Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: Channel 4 - Inside Britain's Israel Lobby
Inside Britain's Israel Lobby
Peter Oborne
Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.
Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.
Political commentator Peter Oborne sets out to establish who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.
He investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.
The pro-Israel lobby aims to shape the debate about Britain's relationship with Israel and future foreign policies relating to it.
Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.
Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members, according to Channel 4's Dispatches
Channel 4's film alleges that William Hague faced threats of a withdrawal of funding from CFI after he described a retaliatory attack by Israel on Lebanon in 2006 as 'disproportionate'.
Pro-Israeli organisations in Britain look set to see their influence increase if the Conservatives win the next election, a film scrutinising the activities of a powerful but little-known lobby warns today.
At least half of the shadow cabinet are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), according to a Dispatches programme being screened on Channel 4. The programme-makers describe the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".
Inside Britain's Israel Lobby claims that donations to the Conservative party "from all CFI members and their businesses add up to well over £10m over the last eight years". CFI has disputed the figure and called the film "deeply flawed".
The programme also describes how David Cameron allegedly accepted a £15,000 donation from Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish billionaire who chairs Bicom (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre). Zabludowizc, the film reveals, has business interests in an illegal West Bank settlement. He also gave £50,000 to Conservative Central Office. Zabludowicz says his contributions "are a matter of public record".
William Hague allegedly accepted personal donations from CFI board members totalling tens of thousands of pounds after being appointed shadow foreign secretary. More than £30,000 from CFI supporters went to the campaign funds of members of Cameron's team who were first elected in 2005, the film claims, using publicly available information.
The programme-makers say that while this is legal, it is not well-known.
The CFI director, Stuart Polak, told the Guardian the figure of more than £10m is not supported by any facts. "It is fictitious, misleading and damaging to the reputation of CFI and its supporters," he said.
"CFI as an organisation has donated only £30,000 since 2005. Each of these donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to this £30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen, separately, to donate to the party as individuals."
Two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy. But Britain's pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far less scrutiny.
"The pro-Israel lobby … is the most powerful political lobby," Michael Mates, a Conservative MP and privy councillor, told the film-makers. "There's nothing to touch them."
Hague fell out with CFI after describing Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon – in retaliation for a Hezbollah raid – as "disproportionate" and allegedly faced threats to withdraw funding from Lord Kalms, a major Tory donor and CFI member, the film reports.
Cameron later gave an undertaking not to use the word again, the programme claims. At a CFI dinner this June the party leader made no mention of the death toll in the Gaza war – 1,370 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Instead he commended Israel because "it strives to protect innocent life".
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem and ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached."
Labour Friends of Israel, another key group, is described as being "less unquestioning in its support of the Israeli government than CFI". But it has taken more MPs on free trips to Israel than any other group – more than 60 since 2001.
CFI has also flown over 30 Tory parliamentary candidates to Israel on free trips in the last three years.
Dispatches describes how when the presenter Jonathan Dimbleby criticised a pro-Israel campaign against the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, Dimbleby was the subject of a complaint and, according to the programme, is now under investigation by the BBC Trust.
Bicom, like the party-affiliated groups, organises briefings and trips to Israel for journalists, including Guardian staff. It sought to dismiss the significance of Zabludowicz's interest in a shopping mall in Ma'aleh Adumim, a settlement built on territory occupied in the 1967 war and which Israel would hope to retain.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has rebuffed demands by Barack Obama for a settlement freeze.
Bicom's chief executive, Lorna Fitzsimons, said: "The private business interests of any of our funders – including our chairman – have absolutely no impact on Bicom's work.
"We are an independent organisation and we guard our reputation fiercely. We work with journalists to help them better understand the Middle East.
"We show Israel, warts and all, from the left to the right and we have a strict policy that on every journalist trip we go to the Palestinian Authority to give journalists unfettered access to Palestinian voices."
I wonder why there isn't a law against agents of foreign states (especially those which have committed thousands of war crimes) from funding any elected official?
