There seems to be a misconception concerning Livingstone's behaviour that has now entrenched itself in the current debate over his suspension by the Board of Standards. He did not simply insult a Jewish journalist by suggesting that he had worked as a Nazi concentration camp guard and then refuse to apologize for the comment. He reacted to criticism of this insult by publishing an article in the Guardian under the title 'This is about Israel, not anti-semitism' (March 4 2005), in which he sought to change the topic of discussion by insisting that the problem is not anti-Semitism but Israel's 'racist' policies. (I responded to this piece with a letter in the Guardian, which can be found here.) Livingstone followed up on this sterling performance with his virtual justification of Palestinian suicide bombing ('Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons. In that unfair balance, that's what people use...'), delivered at his press conference on July 19 2005. On this occasion he unconditionally condemned terrorist attacks against civilians in Britain and the United States, while expressing understanding for assaults on Israeli civilians. For the past two years he has been promoting Yusef al-Qaradawi as a progressive religious figure and a leading moderate, as a means of recruiting support among Islamist groups like the MAB. His comment to Oliver Feingold may have been an ill-considered act, but the manner in which he dealt with the reaction to it was not. Livingstone's subsequent conduct was an integral part of a cynical campaign of divisive ethnic politics that he has been pursuing for electoral advantage.
The current defence of his insult as legitimate if offensive political expression indicates a general refusal to take seriously the deeply racist nature of his political strategy. He systematically provokes Jews in order to curry favour with a variety of political and religious constituencies. Interestingly, he incurs no serious political damage for this policy. While one can agree that it is unacceptable for an unelected administrative committee to suspend an elected official for a non-criminal act, this does not conclude the matter. Where is the general public opprobrium that one would expect as a corrective to such behaviour in a genuinely liberal society? Its absence suggests that for a large part of British public opinion this behaviour is entirely acceptable and offers no cause for alarm. It is a mistake to insist on an apology from a political figure who is sufficiently depraved as to regard ethnic politics as a legitimate instrument of self-advancement. And to come on bended knee with a request for an apology, as the official leadership of the Jewish Community has repeatedly done, is worse - as irrelevant in this context as it is self-debasing.
It is worth contrasting the widespread support accorded to Livingstone in the face of his suspension with the intense public pressure exerted on the former US Senate majority leader Trent Lott, in response to his sympathetic recollection of Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign for the presidency during Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in December 2002. Lott's remarks drew sharp criticism from both the White House and other Republican members of Congress (neither of these widely known for their concern with civil rights), as well as from all quarters of the American media and mainstream public opinion. As a result, Lott was forced to resign as Senate majority leader. It is certainly necessary to defend both freedom of speech and the sovereignty of the electorate in the face of political censorship. However, these liberties are largely empty if they are not accompanied by vigorous criticism of bigoted views and radically misconceived conduct in the public domain. It seems that Jew-baiting is both politically correct and electorally expedient in contemporary Britain. (Shalom Lappin)