'Sharon is a war criminal'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3053932,00.html

London Mayor Ken Livingstone slams Israeli policies, still refuses to apologize for comparing Jewish reporter to concentration camp guard

<snip>

"London's Mayor Ken Livingstone, known for his controversial statements, has denounced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a war criminal, in a searing critique of Israeli policies published in The Guardian newspaper.
Sharon "is a war criminal who should be in prison, not in office", Livingstone wrote."

<snip>

"The mayor also denounced "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians during the expansion of Israel, settlement activity in the territories, and the denial of Palestinians' right to return."

<snip>

"Livingstone argued that it was necessary to separate criticism of Israeli policies from anti-Semitism, saying the Israeli government deliberately attempted to conflate the two.

The government has for the past 20 years "attempted to portray anyone who forcefully criticizes the policies of Israel as anti-Semitic. The truth is the opposite: the same universal human values that recognize the Holocaust as the greatest racist crime of the 20th century require condemnation of the policies of successive Israeli governments," he wrote."

"The contribution of Jewish people to human civilisation and culture is unexcelled and extraordinary. You only have to think of giants such as Einstein, Freud and Marx to realise that human civilisation would be unrecognisably diminished without the achievements of the Jewish people. The same goes for the Jewish contribution to London today.

As mayor, I have pressed for police action over anti-semitic attacks at the highest level, and my administration has backed a series of initiatives of importance to the Jewish community, including hosting the Anne Frank exhibition at City Hall and measures to ensure the go-ahead for the north London eruv.

Throughout the 1970s, I worked happily with the Board of Deputies in campaigns against the National Front. Problems began when, as leader of the Greater London Council, I rejected the board's request that I should fund only Jewish organisations that it approved of. The Board of Deputies was unhappy that I funded Jewish organisations campaigning for gay rights and others that disagreed with policies of the Israeli government.

Relations with the board took a dramatic turn for the worse when I opposed Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon, culminating in the massacres at the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila. The board also opposed my involvement in the successful campaign in 1982 to convince the Labour party to recognise the PLO as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people.

The fundamental issue on which we differ, as Henry Grunwald knows, is not anti-semitism - which my administration has fought tooth and nail - but the policies of successive Israeli governments."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/comment/0,9236,1430185,00.html

Shas spritual leader: PM is evil, 'will be struck and die'

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/549938.html

<snip>

"Shas party spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef on Tuesday called Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "evil" due to his disengagement plan, and said "God will strike him with one blow and he will die, he will sleep and not awake."

In a pre-Purim sermon at a Jerusalem synagogue, the rabbi expressed fierce opposition to Sharon and the disengagement plan, adding, "What a cruel and evil man who does such things."

Sources in the Sephardi ultra-Orthodox party sought to downplay Yosef's remarks Wednesday, saying the rabbi did not wish for Sharon's death, but rather the death of the disengagement plan.

Labor MK Orit Noked called on Attorney General Menachem Mazuz on Wednesday to open an investigation into Yosef for incitement against the prime minister, Israel Radio reported."

Although I suppose betting that Jabba is going to be
"struck dead" pretty soon is a safe enough bet, given his
age and condition.

Daphna Baram
Thursday March 10, 2005
The Guardian

I read Ken Livingstone's article on these pages in which he explained his position on Israel and anti-semitism with great care, and agreed with it. I have always respected his unequivocal stance against racism and I don't believe that he is anti-semitic. And yet I am angry. I am angry with Ken and with the British left generally. Please allow me to explain why.

I agree that my prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal. From the intentional killing of 69 civilians in the village of Qibya in 1953, through the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, all the way to the wild bombing of Palestinian cities in the last few years, his career is steeped in vile criminality. I have dedicated my adult life to making this point, not only to my people, but also to yours, and to the rest of the world. I believe that international pressure is vital to change Israel's policies, not only for the sake of the Palestinians, but for Israelis too.

