My Anti-Racist Comments on Israel 560

I was accused on Sky News of making comments attacking the Jewish tribe. Ripped from its context, the remark appeared so offensive I could not conceive I had ever made it. I find now that in fact I did say it, but in the context of a specific remark by an Israeli minister making a claim that the Israeli Prime Minister leads all Jews worldwide. My remark was part of a post attacking all racism. They could equally well have taken the quote “I wish nothing but good to all people, including all Jewish people” out of the post.

To be absolutely open, I repeat the post here:

Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett has claimed of Binyamin Netanyahu that “The prime minister is not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world.” Really? Netanyahu is the leader of all the Jews in London, or California, or Ethiopia, who may never have set foot in his state?

This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.

Here is a picture of the New Zealand cricket team. In the last twelve months, New Zealand cricket teams have fielded payers including Hamish Rutherford, Peter Fulton, Colin Munro, Dean Brownlie, Ross Taylor, Rob Nicol, Corey Anderson, Grant Elliott, Jimmy Neesham, Kyle Mills, Adam Milne and Mark Craig, not to mention the McCullum brothers. But if I told you that Alex Salmond was the leader of all Scots around the world, including the Black Caps, you would quite rightly call me a nutter.

We would not tolerate the level of racism in any other country that we tolerate from Israel. There was a huge outcry against Labour MP Paul Flynn who dared question whether it was sensible to send a strongly professed Zionist Jew as British ambassador to Israel, but when the Israeli government itself proclaim the political leadership of all Jews all over the world, it is a logical impossibility not to ask the question.

I wish nothing but good to all people, including all Jewish people, but by their increasingly hardline racialist approach, their unceasing encroachment on Palestinian land and their rigorous adoption of all the racist mechanisms of an apartheid state internally, I fear that the window of opportunity for a peaceful future for those Jewish people living in what is currently Israel is closing fast.

It must be universally proclaimed: there is not a single racial group in the whole world from whom worldwide racial claims of political allegiance, or an internal racially based legislative order, are acceptable. Bennett’s remarks are beyond the limit of civilised political discourse.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

560 thoughts on “My Anti-Racist Comments on Israel

1 2 3 4
  • Resident Dissident

    “Livingston never said Schikelgruber (modified to meet the rules of the censor but you know who I mean) was a Zionist.”

    No but he did say he only turned mad after 1932. Have you ever considered what he said about the Jews in Mein Kampf published in 1925/26

        • Laguerre

          It’s not my opinion that counts, rather public reaction. Minuscule criticisms rarely have much public effect.

    • Chris Rogers


      Historically, and which has been pointed out, Livingstone’s timeline in actually out, if only because Hitler was not invited to be Chancellor until the first quarter of 1933, by which time support for the NAZIS Party in Weimar Germany was declining. His references however towards interactions between his top lieutenants and representatives of Zionist groups are factual and correct. However, whether Hitler was directly involved is questionable given the power structure around him, with many usually trying to please his whims, with or without his consent. As for passages attributed to Hitler in Mein Kampf, well its questionable he ever wrote it, although its content was heavily influenced by him. But, his detestation of European Jewry was real, as was that of many rightwing groupings across Europe, and indeed in the UK. I could go on, but no doubt I’ll bore you, but the fact remains, and in Berlin in particular, Jews and Non-Jews were intermingling and marrying to an extent that annoyed both forces on the Right and Zionists, but hey, I’m an ‘anti-semite’ for pointing that out, so best censor myself I guess!

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      Hitler hated Jews, but wished for a long time to merely expel them, preferably to Palestine. The historical record is plain, but the Israel First brigade are attempting, as is their practise, to re-write history while vilifying and slandering those who dare not obey them ABSOLUTELY, another familiar practise. What Livingstone said was TRUE.

    • Resident Dissident

      Why don’t you just read what it actually says – scared that it might challenge your own prejudice?

      • Ba\'al Zevul

        I did read it, btw. Livingstone was reproducing the bits of the story that suited him, and Bogdanor was dooing exactly the same. Nil-all.

