Inside Britain's Israeli Lobby: CH4 Mon 16th Nov @8PM

Black Uhlan

Don't be surprised if it gets pulled. I'd love to watch it but I can't:(.

All three major political parties in the UK have a Westminster lobby group - Labour friends of Israel, Conservative friends of Israel, Lib Dem Friends of Israel. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been members. Is the lobby the reason that Britain sets aside its interests for another state?

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.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-42/episode-1

On the Israel Lobby:

As one well-known foreign affairs specialist puts it: "The sheer scale of the activity is awesome. It operates at every level. By comparison, the disparate, underfunded and shambolic pro-Palestinian organisations don't stand a chance."

He insists that these words remain unattributable because, he claims, "the fact is that journalists put their careers in jeopardy by speaking up for the Palestinians. That's ultimately the Zionist lobby's most powerful weapon."

An example of the Lobby's power from the same article.

Sam Kiley, a foreign correspondent for the Times, resigned after a row with his editors. Kiley had succeeded in tracking down and interviewing the Israeli soldiers who had shot dead Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy who had become, posthumously, an icon of the intifada.

Middle managers at Wapping, Kiley claims, know that Rupert Murdoch has business interests in Israel and would "fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble". The instruction Kiley received to file his piece "without mentioning the dead kid" was the last straw.

Nehaxak

Did you mean it's on Nov 16th not Sep 16th ?

Black Uhlan

Nehaxak wrote: »

Did you mean it's on Nov 16th not Sep 16th ?

haha yeah. Cheers! November 16TH.

6th

Date corrected in thread title.

Black Uhlan

Here http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf is a link to the Goldstone report by published by the UN with the purpose “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza
during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”.
I find it hard to believe that any fair minded person could object to this.

Further context can be found from this Amnesty International report:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009 Which says:

Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in Gaza in attacks which breached the laws of war, Amnesty International concluded in a new report published on Thursday. Operation 'Cast Lead': 22 days of death and destruction, is the first comprehensive report to be published on the conflict, which took place earlier this year.

So, onto the influence.

Domestic policies such as health care reform and financial regulation are dominating Congress’ legislative agenda this year. But on Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved a non-binding measure denouncing a United Nations inquiry that found that Israel committed scores of war crimes in its three-week assault last year in Gaza.


More than 1,300 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli attack, many of whom were civilians, according to Amnesty International. Headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the inquiry also accused Hamas of war crimes and said both sides should investigate the allegations or face international prosecution.



In voting for the measure, the House dismissed the Goldstone report as “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.” It also called on the Obama administration to “strongly and unequivocally oppose” discussion of the report’s findings in any international setting.
The resolution passed 344-46.


The members of the House who voted in favor of the resolution have received $51,260 more on average from pro-Israel organizations ($81,020 versus $29,770) since 1989 than those who opposed it, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found. Those who opposed the measure have collected $15,760 more, on average, from pro-Arab groups in that time than those who supported the bill ($16,360 versus $600).

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/11/congressmen-denoncing-un-inqui.html

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Is the lobby the reason that Britain sets aside its interests for another state?

This question pre-supposes that Britain does set aside its interests for another state...which would be different to merely showing partiality to another state.

I'm also wondering where the conspiracy theory angle is. This seems more like a straight-forward political issue.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

So, onto the influence.

This doesn't really show influence at all.

This shows that there is a correlation between people who support Israel and people who pro-Israeli organisations support....which is hardly surprising.

If I was an organisation and wanted to donate to a politician, I'm pretty certain I'd choose one who represented my interests, rather than one who didn't.

It doesn't show that the support is being bought. Indeed, for an average of $4000 a year, I'd be quite surprised if that was the case.

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

This shows that there is a correlation between people who support Israel and people who pro-Israeli organisations support....which is hardly surprising.

Also it shows the people who are supported by the pro-Israeli organisations support pro-Israel issues.

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

This question pre-supposes that Britain does set aside its interests for another state...which would be different to merely showing partiality to another state.

Well that would be my opinion at least.

bonkey wrote: »

I'm also wondering where the conspiracy theory angle is. This seems more like a straight-forward political issue.

The conspiracy is the power that the lobbies yield, amongst politicians and the media and how it is an attack on democracy.

Morlar

bonkey wrote: »

I'm also wondering where the conspiracy theory angle is. This seems more like a straight-forward political issue.