In the little political sub-culture of the non-Zionist left which I come from, calling the prime minister a war criminal is no big deal. Israelis tend to say what they think out loud. The fact that so many on the British left call my prime minister a war criminal too is fine by me.

But if justice is to be dispensed evenly, what about your prime minister? Yes, Tony Blair, the bloke who took the British army into Iraq and butchered tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war and under a false pretext? What is he, exactly? I, for one, think he deserves to share a cell with Ariel Sharon. Indeed, Sharon may reasonably protest: he is yet to be responsible for killings in such numbers.

More at;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1433979,00.html

You're Israeli? Do you know where I could get a cheap copy of that 1996 movie "Saint Clara?" Thanks.

by Daphna Baram,from the Guardian. Ms Baram is Israeli,I am not.
Ms Baram wrote the article,I did not.

You're going to have to explain the relevance of "Saint Clara"
since I have no idea what you mean by mentioning that film.

I'm the absolute LAST person to say that because other nations commit war crimes and acts of outright terrorism that we shouldn't discuss Israel's actions but Livingstone's comments smack of opportunism and nothing else for me.

Middle East, and their role in the whole business of the War of Independence, and so forth and so on - it makes me mad.

In any case, at a point when real possibilities for peace finally exist, it casts a pall on hope and seems to me to inflame anti-Israel sentiment. And I do not buy the disingenuous hair-splitting - British attitudes toward Jewish people, historically, are not universally benevolent.

I agree that Livingstone should look closer to home but NOT because of any "historically" antagonistic feelings towards Jews - I dunno that could be because I'm British and my family is Jewish (I tend not to say I'm Jewish because I'm an atheist and so is my father and so was my grandfather - unless I'm speaking to people who insist I'm an anti-semite of course - Hitler would have had my family on the cattle trains too for being Jews AND godless commie atheists)

I also have NO problem with him calling Sharon a war criminal which you seem reluctant to do.

Sharon is highly problematical. War criminal? Perhaps. I also believe he is evolving. I believe in redemption, that people can change and see the evil of their past. He has no doubt played a role in the ugly violence of the past few years.

I also believe that the extreme violence of the intifada and the terrorism resulted in some extreme reactions from Israel - all of which - ALL of the violent acts by both sides - were deplorable.

Moreover, criminals can sometimes accomplish what nice people can't. But then I've spent time on the mean streets of Chicago, so I have experience with violence. It changes the rules, the way people look at things. But that's another story for another time. Suffice it to say, very few people in the world could deal effectively with the dangers to peace that confront Sharon from all sides - from within Israel as well as from without. I wish him well and feel that a corner has been turned recently. He has an extremely difficult job. And as for the blanket condemnation of all Israeli governments in that letter - I was appalled.

What I agree with you on was the opportunistic, self-serving nature of the comment, considering the Mayor's political base.

And I'm sorry, but the record of the British Empire in the Middle East, before and after the War, speaks for itself. I do not speak merely of Palestine, but of the whole region, of the manipulation of local people for the sake of Empire and industry. Wars have been fomented, governments sabotaged, it's classic divide and conquer and the US has fallen into the trap as well. We've had our own share of shameful incidents - in Greece, in Cyprus, in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan - all of which have and are being persecuted to serve the oil industry and in the name of American power. And our chief ally is Great Britain.

As far as British antisemitism - I could go on for hours. This is going back for CENTURIES.

It has risen its ugly head in some of the most "liberal", best educated, most privileged and influential quarters of Britain and it has had a devastating effect on the Jewish people of the world, especially in Europe before AND AFTER the Holocaust, as well as in postwar Palestine.

Interesting, when someone comments on the British role in the situation, you spring to defend it - OK, now put yourself in the shoes of the Israelis whom you frequently criticize.

We Americans have had to grasp the painful nettle, of learning to look our ugly selves in the eye, and we are trying to understand how we can resolve the essential conflict between the democratic principles we espouse at home, with the imperial behavior of our nation abroad. Recently, a number of us, members of DU, are trying to grasp the extent of American antisemitism as well. It's painful. So I can understand why you would prefer to assume neither imperialism not antisemitism are part of British history or its modern ethos.

