• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Jeremy Corbyn

There's plenty, probably too much, anti-Israel sentiment in the Labour Party

Far too often this is confused with anti-semitism, not to say there isn't anti-semitism because there is in both labour and Tories

Indeed.

The particular tweets/comments etc. made by Livingstone and Shah are certainly anti-Israel. Do they display hatred of the Jews as a religious or ethnic group? No.

This is not to say that I don't think Livingstone's comments weren't stupid - they were. Anyone who brings Hitler into a discussion about anti-semitism is on very thin ice from the off.
 
Indeed.

The particular tweets/comments etc. made by Livingstone and Shah are certainly anti-Israel. Do they display hatred of the Jews as a religious or ethnic group? No.

This is not to say that I don't think Livingstone's comments weren't stupid - they were. Anyone who brings Hitler into a discussion about anti-semitism is on very thin ice from the off.

Actually I would have said livingstone's comments were anti-Semitic.
 
Indeed.

The particular tweets/comments etc. made by Livingstone and Shah are certainly anti-Israel. Do they display hatred of the Jews as a religious or ethnic group? No.

This is not to say that I don't think Livingstone's comments weren't stupid - they were. Anyone who brings Hitler into a discussion about anti-semitism is on very thin ice from the off.

You don't think forced repatriation is anti-semetic? Really?
 
Don't agree with this at all. At best Livingstone manipulated an historical situation and mis-represented it. No reasonable person could believe that Hitler was assisting Jews by supporting settlement in Palestine. It would have been nothing more than a means of ridding Germany and Europe of people he considered evil.

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." Mein Kampf

Livingstone wasn't criticising the Israeli government with his comments today, he was saying that the man responsible for the extermination of millions of Jews was working with them before he went mad. Mein Kampf, published in 1925 - well before Livingstone's historical fact - clearly outlines Hitler's view about Jews. He was defending comments made by Naz Shah who has already acknowledged that she was wrong. Livingstone was engaging it the sort of stereotyping that belongs in the gutter.

There should be no way back for him. Naz Shah, on the other hand, is actively seeking to educate herself and has the opportunity to redeem herself.

It is entirely reasonable to criticise the Israeli government, it should be encouraged - but it is relatively simple to criticise Israel without resorting to anti-semitism. Livingstone's failed.

This is a fantastic summary, thanks TSB.
 
Shah made he comments in 2014 before she was an MP and before Corbyn came into power. Your preference would be having to deal with this right now. There would be no difference.

No problem with Shah, she's apologised for a juvenile rant she would have taken her punishment and be welcomed back to the party.
Livingstone went out of his way yesterday to visit every media outlet to spout about Hitler, he has been embraced by the leadership of the Labour Party as if he as some long lost son.
That would not have happened if anyone but Corbyn had become leader.
 
No problem with Shah, she's apologised for a juvenile rant she would have taken her punishment and be welcomed back to the party.
Livingstone went out of his way yesterday to visit every media outlet to spout about Hitler, he has been embraced by the leadership of the Labour Party as if he as some long lost son.
That would not have happened if anyone but Corbyn had become leader.

Ignoring the fact that your second sentence is exaggeration, Livingstone would have made these remarks regardless of his position were the party's leadership any different. The only difference is there would be less coverage. Corbyn has swiftly dealt with Livingstone, ally or not, just like any other leader would have.
 
He is not a man of principle. A little like Syriza in Greece, in the end they are all talk!

This is so wrong in a million ways.
Syriza inherited two previously agreed loans, in which all the other Greek parties said yes to the rules of those loans, then totally ignored the terms they had signed up to. (Typical of previous Greek governments since the dawn of time)

Tsipras went to Brussells on a hiding to nothing, the likes of Dusselbloom and Schaubler were waiting to take a huge whack at little Greece , effectively ready to slap it back into line.

They tried to take them on and realised the sheer impossibility of this, and whilst i believe they should have reached agreement on an organised Grexit at that time, they didn't.

However they have taken on the IMF, especially with their nonsensical idea that Greece will pass a bill regarding extra measures if the current ones don't work, which no parliament on earth would vote in, and are still trying to take control of the requirements being demanded for the new loan, which seriously punish the poor even more than before.

