Finally someone treats human irritant Michael Crick with the respect that he deserves

UKIP's Geoffrey Bloom takes on Channel 4's Michael Crick

Anjem Choudary - "It is not allowed to target innocent people"

On the Channel 4 News tonight Anjem Choudary used this well worn line that in Islam "It is not allowed to target innocent people" and the interviewer seemed to accept this.

Unfortunately for Anjem Choudary, some of us have good memories. Here's Anjem Choudary from 2009:

"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God... I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"

So when Anjem Choudary says that "It is not allowed to target innocent people" he meand "It is not allowed to target Muslim people, however targeting kufr is allowed."

"As a left-wing student, I was given one view of Gaza/Palestine," said Mr Rhodes. "But I realise now that many of those representations were entirely politically motivated."

'Seyi Rhodes travelled to the Gaza Strip in February to film an episode of Unreported World, which airs tonight.

But rather than reporting on a region torn apart by conflict, the programme focuses on the property market
and booming construction taking place there

Mr Rhodes said the experience confounded his expectations.

"Before I started researching, I thought the region was destitute - people living literally hand-to-mouth on aid, with constant security threats. I took it for granted that people would be living in temporary accommodation provided by the UN."

In fact, he found "a growing wealth gap", with ordinary families struggling even to rent but new flats being sold for up to $3 million to wealthy Palestinians with money from abroad or from jobs with the Hamas government.

"As a left-wing student, I was given one view of Gaza/Palestine," said Mr Rhodes. "But I realise now that many of those representations were entirely politically motivated.'

More here in the JC  and on Channel 4  but NOT on the BBC for whom such revelations would be verbotten.

The power of the threat

Some people believe that the the BBC and other left-wing media are actively in cahoots with Islamists. This Telegraph report puts forward an alternative explanation, fear of violence.

'Channel 4 cancels Islam documentary screening after presenter threatened A screening of a controversial documentary on the history of Islam has been cancelled on security advice after its presenter was threatened. ... Historian Tom Holland's Channel 4 film Islam: The Untold Story sparked more than 1,000 complaints when it was broadcast. Holland was threatened online with a torrent of abusive messages on Twitter. A Channel 4 spokeswoman said: "Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD." '

Press freedom in the UK is now only possible if Islamists allow it. Happy with that?

An awkward local election fact

'Awkward Local election stats: WHaigue 38% before 2001 election defeat: Michael Howard 38% before 2005 defeat: Labour 2012 38% and Milliband?'

As tweeted by Channel 4's Jon Snow last night, and as the BBC will not report.

Ed Balls - his claims and the reality

Ed Balls claims in his response to the latest batch of documents released by The Telegraph that:

"Once again the headlines and allegations are not remotely substantiated by either the content of the documents or the reality of what happened. The fact is that before the global financial crisis Britain had a lower deficit and national debt than Labour inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. The 2007 spending review plans show the current budget moving into structural surplus – even with our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. That spending review delivered slower spending growth with demanding efficiency targets – spending plans which were fully endorsed by David Cameron, George Osborne and the Conservative Party at the time."

Let's look at the figures... We will start with the deficit, now this can be defined in many ways but I have chosen the 'Net borrowing, £m (inc financial intervention)' figure , the so-called ANNX figure. Here is the data set for this measure of deficit from 1997 to 2011:
1997 -15,555
1998 703
1999 11,976
2000 16,697
2001 8,426
2002 -19,046
2003 -34,004
2004 -36,797
2005 -41,355
2006 -30,755
2007 -33,671
2008 -52,340
2009 -120,601
2010 -121,978

Do these figures back up Ed Balls' claim?

Let's try Debt... Actually whatever I say will not be believed by my little coterie of anti-commenters, so let's try Channel 4. Earlier this year they fact checked a similar claim by Unite's Len McCluskey. Let's see what Channel 4 had to say (my emphasis):

'The claim

“…the deficit is…not high by either historical or contemporary standards”
Len McCluskey elected head of Unite, The Guardian, December 19, 2010.

“Of course there’s a deficit – we’re not deficit deniers.… the figures you’ve got are clearly not the figures that I’ve got”
Len McCluskey, Radio 4’s Today programme, January 11, 2011.

The background

It’s the deficit debate that won’t go away: just how big is it exactly? Union boss Len McCluskey claims it’s not that big, by historical standards. Although on the radio this morning he said he was more interested in national debt than deficit. Radio 4 presenter, Evan Davies challenged his use of figures – saying “that’s the thing FactCheck can check.”

