London’s infamous mayor Ken Livingstone proved conclusively that his comparison of a Jewish reporter to a Nazi was no isolated slip-of-tongue. Livingstone has consistently refused to apologize for that remark, even refusing to meet with families of Holocaust survivors.
And now we have a better insight into why. Livingstone’s twisted political views clear things up nicely (via Allison):
The dispute between London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Britain’s Jewish leaders was reignited Thursday night when Livingstone branded Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a war criminal, the Independent reported on Friday.
Livingstone launched a provocative critique of Israel with accusations of “ethnic cleansing” and demonizing Muslims before calling for the imprisonment of Sharon, according to the British daily.
He also claimed in his article that the Israeli government presented a “wholly distorted picture of racism and religious discrimination in Europe in order to convey the impression that Jews suffer most discrimination.
“The reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims – and they are the primary targets of the extreme right.”
But wait, it gets worse:
“Israel’s expansion includes ethnic cleansing,” he wrote. “Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of the Israeli state.”
He added: “Today the Israeli government continues seizures of Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into surrounding countries and denial of the right of Palestinians expelled by terror to return.
“Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in prison not in office.”
Hmmm, I can think of someone who has no business being in office here. But it certainly ain’t Sharon. Here’s hoping that Londoners will teach Livingstone a message come next election and toss him out on his antisemitic arse.
He did agree to meet with survivors, but they then refused to meet with him. First, he didn’t know the reporter was Jewish, and why should it matter? It gives the impression to many people that Jews are whiners and complainers, which of course, some are, but so are many people from all sorts of religious groups, or nationalities etc.
plus, he didn’t compare the reporter to a nazi, he said quite specifically that camp guards did their job because they got paid for it, and so did that reporter. he wasn’t saying the reporter’s job was as evil as a camp guards, but that EVERYONE should be condemned if they do something bad just because they get paid for it. maybe the reporter was nice guy, i don’t know, but a metaphor is a metaphor, and suggesting that he automatically “owes” an apology is utter arrogance. when you’re really out for understanding with people, you don’t automatically go at them like a dictator, and then complain when he sticks by his point. plus, negate what he says, standing around being ‘offended’ and saying it’s ‘obviously nonsense’ doesn’t say anything, other than that people (often groups like the christian coalition or nra) can whine with the best of em.