A review of Peter Oborneâ€™s TV reportÂ â€œInside Britainâ€™s Israel Lobbyâ€
This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on 8th December 2009. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page. Click here to read Prof MacDonald’s introduction to this article (opens in a new tab).
It is not often that one can, with pleasure, place on record that one was wrong inÂ expressing a particular opinion. But I can do this in the case of a TV documentary film,Â Inside Britainâ€™s Israel Lobby, by the journalist and political commentator Peter Oborne,Â broadcast on Monday 16th November  by Britainâ€™s Channel 4, an independentÂ network, as part of its Dispatches series.
On the basis of the pro-Zionism of his regular employers The Spectator and the DailyÂ Mail (extreme in the case of the former, moderate in the case of the latter), and what IÂ perceived to be his involvement with the Zionist-inspired media puffing the BritishÂ National Party (BNP) towards its present situation â€” a pro-Israel populist party whoseÂ opposition to multi-racialism has been replaced by an anti-Islam placebo â€” I had predicted that Oborneâ€™s investigation of the Israel lobby would be a damp squib at best,Â or disinformation at worst.
But I was wrong about his film. It went to the heart of the exercise of Jewish power inÂ Britain. It established that this power is now so substantial and pervasive that Jewry isÂ able to manipulate key institutions of our nation, in particular the governing Labour Party,Â the official opposition Conservative Party, and the supposedly â€œindependent and impartial by lawâ€ BBC, for the benefit of a foreign power: Israel.
Nobody who saw the film could doubt that Zionist Jewry has been able to suborn manyÂ people holding key positions with sundry organs of the British nation who have a dutyÂ imposed by patriotism, honour and, in some cases, by law to uphold British nationalÂ sovereignty, political independence and democratic freedoms.
In my view these creatures have become â€˜Shabbas Goyimâ€™ who, in return for careerÂ enhancement and/or cash, serve the interests of World Jewry in all its locations andÂ apparitions and not just, as Oborne shows, the state of Israel.
I will leave to another article the information I have about a cohort of non-Jewish pro-Zionist journalists, mainly employed by Tory-supporting papers, which made me expectÂ the worst from Dispatches film before I saw it. This information, considered in tandemÂ with the film, provides us with a glimmer of hope that Oborneâ€™s desertion from the cohortÂ and his exposure of the Israel Lobby may be part of a wider revolt by journalists againstÂ the relentless effort by Zionist Jews to control their output in a way that puts Jewry andÂ Israel above criticism.
The purpose of this article is to provide a taste of Oborneâ€™s research and to comment onÂ it. My review is based on seeing his film when broadcast, supported by the full textÂ of Oborneâ€™s Dispatches commentary. This was posted in the â€œOurÂ Kingdom â€” power and liberty in Britainâ€Â section of the Open DemocracyÂ web site, where itÂ appears to be a pamphlet by Oborne and one James Jones. No title, publisher,Â publication date or ISBN number is given so it may be awaiting publication in hard copyÂ form. With Oborneâ€™s text the site has also posted a Foreword by the Jewish anti-Zionist campaigner Antony LermanÂ explaining why he assisted Oborne with the Dispatches report. Any ambiguities may be resolved by those who have 50Â minutes to spare by resort to the YouTube posting of the film (see the note at foot of this post).
Unfortunately that posting has an embedded block againstÂ downloading. I will, of course, intrude my own digressions into my review of Oborneâ€™s work, but willÂ take pains to separate my information and opinions from his. I may have knowledge ofÂ matters either unknown to him or which, due to constraints of time or a wish to avoidÂ accusations â€œanti-Semitismâ€, he was unable to mention.
The Israel Lobby and The Conservative Party
Despite two very recent public opinion polls which indicate that that the general electionÂ next Spring is likely to produce a â€œhung parliamentâ€, the psephologicalÂ wisdom prevailing for the past two years has itÂ that the Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, is likely to subject the current LabourÂ Party government, led by Gordon Brown, to a landslide defeat.
It was in this context, coupled with David Cameronâ€™s cringing performance at this yearâ€™sÂ annual luncheon staged by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) â€” which OborneÂ believes to be the best-funded lobbying group at Westminster â€” that his commentaryÂ began by dealing with Zionist manipulation of the Tory Party:
â€œEvery year, in a central London hotel, a very grand lunch is thrown by theÂ Conservative Friends of Israel. It is often addressed by the Conservative leader ofÂ the day. Many members of the shadow cabinet make it their business to be thereÂ along with a very large number of Tory peers and prospective candidates, while theÂ Conservative MPs present amount to something close to a majority of theÂ parliamentary party. It is a formidable turnout.â€
Oborne remarked that the dominant event of the previous twelve months had been theÂ Israeli invasion of Gaza at the start of the year. He examined he text of Cameronâ€™sÂ speech to see how that event was handled.
â€œI was shocked to see that Cameron made no reference at all to the invasion ofÂ Gaza, the massive destruction it caused, or the 1,370 deaths that had resulted.Â Indeed, Cameron went out of his way to praise Israel because it â€˜strives to protectÂ innocent lifeâ€™. I found it impossible to reconcile the remarks made by the youngÂ Conservative leader with the numerous reports of human rights abuses in Gaza.
Afterwards I said as much to some Tory MPs. They looked at me as if I was distressingly naÃ¯ve, drawing my attention to the very large number of Tory donors inÂ the audience…..â€
â€œIt is impossible to imagine any British political leader showing such equanimity andÂ tolerance if British troops had committed even a fraction of the human rights abusesÂ and war crimes of which Israel has been accused.â€
The Saturday after that CFI luncheon Oborne criticised Cameronâ€™s speech in his DailyÂ Mail column, drawing particular attention to his failure to mention Gaza and his speakingÂ of â€œIsraeli respect for the sanctity of human lifeâ€ and the presence of Jewish bigÂ business donors to Conservative funds.
