not give priority to rescue actions… Zionism is above all – it is necessary to sound this whenever a Holocaust diverts us from our war of liberation in Zionism.’ Even though Gruenbaum added that no opportunity for rescue would be missed, his words were – and still are – the target of much criticism. Brenner, naturally, reproduced the speech at length (Brenner 1983: 233-5). But he did not tell his readers about the Zionist reaction to Gruenbaum’s remarks, as related by one of his own sources: out of fourteen members of the Zionist Executive who spoke after Gruenbaum, only one backed him, while eleven rejected his views (Beit-Zvi 1991: 130). Gruenbaum’s Zionist colleagues overwhelmingly opposed his doctrine of the priority of Zionism over rescue efforts; several of them disputed his pessimistic views of the prospects for rescue; none of them agreed with his refusal to release Zionist funds for rescue operations; and almost all insisted that Gruenbaum renounce his other tasks and devote himself exclusively to rescue planning (Beit-Zvi 1991: 130-5). Brenner recounted none of this. He was content to print Gruenbaum’s speech, but not the hostile Zionist replies to it.

(viii) ‘Zionist’ Collaborators in Nazi Europe
Brenner’s attempts to incriminate Zionism included an examination of Jewish leaders in Nazi-occupied Europe. Brenner maintained that the Nazi-imposed Jewish Councils (Judenräte) in the Polish ghettos were led by Zionists: ‘Upon their arrival in Warsaw the Germans found Adam Czerniakow, a Zionist and President of the Association of Jewish Artisans, as the head of the rump of the Jewish community organisation and they ordered him to set up a Judenrat(Jewish Council). In Lodz, Poland’s second city, Chaim Rumkowski, also a minor Zionist politician, was similarly designated.’ (Brenner 1983: 203-4)

Brenner was forced to admit that these individuals were never official representatives of Zionism, and he was forced to concede that the Jewish Councils did not invariably collaborate. Regardless, he insisted that the Nazis preferred to deal with Zionists, who could be trusted to betray the Jewish masses (Brenner 1983: 204-5).
Contrary to Brenner’s claims, neither Czerniakow nor Rumkowski belonged to the Zionist movement at the time of their appointment by the Nazis. Czerniakow, according to Holocaust historian Israel Gutman, ‘was not a member of a Jewish party, nor did he identify with any of the dominant political or socioreligious movements, although at a certain stage he sided with the minority bloc and moved nearer the non-Zionists within the Jewish Agency’ (Gutman 1998: 54). Rumkowski had actually been expelled from the Zionist movement for refusing to vote with party colleagues (Marrus 1989: 311). Brenner suppressed this fact. Furthermore, in early 1941, the Zionist parties in the Lodz Ghetto formed a coalition against Rumkowski (Katz 1970: 63). Brenner withheld this crucial fact from his readers.

(ix) The Slovakia and Europa Plans
The Nazi drive against the Jews of Slovakia commenced in early 1942. An attempt to halt this campaign was made by the Slovak Jewish ‘Working Group’ led by Rabbi Michael Weissmandel (an anti-Zionist), and his relative, Gisi Fleischmann (a Zionist). The Working Group tried to bribe the Nazis.

In the first stage of the negotiations, the Working Group approached Dieter Wisliceny, the SS officer handling the liquidation of Slovakia’s Jews, offering money to stop deportations from the country. This was known as the Slovakia Plan. In the second stage, wrongly believing that its bribe had saved Slovakia’s Jews, the Working Group offered the Nazis two million dollars to stop the Final Solution throughout Europe. This was named the Europa Plan. Weissmandel was unable to raise the required funds from his Jewish contacts abroad. Both during and after the War, he blamed world Jewry, and specifically the Zionists, for ruining his attempt to end the Holocaust.

Brenner twisted the facts in two ways (Brenner 1983: 235- Cool

. First, he endorsed Weissmandel’s claim that here was a genuine opportunity for rescue. The consensus of historians is that there was no such opportunity: the cessation of the deportations from Slovakia had nothing to do with the bribe to Wisliceny, who was actually pressing for their completion; and the Nazis never intended to halt the Final Solution in line with the Europa Plan (Rothkirchen 1984; Aronson 2004: 170-80). Second, Brenner quoted Weissmandel’s version of a letter supposedly received from Nathan Schwalb, a Zionist rescue activist in Switzerland, who was alleged to have written: ‘Only with [Jewish] blood shall we get the land [of Israel].’ No copy of this letter has ever been found in any archive. Even if such a letter was sent, it surely did not have the sinister connotations given to it by Weissmandel and Brenner. According to Shlomo Aronson, one of the few historians who does not deny its authenticity, Schwalb ‘tried his best to give some future meaning to the deaths of those who could no longer be saved in his correspondence with Weissmandel by making them martyrs’ (Aronson 2004: 177).

(x) The Brand Mission
In March 1944, the Nazis occupied Hungary. With the collusion of a puppet regime, Adolf Eichmann and his SS officers rounded up all the Jews outside Budapest and imprisoned them in ghettos.
Shortly before he began the mass deportations of Hungarian Jews, Eichmann summoned Joel Brand, a leading figure in the Jewish Agency’s rescue committee in Budapest, and made the following proposal: the Nazis would release one million Jews from Europe in exchange for goods from the West, including trucks to be used against the Soviets. Brand was sent to Turkey to pass this ‘Goods For Blood’ offer to the Jewish Agency and Western governments. But his mission failed: British authorities arrested him, refused to entertain Eichmann’s offer, and later publicly rejected it. Meanwhile Eichmann deported over 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz.
After the war, Brand accused both the Jewish Agency and the British of sabotaging his mission. Brenner quoted from Brand’s sensationalised memoirs at length, exploiting them to incriminate Zionist leaders for blocking the rescue of European Jews. As Brenner explained: ‘Brand never had any illusions that the Eichmann proposition would be accepted by the Western Allies… Brand hoped that it would be possible to negotiate for more realistic arrangements or, at least, to decoy the Nazis into thinking that a deal could be made. Possibly the extermination programme would be slowed down or even suspended while an accord was being worked out.’ (Brenner 1983: 254)

What Brenner did not disclose was Brand’s subsequent admission that his hopes had been illusory and his mission a blunder. Shortly before his death, Brand testified in a German courtroom: ‘I made a terrible mistake in passing this on to the British. It is now clear to me that Himmler sought to sow suspicion among the Allies as a preparation for his much-desired Nazi-Western coalition against Moscow.’ (NYT 1964)

Brenner should have been aware of Brand’s confession, which discredits the notion that Eichmann’s offer represented an opportunity to save lives. Indeed, had Brand’s mission ‘succeeded’ – as Brenner wished in retrospect – precious time would have been squandered in doomed negotiations with the Nazis while the deportations continued, and nothing would have remained of Hungary’s Jewish population by the end of July 1944.

(xi) The Kasztner Trial
When Joel Brand left on his mission to Turkey, his colleague Rezső Kasztner remained behind in Budapest and conducted further talks with the Nazis. The result of these contacts was the departure of a trainload of 1,684 Jews, including several of Kasztner’s relatives and friends, to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp – the passengers were ultimately released to Switzerland. Kasztner was later accused by Holocaust survivors and others of collaborating with the Nazis. The accusations culminated in a famous libel trial in Israel in 1954, in which the judge concluded that Kasztner had ‘sold his soul to the Devil’. This verdict was partially reversed by Israel’s Supreme Court, but not before Kasztner had been killed by right-wing extremists.
The question of Kasztner’s personal innocence or guilt need not concern us here. Even Brenner conceded that ‘No movement is responsible for its renegades.’ (Brenner 1983: 263) What is relevant is Brenner’s manipulation of the facts to indict Zionists collectively for criminal complicity in the mass murder of Hungary’s Jews. To this end, Brenner relied partly on a post-war interview with Eichmann – a transparently worthless source – and partly on the verdict in the Kasztner Trial. He quoted the judge as stating that Kasztner considered his actions ‘a great personal success and a success for Zionism’ (Brenner 1983: 261). In Brenner’s eyes, the Kasztner affair exposed ‘the working philosophy of the World Zionist Organisation throughout the entire Nazi era: the sanctification of the betrayal of the many in the interest of a selected immigration to Palestine’ (Brenner 1983: 263-4).
However, the trial judge, Benjamin Halevi, stated the exact opposite in his verdict, where he referred to repeated efforts by Zionists inside and outside Hungary to prevent the extermination of the Hungarian Jewish masses. For example: ‘Calls from leaders of the Yishuv (Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Moshe Shertok, Yitzhak Gruenbaum) for self-defence and resistance by Diaspora Jews were sent to the rescue committee in Budapest. After the Nazi occupation, the [Zionist] pioneer movements established their own “headquarters” in Budapest and organised information, escape and bunker actions as well as preparations for resistance.’ (Halevi 1955: section 33) Halevi also noted: ‘Experience had taught the Nazis that everywhere the Zionists were the “activist” element in the Jewish population and were able to supply the leadership for resistance and anti-Nazi operations.’ (Halevi 1955: section 34)

In short, whatever Kasztner’s personal role may have been, the Zionist movement opposed the Nazis and tried to save Jews from the Holocaust. Since Halevi’s real findings sharply contradicted the conclusion that Brenner wanted to foist on his readers, Brenner simply omitted them.

(xii) The Zionist Paratroopers
Brenner used other misleading tactics to conceal the Zionist rescue efforts in Hungary. He referred to the three paratroopers from Palestine, Hannah Szenes, Joel Palgi, and Peretz Goldstein, who arrived in Budapest during the Nazi occupation hoping to organise Jewish resistance. Szenes was captured, tortured, and executed; Palgi and Goldstein were persuaded by Kasztner to turn themselves in. Through deceptive phrasing, Brenner implied that the paratroopers were sent by the British alone (Brenner 1983: 260-1). In fact the British army sent them at the instigation of the Jewish Agency in Palestine, and it was these Zionist leaders who wanted to arrange Jewish resistance to the Nazis in Hungary. As Judge Halevi explained: ‘In early 1944 [the paratroopers] volunteered under the aegis of the British army… to undertake a dual mission. The British military mission was to smuggle POWs and send intelligence out of Hungary. The Jewish Agency mission was to organise Hungarian Jews for self-defence against the Nazi destroyer and to assist the underground rescue of Jews.’ (Halevi 1955: section 82)
Here, again, Brenner manipulated facts to lead readers to his desired conclusion – that Zionists opposed resistance to the Nazis – which was the reverse of the truth.

The paratroopers’ mission failed, but other Zionist rescue efforts in Hungary succeeded. Moshe Krausz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Palestine Office in Budapest, smuggled to the free world an eye-witness report by two Auschwitz escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler. The resulting outcry led to international pressure on the Hungarian regime, which reacted by ending the mass deportations to the death camp. Krausz also had the idea of creating diplomatic safety passes for Jews in the capital; these were distributed to scores of thousands of people by Zionist activists. And Otto Komoly, president of Hungary’s Zionist Federation, rescued several thousand Jewish children from the fascist terror.

How did Brenner explain these inconvenient facts? He did not even try. He made no reference to them, consigning them to an Orwellian memory hole.

Brenner’s Writings in Antisemitic Propaganda
Brenner’s motive for writing Zionism in the Age of the Dictators is not hard to fathom. Antisemitic remarks litter his writings. ‘The Jews’, he claimed at one point, ‘were powerful in the emporiums of the world, particularly in two of Germany’s biggest markets – Eastern Europe and America’ (Brenner 1983: 57). In his next book, Brenner commented, ‘Karl Marx was only being matter-of-fact when he remarked that “the Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races,”’ before dismissing Zionism as nothing but ‘a Shylock operation’ (Brenner 1984a: 11, 38). Soon afterwards he authored a savage attack on the American Jewish community, which he denounced as a ‘pillar of capitalism’ (Brenner 1986: 61). Brenner catalogued the wealthiest Jews in the United States, condemning them as parasites, slum landlords, racketeers, tax evaders, and so on. He vilified Orthodox Jews as male chauvinists and Reform Jews as tribalists and racists (Brenner 1986: 65ff, 292, 314). He concluded: ‘Their “prophetic heritage,” their “passion for secular justice,” their “contribution to world culture” is just so much wood on the tribal totem pole… The belief that American Jewry, in its majority, will play a progressive role in the future is racist and utopian.’ (Brenner 1986: 358)

To a British interviewer he declared: ‘I am for the Palestinians. I don’t care if they scalp the Israelis. On the other hand I might say “Stop scalping the Israelis”.’ (Brenner 1984b)

The Soviet regime, whose antisemitic incitement paved the way for Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, was grateful for Brenner’s efforts. A rave review appeared in Izvestiya, one of the main organs of the Soviet press. The review included the lines: ‘During the world war, Brenner points out, Zionism showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews.’ Brenner detected ‘nothing improper’ in this review (Brenner 1986: 172).
The racist far right also admired Brenner’s book. To the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) – America’s major Holocaust-denial outfit – the book was an ‘astounding, bombshell exposé’. The IHR did not hesitate to market the book to its supporters (Brenner 1986: 180). These neo-Nazis promote Brenner’s book, despite his loathing for them, because his ‘findings’ serve their interests. If they cannot convince people that the Holocaust was fabricated by the Jews, their second option is to argue that it was perpetrated in league with Jews, or a group of Jews. Either way, guilt for Hitler’s genocide is transferred to the victims. In addition, the extreme Right welcomes extreme left-wing ‘antizionist’ propaganda such as Brenner’s book because, in fomenting hated of ‘Zionists’, it stigmatises the majority of Jews alive today.
Aside from admirers of Stalin and Hitler, Brenner’s book inspired a British Trotskyist to pen his own antisemitic work. Jim Allen’s play Perdition caused uproar when an attempt was made to stage it at London’s Royal Court Theatre in January 1987. Allen characterised his play in these terms: ‘Without any undue humility I’m saying that this is the most lethal attack on Zionism ever written, because it touches the heart of the most abiding myth of modern history, the Holocaust. Because it says quite plainly that privileged Jewish leaders collaborated in the extermination of their own kind in order to help bring about a Zionist state, Israel, a state which is itself racist.’ (Allen 1987)

Allen described Brenner’s work as a ‘goldmine source’ (Rose 1987). Brenner, in turn, travelled to Britain to defend the play and his own historical claims on television. The play is periodically revived by extreme antizionist groups in Britain.
Now comes Ken Livingstone with his contention that Hitler was a Zionist. The British politician has been mesmerised by Brenner’s book for decades. Asked why he found it so compelling, he replied: ‘Lenni’s book shows a shared common belief between the Nazis and the Zionists in preserving their race from interracial marriage and things like that. They wanted to preserve their ethnic purity and that’s why they had a working relationship.’ (Livingstone 2016b)
Thus, Jewish nationalism and Nazism are cast as ideological soulmates. The equation of victim and perpetrator could not be clearer. Livingstone energetically denied being an antisemite.
The Livingstone scandal is only the latest – but surely not the last – chapter in the story of Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. As long as fanatical antisemites are prepared to debase the memory of the Holocaust in pursuit of their ideological goals, we can expect to encounter the hideous libel of the Zionist-Nazi conspiracy to murder the Six Million.

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

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:51 pm

I thought this was a good article:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/could-we-have-stopped-hitler

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:01 am

Re the business of the flag, Ken is certainly right about that - the Nazis did make a law that only the German or Zionist/Jewish flag could be flown. Bauer dismisses that on the grounds that Jews wouldn't fly the Jewish flag anyway, so it was immaterial. He has a point, although I can't find any info as to whether the flag was actually flown.

The question is - why did Hitler allow the Zionist flag at all? It's not a mystery as to why he didn't want Jews flying the German flag - he didn't consider them to be German - but why allow them to fly any flag at all?

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:12 am

So Rags backs the view that German Jews were not German, based on having separate Flags. Thus deeming German Jews as alien in Nazis Germany. It was not a Zionist flag, but Jewish. Also the law did not stop anyone else flying any other Flags and as seen below the law was specific to German Jews. Basically deeming them as inferior. There is no law against Non-Jews flying any flag they want.

So the question is easy to understand unless of course you are a Nazi apologist

You cannot make it up how further Rags digs a hole for herself on this.

Paragraph 4 in "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour", part of the infamous Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, states that 1. "Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the [German] national colours. 2. On the other hand, they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State." Paragraph 5.3 described the penalty for infringing "1": up to one year's imprisonment plus fine, or one of these.[31] The "Jewish colours" referred to in this article were blue and white.[32]

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2686688521

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:21 am

Thorin wrote:So Rags backs the view that German Jews were not German, based on having separate Flags. Thus deeming German Jews as alien in Nazis Germany. It was not a Zionist flag, but Jewish. Also the law did not stop anyone else flying any other Flags and as seen below the law was specific to German Jews. Basically deeming them as inferior. There is no law against Non-Jews flying any flag they want.

So the question is easy to understand unless of course you are a Nazi apologist

You cannot make it up how further Rags digs a hole for herself on this.

Paragraph 4 in "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour", part of the infamous Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, states that 1. "Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the [German] national colours. 2. On the other hand, they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State." Paragraph 5.3 described the penalty for infringing "1": up to one year's imprisonment plus fine, or one of these.[31] The "Jewish colours" referred to in this article were blue and white.[32]

I didn't say that German Jews were not German - Hitler did.

The question was - why did Hitler allow the Zionist/Jewish flag at all?

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:24 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:So Rags backs the view that German Jews were not German, based on having separate Flags. Thus deeming German Jews as alien in Nazis Germany. It was not a Zionist flag, but Jewish. Also the law did not stop anyone else flying any other Flags and as seen below the law was specific to German Jews. Basically deeming them as inferior. There is no law against Non-Jews flying any flag they want.

So the question is easy to understand unless of course you are a Nazi apologist

You cannot make it up how further Rags digs a hole for herself on this.

Paragraph 4 in "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour", part of the infamous Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, states that 1. "Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the [German] national colours. 2. On the other hand, they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State." Paragraph 5.3 described the penalty for infringing "1": up to one year's imprisonment plus fine, or one of these.[31] The "Jewish colours" referred to in this article were blue and white.[32]

I didn't say that German Jews were not German - Hitler did.

The question was - why did Hitler allow the Zionist/Jewish flag at all?