        • Resident Dissident

          That wasn’t my reading – I have no problem in accepting that Livingstone was basing his view on what was said in Lenni’s book – but I believe that Bogdanor produces convincing evidence that the approaches made by Zionists to Schikelgruber and his friends were made with little expectation of their success and in desperation and that they were quite clearly rebuffed. If you put the pieces of the story together they make sense and tie in with other events.

          Livingstone was clearly in the wrong with his comment about Schikelgruber subsequently going mad .

  • Chris Rogers

    As we are not allowed to contribute actual historical realities, my last large post on this very topic was moderated never to be seen again, the fact remains Livingston is correct and its verified by a number of global scholars who have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. Now, whether Livingstone’s source is dodgy is neither here or there because the facts actually are out there and well covered.

    How about a little intellectual honesty mate, obviously the truth being more important that political point scoring, which should never interfere with any scholarly work, for if it does, its but pure propaganda.

  • Laguerre

    I do wonder how much effect the witch-hunt is going to have. Most commenters in the comment columns which are open, are supremely uninterested in the pro-Israel arguments, and indeed opposed. The only support comes from the hasbara professionals, and those who are committed. Comment columns are vox populi, but of course not really representative, as self-selected.

    Nevertheless the absence of sympathy for the argument is quite striking, and I wonder whether the public is not a bit bored with the constant accusations of anti-semitism. It’s worth asking whether the move is going to have much effect on the London mayoral elections, or on Corbyn’s position after the local elections.

    • Chris Rogers


      I have found the opposite to be the case on The Guardian website, where comments about this issue have been introduced into threads not associated with these claims as the Guardian, for some unknown reason, will not allow Comment. However, the kite is not flying in more Progressive US websites I visit, many of which are critical about the power of AIPAC.

      • Laguerre

        You have to understand how comments work. Five years ago, commenters had something genuine to say. Since then, political interests have understood that paying people to give anonymous favourable comments on the comment columns is a useful activity. Or even unpaid people, if you have them. Israel may have been the first, but lots of others have followed. Including Egyptians for example.

        The Guardian has a heavy moderation policy. At one time, there was a pro-Israeli moderator who deleted masses of comments, but he/she seems to have to disappeared. Otherwise the Guardian seems to be afraid of GuardianWatch (now MediaWatch) who complain about every single anti-Israel comment. Their solution seems to be to cut back comments to non-controversial subjects. Look at the parallel Independent comments, which are little moderated, and you see that anti-Muslimism is rampant, but also scepticism about the anti-semitism claims.

        It’s a fine judgement whether anti-Muslimism will work, but not anti-semitism.

        • lysias

          It’s racially sensitive matters on which the Washington Post sporadically does not permit comments. If there’s any pattern to when they allow and do not allow comments on stories about crimes that blacks have committed in the D.C. area, I have yet to discern it.

          Like on this forum whether or not comments about 1930s Germany are allowed through.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        In today’s Guardian; Tony Blair ‘believes’, ‘feels’ and ‘thinks’ about Brexit, and Nick Cohen says that every synagogue and Jewish school in Britain has a police guard. Which is just not fucking true, at least where I live. OTOH yesterday it carried three pages of Snowden on the US military in its G2 supplement: presumably it’s right-on to expose the Yanks, but god help the hack if he gets near corporate money.

  • Chris Rogers

    It’s not a serious analysis, nor has The Guardian made any form of serious analysis. If you want senior analysis may I recommend you connect With Ian Kershaw and a host of German scholars on this matter, the very authors one studied in the 90’s, none of whom were accused of being anti-semitic for documenting and interpreting historical fact. Further, unless you actually comprehend the real power structure surrounding Hitler during the interwar years of 1933-1939 its difficult form any analysis. This is a historical matter, and not a bloody football issue, so please stop playing politics as it really is not amusing.