Immediately he received a letter from CFI director Stuart Polak which lamented thatÂ his â€œconcentrating on the businessmen and Davidâ€™s alleged comments was reallyÂ unhelpfulâ€. Hot on the heels of Polakâ€™s letter was a missive from CFI political directorÂ Robert Halfon who described Oborneâ€™s opinions as â€œastonishingâ€ and berated him forÂ suggesting a â€œmoral equivalenceâ€ between Israel and Iran. [my emphases]
Such letters from leading Zionist Lobby heavyweights usually have the effect of causingÂ hacks and their editors to issue profuse apologies and retractions. But something in theÂ deep background which we donâ€™t know about â€” something more that just IsraeliÂ genocide in Gaza (which, disgusting though it was, can hardly be described asÂ unprecedented Israeli behaviour) â€” provided Oborne with additional backbone.
His reaction to Polakâ€™s and Halfonâ€™s attempt to pressure him was this:
â€œI resolved then to ask the question: what led David Cameron to behave in the wayÂ he did at the CFI lunch at the Dorchester Hotel last June? What are the rules ofÂ British political behaviour which cause the Tory Party leader and his mass of MPs and parliamentary candidates to flock to the Friends of Israel lunch in the year of theÂ Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure that such anÂ event passes without notice?…..
â€œNow I want to ask a question that has never been seriously addressed in theÂ mainstream press: is there a Pro-Israel lobby in Britain, what does it do andÂ what influence does it wield?â€Â [my emphasis]
That is not the kind of question that the organized Jewish community thought would everÂ again be posed in the mainstream media (albeit a channelÂ whose mandate is to cater to minority groups) andÂ it is the reason why Oborneâ€™s film was subjected to the â€˜Silent Treatmentâ€™ by much of the print and broadcasting media even though Jewish websites and discussion forums wereÂ crackling with traffic â€” but more of the media reaction anon.
Oborneâ€™s pursuit of answers to his questions inevitably led him to examine not only howÂ the Israel Lobby ensures that the Conservative Party pursues an Israel-friendly line byÂ deployment of financial and media patronage (with the spectre of characterÂ assassination, career destruction and financial ruin hovering in the background), but alsoÂ how it secures similar compliance from the Labour Party and from national institutionsÂ such as the BBC, by application of precisely the same model of bribery and intimidation.
As to the Lobbyâ€™s influence over the Tory Party, Oborne mentions that he consulted the Lexis Nexis site to examine the way in which the CFIâ€™s activities are largely ignored byÂ the British media. His search revealed that since 1985 there have been only 154Â mentions of the CFI. In contrast, over the same period, Michael Ashcroft, the (non-Jewish) billionaire donor to Tory Party funds attracted 2,239; the Tobacco ManufacturersÂ Association had 1,083; the Scotch Whisky Association 2,895.
How the Israel Lobby circumventsÂ â€œtransparencyâ€ law
Under revisions to the law implemented during the last decade with a viewÂ to providingÂ the electorate with â€œtransparencyâ€ concerning political partiesâ€™ sources of funds, partiesÂ are required to â€œrecordâ€ in their internal accounts the sources of all donations of moreÂ than Â£200 but less than Â£5,000 and are required to â€œreportâ€ in their accounts lodgedÂ with the Electorate Commission (EC) the sources of all donations of Â£5,000 or more. These annual accounts are posted on the ECâ€™s website for public examination.
Oborne described how the Conservative Party is â€œbought-and-paid-forâ€ by the CFI. ThisÂ bribery is effected not just by big cash donations to Tory Central Office and to the partyÂ leaderâ€™s â€œprivate officeâ€, but to the constituency organisations of individual MPs â€” orÂ prospective parliamentary candidates.
The CFI â€” and also the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) â€” gets around these ECÂ regulations by making in its own name comparatively puny donations. It then tips off itsÂ corporate and wealthy individual members to make donations either to ConservativeÂ Central Office and/or to the constituency organizations of favoured MPs or candidates â€”Â without any on-the-record mention of the CFI, Israel, Jewry or whatever
Oborne gave two anecdotes of the way the system works, provided by informants whoÂ were too afraid to go on record.Â In one case a man who is now a Tory MP described how before the 2005 election heÂ was lobbied by the CFIâ€™s Stuart Polak at a social occasion. At the end of the meal, Polak asked the candidate if his campaign needed any money. A couple of weeks later twoÂ checks arrived at the constituency office. Both came from businessmen closelyÂ connected to the CFI whom the MP had never met and who had never, so far as heÂ knew, ever stepped inside his constituency.Â In the other case, a Tory parliamentary candidate contesting a marginal seat had goneÂ to see Stuart Polak, where he was tested on his views on Israel. Within a fortnight aÂ check from a businessman he had never met arrived in his constituency office.
Study of donations to Conservative constituency offices before the 2005 election revealsÂ a clear pattern according to Oborne. A group of donors linked to the Zionist cause,Â almost all of whom are on the board of the CFI and/or are prominently associated withÂ the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) made donations of between Â£2,000 and Â£5,000 eitherÂ personally or through their companies to the constituency offices of certain Conservative
Despite CFI and BICOM not formally merging, the two groups are closely coordinated.Â Many of BICOMâ€™s key figures also play roles in the CFI: Trevor Pears, Michael LewisÂ and Poju Zabludowicz â€” all hugely wealthy â€” are driving forces behind both lobbies.
Oborne devoted special attention to Zabludowicz, a Finnish Jew whose father madeÂ multi-millions as an international arms dealer. That fortune has now been transferred toÂ real estate investments, a portfolio that encompasses 40 per cent of downtown LasÂ Vegas and a shopping mall built in an illegal settlement in the Israeli-occupied WestÂ Bank of Palestine.
Tory leader David Cameron owes Trevor Pears and Poju Zabludowicz a special debt ofÂ gratitude. When Cameron was campaigning to secure the party leadership he received aÂ Â£20,000 donation from Pears and donations amounting to Â£15,000 from Tamares RealÂ Estate Investments, a Zabludowicz subsidiary based in Britain.
According to Oborne, since 2005 (the year of the last Parliamentary general election) theÂ total of the CFIâ€™s donations to the Tory Party made in its own name, added to thoseÂ made by CFI members, personal and corporate, in their own names but at the CFI’sÂ recommendation, has been in excess of Â£10 million.
