Labour is facing a bus shortage
So now Corbyn has suspended Ken Livingstone. The left is so brilliant at eating itself.
Jeremy Corbyn has denied Labour is in crisis after Ken Livingstone was suspended for comments made defending an MP accused of anti-Semitism.
The party leader said there were “grave concerns” about language used in a BBC interview by the former London mayor.
But he said: “There’s no crisis. Where there is any racism in the party… it will be rooted out.”
MP John Mann, who called Mr Livingstone a “Nazi apologist” in a public confrontation, has been reprimanded.
The Labour MP had been referring to comments Mr Livingstone made about Adolf Hitler.
Comments Livingstone made when he was defending Naz Shah on BBC Radio London and saying he had never heard anyone in the Labour Party say anything anti-Semitic.
He added: “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”
Welllll…in a manner of speaking. He was supporting “get them the fuck out of Germany and out of Europe and far far away to somewhere hot and dry where we can forget about them. Madagascar, Israel, whatever, just get them out of here.” Not really Zionism properly understood.
Labour MP John Mann then accused Mr Livingstone of being a “Nazi apologist” in front of a media scrum as he arrived at Westminster’s media studios.
Asked about the confrontation on the BBC’s Daily Politics, Mr Livingstone said: “He (Mr Mann) went completely over the top… I have had that with John Mann before.”
But Mr Mann stood by his remarks, saying: “He is a Nazi apologist.”
Is he? Or is he more of an anti-Zionism apologist? And are there different flavors of anti-Zionism, some of which are antisemitic?
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his longtime ally Mr Livingstone had been suspended amid “very grave concerns about the language he used in the interview this morning” and would face an investigation by the party.
He added, in an interview with BBC deputy political editor John Pienaar: “Anybody that thinks this party is not cracking down on anti-Semitism is simply wrong. We have suspended where appropriate, we have investigated all cases. We will not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form whatsoever in the party.”
Stephen Law is hosting an energetic discussion on Facebook of the suspension as a free speech issue. I’m not sure it’s a genuine free speech issue, since political parties have to have criteria for membership and thus get to treat some claims as incompatible with party membership. On the other hand Stephen points out that this is also a party factional matter and the Blairites have their agenda too. It’s complicated.
To be fair it would seem that the original establishment of the state of Israel served to simultaneously assuage European guilt over their inaction/complicity in genocide and answer “the Jewish Question” (similarly to Liberia). Doesn’t make them Zionists anymore than Hitler though.
@1
Yes, and there were only some ‘natives’ living in the area, problem solved. The Palestinians are paying the price for European anti-Semitism.
@2,
Not quite…
There were Jews living in the area (with possibly a short break during the Crusades) for well over 2000 years. In modern times there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem since the mid-19th century and the modern wave of Jewish immigration began before the 20th century. As more Jews settled in the region (“Southern Syria” according to the Ottomans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Syria ) — on land bought largely from absentee Turks and Arabs — and began developing its agriculture and industry, it attracted Arabs from neighbouring areas. All under while still within the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration (in which the British agreed to provide an official Jewish “homeland”) dates from 1917. In 1922 the British lopped off 75% of the “British Palestine Mandate” (the French were mandated what became Syria and Lebanon… where my mother still has family; she left just before the civil war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War) to create Jordan and it was only the 1947 UN vote to partition the remainder between the Arabs and the Jews.that occurred after the Holocaust. The Arabs misplayed their hand; they could still have had a second independent land within the limits of the original Palestine Mandate, in an area larger than the current West Bank and Gaza, but they rejected partition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
We’re walking on a landscape of rakes. Rakes everywhere we turn. We can’t take a step without the inevitable. It’s almost as though everyone knows that the energy required to actually go through issues and decide what’s problematic and what’s not is too expensive and that somewhat random shunning is cheaper and therefore better.
That Fortran don’t hunt.
It really isn’t complicated. The Labour Party has rules against racism of any kind. Livingstone can make his racist comments but not be a member of the Labour Party at the same time. The claim that anti-racists also have an ‘agenda’ is just silly, of course they do, they are anti-racist.
Helene #3:
The Arabs were right in rejecting any sort of compromise. History has vindicated that.
@3
“The Arabs misplayed their hand; they could still have had a second independent land within the limits of the original Palestine Mandate,’
Which Arabs were those, their corrupt ‘representatives’, or the mass of the inhabitants of the area who were never consulted by their European overlords?
