Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe

blackwhite

Odhinn wrote: »

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.

Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall gives quite a good analysis on why Israel has been so reluctant to give up control of the Golan Heights.

As you stated - water supply is a huge element of it. Something like 15% of Israel's water supplies come from aquifers originating, or flowing through, Golan. Their fear is that, in the event of a conflict with Syria or Iran, that rivers could be dammed or diverted, leaving significant parts of Israel without water.

The other element is military significance. It's high, mountainous ground overlooking most of northern Israel. The Isaeli military view it as 1) a very effective defence against any attempted attack from Syria or Iran and 2) a very strong base to attack Israel from if it were ceded back to "enemy" hands.

Not trying to justify the current occupation - just explaining the rationale that Israel are using

Limpy

Gatling wrote: »

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

Probably a very misleading headline. Ukraine is the pro nazi side and openly so. Russia and the mercs in East Ukraine would be totally against them.

Tony EH

1641 wrote: »

I see you have been doing a bit of googling again - and continuing to distort (you are not Ken in disguise, are you?)

I don't need to do any googling. I've been reading about the various Nazi plans for the Jews since the 90's.

Nor am I interested in "distorting" anything.

1641 wrote: »

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.

You're just down to contradiction now and this is getting pointless.

I don't accept your assertion that Hitler was "lukewarm" toward the Harvaara Agreement and the extent that the Nazis went through to carry it out for the six year period between 1933 and 1939 strongly suggests something contrary to your opinion on the matter.

We will have to just disagree on the matter and move forward.

1641 wrote: »

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.

Nobody has said that it was anything else other than "a dance with the devil". But a "a dance with the devil" is still a collaborative effort, whether you like it or not. You can continue to stamp your feet and refuse to understand what collaboration means, but it won't change what happened.

Even the members of the ZVD, in their memorandum to Hitler on the 21st June 1933 asked for Nazi collaboration:

"May we therefore be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence ... Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in ones own tradition...

...an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry ... a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life...

...For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people. The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda  such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways  is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ... Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state."

You may quibble over what you personally believe the word "collaboration" means, but the fact of the matter is that there was a collaborative effort on behalf of the NSDAP and the ZVD to achieve a particular goal and no amount of refusal on your behalf is going to change that.

1641 wrote: »

Now Madagascar. Neither the Germans nor the Poles originated it, if we want to be pedantic.

Nobody said they did.

1641 wrote: »

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.

Yes, "Madagascar" was a vague, nebulous, notion that was muted in certain quarters and at certain levels as mere concept. Again, nobody has said otherwise. But, the fact of the matter is, that it was only in 1940, that Franz Rademacher was tasked with coming up with a feasibility study to furnish an actual plan to see how realistic it was to remove the Jews of Europe to the island. This was because the fall of France, who owned the island of Madagascar, was inevitable and part of any surrender details was to be the inclusion of Madagascar as a resettlement zone for European Jews. But, the war with Britain had made any realistic possibility of carrying out the plan (which was never a detailed or realistic one to begin with) null and void.

1641 wrote: »

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.’

It's relevant in the light of the recent attacks on the Labour Party and how a mere statement of historical fact can be misconstrued into an anti Semitic remark.

If one wants to quibble over what extent "supportive of" actually means, that's fine. That's an academic discussion point. And even if one wants to say that some people felt "offended" by it, that's also fine too. But trying to twist Ken Livingstone's comment about the collaboration between the ZVD and the NSDAP during the 1930's into "anti Semitism", somehow, is the lowest form of political slander.

Gatling

Limpy wrote: »

Probably a very misleading headline. Ukraine is the pro nazi side and openly so. Russia and the mercs in East Ukraine would be totally against them.

That's where your wrong Russia is a big proponent of right wing neo Nazis ,they actually Held one of the biggest far right conferences in Moscow not so long ago,
Fighting neo Nazis in Ukraine is one of the biggest misconceptions(lies) regularly used to excuse russian involvement in Ukraine

1641

Limpy wrote: »

Probably a very misleading headline. Ukraine is the pro nazi side and openly so. Russia and the mercs in East Ukraine would be totally against them.