On 17th November, the day after Dispatches was broadcast, the Jewish Chronicle webÂ site carried a report entitled â€œDispatches criticised by leading Jewsâ€ which included an interviewÂ with CFI director Stuart Polack. His remarks were coy, to say the least:
â€œThe programmeâ€™s claim that CFI donated Â£10m to the Conservatives over theÂ last eight years was deeply flawed.â€
Why not â€œuntrueâ€ or â€œwrongâ€ or â€œa lieâ€?
â€œDeeply flawedâ€ is clearly one of those â€˜non-denial denialsâ€™ beloved by spin doctors whoÂ can also devise â€˜non-apology apologiesâ€™. Do these flim-flam artists believe that all theÂ goyim are completely brain-dead?
Polak then went on to say:
â€œCFI as an organisation has donated only Â£30,000 since 2005. Each of theseÂ donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to thisÂ Â£30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen,Â separately, to donate to the party as individuals.â€
Note the â€œas an organisationâ€. He ducks the crucial issue of donations made byÂ individuals and companies at the CFIâ€™s and BICOMâ€™s instigation.
In order to yet further obscure the Zionist purchase of the Conservative and LabourÂ parties, the CFI, the LFI and BICOM are constituted as â€œunincorporated associationsâ€ â€”Â not companies, registered charities, political parties or other formal entities which the lawÂ requires to maintain accounts for annual submission to the Inland Revenue or other relevant statutory authorities.
These are not the kind of arrangements we would expect from public spirited citizensÂ willing to expend their largesse in an open and above-board way to promote what theyÂ see as good causes through political action.
These are arrangements employed by conspirators intent on corrupting public servantsÂ and anxious to hide the source of the bribes. One is put in mind of the criminalÂ mastermind Meyer Lansky who created the financial structure of America’s modern Cosa Nostra. When faced with prosecution heÂ fled not to Sicily but to Israel where he claimed admission under the â€œLaw of The Returnâ€ which grants Israeli citizenship to all â€œauthentic Jewsâ€.
â€œLord Cashpointâ€ and the Jewish Leadership Council
Turning to the Zionist influence over the Labour Party (and hence, the current LabourÂ government), Oborne covered territory which is well known and notorious: theÂ relationship between Tony Blair â€” Gordon Brownâ€™s predecessor as Prime Minister â€”Â and Lord Michael Levy.
Levy was the principal fund-raiser for Blairâ€™s â€œprivate officeâ€ through a so-called â€œblindÂ fundâ€. Â£2 million was raised. Please note: Though they played tennis together at Levyâ€™sÂ mansion every week for several years, they never ever discussed the names of theÂ contributors or how much they were giving.
Levy was also the principal fund raiser for the Labour Party itself (in excess of Â£15Â million). His success was such that he became known as â€œLord Cashpointâ€. Blair wantedÂ Levy to replace the trade unions as Labourâ€™s principal source of income, and told LevyÂ as much.
The saga of Levyâ€™s fall from grace as a result of his central involvement in the â€œCash forÂ central involvement in the â€œCash forÂ Honoursâ€ scandal â€” for which he was arrested but, after a long wait, not prosecuted â€”Â is well known and was concisely summarised by Oborne, so I need not repeat it here.Â The full story is but a Google search away.
What is not so well known â€” at least until Oborneâ€™s film â€” is that Levy was rewarded forÂ his services to the Zionist cause by being co-opted to the premier secular entity of BritishÂ Jewry: the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). Who set up this secretive oligarchy â€”Â which is never mentioned in the mass media â€” and how it was vested with supremacy,Â is not clear. Its existence excites â€œconspiracy theoristsâ€ to make comparisons with the fabulous â€œLearned Elders of Zionâ€.
The JLCâ€™s current membership is understood (at least by me) to include: PojuÂ Zabludowicz, Chairman of BICOM; Henry Grunwald, President of the Board ofÂ Deputies of British Jews (JBD); Gerald Ronson, Chairman of the Community SecurityÂ Trust (CST); and â€˜Lordâ€™ Greville Janner, President of the Holocaust Educational TrustÂ (HET) and of the LFI. All these Great Panjandrums of Jewry are, of course, multi-millionaires or billionaires.
I add to Oborneâ€™s information by mentioning that Levy is not the only member of the JLCÂ who has had his collar felt by the police.Â In the late 1980s, Gerald Ronson was jailed for his part in a massive Guinness breweryÂ share-trading fraud. On his release, he, along with other of his partners in crime,Â were â€œguests of honourâ€ at a Welcome Home banquet presided over by the Chief Rabbi,Â Dr Jonathan Sacks, who has since been ennobled and is now â€˜Lordâ€™ Sacks.
Sad to say, because of his criminal record, the Queen is unlikely to raise Ronson to theÂ peerage so that he can sit with Sacks in the House of Lords, but he has been given aÂ consolation prize by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, who appointed him as a member ofÂ the â€œOrder of Civil Meritâ€. This entitles him to be addressed as â€œIllustrÃsimo SeÃ±or DonÂ Gerald Ronsonâ€. (You couldnâ€™t make it up, could you?)
Top cops drawn into the spider’s web
Ronsonâ€™s appointment as Chairman of the CST, Jewryâ€™s private security and â€œspookâ€Â organization, was another Jewish one-finger salute to Britainâ€™s law enforcementÂ authorities. Hereâ€™s why:
When the CST was established in 1995/6 the London Metropolitan Police and theÂ Greater Manchester Police were prevailed upon by the then Conservative government toÂ provide the CSTâ€™s personnel with training and intelligence sharing. It is likely that theÂ arrangement was devised by Neville Nagler, for years the senior Home Office civilÂ servant in charge of race relations matters who, immediately upon retirement, wasÂ appointed Executive Director of the JBD.
This was a quite unprecedented and, I believe, extra-legal arrangement between theÂ British police and a private political security formation with close and admittedÂ connections with a foreign power. The arrangement has continued under a LabourÂ government despite the appointment of Ronson, a convicted criminal, as the CSTÂ chairman.
