Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ Documentary from 2009: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby – Part Three

Honest Reporting claims to have 175,000 subscribers, and organises letter writing campaigns against the Beeb. The BBC Trust censured Jeremy Bowen for comments he made about the history of the conflict. His piece was withdrawn. But Bowen had published an article the week before in the Jewish Chronicle, using the same phrases that Honest Reporting found so objectionable, and which was still up at that rag’s website. CAMERA and the other parts of the Israel lobby complained, forcing the Beeb to investigate Bowen. This had a chilling effect on the other staff in the newsroom, who felt that they too were under attack. Jonathan Dimbleby thought the BBC had caved in under pressure from them. Which meant that he too came under investigation for anti-Semitism for making the above comments. The BBC Trust went to Oxford to interview Avi Shlaim about Bowen. Shlaim said that he couldn’t fault Bowen’s comments, concludes that some people in the Jewish community are too quick to criticise reporting. As for Honest Reporting, their office is not in Britain but Jerusalem. Their managing Director Simon Flosker is British, but worked for BICOM and the Israeli Army Press Office. Flosker declined to be interviewed, but issued a statement claiming that the BBC and the Guardian were biased against Israel, more so than other countries such as America.

And then there is the noxious incident, where these scum stopped the BBC raising an appeal for the victims of the Gaza invasion. The BBC has a long history of raising appeals for the victims of disasters. During Israel’s invasion 1,000 civilians in Gaza were killed. There was a move for the BBC to broadcast an appeal, but this was turned down by the Beeb’s Director-General, Mark Thompson. Ben Bradshaw, the Labour Minister for Media, was outraged. He stated that the Israel lobby was showing all the qualities of a bully. A BBC spokeswoman then explains to Oborne that the issue was too much trouble, and that it would cause people to lose confidence in the Corporation’s impartiality. She claims that the corporation took the advice of an independent committee. But Niam Alam, who was a member of the Committee, resigned over it. He said that the Committee never met to discuss the issue, and was never consulted. The appeal was eventually broadcast on Channel 4, where there were absolutely no complaints about its impartiality. Oborne’s documentary includes the appeal to show that it is, indeed, apolitical and impartial. The other members of the Committee refused to speak in public. When he tried to get them, and other charities and aid agencies, to talk about general humanitarian issues, they too declined. They included Oxfam, Christian Aid, Catholic Aid, and Cathod.

The Beeb’s decision not to broadcast the appeal is unusual, and breaks with the Corporation’s long tradition of making such broadcasts. In 1982 the Corporation broadcast an appeal for the victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during which Palestinian men were butchered in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by the Christian Phalange, who were Israel’s allies during the invasion. Oborne states that the BBC is in danger of losing its reputation for impartiality around the world. The Israel Lobby has good access to politicos, and their loyalty is not to Britain, but to a mixture of interests, which may include Britain, but also the interests of another country. Oborne states that in making the documentary they have found nothing like a conspiracy, but a lack of transparency and the influence of the Israel lobby continues to be felt.

Of course, Oborne was accused of anti-Semitism for this piece, which he was successfully able to defend himself against. Looking at his denial of finding a conspiracy, you can see how he is attempting to fend off one of the accusations that has been levelled at Mike. He was accused of promoting Nazi-style conspiracy theories because he called the meeting between Shai Masot and the Tory Israel Lobby about arranging, who they wanted in the cabinet a conspiracy. This is what it is. It had nothing to do with stupid theories about international bankers financing communism to destroy the White race. it was a real conspiracy, just as there have always been real conspiracies of secretive groups meeting to pursue distinct political goals. Like the various CIA and British Secret Service intelligence operations run against Communism during the Cold War, and the various other lobbying groups now infesting parliament.

The picture that emerges of the Israel lobby is that it is a collection of very wealthy, very well-funded groups determined to suppress even mild criticism of Israel through ruthless bullying and intimidation. And it seems clear to me that Mike, and the others libelled as anti-Semites by the Sunday Times, the Mail, Express, Scum and Jerusalem Post, were the subjects of an organised campaign by the Tory Friends of Israel, possibly with the collusion of the Israeli embassy.

It also raises profound questions about Mike’s suspension from the Labour party. He was given no formal charges, and the identity of his accuser was never disclosed. How convenient. So who were they? Jonathan Mendelsohn, perhaps? One of the other high-ranking Blairites, scared that Mike was giving their former beloved leader a dam’ good, and very well deserved bashing? And behind them is their another pro-Israel donor, someone like Lord Levy, who will get into a ‘fearful bate’, as Molesworth would sa, and take his money elsewhere if the Labour party didn’t dance to his tune.