    You may also want to take a look at Christopher R. Browning’s “The Origins of the Final Solution’, which again, although briefly covers this issue – a copy of which I have in front of me. Regrettably, most of my other historical reference books and notes are in the UK, but as ever, Kershaw is good to start as long as you read a number of German authored books detailed in his extensive bibliographies, many of which are in English and constitute ‘Revisionism’ as embraced from the early 80’s onwards.

    • Resident Dissident

      “This is a historical matter, and not a bloody football issue, so please stop playing politics as it really is not amusing.”

      I agree – but I am not the one throwing the term fascist around freely without understanding its historical context.

      Yes – I look forward to Ian Kershaw’s analysis on Livingstone’s comments.

  • Ba\'al Zevul

    While I don’t automatically regard RD as malign, I’d suggest that Harry’s Place is hardly an unbiassed source, The author, Paul Bogdanor isn’t scared of the odd emotive phrase, either:

    Yup. Corbyn’s out there in his white sheet, with his burning cross, at the head of his robotic band of bigots, looting, pillaging and very possibly raping their way to a land free of synagogues.

    I mean, if you’re accusing your opponent of extremism, you’re allowed as much hysterical exaggeration as you like, ne?

    If Livingstone’s talking bollocks (albeit based on the fact that talks undeniably took place) fair do’s. He’s talked bollocks before, he will doubtless do so again. Boris Johnson’s observation that Obama hated Britain because he was Kenyan sank without trace, though. Dual standards all round!

    • Chris Rogers

      Ba\’al Zevul,

      I could not care less what Livingstone stated, its really neither here or there, the fact is TPTB in the media establishment, Zionist forces aligned with Blairite forces have been using this ‘anti-semitism’ nonsense to bash Corbyn with, and his supporters – among them me, since that horrible piece in the Jewish Chronicle circa July/August last year. The bullshite also takes the heat off the Tories with regards the EU, Obama’s interjections having the reverse impact they were supposed too, and take the heat off Dave himself over his dodgy tax affairs.

      You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand this class ‘with and bait’, and how better to achieve this than by colluding with Zionist and Blairite forces, the Blair faction never able to come to terms with the democratic mandate that Corbyn achieved after Ms. Harman’s disastrous decision to abstain from the vote on the Welfare Bill in July last year.

      • Ba\'al Zevul

        Yes, Chris. Please don’t be infuriated because I don’t see things through an emotional prism. I am a lizard, and I’m coldblooded. If you want some partial support for Livingstone’s opinion, you could do a lot worse than reading this:
        That’s an impeccably Jewish source, by the way.

        And then reading further. It’s a sordid study in self-interest, from which neither rich German Jews, nor the Jewish Agency emerge on the moral high ground. Nor can it be summarised in a soundbite. If an experienced leftwing politician is considering propagating a meme most often heard from the far Right, he should have the wit to check it first.

    • Resident Dissident

      I don’t regard Harry’s Place as an unbiased source – sources are hardly ever are. But Bogdanor’s sources are pretty well documented and I very much doubt that he was making up the quotes that Lenni left out of his analysis – he didn’t deny the quotes made by Lenni, but just added the bits he missed out – and those who are interested in serious analysis have to ask themselves why he did this as they certainly appear to be pertinent.

  • Laguerre

    Nit-picking is not a useful activity when accusing politicians. They don’t read that much and have broad ideas. Livingston’s basic idea is right, that the Nazis did favour the export of Jews to Palestine at one point, as one way of getting rid of them. It didn’t go further because Germans have a very central European attitude, and they think about local solutions, rather than the wider overseas world which we Brits are accustomed to.

    • lysias

      It was also a way to get hard currency (Devisen), which the German economy was in dire need off to pay for imports. Imports became all the more necessary with the German rearmament program. The worldwide boycott that was being organized against the new German government was a dire threat to the German economy, and thereby to the survival of the new German government.