So senior police officers continue to be obliged â€” some may be more than willing â€” toÂ attend annual CST banquets at swanky West End hotels presided over by a convictedÂ fraudster and jail-bird, and exchange polite conversation with Zionist fanatics, some ofÂ whom are doubtless Mossad Sayanim ….. andÂ all â€œin the interests of good community relationsâ€.
At the last CST dinner held early this year at the Grosvenor House Hotel in Mayfair, LordÂ Levy made a bee-line for Assistant-Commissioner John Yates, deputy head of the Met atÂ Scotland Yard. Yates headed the investigation into the â€œCash for Honoursâ€ scam and itÂ fell to him to arrest Levy in connection with that matter.
Before the gaze of all present, Levy enjoyed administering ostentatious
and patronising â€œno hard feelingsâ€ back-slaps on the hapless Yates. This officerâ€™sÂ feelings, and the corrosive effect news of it has had on wider police morale, politicalÂ independence and integrity, may be imagined.
I conclude this digression on a lighter note. The central figure in the Guinness/DistillersÂ shares-fraud was prominent Jewish businessman Ernest Saunders. He had part of hisÂ jail term remitted on the grounds that he had Alzheimers disease. This incurable andÂ fatal degenerative brain condition went into an unprecedented remission upon hisÂ release. Indeed, he was able to start a new career on the business studies lectureÂ circuit, to the continuing amazement of the medical profession â€” and the admiration ofÂ us all.
â€œShabbas goyimâ€ grovel in House of Commons fiascos
Returning to Oborneâ€™s Dispatches thread: The sickly farce enacted between leadingÂ officials of the CFI and the LFI on the floor of the House of Commons (as they engage inÂ what the general public is told is â€œthe Labour v. Conservative ding-dong battleâ€) was wellÂ covered.
He cited a recent Commons question from senior Tory MP David Amess â€œto enquireÂ what the British government was doing to improve British relations with Israelâ€.
The governmentâ€™s answer came from Ivan Lewis MP, the Foreign Office Minister withÂ special responsibility for the Middle East. He replied: â€œIsrael is a close ally of theÂ United Kingdom and we have regular warm and productive exchanges at allÂ levels….. We shall continue to foster a close relationship with Israel.â€
Many honorable members on both sides of the House, their constituency bank balancesÂ gagging for more Zionist donations, just as were given before the last general election â€”Â and the election before that, and before that, ad nauseam â€” nodded sagely andÂ called â€œHear hear!â€
The House of Commons order paper, the subsequent report in Hansard and mediaÂ coverage of these proceedings failed to mention that David Amess is the secretary ofÂ the CFI while Ivan Lewis is a former vice-chairman of the LFI. So muchÂ for â€œtransparencyâ€ at Westminster.
The Jewish Lobby is not only able to stage-manage question sessions involvingÂ relatively junior members of the government, it is able to set the agenda for the well-known weekly Prime Ministerâ€™s Questions.
In these time-limited sessions, it is very hard for ordinary members to â€œcatch theÂ Speakerâ€™s eyeâ€ â€” i.e., be given the opportunity to put a question and thereby gainÂ massive publicity for a topic. (The recently-appointed Speaker is John Bercow, a Jew co-opted to the ancient and prestigious post from the Tory benches. His wife is a non-Jewish Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate. Whatâ€™s the betting heâ€™s aÂ member of the CFI and sheâ€™s a members of the LFI?)
During Prime Ministerâ€™s Questions at the end of November â€” too late for Oborne toÂ include in his Dispatches report â€” Tory leader Cameron asked Prime Minister BrownÂ about Â£130,000 of public funds said to have been made available to two Muslim schoolsÂ run by the Shakhsiyah Foundation in Slough and Haringey which Cameron allegedÂ had â€œlinksâ€ to the â€œIslamic extremistâ€ group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Brown replied that he would investigate Cameronâ€™s concerns â€œvery, very carefullyâ€.
The obvious purpose of the question was to suggest that the current LabourÂ administration was soft on â€œIslamic extremistsâ€ (sub-text: â€œterrorists!â€). But anotherÂ unstated item on the Jewish agenda was at work as well, namely:
Why was the government making grants to militant Islamic schools while the JewishÂ Free School (JFS) is shortly to appear at the Supreme Court to appeal against a HighÂ Court ruling that the schoolâ€™s admissions policy is â€œdiscriminatory on the grounds of raceÂ or ethnic originâ€ and, hence, illegal under the Race Relations Act?
Jewry contests Race Relations Act litigation
â€” the BNP does not
Background: The JFS refused to admit a boy whose father is Jewish according to theÂ Orthodox interpretation of the Halacha , but whoseÂ mother was born into a non-Jewish family but converted to Judaism via the Liberal-Reform route. Liberal-Reform conversions are not recognized as valid by the majorityÂ United Synagogue congregation, from among whose rabbinate the Chief Rabbi of theÂ UK is always appointed. (Liberal-Reform conversions are likewise not recognised by the Orthodox rabbinical authorities in Israel who adjudicate on claims for citizenship underÂ the Law of The Return).
I understand that the litigation against the JFS, though launched by the boyâ€™s parents is â€” or eventually became â€” â€œlegally-aidedâ€, that is, supported by grants of public fundsÂ via the Legal Aid Fund.
I surmise that the almost coincidentally similar litigation launched against the BNP by theÂ governmentâ€™s equality quango, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to persuade the party to change its constitution soÂ as to open its membership to all applicants regardless of their ethnic origin (a demandÂ that BNP chairman Nick Griffin says he is willing to accept without testing its legalityÂ before the courts!) was only instigated to provide â€œproofâ€ that the government and itsÂ agencies are even-handed in the enforcement of anti-discriminatory legislation.
Having explored the background to Cameronâ€™s question to the Prime Minister, we mustÂ ask: Who provided the information on which the question was based? Step forwardÂ Michael Gove, shadow Conservative education secretary. We know this because itÂ emerged that two weeks before Cameron put his question to Brown in public to a blazeÂ of publicity the same facts were rehearsed by Gove in a private letter he sent to the governmentâ€™s education secretary Ed Balls.