So as seen it was a Jewish flag and was allowed to enable showing to the German populace, that Jews were aliens in German. You need to show separation to have Jews cast as aliens, by having a separate Jewish Flag, not Zionist

Doh

So another fine example of hate of Ken, thinking Jews were privileged by this, when in fact its purpose was to cast Jews as inferior and aliens in Germany.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:27 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say that German Jews were not German - Hitler did.

The question was - why did Hitler allow the Zionist/Jewish flag at all?

So as seen it was a Jewish flag and was allowed to enable showing to the German populace, that Jews were aliens in German. You need to show separation to have Jews cast as aliens, by having a separate Jewish Flag, not Zionist

Doh

So another fine example of hate of Ken, thinking Jews were privileged by this, when in fact its purpose was to cast Jews as inferior and aliens in Germany.

Ken didn't say that Jews were privileged by being allowed to fly the Zionist/Jewish flag. scratch

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So as seen it was a Jewish flag and was allowed to enable showing to the German populace, that Jews were aliens in German. You need to show separation to have Jews cast as aliens, by having a separate Jewish Flag, not Zionist

Doh

So another fine example of hate of Ken, thinking Jews were privileged by this, when in fact its purpose was to cast Jews as inferior and aliens in Germany.

Ken didn't say that Jews were privileged by being allowed to fly the Zionist/Jewish flag.

He certainly implied it based off his views learnt from Brenner.

His main source in all this, who has been rightly refuted based on his shoddy works that are antisemitic, as i already posted.

So you tell me, what was the purpose of him bringing this up in defense of Shah and her view to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel?

Was it not trying to deligitimize Jews and Israel?

Take your time

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:34 am

Any posts which include the words "take your time" will be ignored, as will any post which includes any kind of insult, or the childish digging smiley.

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Any posts which include the words "take your time" will be ignored, as will any post which includes any kind of insult, or the childish digging smiley.

Who cares, jog on then

I have no time for immature brats like you

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:38 am

I also knew you would offer up yet again another pathetic excuse to attempt to get out of answering damning questions, that expose Ken for what he is. A vile nasty anitisemite

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:42 am

Attempting to defend his recent outbursts, Ken Livingstone has invoked Lenni Brenner’s book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Livingstone explains:

The shocking thing about his book was that he revealed that not only Hitler had wanted to move all of Germany’s Jews to Israel, but that the Zionist leadership continued a dialogue privately with Hitler from ’33 when he became Chancellor from [sic] 1940-41…
Lenni’s book shows a shared common belief between the Nazis and the Zionists in preserving their race from interracial marriage and things like that.
They wanted to preserve their ethnic purity and that’s why they had a working relationship.

Here is a typical statement from Brenner’s book about the “collaboration” between Zionists and Nazis in Germany:

Believing that the ideological similarities between the two movements – their contempt for liberalism, their common volkish racism and, of course, their mutual conviction that Germany could never be the homeland of its Jews – could induce the Nazis to support them, the ZVfD [Zionist Federation of Germany] solicited the patronage of Adolf Hitler, not once but repeatedly, after 1933. [1]

Brenner described the German Zionists as “mimics of the Nazis” and “confirmed racists.” [2]
One of the documents he used to “prove” as much was an article by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist, published in 1937 after his escape from the Third Reich.
Brenner quoted these lines from Prinz [3]:

Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealings with the Nazi government. We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which – after the riots and atrocities of the revolution had passed – the new status of German Jewry could be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal! … In a statement notable for its pride and dignity, we called for a conference [here Brenner placed a full stop, omitting the following words:] to consider the question of the Jewish status. [4]

Read in isolation, the passage can be used by Brenner to suggest a belief on the part of Prinz that Zionists and Nazis were ideological soulmates and should therefore collaborate.
But Brenner failed to mention what Prinz wrote next:

In those days, we believed in the slim possibility of saving the German Jews, but nothing happened. Nothing! We were not even given an answer. [5]

Prinz added:

When we realised that the German Government never intended to solve the Jewish problem, and that its only attitude toward Jews was one of humiliation, degradation, and the spirit of the Sturmer, we turned our thoughts in the direction of saving whatever possible from the enormous bankruptcy of a once wealthy Jewry. That meant constructive tasks. [6]

Brenner omitted all of this. But later in his book he did not neglect to quote an apparently damning confession by Prinz:

It was very difficult for the Zionists to operate. It was morally disturbing to seem to be considered as the favoured children of the Nazi Government, particularly when it dissolved the anti-Zionist youth groups, and seemed in other ways to prefer the Zionists. The Nazis asked for a “more Zionist behaviour.” [7]

Again, read in isolation, the passage seems to support Brenner’s claims. In Brenner’s account, these lines show that “the Nazis preferred the Zionists to all other Jews.” [8]
But immediately after the words in question, Prinz went on to say:

All this was most disagreeable and painful to the Zionists. But the Nazi attitude toward the Zionists was only a facade. In reality, the Zionists were and are miserably treated.

Prinz continued:

During the years, Zionists have frequently been arrested. Zionist meetings were forbidden or dissolved… Zionist officials were and still are frequently called to the Gestapo and examined in not very polite terms. In brief, the seeming pro-Zionist attitude of the German Government is not an expression of, and should not be confused with, cooperation on the part of one side or the other. [9]

None of this was mentioned in Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. As Gill Seidel pointed out in her important study of antisemitism and Holocaust denial:

Brenner does not quote this part of Prinz’s article which makes a case against any charge of “collaboration.” Brenner refers to the same source, but by selective quotation interprets it in such a way as to convey the opposite meaning. [10]

Such are the methods of the author who is presented by Ken Livingstone as the fountainhead of knowledge on the Nazi treatment of Zionists.
Years later, Brenner was even foolhardy enough to put together another book, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, in which the article whose meaning he falsified in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators is reproduced in full, so that interested readers can easily confirm his dishonesty for themselves.
Does Lenni Brenner’s modus operandi differ at all from the tactics of countless other malevolent cranks who mutilate the historical record to promote their sinister political ideologies?
Does Ken Livingstone – with his poisonous rhetoric about Hitler, Zionists, and their “shared common belief” in “ethnic purity” – know or care?

