Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby

[Zeuzzz]

Documentary video: Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POtk6G7q4Bw&feature=PlayList&p=GG4nNxozwLI

This was on TV earlier this week. Quite amazing information really, good journalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/16/pro-israel-lobby-conservatives-channel4-dispatches

Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims

50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members, according to Channel 4's Dispatches

Channel 4's film alleges that William Hague faced threats of a withdrawal of funding from CFI after he described a retaliatory attack by Israel on Lebanon in 2006 as 'disproportionate'. Photograph: Martin Godwin

Pro-Israeli organisations in Britain look set to see their influence increase if the Conservatives win the next election, a film scrutinising the activities of a powerful but little-known lobby warns today.

At least half of the shadow cabinet are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), according to a Dispatches programme being screened on Channel 4. The programme-makers describe the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".

Inside Britain's Israel Lobby claims that donations to the Conservative party "from all CFI members and their businesses add up to well over £10m over the last eight years". CFI has disputed the figure and called the film "deeply flawed".

The programme also describes how David Cameron allegedly accepted a £15,000 donation from Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish billionaire who chairs Bicom (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre). Zabludowizc, the film reveals, has business interests in an illegal West Bank settlement. He also gave £50,000 to Conservative Central Office. Zabludowicz says his contributions "are a matter of public record". [......]

The producer of it used to be considered an islamaphobe but no doubt will not any more.

George Galloway comments:

"Just ask yourself this, would friends of palestine be allowed inside the doors of the office of the leader of the opposition. If muslims were found to be covertly financing the political system in britain can you imagine the scandal that there would be. Yet apparently, apart from Obourne, most of the media is not interested when 'friends of Irael' are found to be doing exactly that."

Are friends of palestine not allowed to give money to Politicians too then?

 

[lionking]

You are using the Guardian and George Galloway as your sources? About as reliable as David Irving's views on the Holocaust.

 

[Pardalis]

The producer of it used to be considered an islamaphobe but no doubt will not any more.

Probably explains why he made that one. They made a documentary about Islam not too long ago, so he's trying to even things out I guess, and appeal to the critics of the first show.

 

[Thunder]

50% of MPs funded by Israel? I smell borderline anti-Semitism.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You are using the Guardian and George Galloway as your sources? About as reliable as David Irving's views on the Holocaust.

What exactly are you disputing? That the guardian article is lying about the documentary? You can watch it.

The fact that George Galloway has an opinion on it? I just thought he made a quite good point.

 

[Zeuzzz]

50% of MPs funded by Israel? I smell borderline anti-Semitism.

No you smell journalism and facts. Its a very fact filled documentary and seems to have been researched well.

Watch the documentary. And try and find the anti-semite bits, I think you will be hard pressed. The interview many jews, including a professor at a univeristy and he speaks quite openly about his opinions on it.

 

[lionking]

What exactly are you disputing? That the guardian article is lying about the documentary? You can watch it.

The fact that George Galloway has an opinion on it? I just thought he made a quite good point.

The youtube link didn't work, so I didn't watch the doco. In my opinion Galloway's views on anything related to Israel are worthless, as are Irving's on the Holocaust.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The youtube link didn't work, so I didn't watch the doco. In my opinion Galloway's views on anything related to Israel are worthless, as are Irving's on the Holocaust.

I gave a direct link to it as I know that 4od programs do not work as an embeddable video on some peoples computers. If you cant be bothered to watch it then dont bother commenting.

 

[lionking]

I gave a direct link to it as I know that 4od programs do not work as an embeddable video on some peoples computers. If you cant be bothered to watch it then dont bother commenting.

I'll comment whenever I want as long as I'm within the MA. You posted a video of George Galloway. I was commenting on his (lack of) credibility, and was entirely on topic.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'll comment whenever I want as long as I'm within the MA. You posted a video of video of George Galloway. I was commenting on his (lack of) credibility, and was entirely on topic.

So your just going to attack the messenger and not even address the issue? Classic fallacy there. Poor form.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So your just going to attack the messenger and not even address the issue? Classic fallacy there. Poor form.

Some messengers are sufficiently odious that it's not a fallacy to point them out when they are used.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Probably explains why he made that one. They made a documentary about Islam not too long ago, so he's trying to even things out I guess, and appeal to the critics of the first show.

Maybe, odd indeed though is it not that after one of the documentaries he is given clear grouds for why he said what he did and in the other he's accused of being an anti-semite.

 

[Skeptic]

Using Galloway as a "source" about the "Israeli lobby" is about as reasonable as using Irving as a "source" about the holocaust, or the Ku Klux Klan as a "source" about Black history. The Guardian is not that bad, but it's known as "al-Guardian" for a reason.

 

[brodski]

but it's known as "al-Guardian" for a reason.

Ooh, I know, is it because it's main columnist on Israeli issues is a former IDF member?

 

[Skeptic]

"Former IDF member" is more or less equivalent to "former Israeli Jew". Very often just such folks are terribly bitter about Israel and blame it for everything, for complicated psychological reasons. Meaningless.

Anyway, I mean more for reasons like its constant justification of terrorism, constant demonization of Israel, "mistaken" erasure of Israel's nobel prize winners, enthusiastic "artistic" support of modern-day antisemitic passion-plays, and so on and so forth.

 

[brodski]

"Former IDF member" is more or less equivalent to "former Israeli Jew". Very often just such folks are terribly bitter about Israel and blame it for everything, for complicated psychological reasons. Meaningless.

Nope, he's still an Israeli Jew, and is a vocal defender of the right of Israel to exist and most (but not all) Israeli security policies.


For each of those articles and incidents you posted you could find harsh criticism of them within the guardian too, often more prominently than the original article.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, but as I said, I don't know about him in particular -- I do, however, know quite a bit about the Guardian in general, as you can see from my links.

Indeed you can find criticism of those articles, too, in the guardian. But I don't see how allowing criticism of antisemitic articles makes the original publication OK. Perhaps it makes the newspaper somewhat less antisemitic than, say, the KKK's newsletter (who would publish it without the criticism), but it hardly proves it isn't antisemitic.

What would you say if the Guardian kept publishing "Blacks are Savage Apes" articles -- repeatedly? Even if it did indeed allow people to write "Black are NOT Savage Apes" articles in reply? Would that be evidence of balance -- some people think Blacks are savages, some do not, we're showing both sides -- or of thinly-disguised racism?

 

[brodski]

Yes, but as I said, I don't know about him in particular -- I do, however, know quite a bit about the Guardian in general, as you can see from my links.

Indeed you can find criticism of those articles, too, in the guardian. But I don't see how allowing criticism of antisemitic articles makes the original publication OK. Perhaps it makes the newspaper somewhat less antisemitic than, say, the KKK's newsletter (who would publish it without the criticism), but it hardly proves it isn't antisemitic.

What would you say if the Guardian kept publishing "Blacks are Savage Apes" articles -- repeatedly? Even if it did indeed allow people to write "Black are NOT Savage Apes" articles in reply? Would that be evidence of balance -- some people think Blacks are savages, some do not, we're showing both sides -- or of thinly-disguised racism?

From your comments its clear that you know nothing of the guardian other than what the right wing echo chamber wants you to see.

 

[lionking]

From your comments its clear that you know nothing of the guardian other than what the right wing echo chamber wants you to see.

Surely the Guardian has a leftish slant and is pro-Palestinian more often than not?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Amazing. Nearly half a page of posts and not one person has actually addressed the points raised in the documentary. Just been a long tedious discussion about how reliable a newspaper is, and various attacking the messenger and not the message type tactics.