But we must dig deeper. Who provided Gove with the information about the obscureÂ alleged â€œlinksâ€ between Islamic schoolsâ€™ owners, the Shakhsiyah Foundation, and theÂ alleged â€œIslamic extremistsâ€ of Hizb-ut-Tahrir? We have two good clues.
Firstly, last year Gove was appointed as an honorary patron of the Zionist FederationÂ (ZF). The very discreet announcement in the 28th March 2008 Jewish Chronicle whichÂ recorded this appointment also mentioned that the previous month he had been awardedÂ the ZFâ€™s Jerusalem Prize â€œin honour of his support for Israelâ€™s security and well-beingâ€. (No mention was made of the amount of money which comes with this prize.
Perhaps no hard cash was granted by the Zionist Federation, but the certainty of aÂ golden career path.)
Michael Gove, Jonathan TurnerÂ and the Zionist Federation
Among Goveâ€™s senior associates in the ZF is the lawyer Jonathan Turner. He was theÂ person who fronted the Jewish Lobbyâ€™s voluminous complaint against the BBCâ€™s MiddleÂ East editor Jeremy Bowen, which was part of the Zionist campaign to bring the BBC toÂ heel. Turnerâ€™s vendetta against Bowen and the BBC was discussed at some length byÂ Oborne. I cover the topic at a later stage. It is enough to remark here that Turner and his researchers obviously see themselves as avenging career-destroyers in the Zionist warÂ against any critical reporting of Israel.
Secondly, the Daily Telegraph of 3rd July 2007, reporting Goveâ€™s promotion as shadowÂ Education Secretary, ended by recording that Goveâ€™s wife is one Sarah Vine, who IÂ understand is Jewish and who was at the time of the report â€” and may still be â€” aÂ leader writer with The Times. Gove was assistant editor and chief leader writer of TheÂ Times before his election to the House of Commons in 2005.
In 1998 Gove was the first senior journalist of a prestigious mass-circulation newspaperÂ to give substantial and helpful coverage to Nick Griffin when he was seeking to displaceÂ John Tyndall as the leader of the BNP. That article set a trend throughout the BritishÂ media, but especially among papers who support the Tory party and maintain a pro-Israel line.
(I give more information about The Times and its disproportionate number of JewishÂ senior staff later in this article.)
Turning from the corruption of Conservative and Labour MPs, and, hence, of successiveÂ Labour and Conservative governments, so that the war-mongering and genocidal stateÂ of Israel might be protected and assisted, Oborneâ€™s other main theme was the relentlessÂ campaign by the Israel Lobby to regulate the output of the British media on the subject ofÂ Israel and Zionist influence at home and abroad. Its principal target of this campaign forÂ years has been the BBC.
Here I must again intrude a personal digression which I feel provides essentialÂ background:
It is true that â€œthe Beebâ€ (as the BBC is popularly known) is full of Lefties of variousÂ stripes who promote all manner of â€œpolitically correctâ€ agendas, including, of course â€œanti-racismâ€. While I was prominently associated for more than a decade with the now long-dead National Front, I was continuously a target for their attacks. (NB: the organisationÂ currently masquerading under that name is not a continuance of the original party).
So while I have no personal motive for coming to the defence of these people, I have toÂ allow that for some of them their â€œanti-racistâ€ beliefs are sincere and applied withoutÂ exception.
It is a pity that this principled approach does not allow them to realise that â€œracismâ€Â and â€œracialismâ€ are different. The latter does not represent a desire to persecute, letÂ alone exterminate, other races but a wish to protect oneâ€™s own folk and ancient cultureÂ from the creeping genocide which is the inevitable and intended outcome of enforcedÂ race-mixing.
Zionists fret as some leftists wake up
Be all this as it may, some of the principled anti-racist Lefties of the BBC (including a fewÂ Jews) hold that Jewish â€œracismâ€ is just as objectionable as any other kind. They haveÂ seen with their own eyes as reporters on the ground that Israel, supported by Zionist-Jewry throughout the Diaspora, is engaged in a genocidal ethnic-cleansing onslaughtÂ against the Palestinians perpetrated by application of terrorism, massacres,Â besiegement, wanton destruction of property, imprisonment, theft, torture and otherÂ varieties of wickedness.
Despite the Zionistsâ€™ massive exploitation of the â€œHolocaustâ€ narrative â€” designed toÂ impair the eyesight and deaden the consciences of the peoples of â€œthe Westâ€ â€” anÂ increasing element of the Left, including some of those in the BBC, has been forced toÂ confront the reality of the genocide being perpetrated right now by the Jews against theÂ Palestinians.
The attitude, traditional among Lefties until about 25 years ago, that philo-Semitism (and,Â hence, pro-Zionism) was part-and-parcel of what it means to be Left WingÂ and â€œprogressiveâ€ has withered in the face of what Israel has been doing.
Principled anti-racist journalists in the BBC (and elsewhere, such as The Guardian andÂ The Independent) have increasingly felt compelled to expose Israel as a â€œracistâ€ stateÂ pursuing policies closely resembling those of Apartheid South Africa and even â€” gasp! â€” the German National Socialists.
It is because the Zionists, especially the â€œfar Rightâ€ element â€” who constitute theÂ political mainstream in Israel and increasingly among Jews elsewhere â€” have beenÂ waking up to their loss of a growing portion of gentile Left Wing opinion that they haveÂ been taking an interest in the emergent â€œfar Rightâ€ in Europe, providing it can be inducedÂ to abandon its traditional â€œanti-semitismâ€, support Israel and campaign againstÂ the â€œIslamification of Europeâ€ rather than against Afro-Asian immigration and multi-racialism per se.
â€œOpinions are like arse-holes â€” everybody’s got oneâ€
I return now to Oborneâ€™s film and his description of the way in which the Israel Lobby hasÂ sought to place a leash on the BBC and The Guardian. (The Independent is obviouslyÂ considered to be such small fry that it seems to have escaped Zionismâ€™s big guns,Â despite the wonderfully courageous reports from its Middle East correspondent RobertÂ Fisk.)
