After ploughing through 60 replies, I note that only one pointed out that Ken likened a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard. He then defended his anti-Semitism by raving against Israel. The new anti-Israel propaganda thrust is to deflect criticism of the Arab's equating Israel's self defense with the Shoah. The current breed of anti-Semites advances a good Jew/bad Jew line. In doing so they both justify hating Jews and at the same time by likening Israelis to Nazis, they diminish the guilt of European anti-Semites and excuse Moslem Islamo-fascism/Jew hatred. They show their insincerity by magnifying Israel's wrongs, many of them invented, and ignoring Arab savagery, not only against Jews, but against each other. There is no choice but to defy terror, as the whipped Hamas whining reveals. The fight is between the Jews and the Moslems, each trying to out-do the other in defending the faith. If they and their Western supporters are not stopped, our democracy, even Ken's, will be threatened. Paul

Ken Livingstone is not an anti-semite, I remember him coming to to speak at my school (the Jewish Free School) and from his record he clearly abhors racism and intolerance of any kind. His remarks to the Jewish reporter, however, are a different matter. These are clearly anti-semetic (something glossed over in the British media, incidentally). His remarks are racist for the simple reason that he used a steroetype to address an individual. This is clearly racist behaviour, regardless of any intention. The steroetype used is that Jews are greedy, motivated by money etc and remember that he told Oliver Finegold, "you're only here because you're paid for it", clearly stating that the reporter's main motivation is money. The reference to the Holocaust is just plain offensive, rather than racist though. Livinstone ought to apologise for using racist language, without apologising for being a racist in general. As for Livingstone's comments on the middle east, this is an example of Livingstone incorrectly applying his concept of nationalism to Zionism. Zionism is fundamentally about liberation, the liberation of the Jewish people from eternal dependence on the whim of other nations and freedom to fully express our national identity and culture as Jews. Livingstone understands nationalism of all kinds to be synonymous with extreme right-wing nationalist movements such as Nazism or Italian fascism. Clearly Zionism does not fit within this definition (although the likes of Feiglin are not so far away). However, in ignorant and prejudiced minds Zionism is associated solely with the settlement movement, which of all the branches of Zionism, is the one closest to the extreme right wing European fascist movements. Hence the association between Zionism and Racism. The fact remains, however, that such a comparison is erroneous. Livingstone has not properly understood the context of which he speaks. The majority of his comment can be easily refuted, e.g. ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc, without one confessing a liking for Ariel Sharon or his methods. The vast majority of the criticism Israeli receives in the UK media is undeserved and unbalanced. Livinstone's article is just the latest in a steady stream of bile directed at Israel. The motives of many commentators are questionable to say the least, but deliberately anti-semetic, who knows? It is the undeserving aspects of much of the criticism which makes us ask this question in the first place. In teh case of Ken Livingstone, I think he simply does not know of what he speaks.

I'm not sure if there is any country that is self sufficient. Yes it is true that Israel receives a lot of help, it also has to deal with stuff such as an Arab boycott and international isolation so it needs that help. Moreover, no matter how misarable the Palestinians are, their situation is better than any other population in the midst of a military conflict. If you just go shopping around to Darfur or Grozny you can see where the real pain is being suffered. And there is no peace process there, no roadmap, no disengagement, no women in black, no demonstrations, no help, no hope and pretty soon no problem 'cause everybody's dead. and you didn't do anything (again)

Obviously most Palestinian victims are innocent, most Israeli victims are innocent too. It certainly is the best argument against the intifada I ever heard. Moreover, since the palestinians dont have an army 100% their population is civilian. Even those who put on a Hamas suicide belt and blow themselves up are civilians because they are not soldiers. So that must mean that being civilian does not always mean you are innocent. Nevertheless 4200 dead people in 5 years is a lot. That's about 4 days in Congo, more or less 2 weeks in Darfur or a month in Grozny. Americans killed more Iraqi's in the month of April 2004 than Israeli's killed Palestinians during the entire intifada. So in order to be real war criminals we got a lot of catching up to do. Are we going to see anyone going to pack up their bags and go to Chechnya or to Congo and report on those thousands of people whose lives are in danger? I've seen peace activists going to Iraq to protect Saddam so why nobody wants to help those poor Chechnyans? Well probably because Russian soldiers will kidnap you or else the Chechnian rebels will. I guess thats why most journalists don't dare to enter Chechnya. African fanatics from the Lords Army also do a lot of raping and murdering maybe doing a little mutilation on the side. So, it wont be much of a surprise that journalists and human right activists that prefer to keep their limbs tend to stay away from that region too. So for all those people who prefer not to get killed, raped or disappear from the face of the earth it sure is easier to complain about Israel than any other place in the world. Not in the least because the girls are pretty, the hotels have airconditioning and the soldiers are cute.

Ken Livingstone is not an anti-semite, he is just a simple idiot. But those of London's citizens, voting for "Red Ken" knowing his views, are anti-semites.

It appears we all need the protection of US Flag, Constitution, Bill of Rights, but for some reason the Plutocrats of the Left promote the cannibalism of freedom, a revolt against freedom, its democratic demise with a replacement, begetting the idea of surrogate philosophy of Arab feudalism and fundamentalism that can only live with itself, just as we find the UN, ACLU, London, and The Cause of Palestinians, sleep together in same theocratic bed. It's an agenda, that can be found waving a price flag for an Islam/PA/PLO/Muslim Terrorism Bill of Rights. Of course one may substitute foundations of Freedom for ancient traditions of theocratic fundamentalism of Arab feudalism. Perhaps, some day, it is said, this choice must be in our best interest and no fight or war necessary with cattle cars waiting to relocate an excess population to distant places and of course, we well see the philosophy of a 7th century theocracy, a revised socialist agenda of Joe Stalin. The elitist liberal left do have convictions and it does come with much finger pointing for exercise and obesity, for they have already made their peace with evil. I find, The Left appears to be consistent with most of the UN editors and many sponsors of record and maybe, they do speak for not-so-educated masses. Without a doubt, Left do have a lock step quantity and quality, an agenda, an internal and foreign intrigue much like the New York Times.

It is incredible that people continue to try to differentiate between hatred of Israel and antisemitism. Those who have hatred in their heart for the Jewish State and rationalize their hatred by a paranoia about Israeli influence cannot be reasoned with. They do not attack China for Tiennemann Square, Iran for irs barbarism, Russia for its war against Chechnya(or the Chechnyans for their incredible terrorism against Russian civialians). So why does Red Ken hater Israel more than the worst of the worst? I'd love to give him a lie detector test.

Everytime this idiot opens his mouth, he makes people shake their head and say "Does he really believe this crap!". Most of us in the states look at Kenny as just another politician who now has a platform to spout out any disgusting thing that comes into his small mind. Don't get me wrong, we've got our own set of wacko's holding office in the U.S., but at least when they say something stupid, they usually get called on the carpet by the press and the public outcry forces them to at least apoligize. I'm sorry for the Londoner's who have to put up with this clown. He certainly doesn't do your city any justice.

He is part of the forces of anti-semitism who work to destroy Israel. He himself may not be willing to plant a bomb ( although he has personal "friends" who would) but his job, his mission is to use the influence of his rather high position to embrace the direct enemies of Israel, show them encouragement and do as much as possible to demean Jews. That these muslim enemies of Israel detest many things that perhaps even Mr. Livinsgton believes are good things is secondary. His muslim comrades are commited to doing all possible to attack Jews and that is the fundamental thing. . In a war, one is not always free to choose one's comrades , although Mr. Livinston seems to be quite chummy with mullahs who disdain all the Wset represents.. The enemy must be destroyed. That is the priority. Later discussions about women and gay rights can be debated and how liberal one can be about freedom of speech and religion. Perhaps Mr. Livinsgton is under the impression that English "traditions" of democracy and freedom are so strong that embracing and encouraging a fundamentalist and intolerant muslim leadership in the war on Jews will pose no real danger and besides the elimination of Jews will be a prize worth any "temporary" discomfort of many koranic beliefs these friends in the war on Jews hold dear. The immediate task is to finish off the enemy.