Neo-nazi groups on both sides there, I would think. The Russian are big on pumping out fake news linking Ukraine and Nazism:


https://www.stopfake.org/en/tag/nazi/

James Brown

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Corbyn doesn't dispute the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state he is woefully ill informed however.

But his supporters are of another ilk and he doesn't rein them in.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

There are a lot of things Corbyn might need to look a bit closer at.

That's sensationalist bull crap.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

IHRA


You


You are welcome.

I accused Israeli Shills of disrespecting the Jewish people by using antisemetism to further the policies of the Israeli regime while damaging the validity of the term antisemetism IMO.

Now please explain how 'we' are use to my being antisemetic? You are calling me antisemetic. Explain yourself or withdraw it.

1641

[QUOTE=Tony EH;110704883
Yes, "Madagascar" was a vague, nebulous, notion that was muted in certain quarters and at certain levels as mere concept. Again, nobody has said otherwise. But, the fact of the matter is, that it was only in 1940, that Franz Rademacher was tasked with coming up with a feasibility study to furnish an actual plan to see how realistic it was to remove the Jews of Europe to the island. This was because the fall of France, who owned the island of Madagascar, was inevitable and part of any surrender details was to be the inclusion of Madagascar as a resettlement zone for European Jews.


It's relevant in the light of the recent attacks on the Labour Party and how a mere statement of historical fact can be misconstrued into an anti Semitic remark.

If one wants to quibble over what extent "supportive of" actually means, that's fine. That's an academic discussion point. And even if one wants to say that some people felt "offended" by it, that's also fine too. But trying to twist Ken Livingstone's comment about the collaboration between the ZVD and the NSDAP during the 1930's into "anti Semitism", somehow, is the lowest form of political slander.[/QUOTE]


I am not going over the details of the Havarra agreement with you again. The fact is that it is a relatively obscure detail of the Nazi regime and Jewish experience under Nazism (but not "secret" as Livingstone once claimed, as if it was some sort of shame to be kept from the public). The fact is from a Jewish point of view it saved an estimated 80,000 lives.
But Livingstone focussed on what he called "collaboration" between Zionist and Nazis and ignored the lives saved. I assume from his point of view that aspect of it was irrelevant. The slur was the point.


Just look at that word "collaboration". It has a particular connotation when applied to the Nazi regime. To say, for example, "the Smith's collaborated with the Nazis" conveys a completely different understanding to "The Smith's collaborated with the Jones". "Collaboration" with the Nazis in popular understanding and usage implies either knowingly assisting the Nazis or, at least, actively working with them in a supportive way.

Collaborators tended to be punished after the war.

Yet, the term used by Livingstone was "collaboration". He dragged up this agreement to prove "collaboration". He is an experienced politician - he knew perfectly well the power of words. But he didn't have to be a politician to know the loading meaning of the term in this context.


Livingstone also said:
“he [Hitler] was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. Hitler was not supporting Zionism. There is no twisting this this by manipuating the meaning of "support".


As regards Madagascar. Yes it was a vague nebulous notion - in that it didn't necessarily mean the island in a literal sense. It meant some place where the Jews could be contained, controlled and the "problem" eliminated. That was the Nazi attitude to the Jews. It was not Zionism.

Tony EH

1641 wrote: »

I am not going over the details of the Havarra agreement with you again.

Good, because you have nothing new on offer about it.

1641 wrote: »

The fact is that it is a relatively obscure detail of the Nazi regime and Jewish experience under Nazism (but not "secret" as Livingstone once claimed, as if it was some sort of shame to be kept from the public). The fact is from a Jewish point of view it saved an estimated 80,000 lives.
But Livingstone focussed on what he called "collaboration" between Zionist and Nazis and ignored the lives saved. I assume from his point of view that aspect of it was irrelevant. The slur was the point.

