Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe
Options
Comments
-
Livingstone stated: "I said that in the 1930s Hitler supported Zionism".
This is a lie and a slur. It propagates antisemitism. If he said it in mistake he could have apologised. Instead he doubled down. Hitler never supported Zionism or the establishment of a Jewish homeland. He tried to get rid of Jews - by any means. One way was briefly to allow emigration to Palestine. To call that support of Zionism is a disgraceful, given what the Nazis true intentions were.
It's not a lie, or a slur and nor does it "propagate" anti Semitism either.
The Havaara Agreement is a matter of historical fact and yes, Hitler was supportive of Zionism if it meant his goal of making Germany "Judenfrei" possible. That doesn't make Hitler a "Zionist", though.
However, he tasked members of the Nazi party, like Leopold Von Mildenstein, to co-operate with Zionists with a view to moving Jews out of Germany to new homeland. He even ordered Von Mildenstein to go to Palestine and survey areas that would be suitable for such a move.
Kurt Tuchler of the ZVD was tasked by his organisation to seek out Nazis who were sympathetic to Zionist aims, too, and he approached Von Mildenstein to discuss a "Jewish Palestine". He ended up accompanying Von Mildenstein to Palestine in 1933 for six months.
Von Mildenstein returned to Germany convinced that emigration to Palestine was the solution to Germany's "Jewish problem". Hitler then appointed him to the post of Judenrefernt in a Sicherheitsdienst office to put into effect the terms of the Harvaara Agreement.
This all may be uncomfortable reading for some, but it's still a fact, nonetheless. And absolutely none of it is "anti Semitic".0 -
[QUOTE=Tony EH;110697991
If these sentences were "Jewish slave master" or "Jewish cum buckets", you'd have a point.
[/QUOTE]
In you opinion referring to female Jewish MPs as ""Jewish cum buckets" would be anti-semitic but referring to them as "Zionist cum buckets" is not?
Ludicrous.
As I have said previously the hard left have taken to using "Zionist" in place of "Jewish" to conceal their anti-semitism (from themselves as well, sometimes?)
However, in your particular case, as you claim to be blind to Livingstone's anti-semitism, there is clearly nothing that will satisfy you as anti-semitic..0 -
In you opinion referring to female Jewish MPs as ""Jewish cum buckets" would be anti-semitic but referring to them as "Zionist cum buckets" is not?
A Zionist is not necessarily a Jew. There are plenty of non Jews who are Zionists.As I have said previously the hard left have taken to using "Zionist" in place of "Jewish" to conceal their anti-semitism (from themselves as well, sometimes?)
So says you and others who want to conflate anti Zionism with Anti Semitism.
Next stop anti Israel = anti Semite.
But it doesn't make it so.0 -
As regards Labour, you can google. Ken Livingstone is an example that has been brought up in recent posts. Anyone who doesn't recognise evidence of anto-semitism in Livingstone's persistent remarks is not going to recognise it anywhere. I think if you really wanted to find the allegations you would have done so. Would referring to Theresa May as "having the mentality of a Zionist slave master" count? Or calling female Labour MPs "Zionist cum buckets"? https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1114643741384609792?lang=en
The Ken Livingstone example is disputed. And the onus should be on those making the accusation to prove their theory.
In terms of the referenced story in that tweet, we come back to TonyEH's point about numbers. And it seems all complaints are logged, tracked and action is indeed taken in many cases (that's taking the story at face value). What always floors me is that none of this is caught on tape or on video in the age of the mobile phone. Maybe Labour members have a truly historic aversion to smart phones?
Proving Labour has a genuine problem with anti semitism requires a much higher burden of proof than has been reached thus far imo.I think what Israel is objecting to is the propose boycott, not criticism of policies per se. It would be strange if it did not protest. "Boycott" has a particular resonance in Jewish history. See its implimentation in Nazi Germany, for example.
Also, they see the main aim of the BDS organisation is not a two-state solution but the delegitimization of Israel itself, challenging its continuing right to exist. They would point to a key aim of BDS as being the "right of return" of Palestinians who had lived in what is now Israel proper prior to 1948 (actually their descendents) with full democratic participation.
Most people who support BDS see it them supporting a two-state solution. But the actual goals of the movement are broader and more fundamental than that.
So they are right to label the Irish Parliament as anti - semitic or, at the very least, you're okay with them using that as a push back tactic?0 -
It's not a lie, or a slur and nor does it "propagate" anti Semitism either.
