Taming the zionist lobby
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.
from
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/inde ... full/83652
also see
Tories under fire over donation from Israel lobbyist