Just look at that word "collaboration". It has a particular connotation when applied to the Nazi regime. To say, for example, "the Smith's collaborated with the Nazis" conveys a completely different understanding to "The Smith's collaborated with the Jones". "Collaboration" with the Nazis in popular understanding and usage implies either knowingly assisting the Nazis or, at least, actively working with them in a supportive way.

Collaborators tended to be punished after the war.

Yet, the term used by Livingstone was "collaboration". He dragged up this agreement to prove "collaboration". He is an experienced politician - he knew perfectly well the power of words. But he didn't have to be a politician to know the loading meaning of the term in this context.

Livingstone also said:
“he [Hitler] was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. Hitler was not supporting Zionism. There is no twisting this this by manipuating the meaning of "support".

As regards Madagascar. Yes it was a vague nebulous notion - in that it didn't necessarily mean the island in a literal sense. It meant some place where the Jews could be contained, controlled and the "problem" eliminated. That was the Nazi attitude to the Jews. It was not Zionism.

The facts are these. The Havaara Agreement ran for six years and without Nazi support for it, it wouldn't have even gotten off the ground, never mind run for over half a decade.

The so called Madagascar Plan was a pipe dream that had a shelf life, as a bit of paper, for three months.

It's clear which one the Nazis put the most resources into and supported the most.

This particular angle of discussion in this thread is at an end. At this point, you're just just repeating stuff and showing an inability to understand words like "collaboration".

It's gone on long enough.

1641

Tony EH wrote: »

The so called Madagascar Plan was a pipe dream that had a shelf life, as a bit of paper, for three months.

It's clear which one the Nazis put the most resources into and supported the most.

This particular angle of discussion in this thread is at an end. At this point, you're just just repeating stuff and showing an inability to understand words like "collaboration".

It's gone on long enough.

I know perfectly well what "collaboration" means when applied to the Nazis - and so do you.



Madagascar was a long running idea. The fact is it was pushed by the Nazis in discussion with the Poles in 1938. It was still sometimes being used euphemistically in the 1940s to refer to where the disappearing Jews were going. Madagascar as a physical location for the plan was only gone into in any detail in 1940. But as a more general approach it existed long before and after. Madagascar was the approach the Nazis put the most into - it found its final concrete expression in both the gas chambers and the murder fields throughout eastern Europe.
Maybe Ken should search for evidence of "collaboration" there as well. After all, he rebuffed a Jewish journalist with " "You are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/feb/12/pressandpublishing.londonpolitics


Over and out.

Dohnjoe

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I accused Israeli Shills

What's an Israeli shill?

Limpy

Gatling wrote: »

That's where your wrong Russia is a big proponent of right wing neo Nazis ,they actually Held one of the biggest far right conferences in Moscow not so long ago,
Fighting neo Nazis in Ukraine is one of the biggest misconceptions(lies) regularly used to excuse russian involvement in Ukraine

Bandera is celebrated in Ukraine. He was pro nazi and people still support his ideas in Ukraine. Take of your anti Russia blinkers. You can dislike Russia and still say more people in Ukraine are pro nazi.

Go to Babi Yar where ordinary Ukrainians carry on as if nothing happened.

James Brown

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What's an Israeli shill?

People who support and carry out PR for the Israeli regime.

SHILL:

noun
1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

verb
1.
act or work as a shill.

Similar to a bot.

Gatling

Limpy wrote: »

Go to Babi Yar where ordinary Ukrainians carry on as if nothing happened.

How should they carry on .....

Dohnjoe

Limpy wrote: »

Probably a very misleading headline. Ukraine is the pro nazi side and openly so. Russia and the mercs in East Ukraine would be totally against them.

Off-topic I know, but the above is incorrect. After the protests, the two far-right Ukrainian presidential candidates got around 2% of the vote between them (which is lower than many European countries). The Neo-Nazi label is largely due to a Russian disinformation and propaganda campaign

Ironically, Russia itself is home to the majority of self professed neo-Nazi groups, last count put them at approx 50% of the world's total

Dohnjoe

60 Labour peers have taken out an advert attacking Corbyn over his handling of antisemitism in the party. Again, not exactly a "non-issue" or a "ruse" as some are trying to claim.