Antisemitism is something I sure we Americans had thought simply no longer existed, at least not among educated liberal individuals. Recently, I would say we've seen that we are wrong about that. So I'm not singling Britain out in that regard - it's a disease of European culture and neither Britain, nor America, nor otherwise well-meaning liberal - is immune.

What we don't need, I submit, are big-mouthed politicians fanning the flames - and particularly at a time when Israel and her Arab neighbors might actually have a chance for peace.

I just said I'm not going to agree that they're all flaming anti-semite.

Ariel Sharon - problematic - well that's understationg a bit don't you think - if Sharon is problematic then Livingstone would hardly rate a mention.

You beleive war criminals can redeem themselves?? how about Hitler? could he have done that?

What makes you peace is going to happen anytime soon by the way? would that be the ceasefire that doesn't exist?

tend to start fires. There is way too much hatred in the world right now, way too much hyperbole.

And yes, I think we are definitely seeing a GREAT deal of forward progress. But it is SO fragile - we do NOT need inflammatory hyperbole right now!

It will be NOT easy but given the fact that the Palestinians have decided that suicide bombings are counterproductive, and the Israelis have decided that destroying Palestinian homes is counterproductive, and the announcement that 24 West Bank settlements are going to be dismantled, and that Hamas is going to participate in elections, and that Mubarek is becoming actively involved with the Palestinians and also is working to provide Israel with an ARAB safety-net, and that a high-ranking Jordanian recently visited Israel - I think we are seeing a great deal of progress.

As far as comparing Sharon to Hitler, I think that is counterproductive. There is simply no comparison between them. As I am sure you are aware, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, starting a world war that spanned continents and lasted years. He developed the ideas that led to intercontinental ballistic missiles and the atomic bomb. He enslaved and slaughted millions as I'm sure you know, in his labor and concentration camps.

Sharon is no cupcake but let's get serious, he's like comparing a mid-level Mafia hood to the military-industrial complex. There are REAL monsters out there, and nations that really ARE dangerous to millions and millions of people. It's also not as though Sharon, bad as he is, has been fighting in a vacuum. There really has been violence on both sides! In a way I think he was a dark mirror of Arafat, and now that the one is gone the other will start to reflect a different light.

I guess, Djinn, that I am an optimist. I want so badly for things to work out. I'm 55 years old, and truly my greatest wish before I die is to see the sun fall on green fields, all across the Middle East. I'm an American, yes, but there is a blood tie to this land and to its people. There are so many thousands of years of human history, the great bulls and lions of the Hittites, the gardens of Babylon, Xerxes palace, the great temples of Jerusalem. May that vast sweep of time blow away the shadows and the pain of these last years, and bring us peace.

at a man that arranged the slaughter of men women and children sheltering in a refugee camp

"Sharon is no cupcake but let's get serious, he's like comparing a mid-level Mafia hood to the military-industrial complex. There are REAL monsters out there"

well I guess Eichmann wasn't really all that bad - Hitler was worse after all :eyes:

Sorry but defending this man in any way shape or form makes we want to vomit

Sharon did was bad. So arrest him.

I suggest you wait, however, until he has helped midwife the Palestinian state - which, you'll admit, is going to be a difficult job. Indeed, this job might well cost your criminal his life.

Comparing him to Hitler is nonsensical.

At some point, words have to mean something.

I'm reminded of some threads a while back, asking if Gov. Richardson of NM is a fascist, due to wanting voters to show ID cards. I ask you - does this make sense? Now, hurting civilians is a bad thing, a terrible thing. However, if you'll check out another thread in this forum, it is apparently THE LAW in Canada and the US to regard civilians as enemy soldiers.

Even the term "war criminal" is somewhat misleading, if you regard war itself as a crime, and respect the fact that all hell breaks loose in war, and that people lose their way in that desert of immorality.