The Havaara Agreement is a matter of historical fact and yes, Hitler was supportive of Zionism if it meant his goal of making Germany "Judenfrei" possible. That doesn't make Hitler a "Zionist", though.
However, he tasked members of the Nazi party, like Leopold Von Mildenstein, to co-operate with Zionists with a view to moving Jews out of Germany to new homeland. He even ordered Von Mildenstein to go to Palestine and survey areas that would be suitable for such a move.
Kurt Tuchler of the ZVD was tasked by his organisation to seek out Nazis who were sympathetic to Zionist aims, too, and he approached Von Mildenstein to discuss a "Jewish Palestine". He ended up accompanying Von Mildenstein to Palestine in 1933 for six months.
Von Mildenstein returned to Germany convinced that emigration to Palestine was the solution to Germany's "Jewish problem". Hitler then appointed him to the post of Judenrefernt in a Sicherheitsdienst office to put into effect the terms of the Harvaara Agreement.
This all may be uncomfortable reading for some, but it's still a fact, nonetheless. And absolutely none of it is "anti Semitic".
It is not uncomfortable at all - that there was a Harvara agreement is a matter of historic fact. But how it has been described by Livingstone is a gross distortion and anti-semitic. He has changed his version a number of times.
In 2016 he claimed that Hitler's original policy was to send all German Jews to Palestine. This was just not so. He only ever gave the agreement lukewarm support as he did not want the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (although he wanted rid of the Jews).He did not want a Jewish homeland full stop as he saw it as providing a base for Jewish worldwide conspiracies. He favoured the Madagascar option - he did not envisage it as a homeland, more a place of containment. This became one matter of disagreement in discussions between Germany and Poland in 1938 about a possible anti-Soviet pact. The Poles did favour supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine (they wanted rid of the Jews for their own reasons). Hitler's negotiating team were stuck on Madagascar.
From the point of view of the Jewish group involved, the purpose of Harvara was to enable passage of as many German Jews as possible out of danger. To characterise it as in some way German support for, and collaboration in, Zionism is disgraceful. They did not support Zionism - the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
As regards Mildenstein. After the Nazis came to power some Jewish groups still thought they get a reasoned solution. It was they who contacted Mildenstein, who was seen as a moderate, and Tuchler accompanied him on a tour of Palestine. Afterwards Goebbels published the trip in the press with a view to protraying the Nazi's as seeking an "honourable" solution to the Jewish problem. This was pure propaganda. It did not change the Nazi attitude towards the Jews.
Again Livingstone portrayed this as evidence of Zionist- Nazi collaboration.
Livingstone has given many other similar and equally outrageously distorted examples of what he claims is evidence of "real collaboration".
There is a lot he could talk about in terms of Nazi - Jewish transactions. Instead he focusses on this in a deliberately contorted way. It is absolutely anti semitic. It is very alarming that this is denied. No wonder Jews in Britain are deserting Labour.0 -
Advertisement
-
...
There is a lot he could talk about in terms of Nazi - Jewish transactions. Instead he focusses on this in a deliberately contorted way. It is absolutely anti semitic. It is very alarming that this is denied. No wonder Jews in Britain are deserting Labour.
You'd rather he confess to something he doesn't believe he is guilty of?
Prove he's antisemetic.
You are perpetrating the con job that anti Israeli regime is antisemtism. Nobody is buying it.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You'd rather he confess to something he doesn't believe he is guilty of?
Prove he's antisemetic.
You are perpetrating the con job that anti Israeli regime is antisemtism. Nobody is buying it.
You didn't even read the post did you? Distorting history to concoct a story of Jewish Nazi collaboration is anti-semitic.0 -
-
Again Livingstone portrayed this as evidence of Zionist- Nazi collaboration.
Livingstone has given many other similar and equally outrageously distorted examples of what he claims is evidence of "real collaboration".
There is a lot he could talk about in terms of Nazi - Jewish transactions. Instead he focusses on this in a deliberately contorted way. It is absolutely anti semitic. It is very alarming that this is denied. No wonder Jews in Britain are deserting Labour.You didn't even read the post did you? Distorting history to concoct a story of Jewish Nazi collaboration is anti-semitic.Matt Barrett wrote: »You're jumping from Corbyn to Livingston and back again. Purposefully 'distorting' would be, sure.
As already said - you didn't even read the post. It was about Livingstone. It didn't mention Corbyn. It is you who has introduced Corbyn here.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
A Zionist is not necessarily a Jew. There are plenty of non Jews who are Zionists.