  • Chris Rogers

    Sorry chaps, its difficult to have a cogent dialogue when all our posts keep going into moderation. CM really does not like historical reference, which hinders greatly any defence mounted against these serious charges of anti-semitism in Labour’s ranks and those of the Left in general, accusations I seriously contest, but to do so means we must reference. Talk about having our hands tied behind our backs!

    • RobG

      Because of the police state, that many posters on here deny, Craig can’t overtly criticise Israel without his domain being removed from the internet.

      This is, apparently, ‘democracy’ in the West in the 21st century.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      But, Chris, these are NOT serious charges of ‘antisemitism’. The pro-Israel forces that control Western politics and the MSM (certainly the ultra-odious Guardian) use spurious charges of ‘antisemitism’ as a weapon to defend Israel, a true ‘rogue state’ if ever there was one, and to control the societies and their politics, in which they operate. These current charges against Livingstone are utterly fraudulent, indeed ludicrously so, but the usual 100% Groupthink of the MSM presstitutes illustrates just how totally the Israel First Lobby controls the MSM. If that situation does not concern rational UK citizens then they are mad.

    • Silver99

      Craig is right to clamp down on so-called “historical references” as such “references” are not easily verifiable and are often used to deny that Hitler was an organsing and practising anti-Semite from early on.

      Hitler not only declared his anti-Semitism early on in his political life, but also associated early with groups and causes and policies that were based on anti-semitic views. To deny that is to deny basic and easily verifiable fact.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain

        Silver 99, how is Hitler’s desire to expel the Jews, to Palestine or wherever, not a sign of ‘antisemitism’.

    • laguerre

      The question is not the truth, but how it is perceived. There’s little anti-semitism in the UK, so little sentiment for the arguments. Anti-semitism is a non-issue. making it an issue is only likely to bore people.

      • Chris Rogers


        As we compliment in the UK: Hear, Hear Sir.

        Your succinct comment says more than I have managed to convey, and others – just a shame the Left’s detractors and malcontents within the Labour Party seem unable to comprehend these facts.

        • laguerre

          “I don’t think so”

          So what is the great anti-semitic feeling, other than that people object to Israel stealing Palestinian land?

          • Resident Dissident

            Criminal thuggery and racism – which you seem quite happy to excuse.

          • Resident Dissident

            The more observant will note that Laguerre has conflated anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Perhaps the anti-Zionists may wish to deal with it themselves.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I do not agree that Laguerre has. Clearly he or she is using sarcasm to make a point.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            On the other hand they could simply refuse to accept your nonsense.

          • Resident Dissident

            So all those anti-Semitic attacks are nonsense and can be ignored by our fearless campaigner who fearlessly argues the case for all and sundry that his favoured anti Zionists are not anti-semites – said without the slightest hint of sarcasm.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Nope. What’s nonsense is your assertion that Laguerre is conflating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

          • Resident Dissident

            You will not even recognise it when it is written down in black and white – and you don’t even need to go and look at Laguerre’s past posting history.

      • gary carp

        You are right and you are wrong. A Jew is not necessarily a zionist – though, undoubtedly, the vast majority are..but mad groups, largely haredi like Neturai Karta..have extreme religious problems. But it’s a bit like jewish jokes…when a Jewish comedian tells them, it’s self deprecating ad funny; when a non-Jew tells the same jokes, it’s antisemitism.

        The issue of being Anti-Zionist is to take issue with the very existence of the world’s one and only defined Jewish State – or rather, the one state whose national organised religion is Judaism (this is an important nuance). To take such a position consistently, one would first have to take issue with other religion-based states. There around 60 designated Moslem States, many Christian assuming one is rational and consistent – you’d have to argue against all such states and, given that Israel is one of the least populous states in the world, it seems irrational to start the argument be oppositional to Israel.

        On the other hand, one might decide to oppose Israel based on its alleged human rights failings. Now for sure Israel is not perfect – what State is? But if you rationally compare and contrast humn rights abuses across just the middle east countries, you’d have to place israel rationally way above all other players. For al its failings, it remains a bastion of law, order, democracy in a region of despotism. It’s worth noting that of all the war/conflict deaths in the middle east since 1948, those involving Israeli and arabs account for 0.3%. So assuming 1 life = 1life, anyone defining themselves as antiZionist has to explain the rationale for making israel the locus of their human rights angst.

        The problem with being antiZionist is that of all the nationalisms in the world, it denies the jewish people their rights to self-determination in their own homeland. why? when you think about it, what right does anyone or any country have to any territory? Is there a country anywhere on the earth that has not been invaded, conquered etc at some point in its history? A big part of law is custom and practice and in this vein two of the worlds most powerful texts, the Judeo-Christian bible and the Koran give testament to the fact, that gOD GAVE Israel to the Jews. No other piece of land and no other people are so defined and linked to territory. If you challenge thr Jews right to their israel homeland, then you have to deny anybody else’s claims to land because they are so much weaker.

        And the real problem of antiZionism, amongst non-Jews, is that it is an existential opposition. It does not differentiate between different policies or actors. It says the Jewish people have no right to their on state and no claim on their homeland. And given there is no consistent principled position to support this argument, it belies the underlying antiseitism

    • Resident Dissident

      “Anti Zionism Is NOT Anti Semitism”

      That may be the case – but it doesn’t mean that there are some who like to practice both.

  • Habbabkuk (flush out fakes)

    I recall that our Transatlantic Friend “Lysias” likes to present himself as an expert on C20 Germany history and, in particular, on the 1920s and 1930s, when a certain political party was preparing to take power and then actually did take power.

    Would our Friend not therefore be the ideal person to enlighten us about whether Mr Livingstone’s claims are historically correct or not?

    • RobG

      Habba, you’re a busted flush.

      The tories (and by definition, Washington) are going to be slaughtered in next week’s local elections.

      People like you are total traitors to our country.

      And you will be held to account; make no mistake about that.

    • laguerre

      Surprising that you put known historical facts in doubt, just to make a political point.

      • Habbabkuk (flush out fakes)

        Not putting anything into doubt, you imbecile, just asking what the historical facts actually were.

        And now stop distracting, you’re obstructing the free exchange of knowledge.

        • r

          You seem to have a problem with historical facts. So you decline into personal abuse. Normal for a hasbarist.

          • lysias

            I don’t see how one can discuss whether Livingstone’s remarks were true or not without discussing the Transfer Agreement, which we’ve been told we must not do on this site.

            Anyway, some posts I’ve recently made about 1930’s Germany on this site have been moderated and then deleted, for mysterious reasons. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how it’s possible to discuss the matter. I will be curious to see if they let a mere mention of the Transfer Agreement through;.

          • lysias

            I see they let my mention of the Transfer Agreement through. Curious readers are invited to follow my link to see what Wikipedia reports about that agreement.

          • Habbabkuk (flush out fakes)

            You seem unable to understand the plainest English. As I’ve said before, God help your students.

            PS – read my latest addressed to “Lysias”

        • Habbabkuk (flush out fakes)

          The way for you to discuss this, Lysias, would be for you to

          1/. remind us exactly what Livingstone said, and the context (with a link to a verbatim)

          2/. set out in detail, and with proper referencing and sourcing) whether the historical facts bear out whatever Livingstone said?

          I am sure Craig would not censor or delete, in whioe or in part, any exposition of yours based on the above two elements, provided always it is made in good faith and honestly.

          So off you go.

        • Chris Rogers


          In a nutshell, the only imbecile and propagandist is your good self, but its never stopped you pontificating has it?

  • Mulga Mumblebrain

    Another Zionist cottage industry-re-writing history into their image, and vilifying any who dare dissent even one iota.

  • BrianFujisan

    Baal Checked racism from Israel.. on a good man’s behalf..Well Done…
    Nevermind has Not a Racist Bone in his Body….