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/01/ken-livingstone-lenni-brenner-and-falsified-evidence/

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:44 am

Ken Livingstone thinks that Lenni Brenner, an American Trotskyist, is the definitive source on everything to do with Zionism. He has believed this for decades. And in all that time, it never occurred to Livingstone to check Brenner’s “facts” and sources.
Below is an example of Brenner’s methods as a “historian.” Reproduced is a passage from Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, the Bible of Livingstone’s anti-Zionism.
Almost every factual statement in the quoted passage is false or misleading.
The heading under which this passage appears is “The Zionist Alliance With Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe” [1]. As an example of this “alliance,” Brenner refers to Simon Petliura’s Ukrainian secessionist government, the Rada, which was set up during the Russian Civil War.
Here is the passage:

The local Zionist leadership was therefore forced to turn to the nationalists as possible allies. In the Ukraine that meant Simon Petliura’s Rada (Council), which, like the Zionists, recruited on strictly ethnic lines: no Russians, no Poles and no Jews…
The Rada was based on village schoolteachers and other language enthusiasts, steeped in the “glorious” history of the Ukraine… Nationalist ideology reinforced the “Christ-killer” venom which was poured into the illiterate rural masses by the old regime. Anti-Semitic outbreaks were inevitable in such an ideological climate, but the Zionists were taken in by promises of national autonomy, and rushed into the Rada. In January 1919 Abraham Revusky of the Poale Zion took office as Petliura’s Minister for Jewish Affairs. Meir Grossmann of the Ukrainian Zionist Executive went abroad to rally Jewish support for the anti-Bolshevik regime.
The inevitable pogroms started with the first Ukrainian defeat at the hands of the Red Army in January 1919, and Revusky was compelled to resign within a month when Petliura did nothing to stop the atrocities. In many respects the Petliura episode destroyed the mass base of Zionism amongst Soviet Jews. Churchill lost his gamble: Trotsky, not Weizmann and not Revusky, was to win the soul of the Jewish masses. [2]

Brenner’s message is clear: the Zionists collaborated with a virulently reactionary Ukrainian regime, the Petliura government, responsible for atrocities against Jews, therefore the Trotskyists, not the Zionists, were and are the real allies of the Jewish masses.
Let’s unpack this astonishing passage, one factual assertion at a time.

In the Ukraine that meant Simon Petliura’s Rada (Council), which, like the Zionists, recruited on strictly ethnic lines: no Russians, no Poles and no Jews.

The Rada “began negotiations with the non-Ukrainian minorities. A constitution, drafted for presentation to the Provisional Government, included the appointment of three vice-secretaries for nationality affairs (Jewish, Polish, and Russian); publication of all laws in Yiddish, Russian, and Polish, as well as Ukrainian; and representation of the minorities in the Central Rada and its derivative organs.” [3]

The Rada was based on village schoolteachers and other language enthusiasts, steeped in the “glorious” history of the Ukraine… Nationalist ideology reinforced the “Christ-killer” venom which was poured into the illiterate rural masses by the old regime. Anti-Semitic outbreaks were inevitable in such an ideological climate…

The Ukrainian Rada was dominated by socialist parties. It came to power on a platform of full Jewish emancipation. [4]

… but the Zionists were taken in by promises of national autonomy, and rushed into the Rada. In January 1919 Abraham Revusky of the Poale Zion took office as Petliura’s Minister for Jewish Affairs.

As early as November-December 1917, the Zionists sought permission to form defensive units to prevent pogroms, but were thwarted by the socialists. When the Rada broke with the Bolsheviks and declared independence from Russia in January 1918, all Zionist parties abstained. Institutions formed by the Rada’s Jewish Provisional Parliament were boycotted by the Zionist parties. Revusky of Poale Zion was appointed to the Rada’s Ministry for Jewish Affairs because all other Zionist parties refused to supply a candidate. [5]

Meir Grossmann of the Ukrainian Zionist Executive went abroad to rally Jewish support for the anti-Bolshevik regime.

Grossman went abroad to inform world opinion about the Bolshevik invasion of the Ukraine and appeal for help. While abroad, he created aid organisations for Ukrainian Jews. [6]

The inevitable pogroms started with the first Ukrainian defeat at the hands of the Red Army in January 1919, and Revusky was compelled to resign within a month when Petliura did nothing to stop the atrocities.

Revusky wanted to stay in office pending a successor but on January 25-6, 1919, his Zionist faction, Poale Zion, formally announced its opposition to the Rada, forcing him to resign under threat of expulsion from the party. [7] The most serious pogroms took place months later, in May and August-September 1919. [8]

In many respects the Petliura episode destroyed the mass base of Zionism amongst Soviet Jews.

The Zionists routed all other Jewish parties in Ukrainian elections during the years of the Rada. [9]

… Trotsky, not Weizmann and not Revusky, was to win the soul of the Jewish masses.

Despite receiving hundreds of reports of anti-Jewish violence by his own Bolshevik troops, Trotsky did nothing at all to defend Jews and made no mention of the pogroms either in public or in private. [10] Instead he protested to the Politburo that there were too many Latvians and Jews in the Bolshevik secret police. The secret police were then banned from appointing Jews to leading posts and ordered to execute some Jews for propaganda reasons. [11]
The picture painted by Brenner is one of reactionary Ukrainian pogromists gaining the full collaboration of the Zionists. But the facts are as follows: the Ukrainian nationalists came to power on a socialist and inclusive platform; but the Zionists anticipated pogroms and tried to prevent them, while boycotting the government blamed for the subsequent atrocities. Brenner’s brief treatment of these events is a tissue of distortions and falsehoods.
Brenner is a propagandist, not a historian, and only a fool or a knave would rely on his books.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/30/ken-livingstone-lenni-brenner-and-historical-distortions-a-case-study/

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:46 am

- Lenni Brenner

Paul Bogdanor, An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist “Collaboration” With the Nazis
American Trotskyist Lenni Brenner is the foremost Western exponent of the myth of the Zionist-Nazi conspiracy. This essay documents his manipulation of facts and sources, as well as his antisemitism.
Paul Bogdanor, Tony Greenstein’s House of Cards [PDF]
Paul Bogdanor, Tony Greenstein’s Sleight of Hand [PDF]
Rejoinders to Tony Greenstein's hopeless defences of Lenni Brenner against the charges made in my paper. See below for more on Greenstein.
Paul Bogdanor, Who is Lenni Brenner?
Brenner’s Complaint [PDF]
Bad Boy Brenner [PDF]
Mrs Brenner’s Boy [PDF]
Diatribe Against America, Jews and Israel
More on Lenni Brenner’s antisemitic activism.
C. C. Aronsfeld, Review of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators [PDF]
Louis Harap, “Zionist-Nazi Collaboration” Refuted: Lenni Brenner’s Trickery Exposed [PDF]

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:51 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Any posts which include the words "take your time" will be ignored, as will any post which includes any kind of insult, or the childish digging smiley.