James Brown

Dohnjoe wrote: »

60 Labour peers have taken out an advert attacking Corbyn over his handling of antisemitism in the party. Again, not exactly a "non-issue" or a "ruse" as some are trying to claim.

It's far from a non-issue, it's a campaign. It's more smear until I see hard evidence.

TBH, the more I see the opposition leader in Britain, with a socialist vent, being put forward as the poster boy for anti-semtism the more suspicious I get that it's all a load of right wing propaganda.

Dohnjoe

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's far from a non-issue, it's a campaign. It's more smear until I see hard evidence.

It's your personal view that it's a ruse/smear/conspiracy

However the views of 60 Labour peers, Labour Jewish groups, Labour investigation teams, current and ex members point toward the singular corroborated view that there is an issue. We'll see what the EHRC investigation turns up.

James Brown

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's your personal view that it's a ruse/smear/conspiracy

However the views of 60 Labour peers, Labour Jewish groups, Labour investigation teams, current and ex members point toward the singular corroborated view that there is an issue. We'll see what the EHRC investigation turns up.

If he's found to be I'll condemn him for it. I don't know the man personally and am not a British voter, I just tire of any left leaning politician getting attacked by the new Trump-speak right where you either agree or are flawed in some way as a person.
I find it highly unlikely Corbyn is antisemetic. That's not to say the claims won't/aren't damaging for him and leftist policies he may be trying to push.

James Brown

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Off-topic I know, but the above is incorrect. After the protests, the two far-right Ukrainian presidential candidates got around 2% of the vote between them (which is lower than many European countries). The Neo-Nazi label is largely due to a Russian disinformation and propaganda campaign

Ironically, Russia itself is home to the majority of self professed neo-Nazi groups, last count put them at approx 50% of the world's total

Also they recently elected a comedian as President. If that's not a protest vote...

Il Fascista

Matt Barrett wrote: »

where you either agree or are flawed in some way as a person.

It's not very nice is it? You're essentially getting your own **** thrown back in your face.

James Brown

Il Fascista wrote: »

It's not very nice is it? You're essentially getting your own **** thrown back in your face.

You are proving my point. Thanks.

Tony EH

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's your personal view that it's a ruse/smear/conspiracy

However the views of 60 Labour peers, Labour Jewish groups, Labour investigation teams, current and ex members point toward the singular corroborated view that there is an issue. We'll see what the EHRC investigation turns up.

That's 60 people out of a half a million. That's 0.012%.

And just because some people sign a petition, it isn't proof of endemic Anti Semitism within and organisation.

There has still been little put forward that is, in any way, concrete evidence to support such a claim.

Tony EH

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If he's found to be I'll condemn him for it. I don't know the man personally and am not a British voter, I just tire of any left leaning politician getting attacked by the new Trump-speak right where you either agree or are flawed in some way as a person.
I find it highly unlikely Corbyn is antisemetic. That's not to say the claims won't/aren't damaging for him and leftist policies he may be trying to push.

Labour are ripping themselves to shreds over this and in a way it's kind of funny to watch. They are bending over backwards to try and avoid the pointing fingers and it isn't doing them one bit of good at all.

But, you're correct, if Corbyn is found to be anti Semitic (not the case as far as I'm concerned) or if he's shown to dragging his heals, then he should be called out on it.

But, exactly what is Corbyn to do when most of the claims are "someone said something nasty to me in 2015..." or "I overheard someone say something...". How does one even go about trying investigating that in an impartial manner?

Labour have been quick enough to oust party members, like Chris Williamson, for merely saying that they felt that their party hasn't been robust enough in their defence, which isn't anyway near an Anti Semitic remark. So, if there was a person in the party that was expressing actual Anti Semitic sentiments, they get the bullet sharpish, even if it was to simply save face.