Well, how could we resist such a request from our favourite breakfast broadcaster? There are two issues here: how big is the deficit, compared to previous years, and how big is the national debt.

The analysis

Mr McCluskey’s claim in the Guardian doesn’t stack up.

Last year the deficit hit 11 per cent of GDP – that’s £156 billion – which is the difference between what the government spends and what it earns each year. That was the largest deficit since 1945. The previous peak was in the early 1990s – when it was 8 per cent of GDP.

This morning, Mr McCluskey insisted “we are not deficit deniers” – and then claimed he’d meant debt all along.

So, where do we currently stand on national debt, comparatively?

Debt means the net accumulated borrowing by the government. And as a share of GDP it’s currently around 60 per cent. Our friends at the Institute for Fiscal Studies provided the context – telling us it’s currently at the highest level since the late 1960s. In the 1980s it reached just above 50 per cent of GDP.

But if we go back a bit further, debt in the late 1940s jumped to 250 per cent of GDP. And during the 1920s and 30s, it held well above the 100 per cent mark. It’s worth remembering that much of that 20th Century debt was to fund two world wars, so there was a different context from our current economic downturn.

Over the last hundred years Len is right – debt has been higher – but in recent history it hasn’t.

We asked Unite where their figures came from – who pointed us to their press release which says “The UK deficit is not high by historical or international standards. Germany, France and Japan have all got higher net debt than the UK.”

Again there is confusion between the deficit and the debt, and between historical and international comparisons.

The verdict

There are a lot of claims being flung around about the deficit – partly as the Labour party and the unions try to get back on the front foot about the economy. But on this one Len McCluskey got it wrong. The deficit is the highest for nearly 70 years, and the national debt is the higher than for 50 years.'

Do you disagree with Channel 4 Ed?

"Should Muslims adapt to Britain or should Britain adapt to Muslims?"

Raheen Kassam asks "Should Muslims adapt to Britain or should Britain adapt to Muslims?" on Channel 4's 4Thought TV and speaks a lot of sense. Well done Channel 4.

Unfortunately Moazzam Begg spoils it by comparing modern Muslims to 1930's Jews. That is not a fair comparison and he should know it. Watch it here if you must. Not clever Channel 4.

Ed Miliband made a schoolboy error - Official

'Ed Miliband made a schoolboy error in stating that the cuts had choked off growth when they haven’t even started in earnest yet.
In fact, it’s difficult to pin it on the current administration because the shrinking economy may well be a hangover from the previous government’s stimulus package.
Mr Miliband would have been on firmer ground if he’d argued that the GDP figures show the economy may be too weak to withstand the impending cuts. We’ll know if the cuts are too much, too fast in a few months’ time.'

Channel 4's Fact Checker  has done some checking of Ed Milibnad's claims at yesterday's PMQs and lo and behold 'Ed Miliband made a schoolboy error'; is anyone surprised that Ed 'Son of Brown' Miliband advised by Ed 'second Choice' Balls would make a 'schoolboy error'?

'Blaming the Jews' - Muslim anti-Semitism - A video in four parts

This is David Aaronovitch's Channel 4 film from 2003 and you must watch it to have an idea as to the extent of hatred of the Jews that exists in Muslims in Arab countries and elsewhere.

Part 1... In which we are reminded of Sheikh Faisal and listen to his wife (Zubaida) impart her deluded views...


Part 2... In which we learn that 'apes and pigs' is not really an insult to Jews, hear about the British Christian 'blood libel' & the 'Protocols of the learned Elders of Zion' as well as Palestinian music videos and the Palestinian view of the holocaust and Jews and a trip to a private school in Gaza...


Part 3... In which we hear from the pupils of the school why there will never be peace with 'the Jew' (this was a particularly shocking part for me - do I hear the word brainwashing), the Hamas charter, a visit to Ramallah to hear the 'moderate' view (or not), a visit to Egypt to see an extract from the 41 part series 'Horseman without a horse' which heavily references 'The protocols of the elders of Zion...


Part 4... In which we hear from a moderate Egyptian, a look at Arab cartoons that are less moderate, we hear about the pseudo-history of 'Hirari's List' and we are reminded of the 3½ year old Basmallah and her brainwashed views of Jews as 'Apes & Pigs'...



Listen to what they say, just listen.

The Mavi Marmara raid analysed

Channel 4's Jon Snow interviews a former British naval officer about the Israel boarding of the Mavi Marmara

Ed Balls "Did he really say that?"