It certainly does not occur to the terrorist to card his victims, making sure they are wearing uniforms before he blows the whole shebang to hell. This is the context in which you must judge Sharon - if indeed you feel the impulse to judge at all.

You are right about the "strange point of view." Due to my career in the entertainment business, I have a little different view of criminals - or morality, perhaps - than most people. And, due to certain experiences, I have insights into the effects of violence and fear on the psyche. At certain times, the layers of law are very thin. So I tend not to be as black and white in my judgements of others.

I have met criminals who were better people than the uniformed cops who were chasing them. I have met cops who were skunks, totally corrupt, evil men. People, under the right circumstances, will do terrible things, frightening things. Nobody, subjected to the right set of circumstances, is immune to the impulse to kill - or worse.

The converse is sometimes true: bad men can do great things. Bad men run cities, build airports, manage labor unions. They make things work, pull together competing, even violent forces. Art, music, poetry of great beauty have been created under the wing of powerful kings.

That is not the same thing as being Adolph Hitler, or implementing the systematic principles of the Third Reich.

Comparing him to Hitler is nonsensical.

I didn't - you said in comparison with others Sharon wasn't so bad - I said in that case is Eichmann OK because he wasn't as bad as Hitler?

until he has helped midwife the Palestinian state

by encroaching even further into Palestinian land?

It certainly does not occur to the terrorist to card his victims, making sure they are wearing uniforms before he blows the whole shebang to hell. This is the context in which you must judge Sharon - if indeed you feel the impulse to judge at all.

it's unbelievable the extent to which you refuse to apply this to BOTH sides - since WHEN does the IDF only kill those in uniforms? were the hundreds of children butchered (and that is a word that applies with some meaning they were HATCHETED to death) wearing uniforms?

YES I feel the impulse to judge Sharon - can you imagine the hue and cry if someone posted here that we shouldn't really judge Rantissi because he was responding to attacks and therefore wasn't so bad? If Rantissi is a terrorist then SO is Sharon

You are right about the "strange point of view." Due to my career in the entertainment business, I have a little different view of criminals - or morality, perhaps - than most people.

Actually I know plenty of criminals, convicted and otherwise and it still doesn't mean I can excuse mass murder - I may be funny that way, if you can find Sharon a moral man then I'm sorry I pity you.

say.

When I stop being annoyed at the seemingly deliberate refusal to hear my words, I will elaborate. Not that a poet with the skill of Shakespeare could get through to such a closed heart. But I will TRY, anon. Because there is a philosophical basis for my position and while I try to make light of the reasons for it, it is the result of much thinking over many decades.

Maybe I have John Kerry disease. I see nuances. And maybe I do see progress, so? This is bad? Sometimes good things DO grow out of bad. The way of human progress is not only through books and music, but through warfare. Which I personally think is the underlying crime here - the warfare ITSELF. Everything else follows from that initial horror.

Meanwhile, I do NOT apologize for refusing to see Sharon as a Hitler or an Eichmann. There is absolutely NO comparison, their situations are totally unalike, and certainly the goals of the Israeli people are totally unlike those of WWII Germany. I see, yes, a criminal - but a monster? And criminals CAN become better people. If we didn't believe that we would simply execute them all.

What I would like to ask you, hypothetically, is this:

Would ANY behavior, lily-white, pitch-black, or somewhere in-between, by ANY Israeli leader, since 1948, have resulted in a peaceful co-existence between Israel and its neighbors, before now? Livingston's article is tarring MANY Israeli leaders, not just Sharon.

If not, how then do we judge Sharon and the other Israeli leaders, given that violence and even the destruction of Israel has been the goal of many Arabs?

Or is this trouble simply something that had to run its course? We see, after all, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah becoming less aggressively violent and more political all the time - they are interweaving themselves with the social and political tapestries of Lebanon and the Palestinian people. Should we spend the rest of forever condemning THEM?

If not, how then do we judge Sharon and the other Israeli leaders, given that violence and even the destruction of Israel has been the goal of many Arabs?

what came first the Stern Gang et al and the Nakba or the Palestinian resistance?

Either way I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion - I havn't insulted you but you can't extend the same courtesy

Not that a poet with the skill of Shakespeare could get through to such a closed heart

I will say this, because I wasn't there, I do not know all of what happened in the '40's or before. Everything I have read indicates that the mindset against the State of Israel and the Jewish people in the region, existed with or without the Stern gang and their terrible ilk. And moreover, that there were outside forces making the situation really dangerous - as there are today. Some say, one of those forces - perhaps the prime mover - was Great Britain.

In any case there was NO EXCUSE for the atrocities committed against innocent Arabs but the same is true for the atrocities committed against the Jews.

There was no magic that was going to make the situation perfect for anybody and that is absolutely true today.

As far as being insulting: I intended none to you beyond being frustrated at the misreading of my words.

I'm sure, in your general tone to ME, in which among other things you conferred pity due to some moral lapse on my part, you intended none as well.

***

I hope the Mayor of London comes to see that his comments - not just in this article but in others as well - have been unfair.

But most of all I hope the Jewish people stop blaming themselves for Adolph Hilter. Because that's what I'm taking away from some of the discourse on this subject - an inescapable sense of guilt. Maybe it's been internalized after centuries of taking the blame for the murder of god. We're taking the blame for the Romans, for not having been able to defend ourselves and our land, and for 2,000 years of living in the shadows of great nations.

It is making us unable to see ourselves - in the context of Israel especially - of people caught up in, and reacting to - a war. We are actors now, not merely victims. Yet, we've been living so long in the world of books and dreams, in the little financial wars of the city, and in our victimhood - that we can't see a uniformed soldier overreacting to a child throwing a rock - and see a man overreacting and not a Nazi.

And we're still so afraid of Hitler that we look at a child with a rock and see annihilation. It makes us crazy, we hurt people, it makes things so much darker. By the same token we need to see where the darkness is coming from, do what we can to make the situation better - and THEN WE NEED TO FORGIVE OURSELVES.

And we need to stop allowing others to paint swastikas on us. But that's not going to happen until we stop doing it to ourselves.

We are not going to be able to hold our heads up until we accept the fact that we are PEOPLE. We are not angels, not demons, not scapegoats, not Yugoslavian warlords like Milosevic; and definitely NOT NAZIS.

SWC To London Mayor: Apologize Now For Antisemitic And Anti-Israel Comments

At a time when violent antisemitic attacks on British Jews increased 42% last year reaching greater levels than in France, where just days before Holocaust Memorial Day Jewish gravestones were desecrated with swastikas, while at the same time there was a spate of violent attacks against Jews in North London, where Jewish students feel increasingly intimidated on university campuses for openly expressing their support for Israel, and when young people in the UK increasingly display a lack of understanding of the Nazi Holocaust, the slanderous comments against a Jewish reporter and the State of Israel by London's controversial mayor have fueled an already dangerous environment.

Mayor Ken Livingstone's most recent statements accusing the Israeli government of "ethnic cleansing" and his description of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a "war criminal who should be in prison" have added to the anger over comments made last month when he compared a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard. Livingstone has refused consistent calls from Prime Minister Tony Blair, British officials, Holocaust survivors, and London's Jewish community to apologize.

Therefore, we are asking our supporters in Britain and around the world to join the Simon Wiesenthal Center's protest directly to London Mayor Ken Livingstone to urge him to immediately apologize for his comments trivializing the Holocaust and demonizing Zionism and Israel.

Livingstone has had a long history of conflict with British Jews. Last year, he hosted Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood Imam who has endorsed suicide bombings against civilians in Israel and attacks on foreign civilians in Iraq. In 2000, he made a speech claiming that global capitalism was responsible for more deaths that the Nazis. And as far back as 1983, in his capacity as a newspaper editor, he published a cartoon of then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin dressed in an SS uniform with a caption reading, "The Final Solution." (emphasis added by appender)

Additionally, the Center is urging mayors of all cities to refuse to officially welcome Livingstone to their cities until he apologizes for his reckless and incendiary behavior.