    “As for the Peace Process: Israel wants the Process but not the Peace. While “the process” is going on, the settlers continue grabbing land and building their settlements… and then when the Palestinians finally erupt with their pathetic fireworks they get hammered and shredded with state-of-the-art missiles and depleted uranium shells because Israel “has a right to defend itself” (whereas Palestine clearly doesn’t).”

  • Silvio

    Another reason the British establishment is so anxious to dampen down any chance that public criticism of Israeli government policy is allowed to stick – it just won’t do to allow protesters against the arms trade more ammo that could help raise public opposition to selling British arms to a human rights abuser and potentially cut into the healthy profits of the armaments suppliers.

    The Silent “Elephant in the Room”: Lobbying Parliament to Supply British Weapons to Israel
    By Anthony Bellchambers

    The silent elephant in the room is the fact of the official endorsement of the actions of the Israeli government that flout international law, by our own government’s enthusiastic support for the agenda of the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby (CFI) in the House of Commons.

    That agenda includes the lobbying of Parliament to supply British arms and military equipment to the IDF in order that Israeli forces can continue:

    The illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights, in contempt of the will of both the United Nations and the European Union

    The illegal settlement of nearly 600,000 Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories in an attempt to prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state for five million indigenous Arabs

    The now seven year illegal blockade of nearly 2 million civilians in Gaza in a deliberate policy to prevent the supply of electricity and essential goods and services to the population in an abortive attempt to effect regime change

    The blatant violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions (GCIV).

  • Dave

    In the beginning Zionism was competing with Marxism for the Jewish soul and some of the more “anti-Semitic” attacks on Jewish Zionism has been from the Jewish Marxists, although some have now combined both and become Neo-Cons. Hence works like the 13th Tribe by Arthur Koestler that offered an alternative to the Holy Land myth and the works of Lenni Brenner referenced by Livingstone regarding Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.

    It was controversial of Livingstone to mention this truth, challenging orthodoxy always is, but I think he took the opportunity for a high profile attack on the Zionists because he knew they were complicit in the quite incredible barrage of “anti-Semitic” attacks on the Labour Party. In effect he was saying “accuse us of “anti-Semitism” will you, well have some of your own medicine”!

    It was a very powerful counter-attack, whilst others folded at the first sound of gunfire, and protesting his suspension with the historical truth could prove very interesting and productive indeed.

  • Chris Rogers

    Open Note to CM and Mods,

    CM Sir if you expect some of your legion of posters to mount a challenge to the growing hysteria of ‘anti-semitism’ afflicting this site, the Labour Party, the Left across Europe and those who fight for basic human rights for all, it would help if you deactivate the trip wires, censorship, that this site itself has deployed and your reluctance for posters to set the historical narrative correctly, which means referencing certain historical publications, political movements and political leaders, who may or may not be dead.

    Given that you yourself are under sustained attack, as are many of my peers on the Left, its virtually impossible to mount any reasoned dialogue or argument if our posts on the subject matter either disappear, or are not displayed until hours later. You are actually slitting your own throat in my humble opinion, which is not a good idea in the current corrosive political environment where forces of reason are facing sustained assaults for allegedly being anti-semite, assaults I’d like to counter in realtime if possible, lest our post lose any relevance, which presently they certainly are.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Good morning, Chris. Let me speak a brief word just putting a different side, which is that unfortunately we do not know what else the filters are catching, but I suspect that they are getting rid of all manner of anti-Semitic garbage. This stuff is undoubtedly out there. Two anecdotes. Firstly, there is a poster who continues to get on here under all kinds of different names (long-term posters will know exactly who I mean, though I won’t mention the best known name) with vicious anti-Semitic attacks, conspiracy theories, pseudo-history, defence of N z m, etc. Usually gets a post or two in before being pointed out and removed. Secondly, many years ago I was on another board and made some passing reference to A H (too naïve to know there was a convention that you didn’t do it). Next thing I know there is some nut on the board inviting me to agree to all manner of anti-Semitic stuff. Older and wiser heads told me not to worry, he always did this, but it was most disconcerting.

