Sunday, October 22nd | 2 Heshvan 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 7, 2017 6:56 am

Ken Livingstone: Enabler of Evil

avatar by Ben Cohen / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Ken Livingstone: Enabler of Evil" to a friend

Former London mayor Ken Livingstone. Photo: Wiki Commons.

JNS.org – I’ve written many times about the antisemitism that continues to plague the British Labour Party — a once noble party of both opposition and government that has now, under its current far-left leader Jeremy Corbyn, become a laughably ineffective opposition, with little hope of attaining government leadership.

One key reason for that involves the scandals around open expressions of antisemitism from party activists and leaders alike. This has discredited the party among voters in general, and is forcing Jewish members to leave what was once their natural political home in droves.

The antisemitism row returned to the Labour Party this week, when the party announced that it was merely renewing its suspension of Corbyn’s close friend and ally, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, rather than expelling him outright for the vile falsehoods he promoted in an interview with the BBC. In that interview, Livingstone claimed that Hitler had supported Zionism before he “went mad” and launched the Holocaust.

Across social media platforms, Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of the Labour Party expressed outrage. “You can keep Ken,” said one tweet, “I’m done.” Other statements implored the dissenters to stay and fight. “It’s the anti-Semites who should leave, not us,” declared another tweeter.

Related coverage

October 22, 2017 1:22 pm
0

Israeli Government Cultivates Allies at First Christian Media Summit

JNS.org - Recognizing that it's easier to communicate with journalists who are prone to be supporters of Israel than those with a perceived anti-Israel bias, the Israeli...

The Labour Party’s refusal to properly address Livingstone’s remarks was not the result of some bureaucratic error or a genuine inability to understand the problem. It happened because Corbyn and his clique of fanatics agree with Livingstone that, as Livingstone put it in a recent fawning interview, “Basically, anybody who has criticized Israel, ends up being called anti-Semitic.”

But what counts as “criticism of Israel” is very generously defined. Talking about the influence of Jewish wealth in the UK, stoking blood libels against elected Israeli leaders, repeatedly spitting in the face of the Jewish community by comparing Zionism with Nazism, currying favor with Islamist terrorists like Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi and antisemitic dictators like the late Hugo Chavez in Venezuela — all of these monstrosities amount, in Livingstone’s mind, to mere “criticism of Israel.”

In a 1946 essay, George Orwell wrote that while British antisemitism rarely takes violent forms, “it is ill-natured enough, and in favorable circumstances it could have political results.” That speaks volumes about today’s Labour Party.

In the same essay, Orwell remarked, “People will go to remarkable lengths to demonstrate that they are not anti-Semitic.” That, too, speaks volumes about Labour. One only needs to recall the insipid internal inquiry into antisemitism in 2016, which conceded only that there is “an occasionally toxic atmosphere” towards Jews in the party, and which employed the well-worn tactic of recruiting a Jewish academic and virulent critic of Israel, professor David Feldman, to provide appropriate political cover.

There is a broader point to be made here, and it is intimately connected to Labour’s steady drift to the left. The party’s disturbing behavior is reflected not just in its deny-and-excuse response to antisemitism at home, but in its adoption of a similar stance towards grave human rights abuses abroad.

Nobody exemplifies this pattern more than Ken Livingstone.

In 2013, when President Barack Obama drew a red line over chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian regime (only to erase it a few days later), the American climbdown was ably supported by a vote against military intervention in the British parliament. In spearheading a move that bolstered Syrian dictator President Bashar al-Assad, former Labour leader Ed Miliband and his “anti-war” lieutenants like Livingstone and Corbyn, ended up smeared with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Syrians.

Here is Livingstone — the great defender of “Palestine” — speaking about possible British involvement in Syria in November 2015: “We cannot put British troops on the ground because they are too discredited after Iraq and Afghanistan. But we should look to countries like China. I think China would jump at the opportunity to be involved because it would bring them on to the global stage. They’ve got millions of troops.”

Livingstone made these ludicrous comments after being charged by Corbyn with the task — I am really not making this up — of reviewing Labour’s defense policy. So let there be no misunderstanding about his conclusions: After insulting the armed forces of his own country, he recommended that the troops of a genocidal communist dictatorship be sent to Syria as…what? Neutral peacekeepers? Guarantors of the survival of Assad’s regime? If it’s the latter, the dimwitted Livingstone should have realized that the Chinese were not necessary, as his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah friends were already doing the dirty work of keeping Assad in power.