So says you and others who want to conflate anti Zionism with Anti Semitism.
Next stop anti Israel = anti Semite.
But it doesn't make it so.
I have come across complete anti-semites who are smart enough never to use the word "Jew". They just replace it with Zionist. "Filthy Zionists" is suddenly an okay term for them to refer to people
Any objective person can see through the veil of technicalities and semantics0 -
I have come across complete anti-semites who are smart enough never to use the word "Jew". They just replace it with Zionist. "Filthy Zionists" is suddenly an okay term for them to refer to people
Any objective person can see through the veil of technicalities and semantics
You hang around with strange people.
I suppose the real question is why the far right and most modern fascist groups have embraced Zionism, presumably it has to be related to the way Israel treats the Palestinians. In Northern Ireland the fascistic orange order and the general marching season fleg burners fly the Israeli flag; the other fascist groups (Britain first etc) also tend to be pro Israel. And also fly the Israeli flag. Or add it to their twitter profile.
Trump has followed his racist tweets yesterday with support of Israel today. Supporting Zionism seems to be a fairly strongly related to far right politics across the west.0 -
Maybe a sign that something will be done to openly address the complaints (or will the Trots manage to block it?):
"At the regular Monday evening meeting of the PLP, a furious Mr Cryer told MPs that party officials attacking staff was a "gross misjudgement".
Mr Cryer then announced that a special shadow cabinet meeting on antisemitism would be held next Monday, ahead of the regular weekly meeting of the PLP, which he said Mr Corbyn would attend.
The PLP chairman also said Labour's parliamentary committee would write to the whistleblowers interviewed in the documentary pledging its support for them.
Mr Cryer told Labour MPs: "The bottom line is we have got racists in our party and they are not being dealt with."
He was immediately backed by the shadow brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, who was due to address the meeting.
On antisemitism, Sir Keir said: "Throw open the books. Throw open the files. Give full access to members of staff. We cannot carry on circling the wagons."
There were angry outbursts at the PLP meeting from Labour backbenchers too.
Siobhan McDonagh declared: "The Labour Party? The party of the workers? It makes me sick."
Ms McDonagh said Sam Matthews, a former Labour staff member who appeared in the programme and is now threatening to sue the party, was her constituent in Mitcham and Morden, south London.
She said that if this was any other employer she would have been outside its headquarters with a placard."
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-labours-antisemitism-crisis-117638950 -
This is REALLY anti Semitic.It's not a lie, or a slur and nor does it "propagate" anti Semitism either.
The Havaara Agreement is a matter of historical fact and yes, Hitler was supportive of Zionism if it meant his goal of making Germany "Judenfrei" possible. That doesn't make Hitler a "Zionist", though.
However, he tasked members of the Nazi party, like Leopold Von Mildenstein, to co-operate with Zionists with a view to moving Jews out of Germany to new homeland. He even ordered Von Mildenstein to go to Palestine and survey areas that would be suitable for such a move.
Kurt Tuchler of the ZVD was tasked by his organisation to seek out Nazis who were sympathetic to Zionist aims, too, and he approached Von Mildenstein to discuss a "Jewish Palestine". He ended up accompanying Von Mildenstein to Palestine in 1933 for six months.
Von Mildenstein returned to Germany convinced that emigration to Palestine was the solution to Germany's "Jewish problem". Hitler then appointed him to the post of Judenrefernt in a Sicherheitsdienst office to put into effect the terms of the Harvaara Agreement.
This all may be uncomfortable reading for some, but it's still a fact, nonetheless. And absolutely none of it is "anti Semitic".
At this stage in Israels history if you are anti Israel you are anti Semitic.
You can be anti Israeli policy but your language and quite frankly your knowledge of history is bafflingly ignorant.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »You hang around with strange people.
I suppose the real question is why the far right and most modern fascist groups have embraced Zionism, presumably it has to be related to the way Israel treats the Palestinians. In Northern Ireland the fascistic orange order and the general marching season fleg burners fly the Israeli flag; the other fascist groups (Britain first etc) also tend to be pro Israel. And also fly the Israeli flag. Or add it to their twitter profile.
Trump has followed his racist tweets yesterday with support of Israel today. Supporting Zionism seems to be a fairly strongly related to far right politics across the west.
I could say 'Supporting terrorism rape and murder seems to be related to the left'. But i wouldn't because people who turn a blind eye to it are not the real left.0 -
-
Corbyn found it anti-Semitic when he looked a 'bit' closer.