Oh dear it looks as though all is not sweetness and light at the top of the Labour party. Last night's Channel 4 News included a short post manifesto launch interview with Peter Mandelson but do watch from around 6 minutes in. The Peter Mandelson interview includes these comments: "The spirit of Tony Blair was alive and well... It's such a New Labour manifesto, he will be shining, he will be certainly grinning, you know that Blair grin (from ear to ear), I think he's got that on him today". Ed Balls reacts happily to the reports of Peter Mandelson's comments (what choice does he have) but when he thinks the cameras are off he plaintively asks "He didn't really say that, did he?" Poor Ed Balls, a bully boy but not in the same league as Peter Mandelson.


I do also like Ed Balls 'Year Zero' approach to Labour history "Well Labour was a partnership from the beginning, between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown". Yes because there was no Labour party before 1994 was there.

Mea culpa - or not!

I have made a mistake, sorry. It seems that I have several times, most recently here accused Gordon Brown of misleading the House of Commons over defence spending and used Channel 4's Fact Check as evidence. It seems that I was mistaken..... Not that Gordon mislead Parliament, that really is true, it's just that Iain Dale explains that it was in fact "the News of the World Defence Correspondent, Paul McNamara, who wrote the story on Sunday, 24 hours before Channel 4 News covered it.".

Sorry; a word that Gordon Brown really needs to use more.


UPDATE: I must stop trusting Iain Dale as he now apologises for mistakenly attributing the Fact Check facts to the News of the World when the piece did in fact as I blogged at the weekend originate at Channel 4. So my original piece and follow-up were correct and I only went wrong when I started listening to Iain Dale!

"Brown admits mistake on defence spending evidence "

The BBC reports that:

"Gordon Brown is to correct his evidence to the Iraq Inquiry after accepting defence spending had not risen in real terms every year under Labour.

The PM, chancellor during the war, said he now accepted it "did not rise in real terms" in one or two years.

...

Mr Brown told MPs he had written to the inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot. "

That's odd because I blogged about Channel 4's "Fact Check" piece on Gordon Brown's armed forces funding claims last weekend. However this Channel 4 piece was not about Gordon Brown misleading the Chilcot Inquiry but about him misleading the House of Commons. I presume therefore that Gordon Brown will now apologise to the House of Commons for his claims that

"I put the facts before the inquiry on Friday. I said to the inquiry very clearly first of all that the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this Government.

...

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year."

If Gordon Brown does not apologise of his own free will then I hope that an apology is demanded of him by the House of Commons authorities, as misleading the House of Commons is a very serious matter.

Claim after claim from Gordon Brown stated with absolute certainty as absolute fact, when he must have known it was not true. Here's that Channel 4 news piece for you to watch...

Now Gordon Brown has only admitted that defence spending "did not rise in real terms" in one or two years. The Channel 4 FactCheck shows that it actually fell in four years - 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2002-2003 & 2007-2008. As I said at the weekend I think "playing fast and loose with the figures" just about sums up Gordon Brown's performance on Wednesday and indeed much of his career since 1997. And that Channel 4 summary again: "Gordon Brown's central claim... is fiction".

Channel 4 - Fact-checking Gordon Brown's claims at Wednesday's PMQs

I think "playing fast and loose with the figures" just about sums up Gordon Brown's performance on Wednesday and indeed much of his career since 1997.

And that summary again: "Gordon Brown's central claim... is fiction".

I wonder if the BBC have the resources, the honesty or the willingness to check Gordon Brown's figure work? I think I know the answer to that question.




Thanks to Daily Referendum for the spot.

News interviewing that makes a pleasant change from the BBC and Channel4

Tim Bradby of ITV News writes:

"We corner Mandelson…

04 Mar, 2010

Speaking of asking Labour some difficult questions, we just put Lord Mandelson on the spot. Here’s the transcript:

TB; ‘You talk about transparency, well we have been asking the Labour Party for some days whether your donors, like Ronnie Cohen, are non-doms or not. We haven’t got an answer, so perhaps you’d like to give us one sitting here.’

Lord M; ‘The Labour Party should give the information about its donors in the way that–’

TB; ‘It hasn’t.’

Lord M; ‘In the way that it is required to do and in response to legitimate questions.’

TB; ‘Let me ask you; is that a legitimate question? Be fair. Is it legitimate for us, given all this, to ask whether your donors are paying full tax on their worldwide income?’

Lord M; ‘I think it is perfectly legitimate.’

TB; ‘What’s the answer?’

Lord M; ‘How do I know what the answer is?’