Who cares, jog on then

I have no time for immature brats like you

Says the person who called me fat for no reason last night. You are a truly horrible person Didge, and your posts are nothing more than spam.

I will continue to post about this subject and ignore your posts. It's just pity that nobody else is interested in it. They've pulled the thread elsewhere too.

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Who cares, jog on then

I have no time for immature brats like you

Says the person who called me fat for no reason last night. You are a truly horrible person Didge, and your posts are nothing more than spam.

I will continue to post about this subject and ignore your posts. It's just pity that nobody else is interested in it. They've pulled the thread elsewhere too.

You can do as you please, but as seen its just a piss poor excuse to get out of answering damning questions, which destroy your case here.

Like I said to you and warned you about your behaviour of continued stirring, now the gloves are off.

If you cannot take it, then you should not dish it out.

Tough

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:40 am

Here's an interesting point of view.

Never having envisaged that Jewish settlement in Palestine would so rapidly bring about the inception of a Jewish state the German Foreign Ministry was horrified when in 1937 the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission adopted the Peel Commission’s partition plan.

A manageable domestic problem was about to be transformed into confrontation of the Third Reich by an internationally recognised sovereign state and the Ministry abruptly dropped its collaboration with the Zionists.

But Hitler fundamentally disagreed with the move, accurately perceiving that the more Jews there were in Palestine the more trouble there would be for the British, and that this could be exploited by Germany to increase its influence in the Arab world.

Zionist recruiting in Germany was therefore quietly permitted to continue and did so right up to and after the start of the War.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/kicking-out-ken-livingstone-for-hitler-remark-would-be-a-bad-mistake/

John Mann mentioned the Foreign Minister in his rant against Ken during an interview, but he didn't mention Hitlers' attitude at the time.

by Guest Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:25 am

Yes Hitlers hate of Jews, was to see them face more problems.

By jumping out of one frying pan into the fire in 1937, as from 1936, there had been an Arab revolt in the Mandate. Which lasted until 1939.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:44 pm

Ken Livingstone has been reinstated as a Labour party member, but has been suspended from holding office for another year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-livingstone-suspended-labour-party-hitler-zionism-comments-a7667011.html

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:46 pm

So he was found guilty then on all counts.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:47 pm

Speaking outside the hearing, Mr Livingstone said he was not planning on running for office so the suspension "doesn't make a great deal of change", and said the hearing had been "like sitting through a court in North Korea".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39498275

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:48 pm

This will probably appease both sides to some extent. Those who wanted him to be expelled will have to be satisfied that he's suspended from holding office, and those who supported him will be glad that he wasn't expelled.

by Guest Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:49 pm

I hope he takes labour to court, as he will lose and lose badly as did David Irvine.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:56 am

There is fury amongst Labour members - not from those who backed Ken, but from those who didn't. There may well be some disgruntled Labour members who think he shouldn't have been suspended from holding office, but that hasn't been reported yet.

Ken had this to say:

Asked if he wanted to apologise to Jewish people who had been offended by his comments, the former London mayor replied: “I apologise for the offence caused by those Labour MPs who lied and said I said Hitler was a Zionist”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mps-criticise-ken-livingstone-ruling-anti-semitism-wes-streeting-tulip-siddiq-lisa-nandy-a7667141.html

I don't know if any Labour MPs did misquote him, but I've seen him misquoted on several websites. People need to know what they're arguing against.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:21 am

And he still claims he was right, when wrong.

Hey ho

It sums up what is wrong with some on the Far Left

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:54 pm

Ken Livingstone has escaped expulsion from the Labour Party over his remarks about Hitler and Zionism. Although some might wonder why he hadn't been kicked out ages ago.
Mr Livingstone was editor of the "Labour Herald" during the 1980s, a time when the weekly published an article alleging that Zionists prevented the rescue of European Jewry from the Holocaust, and a cartoon depicting Mr Menachem Begin, then Israel Prime Minister in Nazi uniform, standing on a heap of corpses and giving the Nazi salute over the heading "The Final Solution".

[ltr]
View image on Twitter
Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 C8pYA9zXUAANs2I

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 C8pYA9zXUAANs2I

[/ltr]

Follow
James Vaughan @EquusontheBuses

[ltr]@ComiskeyNathan @GONeillOfficial Or I could just post a whole bunch of other "out of context" stuff from Ken's Libyan-WRP rag... [/ltr]

12:43 PM - 5 Apr 2017

The former Mayor of London has an extensive track record for making off-colour comments about Jews, the Holocaust and Hitler, as a delve into the archive shows. Here are just six moments.

1982: Jewish MPs are a "distortion" running through politics

In a piece for the Labour Herald arguing in favour of supporting The Palestine Liberation Organisation in its fight against Israel, Mr Livingstone took his party to task for its "little response" to the conflict.
This, he suggested, was because "there is a distortion running right the way through British politics", as "a majority of Jews in this country supported the Labour Party and elected a number of Jewish Labour MPs".

By contrast, he wrote, "if we had a similar war in southern Africa, there would be demands for emergency debates in Parliament."

1983: British troops in Ulster are like the Nazis

Ken Livingstone caused outrage in London after comparing British troops in Northern Ireland to the Nazi persecution of the Jews. A Conservative MEP lambasted him in an open letter for "a wilful ignorance of the horrors of the holocaust, the genocidal murder of millions of Jews, and the diabolical destruciton of human life at Auschwitz and other concentration camps".

1984: Jews are Arabs

Ken Livingstone left astonished the Board of Deputies after claiming that Jews were "basically a tribe of Arabs". Speaking to the socialist newspaper Tribune, he added: "There is no racial difference between Jew and Arab".

