Live Blog: The Power of Israel's Lobby, Channel 4 @ 8pm

Thanks for the link, I had no idea that the Guardian was so instrumental in setting up Israel.

During an investigation lasting several months, we have been able to reach several important conclusions. We maintain there is indeed a pro-Israel lobby in Britain. It is extremely well-connected and well-funded, and works through all the main political parties.

For instance, Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) – once described by the famous Conservative politician and historian as "the largest organisation in western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel" – claims that 80% of all Tory MPs are members. The Labour Friends of Israel is equally formidable. In 2001, Jon Mendelsohn, a former chairman of LFI and now Gordon Brown's chief election fundraiser, was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that "Zionism is pervasive in New Labour. It is automatic that Blair will come to Labour Friends of Israel meetings."

Since 2001, LFI has arranged more than 60 free trips to Israel for MPs. LFI and CFI trips account for an astonishing 13% of all funded trips abroad for MPs and candidates. That's more trips to Israel, with a population smaller than London's, than to any other country.

Furthermore, those in many sensitive foreign affairs, defence and intelligence posts in the Commons are often Labour or Conservative Friends of Israel. Mike Gapes, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, is a former deputy chair of the LFI. Kim Howells, chair of the intelligence and security committee (and a former Middle East minister), used to chair LFI. James Arbuthnot, chair of the powerful Commons defence select committee, is also the serving parliamentary chair of the CFI.

The Israel lobby is not afraid to use its political muscle. After Hague said Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 was "disproportionate", there was an explosion among donors. Only a few weeks ago Hague, following CFI pressure, put out a statement demanding Britain reject the Goldstone resolution at the UN.

Meanwhile, a parallel operation is carried on against media organisations that criticise Israel's foreign policy. In particular, the Guardian and the BBC suffer from a barrage of complaints and emails, many from outside the UK. The BBC has proved unable to cope. As the culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw (a former BBC reporter), rather bravely remarked after director general Mark Thompson turned down a request from the Disasters Emergency Committee to broadcast a humanitarian appeal for Gaza: "I'm afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally. Israel has a long reputation for bullying the BBC."

It is important to say what we did not find. There is no conspiracy, and nothing resembling a conspiracy.

Yet, as we demonstrate in Dispatches on Monday night, the financial arrangements of a number of the organisations that form part of the pro-Israel lobby are by no means widely known. The pro-Israel lobby, in common with other lobbies, has every right to operate and indeed to flourish in Britain. But it needs to be far more open about how it is funded and what it does. This is partly because the present obscurity surrounding it can, paradoxically, give rise to conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. But it is mainly because politics in a democracy should never take place behind closed doors. It should be out in the open for all to see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/16/israel-friends-lobby...

I resolved then to ask the question: what led David Cameron to behave in the way he did at the CFI lunch at the Dorchester Hotel last June? What are the rules of 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 the Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure that such an event passes without notice?

On a personal note I should say that I have known both Stuart Polak and Robert Halfon for many years and always found them fair-minded and straightforward to deal with. Indeed in the summer of 2007 I went on a CFI trip to Israel led by Stuart Polak. No pressure was put on me, at the time or later, to write anything in favour of Israel. The trip, which was paid for by the CFI, certainly enabled me to understand much better the Israeli point of view. But we were presented with a very full spectrum of Israeli intellectual and political life, ranging from disturbingly far right pro-settler MPs to liberal intellectuals consumed with doubt about the morality of the Zionist state. The trip was also balanced to a certain extent by a meeting with a leading Palestinian businessman and with the British consul in East Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, the job of a political journalist is to try and explain how politics works. Ten years ago I exposed, in an article for The Spectator headlined “The man who owns the Tory Party”, the fact that the controversial offshore financier Michael Ashcroft was personally responsible for the financial survival of William Hague’s Conservatives. I asked how legitimate Michael Ashcroft’s contribution was, how much he spent, and did my best to investigate how he used his influence. Now I want to ask a question that has never been seriously addressed in the mainstream press: is there a Pro-Israel lobby in Britain, what does it do and what influence does it wield?

By James Jones and Peter Oborne

In 2007 two US academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published a study of what they called the US Israel lobby, exploring in particular the connection between the domestic power of the lobby in the United States and US foreign policy. The book caused controversy in the United States and even in Britain.

No comparable study has ever been made in this country. Indeed the pro-Israel lobby is an almost completely unexplored topic. In 2002 The New Statesman ran a cover story “A Kosher Conspiracy?”, in which Dennis Sewell examined the groups and individuals which comprise the pro-Israel lobby. Sewell cited instances of journalists being pressured and even being accused of antisemitism, but concluded: “the truth is that the ‘Zionist lobby’ does exist, but is a clueless bunch.” The very mild piece involved little investigation and, if anything, played down the influence of the groups.

There was a very strong reaction to the story and to the front cover depicting a gold Star of David piercing a British flag. The magazine was denounced as being guilty of the “new anti-Semitism”. A group of activists calling themselves Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the magazine’s offices demanding it print an apology. Soon, editor, Peter Wilby, felt the need to apologise: “We (or more precisely, I) got it wrong... [we] used images and words in such a way as to create unwittingly the impression that the New Statesman was following an antisemitic tradition that sees the Jews as a conspiracy piercing the heart of the nation.” Since this time no national publication has attempted to investigate the pro-Israel lobby head-on.

Making criticisms of Israel can give rise to accusations of antisemitism - a charge which any decent or reasonable person would assiduously seek to avoid. Furthermore most British newspaper groups – for example News International, Telegraph newspapers and the Express Group - have tended to take a pro-Israel line and have not always been an hospitable environment for those taking a critical look at Israeli foreign policy and influence. Finally, media critics of Israeli foreign policy – as we will vividly demonstrate in this pamphlet – can open themselves up to coordinated campaigns and denunciation.