I’d recommend “The Arabs” by Eugene Rogan, chapters 7, 8 and 9. Particularly chapter 9 “The Palestinian Disaster and its Consequences.” The “Arabs” didn’t have a hand to play, even if they had, the outcome wouldn’t have been any different, the agenda was set.
@6,
“Vindicated”?
Following the defeat of the Turks in WWI, the British Palestine Mandate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_%28legal_instrument%29 was given temporary control of “Southern Syria” from the Ottoman Empire (the French were mandated the northern part). About 75% of this was quickly lopped off to give the Hashemites “Transjordan” (present-day Jordan) and in 1947 – after the British relinquished their “mandate'” – the UN voted to partition the remainder between the Arab and Jewish inhabitants. Neither side was happy but the Jews accepted their smaller portion while the Arabs rejected what would have been a territory that was a fair size bigger than what constitutes the West Bank and Gaza today. Instead the Arab armies invaded hoping to take it all. They lost and “Israel” was officially founded. Some Arab historians point out that even had Israel been completely defeated, it would still not have meant the establishment of an idependent “Palestine” (the word was still associated generally with the Jews and a coherent “Palestinian” Arab nationalist movement only emerged in the 1960s), but more probably would have been divvied up between Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Which is exactly what happened to the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967. An independent (Arab) “Palestine” could have been very easily founded at any time during those two decades without any consent needed from Israel. But, as always, the Arab factions could never agree. That’s also what happened – and is still happening – in Lebanon, where the Shiites and the Sunnis have been battling between themselves for decades, not to mention with the Christians (Maronites and Orthodox). Of course, these days, Lebanon looks positively peaceful compared to Syria, but that’s another story….
@ 8 Helene
Your use of “smaller portion” here is misleading. I assume you mean “smaller than 100%” of Palestine? In fact the UN partition plan allocated 56% of Palestine to Jewish settlers, and 43% to the indigenous Arabs* — this, despite the fact that, at the time, the Arab population was double the Jewish population. It’s not hard to see why Arabs considered the proposal unfair, and Jewish settlers accepted it.
(*source)
Uh-huh. I’m reminded of the aphorism, “History is written by the victors”. That’s one account — the official Israeli account. Israel accepted the partition plan, the Arabs rejected it, then a coalition of Arab nations attacked and brave Israel, despite all the odds, fought back and miraculously won, founding the State of Israel in a glorious “War of Independence”. It’s a nice story. There is another account.
The other account is that the Jewish settlers had no intention of settling for 56% of Palestine. They agreed to the partition plan because at least it was a start. Then they immediately — with the help of arms supplied by soviet Czechoslovakia — began an ethnic cleansing operation in November 1947 to grab as much additional land as they could, driving 700,000 Palestinians off their land by force of arms. Only in May of the following year did surrounding Arab nations retaliate, but they were hopelessly outgunned by the soviet equipped Israelis.
In any case, the Israelis certainly benefited. They ended up with 60% of the land allocated to Arabs by the UN**, and promptly moved into the homes of displaced Palestinians. And I mean that literally. Jewish settlers literally moved into the bricks-and-mortar houses abandoned by fleeing Palestinians, claiming them as their own, as the spoils of war. To this day, Israel has never agreed to the right of return of Palestinian refugees, or agreed to any compensation for the three quarters of a million indigenous people who lost their homes and livelihoods in the supposed glorious “War of Independence”.
(**source)
This is true but what is your point? Are you suggesting that because the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan tried to annex Palestine and refused the Palestinians a state of their own, that it’s okay for Israel to annex Palestine and refuse the Palestinians a state of their own?
Well this is hardly a feature peculiar to Arabs, is it? Consider the British Isles — English, Scots, Welsh, Irish — they’re all “Christian Caucasians”, but they’re not exactly known, historically, for being one big happy family.
@8 Helene,
Regardless of the attempts by Zionists and their apologists to ‘justify’ the creation of Israel, it’s essentially a colonial enterprise, like the invasion and conquest of the Americas, Australia and NZ.
You’ve presented either explicitly or implicitly, the usual inconsistent and contradictory arguments– the Palestinians somehow forfeited their patrimony because (1) the land was ’empty’, i.e. the “Palestinians” don’t exist, (2) the ‘natives’ were fractious, (3) one Arab is much the same as any other ( Golda Meir) so they can all move to another Arab country and finally (4) they didn’t ‘develop’ the area.
If you ever bother to read the references that I provided you will understand that the ‘disappearance’ of the Palestinians was always on the Zionist agenda because Jews possessed a unique and inalienable ‘right to the land’ and the Palestinians were trespassers. Even the cynical British and French imperialists were shocked by that revelation, but ultimately they didn’t really care.