1984: Jews stopped voting Labour as they became reactionary

Speaking to "Davar", the newspaper published by the Israel's organization of trade unions, Mr Livingstone tried to explain why Jews in Britain were not so keen to vote Labour. They had always supported his party, he insisted, until Menachem Begin came onto the political stage and then "suddenly the Jews became reactionaries, turned Right, nearly to be fascists".
Watch | Ken Livingstone's most controversial comments

1984: Extremist Jews are organising against me

Speaking again to "Davar", Mr Livingstone claimed that "extremist Jews" were organising "paramilitary groups, which resemble fascist organisations", in London and elsewhere. "It is obvious that those Jews will try to hurt me and my reputation," he added.

2000: Capitalists are worse than Hitler

Ken Livingstone didn't go out of his way to charm the City of London in his first bid to be elected London Mayor. Answering questions from the readers of NME magazine, he declared: "Every year the international financial system kills more people than World War Two. But at least Hitler was mad."

2005: Livingstone compares a Jewish journalist to a Nazi

Ken Livingstone was famously suspended as the Mayor of London for four weeks for bringing his office into disrepute by comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi, although he later overturned the suspension in court.

The encounter happened as he was leaving City Hall after a party. A reporter from the Evening Standard, Oliver Finegold, asked him whether he had enjoyed the party, and was compared to a "German war criminal" in response.
After telling him that he was Jewish and found the remark offensive, Mr Livingstone said he was like a "concentration camp guard" who was only following orders.
Watch | Labour MP confronts Ken Livingstone over anti-semitic comments

2012: Jews support the Tories because they have got rich

In his fight to get re-elected as London Mayor, Mr Livingstone suggested that British Jews switched their support from Labour to Conservative because they had got richer.
He told BBC’s Newsnight programme:

"People vote according to their income. Now that can change – it might be a generation before people catch up. If we were talking 50 years ago, the Roman Catholic community, the Irish community in Britain, the Jewish community was solidly Labour. Still the Irish Catholic community is pretty still solidly Labour because it is not terribly rich.
“As the Jewish community got richer, it moved over to voting for Mrs Thatcher as they did in Finchley.”

(Author's note: I'm grateful to Aberystwyth University's Dr James Vaughan for wading through the Labour Herald archives in his Livingstone retrospective)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/eight-dodgy-things-ken-livingstone-has-said-jews-hitler/

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Apparently, there's going to be another inquiry. I still don't see what was "antisemitic" about his remarks. Are some people interpreting his remarks as meaning that Jews were in cahoots with Hitler re the Holocaust or what?

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:21 pm

Yeah I read he is going to face another inquiry.

From what I posted previously, he does not care what he says, even though he is part of the Labour Party and tarnishes them all with his daft and sometimes hateful remarks.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:30 pm

This is how I interpret his remarks:

He's basically saying that Hitler/The Nazis policy re the Haavara Agreement enabled many Jews to go to Palestine, thereby increasing the number of them there, thereby furthering the Zionists' objective of a Jewish State. He wasn't saying that Hitler deliberately wanted a Jewish State, or that Jews plotted against other Jews.

Some people might disagree with that, but I cannot see what is antisemitic about it.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:This is how I interpret his remarks:

He's basically saying that Hitler/The Nazis policy re the Haavara Agreement enabled many Jews to go to Palestine, thereby increasing the number of them there, thereby furthering the Zionists' objective of a Jewish State. He wasn't saying that Hitler deliberately wanted a Jewish State, or that Jews plotted against other Jews.

Some people might disagree with that, but I cannot see what is antisemitic about it.

Because you are not taking this in the context for what it is.
He made these views, whilst in the defense of an MP who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.
To bring this up as if to actually find fault with Jews, at a time when they were persecuted in Germany and then exploited of their wealth to leave with this agreement. Is fundamentally arguing and demonizing Jews, who were trying to flee Nazi Germany. Hitler had no care for Jews, Zionists or Zionism.

Kens views on Israel and Jews as seen above are well know, so what relevance did this comment have in regards to the defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews?

To attempt to make and demonize Jews/Zionists/Zionism in league with the Nazis's as if to downplay her call to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel.

Not only is it insulting, but many fled Germany to face riots and persecution from the Arabs also in the Mandate.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:47 pm

The Haavara Agreement allowed Jews to go to Palestine with their wealth.

It's not finding fault with Jews. Jews can't be faulted for taking up the offer of the Agreement. Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2190311264

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 8 2190311264

Maybe some people are rather cynical about the motive of the Zionists in question, but Ken never said anything about that. Why is it antisemitic to say that the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine?

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The Haavara Agreement allowed Jews to go to Palestine with their wealth.

It's not finding fault with Jews. Jews can't be faulted for taking up the offer of the Agreement.

Maybe some people are rather cynical about the motive of the Zionists in question, but Ken never said anything about that. Why is it antisemitic to say that the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine?

Sorry?

Rather cynical of trying to help Jews flee Germany, when facing persecution?

You just ignored everything I said and are back to ignoring the context of why he said this.

You can believe Hitler who hated Zionism, and the Jews, was helping Zionism.

This is what he claimed and then tried to later back track, which is still appalling to claim on zionists, who were trying to help Jews flee persecution

That is your choice, but as seen the claims he makes simple do not add up at all.

I see loads of Labour members have ripped up their membership, based on the outcome.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:55 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The Haavara Agreement allowed Jews to go to Palestine with their wealth.

It's not finding fault with Jews. Jews can't be faulted for taking up the offer of the Agreement.

Maybe some people are rather cynical about the motive of the Zionists in question, but Ken never said anything about that. Why is it antisemitic to say that the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine?

Sorry?

Rather cynical of trying to help Jews flee Germany, when facing persecution?

You just ignored everything I said and are back to ignoring the context of why he said this.

You can believe Hitler who hated Zionism, and the Jews, was helping Zionism.

This is what he claimed and then tried to later back track, which is still appalling to claim on zionists, who were trying to help Jews flee persecution

That is your choice, but as seen the claims he makes simple do not add up at all.

I see loads of Labour members have ripped up their membership, based on the outcome.

Yes, because their other motive could be to expand the number of Jews in Israel to further their own political ambitions. If people think that, it's not really Ken's fault. It's the only thing I can think of what could be interpreted as an insult to Zionists.

I knew what he meant straightaway, and it amazes me that so-called intelligent people chose to misunderstand him.

