>Sadly this week the news has been dominated by Ken
>Livingstone's awful remarks, suggesting that anti-semitism
>isn't the same thing as racism and that Hitler was a Zionist.

This characterisation is unfair to Mr Livingstone and to the ideas that he
voices.  What Mr Livingstone actually said about Hitler and Zionism is "Let's
remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews
should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism".  Denotationally, that is
true - although it wasn't codified in the Haavara Agreement till the following
year 1933.  Live interviews demand quick thinking; Mr Livingstone could have
found a less ambiguous way of phrasing what he wanted to say - and I'm sure that
he must be wishing that he had done! - but it is true that anyone who in 1932
advocated German Jews' moving to a Jewish homeland in Palestine was holding
views congruent - in this one aspect - with those of German Zionists.  Note that
Mr Livingstone never claimed that Hitler himself was a Zionist; the "supporting
Zionism" phrasing is unfortunately ambiguous but can be understood in the
context of Mr Livingstone's full remarks.

Mr Livingstone also never said or suggested that anti-semitism isn't racism.
What he did observe is that "there's been a very well-orchestrated campaign by
the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic"
-- that is to say, he did say that being anti-Israel isn't racist, precisely
because being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic.  Israel is a
state, not a people.

Mr Livingstone has done nothing that needs apology.  In mischaracterising his
remarks, however, you have.