Oborne begins by recounting the eruption of Zionist fury when in 2006 GuardianÂ journalist Chris McGreal produced an articleÂ which compared Israelâ€™sÂ policies to South African Apartheid. An emergency meeting was called at the IsraeliÂ ambassadorâ€™s residence with BICOM chairman Poju Zabludowicz, JBD president HenryÂ Grunwald, CST chairman Gerald Ronson and LFI & HET president â€˜Lordâ€™ Janner â€” all,Â so far as I know, members of the JLC.
Ronson and Grunwald were deputed to visit Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger at hisÂ office. Without even taking off his coat, Ronson launched into a foul-mouthed attackÂ (â€œ…opinions are like arse holes â€” everybodyâ€™s got one!…â€) which concluded with theÂ allegation that McGrealâ€™s article had prompted violent physical assaults on Jews in
That is a very serious allegation which, had there been the slightest evidence to supportÂ it, could have prompted an â€œIncitement to Racial Hatredâ€ prosecution which, ifÂ successful, might have landed Rusbridger in jail. Even without a prosecution such anÂ allegation constitutes a potentially damaging smear.
Oborne reported that Rusbridger kept his nerve and replied coolly:
â€œIâ€™d be interested in the evidence. Iâ€™m not sure how you make that causal connectionÂ between someone reading an article that is critical of the foreign policy of Israel andÂ then thinking why donâ€™t I go out and mug Jews on the streets of London. I just can’tÂ believe that happens.â€
We are left with the impression that the discussion fizzled out quite soon after thatÂ response. Later the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in AmericaÂ (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media â€œwatchdogâ€, was put up to stray far from its territory toÂ lodge a complaint with the UKâ€™s Press Complaints Commission. This asserted thatÂ McGrealâ€™s article was â€œbased on materially false accusationsâ€. The complaint was notÂ upheld.
Rusbridger went on to tell Oborne that The Guardian was not the only paper to comeÂ under such pressure, which often works.
â€œThere are a lot of newspaper and broadcasting editors who have told me that theyÂ just donâ€™t think itâ€™s worth the hassle to challenge the Israeli line. Theyâ€™ve hadÂ enough.â€
The Israel Lobby’s onslaught on the BBC
But nothing experienced by The Guardian can match the viciousness of the campaignÂ waged by the Israel Lobby against the BBC. Here it involved not merely lobbying theÂ senior management of the corporation but waging personal campaigns against individualÂ journalists designed to ruin their reputations and terminate their careers.
Oborne substantiated his claims about these Zionist vendettas against individual BBCÂ journalists by recounting the experiences of Middle East correspondent Orla Guerin,Â Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen and multi-programme presenter Jonathan DimblebyÂ (currently chairman of Any Questions, Britainâ€™s best-known and longest-running radioÂ political forum).
He prefaced his coverage of campaigns of persecution against particular BBC journalistsÂ with these general observations about the British media:
â€œMaking criticisms of Israel can give rise to accusations of anti-semitism â€” a chargeÂ which any decent or reasonable person would assiduously seek to avoid.Â Furthermore most British newspaper groups â€” for example:
[owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Sky TV, The Sun (a tabloid), and TheÂ Times, whose editor James Harding, assistant editor Danny Finkelstein andÂ chief political columnist David Aaronovitch are all Zionist Jews];
[owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, gentile Scotsmen, who seem toÂ favour the strongly pro-Tory, pro-Israel line of the senior editorial staff of theirÂ papers, a mixture of Roman Catholic philo-Semites and Jews],
and The Express Group
[owned by Richard Desmond, a Jew, who made himself a billionaireÂ publishing pornographic magazines, but who then went upmarket andÂ bought out the Daily and Sunday Express which are now vehicles for pro-Israel and anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment, and which increasingly carry articlesÂ helpful to the BNP as that party has aligned itself with far-right Zionism]
have tended to take a pro-Israel line and have not always been an hospitableÂ environment for those taking a critical look at Israeli foreign policy and influence.Â Finally, media critics of Israeli foreign policy â€” as we will vividly demonstrate in thisÂ pamphlet â€” can open themselves up to coordinated campaigns and denunciation.â€
This is what Oborne reported about BBC correspondent
â€œSome journalists we spoke to had been accused of anti-semitism, and felt inevitablyÂ it had done some damage to their careers. Others, like the BBCâ€™s Orla Guerin,Â against whom this very serious and damaging charge has repeatedly been made byÂ the Israeli government, wouldâ€™t even talk to us off the record. It is easy enough toÂ see why. Guerin is a brave, honest and compassionate reporter. Yet the IsraeliÂ government has repeatedly complained to the BBC that Guerin is â€˜antisemiticâ€™ andÂ showed â€˜total identification with the goals and methods of Palestinian terror groupsâ€™.
â€œOn one occasion, in an appalling charge, they linked her reporting from the MiddleÂ East to the rise of antisemitic incidents in Britain. When Guerin was based in theÂ Middle East in 2004, she filed a report about a sixteen year-old Palestinian would-beÂ suicide bomber. Guerin said in the report that â€˜this is a picture that Israel wants theÂ world to seeâ€™, implying the Israelis were exploiting the boy for propaganda purposes.
â€œNatan Sharansky, a cabinet minister at the time, wrote a formal letter to the BBCÂ accusing her of â€˜such a gross double-standards to the Jewish state, it is difficult toÂ see Ms Guerinâ€™s report as anything but antisemiticâ€™.
â€œThe following year, when Guerin was awarded with an MBE for her reporting,Â Sharansky said: â€˜It is very sad that something as important as anti-semitism is notÂ taken into consideration when issuing this award, especially in Britain where theÂ incidents of anti-semitism are on the rise.â€™ Officially sanctioned smears like this showÂ why so many people shy away from confronting the influence of the Israel lobby.â€
This is what Oborne reported about Jeremy Bowen:
â€œIn April this year, in an important success for the pro-Israel lobby, the BBCâ€™s MiddleÂ East editor, Jeremy Bowen, was criticized by the BBC Trust for breaching their rulesÂ of accuracy and impartiality in an online piece, and their rules of accuracy in a radioÂ piece. Bowenâ€™s critics have seized on his humiliation, demanding that he be sackedÂ and insisting that the episode proved the BBCâ€™s â€˜chronically biased reportingâ€™. TheÂ real story behind the BBC Trustâ€™s criticism of Bowen reports is rather different: itÂ demonstrates the pusillanimity of the BBC Trust and the energy and opportunism ofÂ the pro-Israel lobby.