What else? His meeting with Hamas and calling them his friends is highly questionable.
Hamas is like ISIS, a deeply reactive conservative Islamic right-wing group who will likely kill gays as much as Jews. If an MP invited actual Nazis to a meeting they too would be rightly condemned.
There are a lot of things Corbyn might need to look a bit closer at.0 -
Most people around Europe don't know any Jews. Almost everyone who knows the Holocaust agrees it was horrible.
People react let's say to the Israel military killing innocent kids in gaza and are labeled Anti-semitic. So how do you call out the bibi government (who Israelis vote in) and the military without being anti semitic?0 -
This popped up on sky news far right group found with weapons nazi propaganda including an Air to Air missle following an investigation into a group of Italians who fought for the Russians in East Ukraine
http://news.sky.com/story/air-to-air-missile-seized-in-terror-raids-on-italian-far-right-suspects-11763730
0 -
Most people around Europe don't know any Jews. Almost everyone who knows the Holocaust agrees it was horrible.
People react let's say to the Israel military killing innocent kids in gaza and are labeled Anti-semitic. So how do you call out the bibi government (who Israelis vote in) and the military without being anti semitic?
Easy. Get to know Israel as a country more. What have they done right? Where have they tried with the Palestinians?
Then you will understand more where they have gone wrong.
What else has Bibi done? Is he all bad? What is his stance on LGBT for example on healthcare for everyone etc? Does he support programs that give free healthcare to Palestinian children?
Or is it the permit regime that is the main problem?
WHY is the permit regime something Israelis think is necessary?
Has the permit regime really reduced terrorist attacks in Israel?
How can it be improved?
Would it be natural lets say for any country to respond with security measures in Israels place?
What do you think the USA would do in Israel's place? What would the UK do?
Are some of Israel's actions understandable? Or are they not? Where is the line?
Did the nation state law cross a line?
Do you understand the difficulties on the palestinian side? The lack of a ONE direction? Palestinians are not bad people but they are as united as Fatah and Hamas.
Most people I speak do don't even realize fatah is really the Palestinian authority.
Are all Palestinians peaceful are all the protestors peaceful?
Do you understand the full military capability of hamas and fatah? They are a thousand times more powerful than the IRA.
Look at the other countries around Palestine and Israel. Why was Iran's response to America over the OIL attack ''We will destroy Israel''? Don't you think Israel has rather measured responses to the threats like that from other countries around it? In comparison to the US or Russia or the UK or France etc I think it does.
If you see Israel as being responsible for more than 50% of the blame then you are in my opinion either deluded or antisemitic.
It's a 50/50 conflict.
If you keep turning a blind eye to the violence and threats from the Palestinians then people will not take you seriously.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »
If you're suggesting I've said anything antisemetic, either quote it or retract the claim, thanks.
Who's 'we' by the way?
IHRAAccusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Youthey should look out for the Jewish people rather than Israeli interests
You are welcome.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »You hang around with strange people.
I suppose the real question is why the far right and most modern fascist groups have embraced Zionism, presumably it has to be related to the way Israel treats the Palestinians. In Northern Ireland the fascistic orange order and the general marching season fleg burners fly the Israeli flag; the other fascist groups (Britain first etc) also tend to be pro Israel. And also fly the Israeli flag. Or add it to their twitter profile.
Trump has followed his racist tweets yesterday with support of Israel today. Supporting Zionism seems to be a fairly strongly related to far right politics across the west.
We also read earlier in the thread that the far-right are the most anti-semitic
What stands out for me is that both fringes are clearly obsessed with Israel, Jews, Zionists. The far right are open about their prejudices, the far left are less so, taking more subtle forms.0 -
We also read earlier in the thread that the far-right are the most anti-semitic
What stands out for me is that both fringes are clearly obsessed with Israel, Jews, Zionists. The far right are open about their prejudices, the far left are less so, taking more subtle forms.
According to an EU human rights agency, the left and Islamists dominate modem Antisemites in the EU.0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »This is REALLY anti Semitic.
At this stage in Israels history if you are anti Israel you are anti Semitic.
You can be anti Israeli policy but your language and quite frankly your knowledge of history is bafflingly ignorant.
It’s not anti Semitic at all. And being anti Israel is not and should never be considered anti Semitic. A state is not a race. And a state that brutalises Palestinians and treats them as second class citizens deserves to be criticised.