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry?

Rather cynical of trying to help Jews flee Germany, when facing persecution?

You just ignored everything I said and are back to ignoring the context of why he said this.

You can believe Hitler who hated Zionism, and the Jews, was helping Zionism.

This is what he claimed and then tried to later back track, which is still appalling to claim on zionists, who were trying to help Jews flee persecution

That is your choice, but as seen the claims he makes simple do not add up at all.

I see loads of Labour members have ripped up their membership, based on the outcome.

Yes, because their other motive could be to expand the number of Jews in Israel to further their own political ambitions. If people think that, it's not really Ken's fault. It's the only thing I can think of what could be interpreted as an insult to Zionists.

I knew what he meant straightaway, and it amazes me that so-called intelligent people chose to misunderstand him.

Irrelevant, when the League of Nations Mandate allowed Jews to settle in the British Mandate there already.
To then say Zionists exploited the situation, as you are doing. That they looked to get Jews into Palestine from Germany, when it was restricted by the British. Is bonkers as seen. Jews applied for anywhere to get out of Germany, whether that be the Mandate, the US, Uk etc. Many were denied the chance to even leave. Hitler wanted rid of the Jews and was exploiting the Zionists, not supporting them.

As seen you have been manipulated by him, as how is his views and claims on Hitler, relevant, to his defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel?

He claimed that this comment was not antisemitic.

That tells you everything you need to understand about Ken's hate.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, because their other motive could be to expand the number of Jews in Israel to further their own political ambitions. If people think that, it's not really Ken's fault. It's the only thing I can think of what could be interpreted as an insult to Zionists.

I knew what he meant straightaway, and it amazes me that so-called intelligent people chose to misunderstand him.

Irrelevant, when the League of Nations Mandate allowed Jews to settle in the British Mandate there already.
To then say Zionists exploited the situation, as you are doing. That they looked to get Jews into Palestine from Germany, when it was restricted by the British. Is bonkers as seen. Jews applied for anywhere to get out of Germany, whether that be the Mandate, the US, Uk etc. Many were denied the chance to even leave. Hitler wanted rid of the Jews and was exploiting the Zionists, not supporting them.

As seen you have been manipulated by him, as how is his views and claims on Hitler, relevant, to his defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel?

He claimed that this comment was not antisemitic.

That tells you everything you need to understand about Ken's hate.

They couldn't take their money with them though if they just left Germany and went to Palestine without the Transfer Agreement. Therefore, the Haavara Agreement is not irrelevant. It was the Zionists who came up with the idea, not Hitler.

I didn't say that Zionists exploited the situation. However, it did contribute to the number of Jews going to Palestine did it not?

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Irrelevant, when the League of Nations Mandate allowed Jews to settle in the British Mandate there already.
To then say Zionists exploited the situation, as you are doing. That they looked to get Jews into Palestine from Germany, when it was restricted by the British. Is bonkers as seen. Jews applied for anywhere to get out of Germany, whether that be the Mandate, the US, Uk etc. Many were denied the chance to even leave. Hitler wanted rid of the Jews and was exploiting the Zionists, not supporting them.

As seen you have been manipulated by him, as how is his views and claims on Hitler, relevant, to his defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel?

He claimed that this comment was not antisemitic.

That tells you everything you need to understand about Ken's hate.

They couldn't take their money with them though if they just left Germany and went to Palestine without the Transfer Agreement. Therefore, the Haavara Agreement is not irrelevant. It was the Zionists who came up with the idea, not Hitler.

I didn't say that Zionists exploited the situation. However, it did contribute to the number of Jews going to Palestine did it not?

Contribute?
You call be able to flee from a country a contribution. When the Nazi's exploited the situation to stem boycotts against the Nazi state? When the Nazi's massively increased the exchange rate? Again you are looking at this through a one dimensional aspect. The intent of the Nazi's was to exploit the zionists and stave off boycotts. Not support them create a state. Of which is the central tenant of Zionism. You ignore they wanted rid of the Jews and then knowing many wanted to flee this persecution, that they could exploit this. Again you ignore many Jews went elsewhere and the Jews that went to the mandate faced further persecution and acts of violence and death.

You keep failing to answer my questions

As seen you have been manipulated by him, as how is his views and claims on Hitler, relevant, to his defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel?

He claimed that this comment was not antisemitic.

That tells you everything you need to understand about Ken's hate.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They couldn't take their money with them though if they just left Germany and went to Palestine without the Transfer Agreement. Therefore, the Haavara Agreement is not irrelevant. It was the Zionists who came up with the idea, not Hitler.

I didn't say that Zionists exploited the situation. However, it did contribute to the number of Jews going to Palestine did it not?

Contribute?
You call be able to flee from a country a contribution. When the Nazi's exploited the situation to stem boycotts against the Nazi state? When the Nazi's massively increased the exchange rate? Again you are looking at this through a one dimensional aspect. The intent of the Nazi's was to exploit the zionists and stave off boycotts. Not support them create a state. Of which is the central tenant of Zionism. You ignore they wanted rid of the Jews and then knowing many wanted to flee this persecution, that they could exploit this. Again you ignore many Jews went elsewhere and the Jews that went to the mandate faced further persecution and acts of violence and death.

You keep failing to answer my questions

As seen you have been manipulated by him, as how is his views and claims on Hitler, relevant, to his defense of an MP, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel?

He claimed that this comment was not antisemitic.

That tells you everything you need to understand about Ken's hate.

Yes, contribute to the number of Jews in Palestine. I'm really not sure how you could twist what I said to mean anything else.

Hitler could have just deported the Jews who wanted to go to Palestine and taken all their assets, but the Nazis signed the Transfer Agreement. Why is that?

by Guest Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:18 pm

3 times I ask you to answer and 3 times you fail to do so.
You are thinking you can dictate the debate on your terms.
That is not going to happen Rags, when you constantly avoid points

And you are continually repeating yourself

Debate over

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:21 pm

Thorin wrote:3 times I ask you to answer and 3 times you fail to do so.
You are thinking you can dictate the debate on your terms.
That is not going to happen Rags, when you constantly avoid points

And you are continually repeating yourself

Debate over

You're not addressing any of my points, you just keep saying the same thing. I guess it's all a bit pointless really.

by Sponsored content