â€œThe story begins with an essay written by Bowen to mark the 40th anniversary ofÂ the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for the BBC website. Though many people viewedÂ Bowenâ€™s essay as a fair and balanced account, erring if anything on the side ofÂ conventional wisdom, this was not the reaction of two passionate members of theÂ Pro-Israel lobby, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation and Gilead Ini, whoÂ lobbies for CAMERA, an American pro-Israel media watchdog organization.
â€œTurner and Ini subjected Bowenâ€™s article to line by line scrutiny, alleging some 24Â instances of bias in his online article and a further four in a later report by BowenÂ from a controversial Israeli settlement called Har Homa.
â€œTurner and Iniâ€™s complaints were rejected by the BBCâ€™s editorial complaints unit, soÂ they duly appealed to the BBC Trust. The meeting was chaired by David LiddimentÂ who, to quote Jonathan Dimbleby, â€œis admired as a TV entertainment wizard andÂ former director of programmes at ITV but whose experience of the dilemmas posedÂ by news and current affairs, especially in relation to the bitterly contestedÂ complexities of the Middle East is, perforce, limited.
â€œThe BBC Trust found that Bowen had breached three accuracy and one impartialityÂ guideline in his online report, and one accuracy guideline in his radio piece. This wasÂ a massive boost for the organizations to which Turner and Ini were attached.
â€œThe Zionist Federation at once called for Bowen to be sacked, calling his position â€˜untenableâ€™, while adding that what they called his â€˜biased coverage of Israelâ€™ hadÂ been a â€˜significant contributor to the recent rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK toÂ record levelsâ€™. Meanwhile, CAMERA claimed that the BBC Trust had exposedÂ Bowenâ€™s â€˜unethicalâ€™ approach to his work and insisted the BBC must nowÂ take â€˜concrete stepsâ€™ to combat its â€˜chronically biased reportingâ€™ of the Middle East.
â€œThese powerful attacks might have been justified if the BBC Trust had found BowenÂ guilty of egregious bias. In fact he was condemned for what were at best matters ofÂ opinion. In a majority of the cases, the complaints were found to have no merit, andÂ where changes were made they changed the meaning very little. … The Trustâ€™sÂ ruling was met with dismay in BBC newsrooms. A former BBC News editor, CharlieÂ Beckett, told us â€˜the BBC investigated Jeremy Bowen because they were under suchÂ extraordinary pressure. … It struck a chill through the actual BBC newsroomÂ because it signalled to them that they were under assaultâ€™.â€
This is what Oborne reported about Jonathan Dimbleby:
â€œJonathan Dimbleby had boldly expressed criticism in a powerfully argued article forÂ Index on Censorship of the pressure from pro-Israel groups on the BBC, which led toÂ the BBC Trustâ€™s report on Jeremy Bowen, and had initially been keen to be involved.Â Suddenly his interest evaporated. There simply wasnâ€™t the time, he said. At first weÂ felt baffled and let down. But in due course we discovered that his comments hadÂ brought a complaint from the very same lawyer, Jonathan Turner of the ZionistÂ Federation, that had complained about Jeremy Bowen.
â€œDimbleby is now going through the exact same complaints process that heÂ criticised. Turner is arguing that Dimblebyâ€™s comments make him unfit to host theÂ BBCâ€™s Any Questions. The Dimbleby experience serves as a cautionary tale forÂ anyone approaching this subject. Others, such as Sir John Tusa, who had opposedÂ the BBCâ€™s refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza appeal,Â were overcome with modesty, feeling that they simply didnâ€™t have the expertise toÂ tackle the subject.â€
This now brings us to one of the most disgraceful decisions ever taken by the BBCâ€™sÂ senior management, a decision which indicates the extent to which they are nowÂ receptive to Zionist pressure. This receptivity may in part be due to intimidation of theÂ kind revealed by Oborne, but there is another factor which he has not mentioned, whichÂ he must have known about, but which did not feature in his otherwise excellent report.Â That factor will emerge shortly, but let us deal first with the disgraceful decision.
The BBC prides itself on its tradition of mounting at short notice major appeals for fundsÂ from the viewing and listening public to bring aid to innocent civilian people anywhere inÂ the world afflicted by disasters and catastrophes.
BBC refused to join fund-raiser for Gaza victims
The Israeli attack on the Gaza strip in December 2008/January 2009, â€˜Operation CastÂ Leadâ€™, involving massive slaughter and wanton destruction at a level which the reportÂ (250 pages in Pdf format – see note at the foot of this post) of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the SouthÂ African Jewish Judge Richard Goldstone was obliged to characterize as â€œactionsÂ amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanityâ€ was just the kind ofÂ event which would prompt the BBC, along with all other broadcasting networks, toÂ support such an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee.
But that did not happen. In Oborneâ€™s words:
â€œIn January 2009, Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, took theÂ unprecedented decision of breaking away from other broadcasters and refusing toÂ broadcast the Disasters Emergency Appeal for Gaza, claiming it would compromiseÂ the BBCâ€™s impartiality. ITV and Channel 4 screened the Gaza appeal, but Sky [aÂ satellite TV network owned by Rupert Murdochâ€™s News International] joined the BBCÂ in refusing.
â€œThe BBCâ€™s decision had an undeniable impact. Brendan Gormley, Chief ExecutiveÂ of the DEC, told us that the appeal raised about half of the expected total: Â£7.5Â million. In the first 48 hours of the appeal, phone calls were down by 17,000 on theÂ average.
â€œThompson also cast doubt on the charitiesâ€™ ability to deliver aid on the groundÂ despite assurances from the DEC and his own charitable appeals advisers that thisÂ was not the case.