And later:

TB; ‘Are you saying that all labour party donors should be full tax payers; ie, paying tax on their worldwide income in this country? And if they aren’t, should the Labour Party pay the money back?’

Lord M; ‘What I’m saying is that Labour Party donors should be clear and upfront about what they are donating, what their domicile or tax status is, or whatever, just as donors who give money to the Conservative Party should be.’

We have since asked the Labour Party to confirm which of their donors are non-doms and have, once again, received no answer"

Odd how the BBC and Channel 4 prefer to ignore the Labour non-doms issue, preferring to just look at Lord Ashcroft. Anyone might conclude that the BBC and Jon Snow wanted to see Labour returned to power.

Muslim 'entryism' in the Labour party?

The Telegraph reveal that

"A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years. "

More to come in another Channel 4 Dispatches programme. Read the whole piece and note the links to GEorge Galloway.... More to follow.

The Bible: A History

Channel 4 have chosen Gerry Adams to present an episode of their series "The Bible: A History", the program about Jesus Christ. Words failed me when I heard about this a week or so ago and I failed to post anything about it as I just couldn't put my disgust into words. Fortunately Stephen Glover in The Mail has managed this task, so please read his article, here's a few extracts:

"Who would be the most unsuitable person in the whole world to introduce a television programme about Jesus Christ? One would be hard pushed to come up with someone worse than Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, and former member of the Provisional IRA.

Yet, believe it or not, on Sunday evening this man with blood trickling from his hands will present an hour-long Channel 4 programme about Jesus, part of a series called The Bible: A History.

A former terrorist personally implicated in at least one murder, and associated with many more, has been invited to make a documentary about a man described by his followers as the Prince of Peace, who lived a life that celebrated non-violence.


How on earth could this happen? You may suspect Gerry Adams was chosen to discourse on Jesus because he has freely admitted his sins, and apologised for his past. Christianity, after all, is a religion that extols forgiveness, and puts a high value on repentance. But Mr Adams is not sorry for what he did - not, of course, that he admits to having ever killed anyone. He says at least twice that violence was the only course open to people like himself.

I have seen a preview of the programme and it begins with a shot of the former terrorist at prayer. He informs us that he went to Mass while in prison. Then, with his vulpine features, and a sinister smile revealing shining, remodelled teeth, he tells us that 'along with others' he 'helped to bring peace to Ireland'. While stressing that he doesn't feel he has any blood on his hands, he says he wants 'to explore Jesus's message of forgiveness'.

...

I repeat: how could a respectable television channel dream of allowing an unrepentant terrorist to explain Christ's life, and give viewers the impression that he has tried to live by it? There is even a preposterous, not to say sacrilegious, subtext implying a parallel between Christ, who according to Adams was persecuted by the Roman authorities, and Adams himself, who presents himself as a victim of British power.

In the interests of balance and fairness, Channel 4 should tell viewers something about the life of this former terrorist, since Adams himself certainly does not. Though he has refused to admit it, he was a member of the Provisional IRA as far back as 1972, when he represented the organisation in secret talks with the British government. A former IRA prisoner, Dolours Price, has referred to Adams as 'my commanding officer' in 1973.

The most damning information about Adams and his life as a terrorist was published in a book called A Secret History Of The IRA by Ed Moloney, a Dublin-based investigative journalist. According to Moloney's account, which has never been contested in the courts, Adams was at various times commander of the Belfast Brigade of the IRA and the IRA's chief of staff, as well as a long-time member of the IRA Army Council.

Moloney says that Adams was chief of staff when the IRA committed one of its most appalling atrocities - the murder of 12 Protestant civilians in the La Mon hotel on the outskirts of Belfast in February 1978. Moloney also contends that in 1972 Adams may have personally ordered, or at the very least approved, the killing of Jean McConville, allegedly an informer to the security services.

The closest we come - and it is not very close - to an admission of any involvement in such atrocities is Adams's musing about war towards the end of the programme: 'You have to harden yourself because it is not a natural thing to go out and harm other human beings.' Knowing what I do about Adams's past, I felt the hairs on the back of my neck stand up as I imagined him stealing down some dank Belfast street with murder in his heart.

...

He cannot plausibly claim to have lived a virtuous Christian life, which is why he is the last person on earth who should have been asked by Channel 4 to present a programme about Christ. He does not seem to have been much more decent in his personal life. For many years Gerry Adams covered up for his paedophile brother, and even helped him to work with children.