      We have seen plenty of more subtle anti-Semitic postings on this thread and others already, in my opinion. I do appreciate (and share) your concerns, but CM presumably does not wish his site to be turned into a magnet for lunatics. (Or no more than usual!) It is a tough balancing act. When you get into historical argument, you are no doubt going to be met with comments from extremely well-informed people who have studied these matters for years and know exactly what they want to present (have a look at the Institute for Historical Review website for plenty of material). People who know what they’re talking about a great deal better than I do, and perhaps even you. There is no shortage of people who will use the kinds of things that Livingstone has said for very nasty purposes. And in the interests of free speech, if you allow one perspective, you can hardly deny the other.

      Reasonable debate seems to get through all right eventually. But be careful what you wish for!

    • craig Post author


      I disagree with you entirely. That Hitler at one stage considered deporting Jews is totally unsurprising. It has no relevance whatsoever to the modern behaviour of the state of Israel or the ludicrous current witch hunt in the UK against Palestinian supporters.

      The ban is a decade old. It exists because neo-Nazis and real anti-Semites seek to undermine the narrative of Hitler’s Final Solution for their own ends.

      • Chris Rogers

        JSM & CM,

        Regretfully then, and without even mentioning the leader of Germany after 1933, its rather difficult to refute and undermine some pretty biased and historically incorrect analysis, if we are unable, and that’s from a political structural analysis, to explain how Mr. Livingston has managed to get embroiled in what after all is a historical debate and set the record straight, and in no way does this absolve the actions of genocidal maniacs, of which at least three European dictators, were actively engaged in during our timeline. I’m sorry racists have attempted to influence these boards, of which, I trust you are aware one is quite happy to call them out in rather flowery language, language quite common in many Public Houses and Working Mens Clubs in my vicinity of South Wales.

        But, alas, it is still annoying to think we are allowing the buggers to get away with slander and dilute causes I trust many of us support by accusing many on the Left of harbouring ‘anti-semite’ racist views that are nothing of the sort. Indeed, I trust I remain a friend to all embattled minorities regardless of religion, culture or ethnicity, which one had always considered was at the heart of international socialism.

  • Andy

    Another outrageous article in the Guardian , the headline, “Corbyn may not be antisemitic. But is he a real leader?”

    Corbyn “may” not be anti-Semitic?

    • Chris Rogers


      We must give them their due, they are very good at these underhand slieghts, regrettably, the Communtariat are not allowed to comment, which proves beyond doubt its the propaganda that it actually is. A shameful end to a once grand old Institution. Hope the fuckers are happy?

    • Ba'al Zevul

      It’s wall-to-wall on Radio 4 News. Every bulletin yesterday carried the Labour donor Michael Foster, alleging rampant antisemitism among Corbyn’s ‘fellow-travellers’ (now that’s an old epithet, formerly used by Tories to bracket the moderate left with the Soviet Union, whose trope it originally was. Haven’t heard that one in a while), with very little in the way of balancing opinion. But McCluskey got there eventually.

      Trouble is, Foster is Chris Evans’ agent, and the Beeb has a lot of efficiently-extorted license-payers’ money riding on him just now. Well, I know which drivelling ginger nonentity not to watch, should I ever acquire a television.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Another : ‘Sir’ Ronald Cohen has reportedly left the Labour building, taking his extensive funding (£2.5M to date) with him. Cohen was knighted by Blair for services to the venture capital industry, and ran Apax, the group which formerly had a controlling interest in the Guardian. His wife is an Israeli, and he has extensive business ties to Israel – some details in this rather uncritical pocket bio:

    While he has notionally promoted the peace process, it has been via investments with the clear expectation of returns, based on the premiss, also espoused by Blair, that empowering Palestinian entrepreneurs will in some miraculous way make the Occupation problem disappear. – also that the Israeli government would actually like this to happen.