But if this is how loose and wide the mark is when charges of anti semitism are put forth, it explains what the current “issue” is within Labour. It obviously scares pro Israel politicians, lobby groups, journalists, etc to have a two state solution advocate within an asses roar of becoming PM.0 -
It is not uncomfortable at all -
Clearly it is for some and they get "offended".In 2016 he claimed that Hitler's original policy was to send all German Jews to Palestine. This was just not so. He only ever gave the agreement lukewarm support as he did not want the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (although he wanted rid of the Jews).He did not want a Jewish homeland full stop as he saw it as providing a base for Jewish worldwide conspiracies. He favoured the Madagascar option - he did not envisage it as a homeland, more a place of containment.
Madagascar only became an option in 1940, long after the Havaara Agreement had been in effect and it was always pie in the sky, because they had no actual way to facilitate moving anybody to Madagascar as the British had the island cut off by naval blockade. The only serious option looked into was emigration to Palestine, under the Havaara Agreement, for which the Nazis set up actual transfer provisions for Jews to move there, including a dedicated transfer office in Tel Aviv. But because Britain had occupied Palestine and were now at war with Germany, this was becoming impossible, and with millions more Jews now living in Polish territory that had been occupied by Germany and yet more that were going to come under her control with the impending fall of France, Palestine was effectively off the cards.
All in all, the Franz Rademacher's "Madagascar Plan" (which he'd poached from a 1937 Polish idea for their Jews) had a shelf life of just three months in 1940. The Havaara agreement had been running successfully (albeit not as successfully as either the Nazis or the Zionists wished) for six years.
The Havaara Agreement was very seriously carried out by the Nazis and it was their premier plan for the removal of German Jews from the Reich. The Madagascar Plan was looked at because the circumstances had changed from "removal of Jews from Germany" to "removal of Jews from Europe", but it was never, ever, going to be put into effect on a serious level, in the way that the Havaara Agreement was, because it was simply an impossible plan to carry out from the beginning and became more so as the war progressed. With Operation Ironclad, any pipe dream involving Madagascar was finished and the Nazis then started looking into another "solution".From the point of view of the Jewish group involved, the purpose of Harvara was to enable passage of as many German Jews as possible out of danger. To characterise it as in some way German support for, and collaboration in, Zionism is disgraceful. They did not support Zionism - the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Being "supportive of" an ideal, partially or even briefly, is not the same as fully supporting something. For instance, I would be supportive of some Socialist ideals, but I wouldn't support Socialism. I can be supportive of some Capitalist ideals, but I wouldn't be called a supporter of Capitalism.
The Nazis were "supportive of" a Zionist ideal, with the Havaara Agreement, if it meant a Judenfrei Deutschland. But it doesn't make them Zionists.As regards Mildenstein. After the Nazis came to power some Jewish groups still thought they get a reasoned solution. It was they who contacted Mildenstein, who was seen as a moderate, and Tuchler accompanied him on a tour of Palestine. Afterwards Goebbels published the trip in the press with a view to protraying the Nazi's as seeking an "honourable" solution to the Jewish problem. This was pure propaganda. It did not change the Nazi attitude towards the Jews.
You're just basically repeating here what I've written in #962
However, nowhere has anyone said anything about "changes" of attitudes toward Jews.Again Livingstone portrayed this as evidence of Zionist- Nazi collaboration.
Collaboration doesn't only happen between people who like each other. Sworn enemies can collaborate to achieve aims they find mutually beneficial to one another.0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »At this stage in Israels history if you are anti Israel you are anti Semitic.
No, it isn't and it should never be the case.0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »................
It's a 50/50 conflict.
If you keep turning a blind eye to the violence and threats from the Palestinians then people will not take you seriously.
Israel is seizing land and colonising outside its legal borders, therefore it's not a "50/50" conflict.0 -
Clearly it is for some and they get "offended".
Madagascar only became an option in 1940, long after the Havaara Agreement had been in effect and it was always pie in the sky, because they had no actual way to facilitate moving anybody to Madagascar as the British had the island cut off by naval blockade. The only serious option looked into was emigration to Palestine, under the Havaara Agreement, for which the Nazis set up actual transfer provisions for Jews to move there, including a dedicated transfer office in Tel Aviv. But because Britain had occupied Palestine and were now at war with Germany, this was becoming impossible, and with millions more Jews now living in Polish territory that had been occupied by Germany and yet more that were going to come under her control with the impending fall of France, Palestine was effectively off the cards.