These groups are vicious, nasty, bullies, who libel and smear with impunity. It’s high time they were stopped in their tracks. Too many decent people, including self-respecting Jews, have been smeared as anti-Semites by these scoundrels. But from the comments of one of the Israel lobby’s leaders, Schanzer, it appears that they may be overreaching themselves. The claims of anti-Semitism have been overused. They’re not having the same effect. Well, soon I hope these accusations in this context will have no effect at all. And the time can’t come soon enough when that will happen, and when those who make those smears will have to face justice for their lies.

Here’s the video:

There’s a full transcript of it at Open Democracy Net.

The Young Turks on the Dildo-Tossing Protestor of New Zealand

Yesterday, Mike over at Vox Political ran this story about a woman in New Zealand, who was so incensed at the violation of her country’s sovereignty by the Trans-Pacific trade deal, similar to the TTP, that she lobbed a sex toy at one of the politicos responsible: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/02/05/the-serious-message-that-prompted-a-woman-to-hit-a-politician-in-the-face-with-a-sex-toy/.

In this video, the Young Turks’ anchors Jimmy Dore, Mark Thompson and Ana Kasparian also discuss the incident, and quote the young woman in full. They discuss her concerns about national sovereignty, including the possibility that she might have been motivated by fears that multinationals will use the deal to trash the environment. They state that they’ve been critical of the threat the TTP poses to American businesses, jobs and sovereignty when it kicks in. They raise the point that foreign companies will then be able to come in, and prospect and exploit natural resources in America, without respect for Americans’ right to control the natural wealth of their country. And Jimmy Dore makes the excellent point about the danger this will also pose to local legislation to reduce the risk of oil spills. Chicago has passed laws stating that only double-hulled oil tankers can stop at its port facilities, in order to reduce the risks of an environmental disaster. But, says Dore, many nations are still using only single-hulled tankers. There’s a real danger, therefore, that if the TTP comes in, the oil companies and shipping lines using such vessels were go to an international court, and force countries and cities like Chicago to accept those ships.

They also note the duplicity of the political class on this issue. They note that the Republicans have always been accusing Obama of betraying America, and giving away American sovereignty. Most of the time it’s just propaganda, but this time they’re right. Not that this makes them any better. They state that Obama is basically a moderate, corporatist Democrat, and allege that half the time he is so moderate that he does pretty much what they want. And this is very, very much the case now. Obama is giving away American sovereignty on the TTP trade deal, but it is not being condemned by the Republicans because they also are four-square behind it. America is being betrayed for the benefit of the big corporations that run it. It shows the depth of the corruption in modern American politics.

On a lighter note, as you can imagine there’s a lot of joking about dildos as missiles to be thrown at politicians. They make it clear that the act was an assault, and they don’t approve of it. Ana Kasparian, however, believes that dildos are too useful to be thrown away, while Thompson makes the point that if the protest had happened in America, they would have shot the politician. They also talk about how some municipalities in America have banned such sex toys, and the way it is more acceptable to ban these items, than guns.

The arguments against the TTP are all excellent, and shows the concerns that some Americans at least have about the way this deal threatens their national sovereignty and economy as well as the other participating nations. On the subject of multinational corporate control of national resources, they don’t realise that this does exist elsewhere in the world, where it’s been pursued to America’s advantage. Like the oil companies in the Middle East, which effectively control those countries’ oil supplies, in return for an extremely tiny percentage of the profits. This is the case from Iraq to Saudi Arabia. The exception is Iran, where the oil industry was nationalised in 1979, and where foreigners are excluded by law from owning Iranian industries. I suspect that most Americans don’t know about these arrangements. They probably believe, as many in Britain and elsewhere undoubtedly do, that these arrangement are probably on some kind of perfectly equitable basis. Hence if the same kind of thing happens in America, it will come as a bitter shock. And it will be particularly resented because of the belief that it is only happening to America. I also don’t doubt that those few, who are aware that hitherto such arrangement have been pursued on a unilateral basis to benefit America will be offended, because of the idea that America is so perfect, that it must be exempt from the regulations and strictures it imposes on others. Like the international court of human rights. America is perfectly happy to support it for other nations, but will not be a signatory itself.

I’ve reblogged other pieces that show that everyone around the world will suffer if the TTP goes ahead, including those nations that are not party to it. The only people, who will benefit, will be the heads of the big multinationals. Everyone else stands to lose their national sovereignty, their jobs, and businesses.