Silentbob @8,
Silentbob @9, RJW @10,
Of course history is written by the victors and the “victors” in the Middle East were the Muslims. The Jews were there before them and subsequently various denominations of Christians, then smaller groups like the Yazidis and the Druze. With the exception of Lebanon and Israel (and a shrinking part of Coptic Egypt), however, all these groups (save the Druze, who have learned to adapt) have been largely “cleansed” or are rapidly approaching extinction. Yes, some 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, but an even larger number of Jews were cleansed from surrounding countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
And, of course, there were other population exchanges that occurred in the same period, many vastly dwarfing what happened in Israel/Palestine, e.g. the partition of India or the post-WWII migration of ethnic Germans.
But the whole “indigenous” argument is actually bit silly. When does “indigenous” begin or stop. A university colleague of mine named “Beecham”, a poor relative of the family that produced Sir Thomas, can trace his English lineage back to 1066 (or so he claims). It stops then because, of course, “Beecham” was originally “Beauchamp”, hence a “settler” from below la Manche. It seems my mother’s family in Lebanon may have originated in the Balkans or the Caucasus several centuries earlier and were converted to Islam before or after arrival. Are they “indigenous”? Even the adjective “Lebanese” defies definition, seeing as “Lebanon”, per se, is a relatively recent appellation and the area was majority Maronite (i.e. Christian) even after the Arab Muslim invasion? There were Jewish tribes in the Arabian Peninsula before Mohammed. Were they “indigenous”? In fact there is some DNA evidence that many “Palestinians” were converted Jews. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385
It would be nice of all this could cease, of course, and there are signs now that both Egypt and and Saudi Arabia, soliciting Israel’s cooperation to counter Iran, are floating new Israel/Palestine solutions (Hamas control of Gaza appears to be a sticking point), but the idea that Israel is a unique “colonialist” state in the region is nonsense.
Helene @12
I haven’t seen anyone make that claim here at least (It wouldn’t surprise me if someone somewhere has – there is more than enough idiocy and rhetoric to go around when it comes to this dispute). Silentbob and RJW have simply made the point that Israel is in fact a colonialist state and continues to behave as such (the ‘settlements’ proceed apace).
Like many in my age group, I was raised on stories of the plucky Israelis creating an oasis out of the desert, moving into unoccupied lands that the Arabs then claimed were theirs etc etc. I’ve now read enough history to know that narrative is false.
I’ve also see both ‘sides’ do unspeakably horrible things. I have met, read and seen people from both ‘sides’ behave with wonderful humanism and also display clear bigotry. The whole situation is so snarled now that it is pointless trying to prove who is right, wrong, entitled or more wronged against. The only real question is “Do the people involved want and end to this?” To break an intractable deadlock someone has to move first in a meaningful way. At this point so many promises have been broken it would have to be a very meaningful way.
The power lies with Israel. As it has done for many decades. History demonstrates that ever more harsh and punitive repression and the confiscation of land has done nothing to ease the situation or ultimately make Israel safer. In fact, because of both Israel’s military power and also the massive support it has from the USA, they could make significant concessions with seriously compromising safety and security. That would create space for moderate voices within the Palestinian and and wider arab world to gain influence under the protection and with the assistance of a multinational peace keeping force.
It takes will on all sides that does not seem to exist among the majority of current leaders.
@Rob
I haven’t seen Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. ever being described as “colonialist” states which, as I explained, they certainly are. But you are right, there is an impasse, and it needs to be broken. And Israel is certainly the more powerful party in this standoff. But there were what seems to me real proposals: at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001, and by Olmert in 2008 http://www.thetower.org/2580-breaking-abbas-admits-for-the-first-time-that-he-turned-down-peace-offer-in-2008/ Not to mention Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Unfortunately Hamas subsequently expelled Fatah from Gaza and the reign/rain of rockets began. Israel is by far the stronger player here but it serves no purpose to pretend that the Palestinians have no agency. Their best ally would have been the Israeli “peace camp”, but arms tunnels and daily incitement on TV – and the recent wave of stabbings – have only served to weaken this constituency. Which is unfortunate. And when Israeli moderates witness the horrific chaos just across the border in Syria and the Egyptian Sinai, they are understandably hesitant to let their guard down. All very depressing.
And just to change in time to change the mood, if not the topic, my mother has some dark memories of her native land but also many wondeful ones, some reflected in today’s NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/t-magazine/travel-beirut-architecture-art-design.html