All in all, the Franz Rademacher's "Madagascar Plan" (which he'd poached from a 1937 Polish idea for their Jews) had a shelf life of just three months in 1940. The Havaara agreement had been running successfully (albeit not as successfully as either the Nazis or the Zionists wished) for six years.
The Havaara Agreement was very seriously carried out by the Nazis and it was their premier plan for the removal of German Jews from the Reich. The Madagascar Plan was looked at because the circumstances had changed from "removal of Jews from Germany" to "removal of Jews from Europe", but it was never, ever, going to be put into effect on a serious level, in the way that the Havaara Agreement was, because it was simply an impossible plan to carry out from the beginning and became more so as the war progressed. With Operation Ironclad, any pipe dream involving Madagascar was finished and the Nazis then started looking into another "solution".
Being "supportive of" an ideal, partially or even briefly, is not the same as fully supporting something. For instance, I would be supportive of some Socialist ideals, but I wouldn't support Socialism. I can be supportive of some Capitalist ideals, but I wouldn't be called a supporter of Capitalism.
The Nazis were "supportive of" a Zionist ideal, with the Havaara Agreement, if it meant a Judenfrei Deutschland. But it doesn't make them Zionists.
You're just basically repeating here what I've written in #962
However, nowhere has anyone said anything about "changes" of attitudes toward Jews.
Collaboration doesn't only happen between people who like each other. Sworn enemies can collaborate to achieve aims they find mutually beneficial to one another.
I see you have been doing a bit of googling again - and continuing to distort (you are not Ken in disguise, are you?)
Once again, Any "offence" is due to the deliberate distortion of The Havarra Agreement for anti-semitic purposes. Such as Ken using it to assert that " "He (Hitler) was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews".
The Agreement was not the premier Nazi method of removing Jews from Germany. The premier method was to terrorise them into fleeing anywhere else. Hitler was generally at best luke warm about the agreement, partly because he did not want to see a Jewish state in Palestine (not very Zionist of him, is it) but he gave it some support during 1938-39. Probably there were a number of reasons for this - one being the poor public reaction to Kristalnacht in Germany meant domestic terror had to be dampened down, and partly because the influx of Jews fleeing from The Reich to Poland was alarming authorities there and he still had some notion of arranging a German-Polish anti Soviet pact.
From the Jewish viewpoint the agreement was a dance with the devil but did mean that in the region of 80,000 Jews escaped from the Reich to Palestine before 1940. That means 80,000 saved from the gas chambers. Perhaps a price worth paying? Do 80,000 lives matter? Well to dear Ken Livingstone they do matter - they matter as a way of showing what he calls Nazi - Zionist "collaboration".One wonders why he didn't celebrate the lives saved by the agreement rather than using it as a smear? But no need to wonder too much.
Now Madagascar. Neither the Germans nor the Poles originated it, if we want to be pedantic. It had existed as a vague notion for several decades and was promoted by some anti-semites. Hitler indeed was long a proponent - but it wasn't a plan as such. It was more a vague notion of somewhere remote and contained, far away, where the Jews could be corralled. It was in this way that it was used euphemistically as a "solution" to the "Jewish problem". The Poles did,indeed, independently examine it in 1937 but concluded that it could accomodate no more than 7,000 families. This was hardly a number worth pursuing. This was why the Poles were mystified when during discussions in 1938 the Germans kept pushing it as a "solution" to the Jewish problem. This is because the Poles were slow to grasp that the Germans were not interested in how many could be "settled" onto the Island but only in it as a remote place in which Jews could be herded and dealt with. The particular details of the island and how to access it did not concern the Germans unduly at that stage. If Madagascar didn't work somewhere else remote would do. (Not very Zionist of them is it, Ken?) As regards Rademacher his role was to try to put flesh on the proposal in 1940. Until then it was more a concept than a detailed plan.
Anyway all of this history is largely irrelelevat to the topic. The question is - Why would Ken seek to focus on this relatively obscure (but not secret) part of the Jewish experience under Nazism and distort details of it in an anti-Jewish way, other than for anti-semitic purposes? Or as he would pretend, "anti-Zionist". As he said himself :‘a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbours in Golders Green or Stoke Newington, it’s a physical loathing.’0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What's the pro Israel stance on the golan heights. It was never Israeli land, they called a development Trump heights recently.
There's an element that want to officially annex it. However the Israeli government nearly negotiated a deal with Syria to give it back a few years ago. Deal faltered on the issue of water rights, and the Syrian war started soon after which put paid to further talks.0
Advertisement