Sunday, July 24, 2005
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been at it again, likening Israeli democrats to Hamas murderers and spouting baseless and inflamatory slanders:
Haaretz: London mayor defends the use of Palestinian suicide bombers
"In an unfair balance, that's what people use," said Livingstone, who has often been strongly critical of Israel in the past...
...Livingstone said that Israel has "done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity the way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades."
Livingstone also said that he does not distinguish between members of Likud and Hamas, branding them "two sides of the same coin."
"I think it is the Israelis who are leading the stubborn line," said Livingstone. "The Likud and Hamas members are two sides of the same coin. They need each other in order to attract support."
"Each side emphasizes the extremism of the other in order to attract sympathy," Livingstone said.
Livingstone agreed to the interview in the wake of the media frenzy surrounding the possible visit of controversial Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has voiced support for Palestinian suicide bombers and has been banned from entering the United States...
The comparison between Hamas and Likud (the current party in power in Israel) is, to use a word I may be in danger of over-using lately, odious, and is further evidence of what I mentioned earlier -- that Livingstone is simply not a democrat at heart (see: London Bombing and The Other 364 Days). To compare a murderous, conspiracy-mongering death-cult to a legitimate government fighting desperately to protect its free society from medievalism is reflective of a frankly deeply disturbed mind. It's difficult to couch it. His continued defense of Sheik Qaradawi, one of the Islamist clerics who has continued to provide the ideological support structure for the world-wide scourge of suicide murder is downright disturbing coming from a Western elected representative. Livingstone's comments are irresponsible in another way, as well. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization even by the EU. Comparing them to the legitimate government of a friendly state puts ordinary people (Israel and its supporters) at risk of violence. This is the great leader bringing people together at a time of crisis? Do I have to mention that, beyond his opinion, his statements of fact -- that Israel simply goes into refugee camps and commits indiscriminate slaughter -- are simply factually incorrect?
But don't worry. Livingstone has his supporters. A representative of the mainstream British Muslim organization, MPACUK has sent out this call to action:
Support Ken Livingstone
The Mayor of London, Mr. Ken Livingston, has come under bitter attack from a coalition of anti-Muslim forces in London including Zionists and other Islamophobes. A dossier has been prepared by the leaders of this coalition centred on the recent visit to London by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, one of Islam's most prominent and authoritative contemporary scholars. The authors of the dossier have called for an investigation into the policy of the Mayor that included hosting a conference at the GLA, addressed by Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, in solidarity of the rights of Muslim women including their rights to cover their heads in public should they freely choose to do so.
The Mayor of London has maintained that inviting Sheikh Qaradawi to GLA was entirely appropriate, since he is a figure who happens to be recognised by the Muslims around the world as the most authoritative scholar and a scholar who promotes moderation and communal harmony...
He's right about one thing -- Qaradawi is considered a moderate, and that in itself should disturb. Do you like that use of the word "freely?" Take note of it. "[I]ncluding their rights to cover their heads in public should they freely choose to do so..." Who's questioned it? Of course the question of freedom is whether they have the right NOT to wear such head covering. It reminds me of the Baathist concept of "freedom" as being in the emersion of the individual in the singularity of the party and the state.
That's not what we in the West call freedom, and tolerating such a definition, or pandering to it for politics' sake is something no one should be willing to tolerate.
Updatre: Melanie Phillips has an excellent vivisection of Linvingstone's remarks here.
