Momentum Black ConneXions is a group within the Labour Party that supports Jeremy Corbyn. Its acting general secretary, Marlene Ellis, was recently suspended from the Party over antisemitic remarks made in a letter to Mr Corbyn criticising the party’s suspension of Ken Livingstone for claiming Adolf Hitler was a Zionist. The Times on 7 June 2016 reported that the letter, which was published online, was signed by Ms Ellis and two of her colleagues and read, in part, that it was important for the Labour Party to explain “why Hitler is said to have founded Israel if not in the literal sense then certainly in effect.”
When I unpacked those words, I had an epiphany.
“Literally” has become a buzzword in modern speech, currently in vogue particularly among younger generations. It is often used incorrectly as when commenting on one’s reaction to a story, as in “I literally died.” If used correctly, Hitler could not have ‘literally’ helped found the modern state of Israel as he had been dead for three years by the time Israeli independence was declared.
But to be fair to Ms Ellis, Hitler did have a historical effect that did cause the modern State of Israel to be founded. After Hitler’s Final Solution made life for Jews in Europe so perilous that the survivors wanted to find a safe haven and live elsewhere. The reason for this modern exodus was that Hitler ultimately wanted all Jews, both in his Reich and beyond, dead.
Having said that Ms Ellis’s comment raises other questions she may wish to contemplate answering. Is genocide, a war crime, a justifiable means for granting nationhood to a persecuted people?
Since the founding of the State of Israel is also deemed a catastrophe by today’s Palestinians, is Hitler also responsible for causing their plight? Is it that the Palestinians do not have a state Hitler’s fault too?
Is Hitler also responsible for the many wars in the Middle East since 1948?
Should Ms Ellis scapegoat Hitler as the cause of Palestinian difficulty in the way she does Israelis and Zionists? Will she again re-write history to hold Hitler to account for it all? Or will she disclose a bias by siding with one group whilst others faced the same “historical effect”?
Just asking.