On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that it is unacceptable that Israel goes on "indiscriminately destroying homes simply because a [Palestinian] bomber came from that area. I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I don't believe in that punishment."An Arab Media Watch action alert runs with the following quotes:
On Israel and Palestinians:Apparently zionist groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the World Jewish Congress are already on the case.
"...those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come, irrespective of the casualties it inflicts, women, children and men."
On occupation:
"Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves."
Update - Meaders has a good post on this on his Dead Men Left blog
Livingstone's was a sufficiently eloquent statement that one might think it had been prepared some time ago. With some rhetorical skill, it bundled up what many of us, especially in London, felt. It did not, however, say what we thought. As Rawnsley says, Livingstone's clarity provided the best possible cover for a government with a nervous memory of Madrid. To duck the issue of Iraq, given Livingstone's own clear anti-war position, was a failure of political responsibility on his part: when put to the test, he buckled.In fairness to me, I should point out that I have criticised Ken's opportunism before but I love it when the zionists go into a rant so I kind of missed it this time.
That cover has now been blown. Livingstone, no doubt sensing the mood, has said what he should have said earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment