naz shah shared this post before she became an mp in 2015.ne went on to suggest that adolf hitler had supported zionism because of the havara agreement of 1933, although he did not say that in that interview, between the zionist federation of germany and the nazi germany. and this allowed thousands of germanjews to migrate to the british mandate of palestine. and it appears that the central defence of mr livingstone today was that he was not saying in that interview that hitler was a zionist, he was saying that hitler supported zionism, and he says those do not amount to anti—semitic remarks. thank you very much. well, ken livingstone is here with me. also here is labour mp wes streeting, who has been critical of both mr livingstone and the labour party's handling of this affair. good evening, both. ken livingstone, you thought you were going to be expelled and you have had a lucky escape. i think that the labour party's barrister and lawyer were probably saying to them, if you expell ken livingstone, he goes tojudicial review and you have no

what he said and, by the way, when he said it he was defending something that naz shah tweeted, and heer, if i remember he said it was over the top but he had assumed that what naz shah was referring to was the agreement between some zionists and hitler to encourage jews to go to palestine. now, this isn't a very comfortable bit ofjewish history and it's much contested, and i'm not an authority, but it can't be a no—go area, it can't be onlyjews who are allowed to talk about it, which they do. in my view, everybody, including non—jews, has the right to talk about what hitler did unless they say something anti—semitic like what a good idea it all was. which, of course ken livingstone would never say. my other feeling is that there is becoming increasingly a no—go area for non—jews to say anything about israel, about hitler. and my experience is that there is a division creeping up between jewish members of the labour party and non—jewish members of the labour party, and wider in the community, which will lead to a real anti—semitism, the sort of anti—semitism i terribly fear. a real ang

interview and thatis did the vanessa feltz interview and that is a crime against humanity and defending naz shahd the charges of the anti—semitic. wasn't anti—semitic. they dropped the charges of the anti-semitic. do you accept you brought the party into disrepute? should someone be disciplined for stating an historical truth? i think that is important. i will not make an immediate decision but i have to sit around and think about this with my lawyers. have they asked you to retract your comments? they have. are you angry? i would have been angry ifi are you angry? i would have been angry if i had been expelled, but i don't think anyone expected this result and that is the simple reality. i know you are considering your options? on the assumption i was going to be expelled, i was planning a judicial review. but no one should be suspended for stating the truth. i have been suspended for stating the truth, labour mps who tweeted that i was anti—semitic, i said hitler was a zionist, i said and that the nazis, no discipline against them and that is double standard. mps cannot be treated differently