--e mail from Simon Weisenthal Center, http://www.wiesenthal.com

it is NOT in any way anti-semitic to call Sharon a war criminal and to say that he is unfit for public offic, after all the Israeli Kahane Commission (a commission of Israel's Supreme Court) said EXACTLY the same thing way back in 1982 - are they anti-semites?

Also the fact that global capitalism has killed more people than Nazi's really isn't shocking (the Nazi's only had a decade to work with though given as much time as GC I'm sure they'd have been competitive)

BUT - Livingstone is just another slimey politican willing to say whatever is politically expedient in my view. The population of Mulsims in London is about 600,000. The population of Jews in ALL of the UK is just over 300,000 (and only about 160,000 of those live in Livingstone's constituency.) Clearly Livingstone knows which side his bread is buttered on.

His comments comparing a reporter (however repugnant the reporter) to an SS camp guard were revolting and I would absolutely agree with the call for him to apologise for those - no one needs to apologise to Sharon, he's a piece of shit and saying that has nothing to do with Jewish people.

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id={4AFF0DFD-220E-4E69-A241-4581E59D208E}¬oc=1

March 7, 2005


US MAYORS URGED TO CONDEMN LONDON MAYOR LIVINGSTONE FOR ANTISEMITIC INSULTS

The Simon Wiesenthal Center called upon mayors in the U.S. to condemn London Mayor Ken Livingstone by refusing to officially welcome him to their cities until he apologizes for his antisemitic and slanderous remarks against a Jewish reporter and the State of Israel.

"At a time when antisemitism is rampant throughout the U.K. and Europe, we should not allow the Mayor of one of the foremost cities in the world to get away with likening a Jewish reporter to "concentration camp guard" and Prime Minister Sharon a "war criminal who should be in prison not in office," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center.

"A city that is vying to host the Olympics should not have a Mayor who uses his office as a bully pulpit for bigotry. For that reason, and because he has refused consistent calls from Prime Minister Tony Blair, British officials and London's Jewish community to apologize, the Center is urging mayors in the United States to refuse to officially welcome Livingstone to their cities" he concluded.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.

For more information, please contact the Center's Public Relations Department, 310-553-9036, or go to www.wiesenthal.com

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ah, never mind...

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/552528.html

<snip>

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faces the distinct possibility of assassination by an Israeli "wacko" over his commitment to dismantle settlements on the West Bank, a senior U.S. senator said on Tuesday."

<snip>

"I think there is a distinct chance that he could be assassinated," Biden told the Democratic Leadership Council. "I think that there's a real, genuine, palpable concern that he could be assassinated by an Israeli."

Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said "hell hath no fury" like that of settlers who felt they had been betrayed by "the very man who is the father of settlements."

<snip>

"I would not underestimate the resentment, the hatred," Biden said. "They don't represent all the settlers ... but
there are some absolute wackos."

Reprinted in counterculture.com from the Guardian - it's easier
to read without the Guardian's annoying ads:

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-livingstone040305.htm


It appears to me that his orignal exchange with reporter Oliver
Finegold was a silly and bad-tempered response to a stupid question
from a persistent reporter, blown out of all proportion by an
opportunistic newspaper editor.

This is a verbatim transcript of the exchange between Livingstone
and Finegold:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/ukensaid.xml


To blow up a rather idiotic response to an irksome reporter into
an anti-semitic tirade is even more ludicrous than the original
comments.

And to translate disgust with Ariel Sharon and his policies, and
those of the present Israeli Government into across-the-board
anti-semitism is opportunistic and cynical. As for those who
say that he should also be targetting Blair's policies - he has,
in no uncertain terms, on plenty of occasions in the past. In
fact, Livingstone's readmittance into the Labour Party is rather
shaky, and clearly born of pragmatism on both sides. How long it
will last is anyone's guess.