"CFI as an organisation has donated only £30,000 since 2005. Each of these donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to this £30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen, separately, to donate to the party as individuals."
so that's alright then ..
edit,
lies !!!!
edit,
no lies at all.
oh, yes, whilst I do have problems linking this site directly to vulgar knuckle draggers, i have no problems at all with a more sophisticated model,
prolly only good in ie, but I can't be bothered to look ..
Just in case my question was misunderstood, I meant to ask what you all thought of it. (I found it on the box last night and plan to watch it sometime this w/end.)
Last week's Channel 4 Dispatches programme probing the antics of the pro-Israel lobby in British politics has opened up this hitherto forbidden subject to public debate.
Political commentator Peter Oborne reported that a large majority of Conservative MPs and half the shadow Cabinet are signed-up Friends of Israel and millions of pounds flow into the bank accounts of MPs and parties, although only a fraction of these "contributions" is visibly accounted for.
As Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem, observed: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes, these contributions come with no strings attached."
Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel take dozens of MPs on free trips to Israel, where they are guests of the Israeli government, Oborne pointed out.
One of the Tory Party's big donors has vested interests in illegal settlement development in the West Bank and in Bicom, an Israeli public affairs outfit. The party's leadership is therefore vulnerable to zionist pressure.
If the Conservatives win next year's election, zionists can rest easy in the knowledge that they continue to have sufficient stooges in place at the heart of our government.
Oborne also revealed how the BBC is relentlessly bullied by the Board of Deputies and the Zionist Federation which, the programme pointed out, don't represent anybody except an extremist section of the Jewish community.
But interesting though the programme was, it left out too much.
It didn't tell us that BBC director-general Mark Thompson went to Israel in 2005 to "build bridges" with the then prime minister Ariel Sharon, considered by many a war criminal and mass murderer.
It didn't tell the nation that our most important security bodies - the intelligence and security committee, foreign affairs committee and defence committee - are all headed by Israel flag-wavers.
And it didn't reveal that our Labour and Conservative leaders are both patrons of the Jewish National Fund or explain the purpose of that organisation.
Basic questions remain - for example, why are agents of a foreign military power allowed to meddle in our democratic and parliamentary processes?
Two years ago a group of individuals asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life to investigate whether there was undue zionist influence at the heart of British government.
The standards committee, chaired by newly appointed Sir Christopher Kelly - the same Kelly who is currently making heavy weather of investigating the way MPs have been fiddling expenses - refused to look into it.
His reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: "I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter."
But the committee's remit calls on it "to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life."
This, surely, is the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like Kelly ought to be able to understand.
The committee was formed to uphold the "seven principles of public life," which apply to everyone in the public service:
* Selflessness. Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends;
* Integrity. Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties;
* Objectivity. In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit;
* Accountability. Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office;
* Openness. Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
* Honesty. Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest;
* Leadership. Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
When the letter's signatories pressed Kelly on whether the zionist influence contravened the seven principles, particularly the point of integrity, Kelly continued his ducking and weaving.
"This committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001," he replied.
"The committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future."
Again the 20 individuals batted the ball back into Kelly's court, pointing out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country's political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse, but were not supplied.
The British people should not have to tolerate dual allegiance in their Parliament and government. It puts democracy and national security at risk.
As one peer wrote: "I ask over and over again why Israel is allowed to get away with breaking international law and the answer is silence from the government ... they are afraid of the Israel lobby who label anyone who speaks out as anti-semitic and withdraw their support."
Friends of Israel's aim is to promote the interests of Israel and its government, which is racist in its treatment of its own Arab population, the Palestinians and the Bedouin.
MPs who align themselves with Israel are not acting in Britain's public interest but against our own anti-racism laws.
I messaged PresstvLondon via Youtube about the 'Jewish Lobby' label they tagged on the video I posted previously, a week ago. I basically wrote it was inappropriate and should be: The Israeli Lobby.
Got a message from them today saying it was a good idea and from the video I posted above you can now see the title had been changed, so good result and fair play to PresstvLondon.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