    It seems perverse to me that a party heavily subsidised by very rich Jewish businessmen could so easily be traduced as antisemitic, but that’s the power of the press for you

  • Dave

    There is a poetic justice in the “Left” getting unfairly bashed for “anti-Semitism” to silence criticism of Israel, because the “Left” used “anti-Racism” in the same way to silence criticism of immigration, although the venom of the “anti-Semitism” attacks feels similar to the venom of the “anti-Racist” attacks, that seems to have abated in favour of venomous “anti-Muslim” attacks, probably because the venom originated from the same source. I.e. Zionists used to defend their interests by being “anti-Racist”, but are now “anti-Muslim”. Hence if your not “anti-Muslim” you’re “anti-Semitic” and “Racism” is now fine if directed against “Muslims”.

    Hopefully the “Left” will learn from this and recognise the importance of Free Speech and open debate, otherwise traditional Labour supporters will simply stop listening, as many have, and vote UKIP, and its this failure to be a British Labour Party, rather than “anti-Semitism” among other things that will lose Labour votes. A point illustrated by Gorden Brown’s description of a life long Labour supporter as a “bigot”.

  • Watching the Racists

    Why do they make a fuss about this comment. He made others which are much worse. What about the comment I wish good to ALL Jewish people, but their increasingly racialist approach etc. Really? ALL Jewish people are increasingly racist? He would probably say this was quoted out of context too. Racists always say their comments are quoted out of context or maliciously interpreted, when in fact the statement itself is sufficiently self contained to warrant examination.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      “Really? ALL Jewish people are increasingly racist?”

      You have done yourself no favours with this ridiculous posting, Watching the Racists, whoever you are. Not only have you quoted Murray out of context, you are also apparently unable to read a simple English sentence. Let me help you by reposting in full the sentence you quoted about one-third of and placing in capitals the relevant parts.

      “I wish nothing but good to all people, including all Jewish people, but BY THEIR INCREASNGLY HARDLINE RACIALIST APPROACH, their unceasing encroachment on Palestinian land and their rigorous adoption of all the racist mechanisms of an apartheid state internally, I fear that the window of opportunity for a peaceful future for THOSE JEWISH PEOPLE LIVING IN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ISRAEL is closing fast.”

      So it’s right in front of everyone’s eyes that Murray is NOT referring to ALL Jewish people as increasingly racist, no. He is referring ONLY to Jewish people living in what is currently Israel. If you want to take him to task because not all Jewish people living in what is currently Israel are adopting an increasingly hardline approach, then you have a point. Your current posting is obviously either lies or nonsense.

      So stop lying, and learn to read, or get stuffed. In fact, why not do all three.

  • gary carp

    The more you seek to distance yourself from antisemitism, the deeper you immerse yourself.
    Why is the concept of a jewish state any more pernicious than a Moslem or ChrIstian state? You have no issue that across vast swathes of the Moslem world, jews are either severely persecuted or have, since 1948, been ethnically cleansed. You see no issue in Hamas etc harbouring explicit anti-semitic, genocidal Jew hatred within their constitutions.

    What right does any people have to any land? Of the historical documents of the word, both the Judeo-Christian bibles and the Koran note the Jewish peoples right to Israel. ever seen the Colosseum in Rome? It was funded by Emperor Titus from the gold looted from the sacking of the Second Jewish temple, as depicted on the Arco de Tito

    Judaism holds no claims to superiority at all. The misuse of the phrase “the chosen people” is to misunderstand the jewish faith and the relationship to god. It is not that god chose the jews; it was the choose who chose and continue to choose a particular path towards holiness. You might read catholic historian Paul Johnson on this subject.

    But with the islam terror spreading all over the world. With human rights abuses abounding from China, Russia, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia etc etc…what is the criteria you use to justify the focus and vitriol of your opposition to Israle – the only liberal democracy in the middle east?

    When Netanyahu stands up for jews in Israel – he speaks up for jews everywhere. The continuance of antisemitism reminds as to why the political zionist project emerged, as distinct from the historical religious zionism, and why the insurance policy of Israel remains vital to the jewish people today and always will be

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.