â€œWe asked Charlie Beckett why the BBC had refused. He replied: â€˜If there was noÂ pro-Israeli lobby in this country then I donâ€™t think [screening the appeal] would haveÂ been seen as politically problematic. I donâ€™t think it would be a serious political issueÂ and concern for them if they didn’t have that pressure from an extraordinarily active,Â sophisticated, and persuasive lobby sticking up for the Israeli viewpointâ€™.â€
It would be easy to conclude, as Oborne seems to have done, that this wicked decisionÂ to deny aid to a wretched civilian population whose environment resembled HiroshimaÂ after the atomic bomb blast, was the product â€” solely the product â€” of the intimidationÂ campaign against the BBC by the Israel Lobby.
Thompson’s trip to Jerusalem and his Jewish wife
But there is another explanation. It was given in a small item that appearedÂ in GuyÂ Adamsâ€™ Pandora gossip column (see note at the foot of this post), published in TheÂ Independent on November 29, 2005. Under the heading â€œBBC chief holds peace talksÂ in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharonâ€, Adams wrote [with emphases added by me]:
â€œThe BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East,Â and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she â€˜started to cryâ€™ whenÂ Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.
â€œFascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recentlyÂ returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hard-line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
â€œAlthough the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has beenÂ seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends toÂ build bridges with the countryâ€™s political class.
â€œSources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a â€˜softeningâ€™ to the corporationâ€™sÂ unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.
â€œThis was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so itâ€™s clearly aÂ significant development, Iâ€™m told.
â€œNot many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. Heâ€™s aÂ Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the IsraeliÂ cause than some of his predecessors.
â€œUnderstandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of anÂ exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.
â€œApopros this monthâ€™s previously undocumented trip, he stressed that ThompsonÂ had also held talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.â€
Ariel Sharon, of course, achieved Major War Criminal status when he was still servingÂ with the Israeli â€˜Defenceâ€™ Force. Sharon added to his reputation when he became IsraeliÂ Prime Minister when he wallowed exultantly in Palestinian and Lebanese blood. What isÂ the head of our Beeb doing even being in the same room, let alone holding meetingsÂ hidden from the British public, with such a man?
Has there been any other occasion when the premier of a foreign state has been able toÂ summon into his presence, on his territory, the Director-General of the BritishÂ Broadcasting Corporation for a harangue about the editorial policy of the corporation via-Ã -vis that foreign state? No, there has not.
According to the statute which established the corporation, not even a British primeÂ minister has the power to do any such thing. Any attempt to do so, were it to beÂ established, would provoke an uproar which would likely lead to the resignation of theÂ prime minister, if not the fall of the government.
Quite obviously it would be naÃ¯ve to assert that successive British governments haveÂ never exerted â€” or attempted to exert â€” behind-the-scenes pressures on the BBC withÂ regard to its domestic output (I exclude the BBC World Service, which broadcasts toÂ foreigners and which is subsidized by the Foreign Office), but that cannot be viewed as aÂ licence for the Israeli prime minister to do the same thing and, what is more, flaunt theÂ fact.
I am surprised that Oborne did not use in his film the information published in TheÂ Independent in 2005 and which is still available via a Google search. As I say, he mustÂ have known about it.
Perhaps the fact about Thompsonâ€™s wife being Jewish might have been viewed asÂ too â€œpersonalâ€ and open to allegations of â€œanti-Semitismâ€. But if the slightest bit ofÂ research were to be done on philo-Semitic Gentilesâ€™ active on Israelâ€™s behalf in theÂ media and in major political parties and the number of these who have Jewish wives,Â then eyebrows would be raised beyond the level of coincidence.
Certainly the information about Thompson going to Jerusalem to discuss BBC editorialÂ policy towards Israel with the Israeli prime minister was a political fact apposite to theÂ central theme of the Oborneâ€™s programme:
The influence of Zionist Jews over leading officials of British state and nationalÂ institutions to direct their policies for the benefit of Israel, even if it harms BritishÂ national interests.
Such influence cannot be described as mere â€œlobbyingâ€. It constitutes treasonousÂ subversion, and it must be rooted out.
Postscript on the Media aftermath
The information which Oborne produced in his Dispatches report deserved massiveÂ coverage by the entire print and broadcasting media, but especially the BBC, which wasÂ so strongly featured.
But the BBC did not carry, so far as I can find, a single mention on any of its multiple TV,Â radio and web platforms, not even in any of its programmes or sites which specialise inÂ reporting what other media are reporting.
The Guardian and The Independent allowed some small-scale print coverage andÂ debate in their website discussion forums but these are relatively small-circulationÂ publications.
The Times, which proclaims itself as â€œThe Paper of Recordâ€, and all other entities inÂ Rupert Murdochâ€™s News International group (including The Sun and Sky TV;Â Independent Television, ITV1 and Channel 5; The Daily Telegraph and all other entitiesÂ in the Telegraph Group; the Daily Mail; the Daily Mirror) all were completely silent aboutÂ the film.
The Jewish Chronicle carried smallish, dismissive, low-key print reports and comment,Â but these did not reflect the quantity and angst of contributions on its website and on aÂ variety of other Jewish community sites.
The almost universal and clearly coordinated application of the â€˜Silent Treatmentâ€™ of thisÂ film is both an illustration of the oppressive power of the Zionist Lobby over the â€˜newsâ€™Â media (and therefore over the publicâ€™s â€œright to knowâ€) â€” which was one of the mainÂ points of the film â€” but also an indication that no comprehensive rebuttal of Oborneâ€™sÂ litany of damning facts could be found.
*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National ActivitiesÂ Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the firstÂ nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to â€œsave a depositâ€ (then set at 12.5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has notÂ associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle ofÂ friends (and some enemies).
Note: Some links originally contained in this article, including one YouTube video, have subsequently been removed. Readers may draw their own conclusions from this.
This article was originally published on The Occidental Observer blogÂ (click here – opens in new tab).
Other Relevant Articles Published in The Occidental Observer:
The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests
Martin Webster: Fabrication published by the London Times
Kevin MacDonald: Martin Webster on Peter Oborne’s ExposÃ© of Britain’s Israel Lobby
Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too
Courting the Jews on the European â€œFar Rightâ€