And now, almost three years after Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, told us the “worst” of Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal had been peacefully removed, we are again looking at sickening images of the victims of a gas assault in the town of Khan Sheikhoun.

The attack, ultimately made possible by Russian and Iranian backing for Assad, led President Donald Trump to shift away from his position of accepting that Assad remain in power, warning, “These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated.” Trump then launched the first US military attack in Syria during the course of the civil war.

Of course, it remains to be seen what Trump will do in the long-term, but he has at least recognized the profound moral challenge contained here without the irritating qualifiers of the previous US administration. That is far more than can be said for a dictator’s stooge like Livingstone — who denounced Trump, in an article for a rigidly Stalinist newspaper called the Morning Star, as a “threat to the whole world.”

Livingstone is too insignificant to be a threat to the world. But throughout his career, he has faithfully supported the dictators and terrorist murderers who have inflicted untold suffering on millions, and he has resolutely opposed any effort to bring them down. He has, in short, been an enabler of evil.

This shouldn’t mean that others opposing action in Syria should be tarred with the same hideous motivations driving Livingstone. Equally, it shouldn’t escape our notice that there is a transparent link between the promotion of antisemitism and the support for dictatorships that is disfiguring so much of the political left. Livingstone cannot recognize evil because, perhaps, he is evil himself. Nobody of any political persuasion should follow his example.

Ben Cohen, senior editor of TheTower.org & The Tower Magazine, writes a weekly column for JNS.org on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics. His writings have been published in Commentary, the New York Post, Haaretz, The Wall Street Journal and many other publications.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • alainfahri

    Antisemitism should be accepted as a legitimate position where it is sincerely held. Throughout history many notable and intelligent people have realised the harm that Judaism does to mankind. Now an amalgamation of false indoctrination about WWII and the cowardice of those who govern has made it something to be avoided at all costs.

  • Joshua Laskin

    China is genocidal? I assume that Mr. Cohen must be referring to China’s suppression of the Tibetans. However, by that measure, even the USA and the UK have some massive genocidal debts still outstanding. Anyway, Mr. Cohen disagrees with Mr. Livingstone’s contention that, as Western Democracies have made such a botch of their Middle-Eastern adventures, perhaps it’s time for Eastern Communists to give it a try. Fair enough; but disagreement doesn’t satisfy Mr. Cohen. Instead, he must insist that Mr. Livingstone “cannot recognize evil because, perhaps, he is evil himself.” On what is Livingstone’s evil nature based? 1) “Vile falsehoods he propagated in an interview with the BBC”–except that his statements were historically accurate; Cohen means they were unacceptable; but, to whom? 2) “Talking about the influence of Jewish wealth in the UK”–i.e. the influence of Zionist wealth in UK politics; does Cohen deny something quantitatively verifiable, that Zionist wealth is spent to influence UK politics? 3) “Stoking blood libels against elected Israeli leaders”–i.e. he’s taken notice of dead Palestinian Arabs in the wake of Israeli settler-colonialism; is Cohen unable to recognize them as Human? 4) “Comparing Zionism with Nazism,” thereby “spitting in the face of the Jewish community”–here again, we come to what Cohen considers unacceptable: evil is whatever upsets Zionists; but would Cohen want the sensitivities of any political faction other than Zionists to determine acceptable speech? 5) “Currying favor with terrorists and dictators”–that is, a different bunch of terrorists and dictators than those Cohen prefers. What we hear from Cohen is the neoliberal rage at Labour’s return to its progressive roots and historical alliance with the oppressed; which, naturally, now includes the Arabs of Palestine. Cohen, unlike Livingstone, can’t imagine how American and British participation in the Syrian Civil War could possibly make it worse. Now the game is joined by Trump, who, Cohen believes, “recognizes the profound moral challenge”. Oh, please. Trump attacked an empty field; recognizes bubkes; and, as a climate-change denier (if for nothing else) is certainly what Livingstone tagged him: “a threat to the whole world”. By comromising with terrorists and dictators, is Livingstone “an enabler of evil”? Yes, of course he is; just like everyone else, including Cohen, and the rest of us. But, is Livingstone (with the entire political Left), “evil himself”? Granted, from the Zionist perspective, he may thus appear; but, why should he care?

Algemeiner.com