Livingstone, Labour and Antisemitism – David Hirsh

This piece, by David Hirsh, is from the Jewish Chronicle

Ken Livingstone has been suspended from Labour membership for two years, counted from last April, when he said on the radio that Hitler ‘was supporting Zionism – this was before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews’.

But he is unrepentant.  On the steps of his tribunal, he gave interviews saying that Hitler intervened on behalf of the Zionists against the Yiddish speaking rabbis in Germany and that the SS was giving training to Jews to help them in Palestine.

Why should the two years not begin when he went on Radio 4’s Today programme on the morning of this verdict, when he said that these allegations of antisemitism were invented by the Jewish Chronicle to silence criticism of Israel and to smear Jeremy Corbyn?

Why not start the suspension from 1982, when Livingstone, who was at the time the editor of a Workers Revolutionary Party front paper, published a cartoon of Menachem Begin giving a straight armed salute, wearing an SS uniform and standing on a pile of Palestinian skulls?

Why not start the suspension from 2004, when the Mayor of London hosted, at City Hall, Yusuf Qaradawi, a cleric who thinks that Hitler ‘put the Jews in their place’?  Why not start the suspension from 2005, when Livingstone persistently accused a Jewish reporter of being ‘like a German war criminal’?

Why was Livingstone’s two year suspension not started when he presented programmes for the Iranian state propaganda channel Press TV?  Or from when he said that Jews were rich and so were not likely to vote Labour anyway.

There is a debate to be had about how hostility to Israel, antizionism and boycotting Israel relate to antisemitism.  Livingstone is part of this politics of Israel hatred; he is part of the milieu which sees Israel as a key and unique evil on the planet and as a keystone of global imperialism. But Livingstone is one of those figures who cannot resist taking it to another level.  He is often tempted to focus his critique on Jews; he is especially attracted to accusing Jews of being like Nazis.

Livingstone has spent half a century trying to cultivate the view amongst the general public that Zionism and Nazism are somehow similar and that they were in cahoots against the ordinary innocent Jews.  Of course this is not true.  Hitler was clear in Mein Kampf in 1924 that the Jews did not want a state ‘so as to live in it’; they wanted one, said Hitler, to ‘establish a central organisation for their international swindling and cheating’.

Livingstone has become the mouthpiece for a new kind revisionist history. He wants to mix up Zionism with Nazism. Nazism, which rounded up, selected on racial grounds and murdered the Jews of Europe, is symbolic of all that is evil in the world. Livingstone wants people to think of Zionism as being linked, similar and in alliance with it.

This is not only nonsense, it is also antisemitic; to say that Zionists are like Nazis designates the national liberation movement of the Jewish people as pure evil; it demonizes Jews and it normalizes Hitler; it licenses and encourages people to relate to Zionists, that is the overwhelming majority of living Jews, as they would relate to Nazis.

Livingstone has even begun to resemble David Irving in the way he fixes on particular grains of half-truth about Hitler and weaves them into one big lie.  But he does it with confidence and with charisma.  He looks radical, and many people come away with the feeling that there must be something to it.  And quite a few people are open to the notion that the Zionists are bad and the Zionists are liars and that clever and brave Ken can show us exactly how.

He keeps repeating the Livingstone formulation, for which he is famous.  All of this storm about antisemitism, he says, is manufactured by Zionists and Blairites to silence criticism of Israel and to smear the left.  They know there is nothing to it, but they do it in order to gain advantage.  The allegation of antisemitism is, today, portrayed as the root of Zionist power.  Secondary antisemitism asks: ‘When will the Germans forgive the Jews for the Holocaust?’  Livingstone won’t rest until people believe that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis and until people believe that Zionists who remember the Holocaust are doing so out of some ulterior motive.

Livingstone keeps on repeating that his Jewish friends agree with him; and there is indeed a small but noisy coterie of Jews ready to bear witness against the Jewish community and to whitewash their hero.

Livingstone is not a jolly, harmless old bloke who is basically on the right side and who supports the Palestinians; he has spent much of his life crafting antisemitic discourse for mass public consumption.

There is a bigger problem of political antisemitism in the Labour Party than Livingstone; the leadership of the party itself is implicated in the kind of politics which cultivates it.

And now, Labour is not even able decisively to distance itself from Livingstone by expelling him.  No doubt, Livingstone will still be invited to do media work and he will still be treated as a respectable and experienced political leader; because even now, that is how he is seen by many.

David Hirsh is a lecturer at Goldsmiths College, University of London, author of the forthcoming book ‘Contemporary Left Antisemitism’

7 Responses to “Livingstone, Labour and Antisemitism – David Hirsh”

  1. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    I kept Livingstone’s exact words from the Daily Politics show during which he uttered the words which led to his suspension from the Labour Party.
    Between 09.12-09.20 (it’s amazing what can be said in 8 seconds) Livingstone’s exact words were “a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate the Jews in Golders Green and Stamford Hill…”
    So someone who ONLY hates the Jews in Israel isn’t a “real” antisemite, whatever that means? And that lets Livingstone off the hook?
    It was when Livingstone left the studio that John Mann confronted him, calling him all sorts things (to Livingstone’s obvious amazement and confusion: he clearly couldn’t imagine that he said anything controversial) and barely restrained himself (John Mann) from actually hitting Livingstone.
    My view is that Livingstone should be expelled, not merely suspended. But the leadership won’t, because they believe (more or less) what Livingstone believes; they just use slightly less offensive language.
    Anyone who needs convincing needs to read Dave Rich’s book “The Left’s Jewish problem”.

  2. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    And both Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and Sir Keir Starmer, Shadow Brexit Secretary, agree with this view re expulsion, as noted on Radio 4 News at One today.

  3. J Mark Dodds Says:

    I’m really poorly informed about all of this and confused. Is it possible for anyone to explain clearly, rationalise and perhaps justify Israel’s behaviour toward the people who live in Palestine?

    • Jason Says:

      I appreciate your honesty in admitting to being confused and poorly informed. Maybe you could point out what it is that you don’t understand, or what it is that you disagree with in the article.

      • Brian Goldfarb Says:

        Perhaps Mark Dodds could start with Benny Morris “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War” which explains how Israel came to be in 1948, go on to read about the 6 Day War then trawl through Abba Eban’s quotes concerning the 3 No’s of the Arab World, his quotes about Arabs always missing opportunities, then read up on the 2 Intifadas.

        When he has surfaced from that lot, Mark may well be in a position to ask and answer his own question. But we’d love to debate with him, provided the question goes both ways, to include asking why the Arabs and Palestinians behave as they do towards the Israelis.

  4. Jessica Goldfinch Says:

    Thanks for this, it helps to have one’s own scattered thoughts brought together coherently. I have shared your article a lot.
    I found this lightened my mood and expressed something about how I feel about Livingstone…
    „What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false.
    Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.“
    Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

  5. Brian Goldfarb Says:

    I have posted an article on the same matter – Livingstone’s antisemitism – at
    also known as Anne’s Opinions, where she has cross-posted David’s article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: