In the introduction to his adoring, toe-curling “world exclusive” interview with the Hamas leader in New Statesman, Ken Livingstone writes: “Palestinians fire ineffectual rockets into Israel.”
Numerous Israelis have been killed by those rockets, including children in nursery school. To describe them as ineffectual is therefore a straightforward lie.
Also, when Livingstone asks: “Are you committed to the destruction of Israel?” and Khaled Meshal dodges the question, does our intrepid reporter press him on the matter?
Does he heck.
We know Ken’s agenda, but why did nobody pick this lie up at the NS before publication?
Jews were gassed to death in the Shoah, but some people pretend it didn’t happen.
Jews are murdered by Hamas rockets, but some people pretend it didn’t happen.
Shame on them.
He might not be lying. He might think the rockets are ineffectual because they do not kill enough Israeli kids?
Livingstone has told me three times that Israel should never have been created. The third time, he said that the former Chief Rabbi said the same thing – untrue of course.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1204213983825
And please read in Andrew Hosken’s biography and here Livingstone’s response to investigations by the BBC Money Programme in 1983:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23478856-details/Anti-semitism+-+and+a+timely+question+for+Ken/article.do
“On the day of its hysterical editorial News Line ran a piece in which Ken suggested the Money Programme report was indeed the work of Zionists. In the same piece he blamed “smears” against him on agents working for Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin’s government.”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/09/16/did-gordon-brown-try-to-get-martin-bright-sacked/
The New Statesman has history. Martin Bright is the new Political editor of the JC …
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/sweden-ripped-to-shreds-in-satirical-israeli-video-over-anti-semitism-scandal/
Israelis take Swedish government apart ……
Livingdead must have run out of newts to fancy, because after picking Londoners’ pockets and inflicting such marvels as the bendy bus upon them he’s back on his favourite soapbox about Israel (yaaawn). Whatever happened to ‘accepting defeat’ or ‘keeping a low profile’? The boring old Marxist’s got no shame.
Chas, I believe you’ve made a (minor) mistake. As far as I’m aware, no children in nursery schools have been killed by Kassam rockets.
Maybe I’d agree with Ken that in terms of accuracy, Kassams are woefully “ineffectual.” But that’s not telling the whole story, for while these rockets may be home-made and crude, to describe them as “innefectual” is utterly misleading – although these projectiles may not physically strike their targets, they possess an unerring accuracy in scaring every person who wears the terrifying “Red Alert” siren. These home-made rockets reach the hearts of whoever hears the siren; everyone thinks that the rocket is aimed at them. No wonder that a ridiculously hugh number of school-children in Sderot have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, something only adults normally suffer from.
Afik Zahavi was killed by a Hamas rocket near the nursery school his mother was walking him to when the rocket hit. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2004/Afik+Zahavi.htm
The psychological effects show again how misleading Ken is, I agree, just as the physical effects do. By and sane, balanced assessment, the rockets are lethal.
I see that you’re right, Chas
Thinking it over, Israel does terribly on this issue. I’ve listened to Noam Bedein of Sderot Media Center (one of the only places that gets out information to the world about the havoc Kassam rockets cause) more than once, and visited their website numerous times, and I clearly recall him saying words to the effect of, “while no kindergarten has yet been struck, it’s only a matter of time if we continue to allow terrorists to fire rockets.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t make clear that a child had already been killed. The focus was too much on the nursery school itself and not enough on the kids, one of whom had already tragically been killed.
It would seem that this example works as an analogy to Israel’s PR campaigns – we try to explain what’s happening to the world, but as we get sucked into trying to make the details absolutely clear, we fail to realise that we are neglecting the bigger picture. Ask any Palestinian what the problem is, and they’ll say “The Zionists stole our land!” Ask us what the problem is and we’ll say, “Well, we’re offering them 95% back and they’re refusing our offer.” We might be absolutely reasonable in not giving that 5% back – after all, if we go back to the original borders then we’ll be back to square one and highly likely to be drawn into another conflict a la 1967 – but our claim will never match theirs in the ears of the general public. It is hugely important that the Israeli government lead the fight in defending Israel; it needs innovative thinkers who can turn a TV interview in ways that make viewers question the claptrap the BBC et al feed them. During the Gaza war earlier this year, I was delighted to see Ehud Olmert quoted on the BBC website as defending Israel’s “disproportionate response” by saying something like, “Well, would you rather a tit-for-tat response?”
Mark Regev does a wonderful job standing up to the media, most likely because he doesn’t lose sight of his main task – to make Israel seem reasonable and to explain why Israel is acting as it is. To defend Israel’s actions as legal or otherwise is the job of a lawyer, and he manages to avoid that.
Rant over