This seems to have been done not so much out of brotherly affection as to protect Adams's own reputation. When the scandal was revealed last December, Adams tried to win sympathy by claiming that his family were victims of sexual and physical abuse by his father, also called Gerry, who was buried with full IRA military honours six years ago.

As a Christian I am appalled that a man who once said he would 'wade up to my knees in Protestant blood' to achieve a united Ireland should have been asked by Channel 4 to introduce a programme about Jesus. I can see that it is a stunt, designed to attract maximum publicity to what has been a pretty undistinguished series. If Channel 4 had really wanted to make an enlightening programme about the life of Christ, there are hundreds of people far better qualified to do so than Gerry Adams.

Adams now presents himself as a democratic politician, and he has a right to be heard on that basis. But it betrays an almost unbelievable moral imbecility on the part of Channel 4 bosses to enable this unrepentant former terrorist to yoke himself to Jesus Christ, not to throw light on the noblest life ever lived but as a crude piece of self-serving IRA propaganda."

This man was an MP!

If Jim Devine can't stand up to the gentle enquiries of Channel 4's Krishnan Guru-Murthy then I doubt he'll look that good in court when facing a decent barrister.

Jim Devine does not seem, how can I put this, the sharpest pencil in the box. Maybe it is time for all prospective MPs to sit an IQ test or similar. The trouble with many MPs for safe seats is that their abilities are less important than their being able to wear the right coloured rosette and follow the whips instructions as to what lobby to troop into and vote.

So who was the Labour Whip who gave Jim Devine the advice? Why won't Jim Devine name him?
These are the current Government whips: Nick Brown, Tommy McAvoy, John Spellar, Helen Jones, David Watts, Frank Roy, Steve McCabe, Tony Cunningham and Bob Blizzard. Just in case it was an assistant Whip and not a Whip (and Jim Devine couldn't tell the difference) these are the Labour assistant whips: Diana Johnson, Mark Tami, Dawn Butler, John Heppell, Lynne Brown, Sharon Hodgson, Mary Creagh, David Wright and Kerry McCarthy. I believe that Jim Devine said it was a male Whip so let's start asking questions of: Nick Brown, Tommy McAvoy, John Spellar, David Watts, Frank Roy, Steve McCabe, Tony Cunningham, Bob Blizzard, Mark Tami, John Heppell and David Wright.

Maybe someone should explain to Jim Devine the difference between a budget and an expense claim.

Meanwhile I note that "Keir Simmons, ITV News' Crime Correspondent, is reporting that none of these MPs were arrested, fingerprinted or had to give DNA samples. One law for them..."


Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the video spot.

Wriggle, wriggle Peter Mandelson

There you have Peter Mandelson being as disingenuous and slimy as ever. Note early on in the second video Peter Mandelson's "Who cares?" comment when Ken Clarke said the UK had the "biggest, fasting rising debt". "Who cares?" I'll tell you "who cares" Mr Mandelson; the people of the UK who will be paying back the debt, your Labour government have created, from their earned income.
"Who cares?" I'll tell you "who cares" Mr Mandelson; the people of the UK whose children will be paying back the debt, your Labour government have created, from their earned income.
"Who cares?" I'll tell you "who cares" Mr Mandelson, the people of the UK who don't have huge EU pensions to pay for a life of considerable luxury after their retirement.
"Who cares?" I'll tell you "who cares" Mr Mandelson, the people of the UK who would rather their political leaders left the political scene after one forced resignation let alone two forced resignations, rather than reappearing in ever more senior roles as some sort of modern day Pooh-Bah.


Also note later in the second video the way Peter Mandelson quite shamelessly ignores Jon Snow's question about Alistair Darling's earlier claims being incorrect; preferring to put forward another claim. It is also worth looking at Ken Clarke's face when Peter Mandelson is spouting his misdirections in the run up to the pathetic "swinging axe" charge. Also do note the way that Peter Mandelson's shameless speaking over Ken Clarke does in fact stop Ken Clarke from putting his point forward as Jon Snow moves the discussion on.


A typically Peter Mandelson performance and I am impressed by Ken Clarke's restraint in not thumping Peter Mandelson to teach him such much needed manners.

Always the Jews

Tonight Peter Oborne presents a Channel 4 Dispatches programme entitled "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby". The Channel 4 blurb for this 'televisual feast' runs thus:

"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."

Somehow I think that the Arab/Muslim lobby, certainly in Washington, has better funding and carries a lot more weight than the Israeli lobby. And it should be noted that whilst Israel is an ally of the West, upholding western values and democracy, it finds itself surrounded by Muslim states most of whom are either overt or covert sponsors of terror.