If some of the bigger nations in the EU had half the bollocks that Syriza has, then the whole institution wouldn't be in such a fucked up state in the first place.
 
Ignoring the fact that your second sentence is exaggeration, Livingstone would have made these remarks regardless of his position were the party's leadership any different. The only difference is there would be less coverage. Corbyn has swiftly dealt with Livingstone, ally or not, just like any other leader would have.

I'm from a different side of the Labour Party supporting spectrum than probably everyone who posts on this thread in support of the party.
We'll never agree so best to leave it as that.
 
This is so wrong in a million ways.
Syriza inherited two previously agreed loans, in which all the other Greek parties said yes to the rules of those loans, then totally ignored the terms they had signed up to. (Typical of previous Greek governments since the dawn of time)

Tsipras went to Brussells on a hiding to nothing, the likes of Dusselbloom and Schaubler were waiting to take a huge whack at little Greece , effectively ready to slap it back into line.

They tried to take them on and realised the sheer impossibility of this, and whilst i believe they should have reached agreement on an organised Grexit at that time, they didn't.

However they have taken on the IMF, especially with their nonsensical idea that Greece will pass a bill regarding extra measures if the current ones don't work, which no parliament on earth would vote in, and are still trying to take control of the requirements being demanded for the new loan, which seriously punish the poor even more than before.

If some of the bigger nations in the EU had half the bollocks that Syriza has, then the whole institution wouldn't be in such a $#@!ed up state in the first place.

Syriza got elected because of promises to take on the EU. They went back to the electorate again to vote against EU punitve measures against the most poor in Greece. Syriza had the Mandate, but they backed down. In the end, they didn't keep their promises, for which they were elected.
I agree, they were on a hiding to nothing. It's easy to recognise problems, sorting them out is the difficult part.
 
Last edited:
Don't agree with this at all. At best Livingstone manipulated an historical situation and mis-represented it. No reasonable person could believe that Hitler was assisting Jews by supporting settlement in Palestine. It would have been nothing more than a means of ridding Germany and Europe of people he considered evil.

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." Mein Kampf

Livingstone wasn't criticising the Israeli government with his comments today, he was saying that the man responsible for the extermination of millions of Jews was working with them before he went mad. Mein Kampf, published in 1925 - well before Livingstone's historical fact - clearly outlines Hitler's view about Jews. He was defending comments made by Naz Shah who has already acknowledged that she was wrong. Livingstone was engaging it the sort of stereotyping that belongs in the gutter.

There should be no way back for him. Naz Shah, on the other hand, is actively seeking to educate herself and has the opportunity to redeem herself.

It is entirely reasonable to criticise the Israeli government, it should be encouraged - but it is relatively simple to criticise Israel without resorting to anti-semitism. Livingstone's failed.

Absolutely - Livingstone quoted Hitler which I find quite indefensible.

Naz Shah made what I feel is a debateable point. Freedom of Speech.
 
Is Ken Livingstone a secret agent for the Conservative Party. He was at it again on the radio this morning. He stands by his comments, and blames all the trouble in his party on the Blairites.

Keep up the good work Ken.
 
Absolutely - Livingstone quoted Hitler which I find quite indefensible.

Naz Shah made what I feel is a debateable point. Freedom of Speech.

Livingstone is a cunt and Shah has to learn that you can't say what you think in politics.
 
More people should say what they think if it encourages debate. It's called Freedom of Speech and Zionism is debateable.

She detests Zionism and that will be the case in the future. The education she refers to, must be to keep her gob shut!
 
She detests Zionism and that will be the case in the future. The education she refers to, must be to keep her gob shut!

So why, given the aggression against Palestine and others places should she keep her gob shut when she is actually stirring up a taboo subject that needs to be more open. There are a hell of a lot of Labour Supporters who stand alienated because their freedom to be Anti-Zionist is smeared by some falsehood that they are Anti-Semitic.
 
For the Palestinians, Zionism has meant dispossession, exile, colonisation and apartheid.


What do you think Zionism is?

I didn't ask what Palestnians thought Zionism was, I asked you and you have avoided the question. I shall rephrase the question.

What is Zionism?
 
Back
Top