Whether as a result of these pressures or for some other reason, mainstream political publishing in Britain tends simply to ignore Israeli influence. Andrew Marr’s Ruling Britannia: The Failure and Future of British Democracy contains not a single mention at all of either Israel or the Israel lobby. Nor does the Alan Clark’s The Tories, or Robert Blake’s The Conservative Party from Peel to Major.

Similarly the presence of an Israel lobby as a factor in British public life is systematically ignored in British reporting. For example, a search of the newspaper database Lexis Nexis showed there have been only 154 mentions of the Conservative Friends of Israel in the British press, the first of which was apparently on 22 September 1985. By contrast The Tobacco Manufacturers Association enjoyed 1,083 citations during the same period, and the Scotch Whisky Association no fewer than 2,895. The Conservative Party donor Michael Ashcroft has been the subject of 2,239 articles over the comparable time period, and the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers got over 3,000. The purpose of this pamphlet is to enquire whether this paucity of public coverage is indeed a reflection of the real influence of the pro-Israel lobby in British government. In our voyage of discovery we have interviewed MPs, leading Jewish intellectuals and academics, diplomats, newspaper editors and others.

However, many people just don’t want to speak out about the Israel lobby. So making our film at times felt like an impossible task. Privately we would be met with great enthusiasm and support. Everyone had a story to tell, it seemed. Once the subject of doing an interview was raised the tone changed; “Anything at all I can do to help…” quickly became “Well, obviously I couldn’t.” or “It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to.” Many people who privately voiced concerns about the influence of the lobby simply felt they had too much to lose by confronting it. One national newspaper editor told us, “that’s one lobby I’ve never dared to take on.” From MPs, to senior BBC journalists and representatives of Britain’s largest charities, the pattern became depressingly familiar. Material would come flooding out on the phone or in a meeting, but then days later an email would arrive to say that they would not be able to take part. Either after consultation with colleagues or consideration of the potential consequences, people pulled out.

Some had more reason than others. Jonathan Dimbleby had boldly expressed criticism in a powerfully argued article for Index on Censorship of the pressure from pro-Israel groups on the BBC, which led to the BBC Trust’s report on Jeremy Bowen, and had initially been keen to be involved. Suddenly his interest evaporated. There simply wasn’t the time, he said. At first we felt baffled and let down. But in due course we discovered that his comments had brought a complaint from the very same lawyer, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation, that had complained about Jeremy Bowen. Dimbleby is now going through the exact same complaints process that he criticized. Turner is arguing that Dimbleby’s comments make him unfit to host the BBC’s Any Questions. The Dimbleby experience serves as a cautionary tale for anyone approaching this subject. Others, such as Sir John Tusa, who had opposed the BBC’s refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza appeal, were overcome with modesty, feeling that they simply didn’t have the expertise to tackle the subject.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-isr...

However, the paper now finds itself at the centre of an international campaign accusing it of anti-Zionism and even antisemitism. Through much of the last decade, The Guardian has been in dispute with the Israeli government and in particular the combative Israeli Government press office director, Danny Seaman. In 2002, Seaman publicly boasted that he had forced The Guardian to move correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg after she had been transferred to Washington. “We simply boycotted them,” claimed Seaman, “the editorial boards got the message and replaced their people.”

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Please review our posting policy and help us moderate abusive comments by reporting them.

i wonder who the Tories who were given the money by donors who have never set foot in their constituencies are

Could we possible have a list of all Donors and organisation that support Israel. I will start the ball rolling - (Not So) honest reporting and Dixons. Don't be a Dick and shop somewhere esle

You all seem to be wingeing that Manchester United exists, with the best players, top money, vast support and success while you languish in the conference without two brass bobbins to rub together.

Sit back and admire a great team and look at what you will never be.

Bwahhhaaahaha!

THIS PROGRAMME SHOWED EVEN FURTHER HOW TOTALLY BENT OUR TORY AND LABOUR POLITICIANS ARE.

NOT CONTENT WITH FIDDLING EXPENSES, THESE MPS ARE SELLING BRITAIN'S SOUL TO THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPTING OUR DEMOCRACY, AND OUR VALUES.

ISRAELIS WILL SHOW THE CASH, IT TAKES OUR BENT POLITICAL MAIN PARTIES TO GRAB IT.

That was a really insightful program that im now really happy to i managed to catch!

I did wonder at that time of the Lebanon invasion why Blair seemed to be happy to sit on his hands as the country was laid to waste....NOW WE ALL KNOW!

Most average Brits probably have no idea as to the strangle hold that pro-Israel lobby have over our MPs

But after what happened to the BBC reporters who where targeted by pro-israeli lobbyists i wonder what will happen to Peter Oborne after this show??

Make sure you mention this programme at any meeting you arrange with your MP or PPC.

http://www.palestinecampaign.org/Index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=3&l2_id=51&Con...

Just a thought seeing that the Joos used their finances set up lobbying groups why can't muslims and pro-palestinians do the same. It is not as if the Arabs have no money.

All you conspiracy lovers: Just thought you might like to know that there is another group that counts 120 MP's in its membership (that must be even more than CFI!!!) and has also sent a lot of MP's to Israel and the Occupied Territories on fact-finding missions. And the thing is, they're not even Zionists! They are called CAABU. On their website they even boast how they have got BBC News Online to change the wording of some of their articles (now where have I heard that before)? Take a look at their site for more info:
www.caabu.org

It's amazing how I uncovered this after 2 minutes research, yet the Dispatches team missed this after several months' research!