I lived in the States for several years and my best friends were israeli jews. They moved to the States to avoid their sons to have to go to war (50 years ago!!!)... and still war now. What about a real land for peace deal ? This killings can't go for ever. For Gods sake what an upbringing have those yound people jews and palestinians. How sad. I condemnd 100% the barbaric attacks on civilians!. Israelis should think about the too many settlements all over the place there. Is it not a little bit too much ? I wish and pray for an understanding between both parties and may be that another Isaac Rabin comes along. Let's hope.

First Ken Livingstone is not an israel hater because he criticizes Israel. 1.He is an Israel hater, first because he considers the very existence of Israel as a crime. 2. Second slogans never constitute a critic. A critic means some argumentation and some thinking based upon facts, and not fantasms. Not only critics of Israel are possible, but incitment against Israel is possible, the Mayor of London gave an illustration of it.

I agree with the first part of Sever Plocker's title, but I don't agree with his sly insinuation that Ken Livingstone, despite his denials, really still is anti-semitic. This because he does not do what most Western journalists do; ignore the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians which are for all to see almost daily. As for the charges Livingstone levelled at Sharon, of being a war criminal here are the facts: after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon (20,000 Lebanese dead) a commission in Israel came pretty darn close to condemning him for war crimes because, as the commander of Israeli forces he turned a blind eye while pro-Israeli Lebanese falangists wreaked terror on two Palestinian refugee communities in areas under his control, murdering and raping over 1,400 men, women and children. Still true to form today as prime minister, Sharon routinely orders acts of collective assassination and collective punishment against Palestinians - let us remember - living in land which Israel has occupied illegally for 3 decades and is now settling with jews-only and people who weren't even born there. All of this in defiance of a dozen or more U.N. resolutions. I will just mention the horrible 'separation' Wall to suggest there is so much more. It is the likes of Sharon, who by equating what the government of Isreal does with the interest of Jews (including a large percentage who disagree with Sharon) which, more than anything else, is fueling anti-semitism today. Livingstone deserves no blame for that nor should he stop speaking the unbullied facts. Speak truth and justice for everyone, everywhere Ken!

Well, I don't see why almost everyone here is just hating Mr Ken for an opinion that I think is right. Who has the mind to say that Sharon is not a war criminal? Sharon IS a war criminal and should be punished for that. Now, being a Palestinian with Israelis as my enemies, I personaly have nothing against Israelis. You see, its never people who want war, its always the governments or the leaders. So if I was to blame I would've blamed Sharon and ex-Israeli leaders, and from our side, well, this will sound so much biased, but I can't blame anyone from my side, because we simply fight for our right and our lands that have been stolen from us!!(however i dont like it when Hamas and its fellow militas kill civilians, NO WAY) We all know that what happened during the Holacaust is something that really angered the Jews ( and I dont blame them, its absoluetly ridiculous), but why should we pay?! We were peacful people living here and guess what, were living with Jews, but in 48 everythign changed!!! But now, its all reality, u know what, Israel will never get rid of us, and we will never get rid of her, so , i think its time for both of us to shut up and live in peace. u know i think that after we accomplish peace and everone here lives happily, we will be the safest place on EARTH, i mean, who would ever guess a place like Sharm Al Sheikh would ever get attacked?! SO yea, good for us! when things get good here, they go bad around the world, and vice versa... So, back to Mr Ken, I think the guy is realistic and he doesnt carea s long as he gets his point across, and i like many of his opinions.. Thanks for ur time! write something back if u want

Thanks for an excellent commentary. Livingstone was not ciriticizing Israel, he was justifying terrorist attacks that have killed scores of innocents, including infants, foreign workers and 90-year olds. These attacks are notbresistance but slaughter. Its interesting to note that after nervous London police pumped 5 bullets into the head of an innocent man becuase they thought he was a terrorist, Livingstone immediately blamed the terrorists for the man's murder.

A mayor from Europe hardly has the right to criticise Israel , looking and the history of Britain's colonialisation. People think it ended a long time ago but actually it only ended in the 60s. it could be argued it hasnt even ended with all the trade barriers and conditions by institutions such as the IMF and World Bank that in the name of 'development' impose policies that increase inequality and poverty within former colonies. I'm not saying what Israel has done is right but then Britain hardly has a clean history either