My views it seems are somewhat at odds with most of the commentators on the Dispatches page linked to above, who seem even more removed from reality than I would have expected. Here are a few clips of their considered views:

" YAEL KAHN on 07 November 2009 at 11:30
I hope the programme would expose how lobbyists for Israel trample over the UK democratic process. I expect Oborne to expose the destructive role of the Labour Friends of Israel in British politics, but I hope he won't stop there.


VERONICA PLANTON on 07 November 2009 at 23:18
Congratulations to Channel 4 and Dispatches on breaking the silence over the Zionist Lobby! Israel is a serial violator of the UN Charter and International Law. Ongoing breaches of the Hague Convention on War, Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law, along with non-compliance with 138 UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to comply with the basic principles of International Law, have turned Israel into a 'rogue state'. The State of Israel's military might is ranked 4th globally. The Israeli military Dahiya doctrine applied in Gaza involved the deliberate commission of crimes against humanity. It carried out a massacre against an unarmed population, 60% of which are children. It has maintained an illegal siege on Gaza in the face of international condemnation...I could go on and on, but I will resist the temptation for now. The terrorizing and killing of innocent civilians is defined as terrorism, perpetrated by terrorists. Mr White, I would be interested in your definition of 'democratic process'. The Zionist Lobby counts many British politicians in its ranks where they function as a fifth column in support of Israel's illegal actions. The powerful impact of the Zionist Lobby on British politics is more damaging to our country than that of the ghastly BNP.


NOISY TAPPET on 13 November 2009 at 16:04
Good. We want our country back. The agents of a foreign power embedded at all levels of our government and politics need flushing out. They are a menace to our foreign policy, security and reputation abroad. I hope this programme isn't 'pulled' at the last minute due to overwhelming pressure from the usual suspect. If it does what it should do, some very big names are going to be shamed, and not before time."

There are many more in the same vein but I think that a couple of more considered views deserve repeating:

" STV on 14 November 2009 at 14:03
I'm sorry, I must bring some balance to this debate. I do not believe Israel is a 'terrorist' any more than any other nation. Before the nation of Israel came back into existence in 1948 and since, Arab people have been fighting and killing one another. The Iran-Iraq war alone (among many others) killed far more Arabs than Israel ever has. Is Israel responsible for all these wars too?! There is a more complex answer to Israel "illegally occupying land", too. History is not so one-sided and there is great misinformation on the Palestinian / Arab 'side' too. If you were Israel, how would you react when surrounded by countries intent on your destruction, or even the destruction of Jewish people? Almost no Jews are allowed or able to live in most neighbouring Middle-East nations, whereas Israel is 20% Arab. Iran is more of an aggressor in that region, not Israel, with constant threats against Israel and the West. And if we're talking about 'war crimes', both Israel and Hamas (and others) are guilty of war crimes. Of course Israel has committed atrocities - every nation has done this; of course Palestinians deserve better. So let's keep this debate, if it truly is one, balanced. And no, I'm not Jewish or part of any Zionist conspiracy!


W MARTIN on 15 November 2009 at 14:57
I am neither a Zionist agent or even Jewish for that matter but I am appalled at some of the comments I have read here. If there was any doubt before there should be none now, there are bigoted forces within the UK that would like nothing better than to tar the entire Jewish community with a sinister brush. By all means let us look at the practices of all lobbying groups but let us do so with civility. Why I must ask, is that when Israel and Jews become the subject of investigation does this seem to give permission for society's bullies and bigots to crawl out from under their rocks? It is very troubling indeed.


FRAN on 15 November 2009 at 19:49
Hazel Smith writes "We need more information about the history of what has happened in Palestine." You certainly do, Ms Smith. Israel was created in response to the UN resolution which ratified the 1920 League of Nations decision to grant Jews self governance on part of their ancient homeland. Rather than welcome this, the newly created Arab states - yes Ms Smith, the Arab states were all created during this time by League of Nations mandates - decided to attack Israel as the world looked on. They gambled on driving the Jews into the sea and they lost. From thence the Middle East crisis unfolded with great suffering on both sides. That suffering included refugees - over 800,000 of whom were Jews whose forced explusion from countries around the Middle East is airbrushed out of history by the powerful and extravagently-funded anti-Israel lobby that no-one at all talks about. "

And as an aside, this invitation to the "Muslim Friends of Labour Annual Gala Dinner" may be of interest; the guest of "honour" is Gordon Brown.