Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What do people make of Ken's latest unwelcome ramblings?


I didn't hear the interview and haven't managed to actually find a transcript of what he said, so don't really want to rush to judgment. That said, from the snippets of conversation quoted on social media it all looks rather worrying.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/104096-ken-livingstone-antisemitic/
Share on other sites

Large parts of the left is anti-semitic - and one of the reasons is an obvious 'elephant in the room' - but they were always anti-Israel as it's the west innit, and many who are anti -Isreal + anti-business + a bit inclined to CT nuttery are anti-semitic too - obviously been compounded by Israel's terrible policies and response to the Palestinian issue.


Livingstone also has some previous on this; Corbyn, whilst maybe OK on this himself; has surrounded himself forever by these idiots and being an ideologue is unable to really face up to or properly condemn this - this goes hand in hand with the extremist he is in reality. A joke he hinted he wouldn't meet with Obama but stands on platforms with those that are brazenly anti-semitic and pro-terrorism.


Ironically, McDonnell has been much clearer and firmer on this.


Livingstone has always struck me as a pretty horrible specimen of humanity to be honest - divisive, self-seeking, manipulative and egotistical...an all round scumbag.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dunno... he has a point. Criticism of Israel

> should not be confused with anti-Semitism.

>

> People say that the left has a problem with

> anti-Semitism - maybe it's just that the left

> don't feel as much need to cosy up with the US and

> Israel?


But happy to cozy up with Putin and Islamic anti-semites and terrorist sympathizers and worst. Yup. good for them and their 'principles'

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is about the fullest account of what he

> actually said that I have found

> https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affair

> s/discrimination/news/74365/ken-livingstone-bbc-ra

> dio-london-israel-lobby-tries


People saying he was talking about this.


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

I actually think John Mann was pretty out of order, regardless of ones views on Livingstone. I think Ken has lost the plot personally, wading into a fire clutching a bucket of petrol to throw over it. Although it seems to be his MO nowadays. Why anyone would start talking about Hitler supporting Zionism in a discussion about antisemitism is beyond me. It's ridiculously clumsy and ill judged. That said, I am not sure this mean he's an antisemite or a racist. I'm not even sure I accept the idea that 'the left' have a particular problem with antisemitism. The left is extremely critical of Israel of course as are many others.
Again, being extremely critical of Israel's policies is one thing, but a lot of the left simply think Israel shouldn't exist. These people are feckin morons because Israel DOES exist, and whatever you think about how it came about, it's there now and we'll only ever move forward if we accept that and get on with finding solutions rather than harping on about past screw ups.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The issue of anti-Semetism has been bothering me

> for a few days. It is not the same as

> anti-Jewish, anti-Israel. Semites include Arabs,

> most of whom are Muslims. Some journalists are

> very lazy/ignorant.



No: anti-semitism means an antipathy towards Jews. This is well understood. Semantic pedantry about the meaning of the term "semitic" doesn't alter that.


If you don't think Livingstone referring to Hitler as a Zionist is anti-Semitic then you need your head examining.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, being extremely critical of Israel's

> policies is one thing, but a lot of the left

> simply think Israel shouldn't exist. These people

> are feckin morons because Israel DOES exist, and

> whatever you think about how it came about, it's

> there now and we'll only ever move forward if we

> accept that and get on with finding solutions

> rather than harping on about past screw ups.


Is that true. I think a lot of people say Israel, when they mean Israel's policies (which acutally I may have done above), but that's just slightly sloppy language, I think people know what is meant. I haven't heard people on the mainstream left calling for the dissolution, or annihilation of Israel.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just saw on Twitter (Jim Waterson)

>

> "Ken Livingstone is in a toilet and the British

> news media are camped

> outside the door asking if he agrees with Hitler"


An episode from a Chris Morris show, surely.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Again, being extremely critical of Israel's

> > policies is one thing, but a lot of the left

> > simply think Israel shouldn't exist. These

> people

> > are feckin morons because Israel DOES exist,

> and

> > whatever you think about how it came about,

> it's

> > there now and we'll only ever move forward if

> we

> > accept that and get on with finding solutions

> > rather than harping on about past screw ups.

>

> Is that true. I think a lot of people say Israel,

> when they mean Israel's policies (which acutally I

> may have done above), but that's just slightly

> sloppy language, I think people know what is

> meant. I haven't heard people on the mainstream

> left calling for the dissolution, or annihilation

> of Israel.



Well, a Labour MP on Facebook supported a page them being transported to Kansas.....which is how this particular spate arose. Plus the mainstream left isn't in charge of the Labour Party anymore...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I agree, the people in the park office seem to be invisible. Quite why we need a park office I am not sure. Perhaps it is to do with all the maintenance and upkeep for which there will be organisation and admin. It may be expensive but I do think funding some sort of regular park safety oversight should be a priority. Southwark to want young people to use the park, as do we all, but there probably does need to be some sort of supervision for everyone's sake.  
    • The big difference, other than increasingly flaking paint, seems to be graffiti. The question is, will that/ can it be controlled?
    • I took back my 🤣 because I think the idea is unworkable expensive and would produce little result.  There seems to be people in the office next to the toilet but I don’t think they leave the office. I’m not sure what they do there.  The toilets have been in a disgusting state for months and months with many promises to repair they are not functional and they invite vandalism. I shall  try to add a couple of photos. The council doesn’t care why should we?
    • There will always be kids pushing the envelope as the saying goes, but having some boundaries should help most understand what they can and cannot do. I think dedicated, daily park wardens is exactly what is required...with a hotline to SNT teams on the beat. Is there no way money made from Gala or from Park parking fees can be diverted to provide that funding? I feel it would be a really good use of money. The principle aim being to maintain the park as a safe and relaxing environment for all. If funding really cannot be found I wonder if there might be funding to at least train volunteer park wardens?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...