Sitting over here, it's made for interesting viewing and like you, I don't have any particular truck with the British Labour Party. I don't even vote for our own Labour Party. But the ones winning the most here are the Tories, who probably can't believe their luck that this campaign has gain such traction based on such a tiny level of variable evidence. The Tories, who have made such a balls up of Brexit, are perhaps looking at staying in power, even as the country could (possibly) go down the shitter.

Maybe Labour are secretly hoping that the Tories do stay on. Because if Brexit does turn out to be as terrible as a lot of observers predict, the party that are in power will never escape from the gloom that shrouds it.

1641

Tony EH wrote: »

That's 60 people out of a half a million. That's 0.012%.

And just because some people sign a petition, it isn't proof of endemic Anti Semitism within and organisation.

I understand (maybe wrong) that there are in the region of 180 sitting Labour peers. So approximately 33% percent signed this petition. Quite a significant proportion.


It was not a survey of party members. However, if the charge related to the influx of members, many of whom share anti-semitic ideas, maybe a survey wouldn't be the way to go about it.
I believe that the Peers have called for an indepentent investigation, ie, not one controlled by the hierarchy who have been accused of being sympathetic to anti-semitic ideas. This echoes the call at the recent meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.


This issue is going to blight Labour until it is investigated openly and transparently.

James Brown

I think a lot of it has to do with Blairites not wanting a return to left wing policies.

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

I understand (maybe wrong) that there are in the region of 180 sitting Labour peers. So approximately 33% percent signed this petition. Quite a significant proportion.


It was not a survey of party members. However, if the charge related to the influx of members, many of whom share anti-semitic ideas, maybe a survey wouldn't be the way to go about it.
I believe that the Peers have called for an indepentent investigation, ie, not one controlled by the hierarchy who have been accused of being sympathetic to anti-semitic ideas. This echoes the call at the recent meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.


This issue is going to blight Labour until it is investigated openly and transparently.

I wouldn't if I were Corbyn. If they have an investigation at all it should be internal. We have no claims of laws being broken here and only the Labour party can chastise or sanction their own members.
Also you have to ask yourself is it only legitimising the smear campaign to make any such move?
The fact that the OP is on antisemetism rising in Europe and we spent more time discussing Corbyn than out and proud far right groups and politicians furthers my theory that it's merely smear backed by Blarites and pro Israeli regime propagandists.

Tony EH

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with Blairites not wanting a return to left wing policies.

I think this is most definitely the case, whether there is an endemic problem or not. The Blairites have rued the day that their party imploded to Cameron's Tories and were further sickened when Corbyn won his leadership bid. It's never sat well with them.

But if they think destroying their own party will make the majority of Labour voters suddenly forget the Iraq war lies and the damage they did previously, they have another thing coming.

Tony EH

1641 wrote: »

I understand (maybe wrong) that there are in the region of 180 sitting Labour peers. So approximately 33% percent signed this petition. Quite a significant proportion.

I'd call that a remarkably low percentage, if indeed the problem was so "big" and "obvious".

1641

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I wouldn't if I were Corbyn. If they have an investigation at all it should be internal. We have no claims of laws being broken here and only the Labour party can chastise or sanction their own members.

Well, they are going to face an investgation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission anyway :


"We are using our powers under the Equality Act to open an investigation, which will look at:

• whether unlawful acts have been committed by the Party or its employees or agents
• the steps taken by the Party to implement the recommendations made in the reports on antisemitism by Baroness Royall, the Home Affairs Select Committee and in the Chakrabarti Report
• whether the Rule Book and the Party’s investigatory and disciplinary processes have enabled or could enable it to deal efficiently and effectively with complaints of race or religion or belief discrimination and racial harassment or victimisation, including whether appropriate sanctions have been or could be applied
• whether the Party has responded to complaints of unlawful acts in a lawful, efficient and effective manner"

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/investigation-labour-party