I don't normally post here but saw the title on the boards homepage & thought I would take a gander. Not getting why this is in conspiracy theories either, advocacy & lobby groups (public or private) are a straight out political issue imo.

King Mob

But aren't there lobby groups for every issue?

I'm also sure that politicians who are for gun control are supported by organisations who support gun control.
Nothing really suspicious about it.
Those organisations aren't exactly going to support someone who is campaigning against gun control.

I think the only reason this is even in this forum is because if the joos are involved it must be a conspiracy.

Diogenes

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Also it shows the people who are supported by the pro-Israeli organisations support pro-Israel issues.

Shock horror. Next you'll tell us Islamic groups support Palestine.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Well that would be my opinion at least.

Is there any reason you hold this sentiment?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not questioning on the morality of the issue. I'm asking why you feel Britain has acted against its own best interests. What are those best interests, and how would they be better served...in your opinion?

The conspiracy is the power that the lobbies yield, amongst politicians and the media and how it is an attack on democracy.

The notion of whether or not its an attack on democracy is suited to another forum.

The question as to how much power that lobbies wield is also not a conspiracy, until you can somehow argue that they're wielding undue influence.

You started by arguing that no fair-minded person would oppose the Goldstone report...but for that to be indicative of a conspiracy, one must start from the basic position that the majority of the government consists of fair-minded people.

If we don't assume that the majority of the government are fair-minded (which would novel for a conspiracy theory), then there's nothing to suggest undue influence. We have people we believe aren't fair, making a decision we believe only unfair people would make. No other influence is needed...and certainly not any undue ones.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

But aren't there lobby groups for every issue?

Hang on a minute... I posted yesterday on this forum about the negative societal impact of lobby groups, namely the chemical lobby groups and you didn't respond.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also sure that politicians who are for gun control are supported by organisations who support gun control.
Nothing really suspicious about it.
Those organisations aren't exactly going to support someone who is campaigning against gun control.

In the example above it was a call by the UN to investigate war crimes committed by both sides of a conflict where many civilians died. I just find it unbelievable that in anything other than a heavily controlled environment that there could be a vote of 7:1 (or whatever it was) against such an investigation. There must be other factors at play.

If you want to read this transcript of a recording of an AIPAC president (without his knowledge) in 1992 it will give you an idea of the undue power they wield. He tells Haim Katz a businessman that he is in "negotiations" with then Presidential Candidate about who should be his Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

King Mob wrote: »

I think the only reason this is even in this forum is because if the joos are involved it must be a conspiracy.

If you are unable to make the distinction yourself then there is little point in talking to you. Israel is a country.

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

Is there any reason you hold this sentiment?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not questioning on the morality of the issue. I'm asking why you feel Britain has acted against its own best interests. What are those best interests, and how would they be better served...in your opinion?


The notion of whether or not its an attack on democracy is suited to another forum.

The question as to how much power that lobbies wield is also not a conspiracy, until you can somehow argue that they're wielding undue influence.

You started by arguing that no fair-minded person would oppose the Goldstone report...but for that to be indicative of a conspiracy, one must start from the basic position that the majority of the government consists of fair-minded people.

If we don't assume that the majority of the government are fair-minded (which would novel for a conspiracy theory), then there's nothing to suggest undue influence. We have people we believe aren't fair, making a decision we believe only unfair people would make. No other influence is needed...and certainly not any undue ones.

I'll try to answer your points properly tomorrow. But these are the standards expected in the UK.

THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE

SELFLESSNESS
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

LEADERSHIP
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.


These principles apply to all aspects of public life. The Committee has set them out here for the benefit of all who serve the public in any way.


http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Hang on a minute... I posted yesterday on this forum about the negative societal impact of lobby groups, namely the chemical lobby groups and you didn't respond.

Ok and?
We acknowledge that there are many different lobby groups on a variety of issues.
Your source itself mentions an Pro Arab lobby.
Does this lobby have a negative societal impact?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

In the example above it was a call by the UN to investigate war crimes committed by both sides of a conflict where many civilians died. I just find it unbelievable that in anything other than a heavily controlled environment that there could be a vote of 7:1 (or whatever it was) against such an investigation. There must be other factors at play.

Like maybe that Israel is the American's only ally in the middle east and the government wants to stay on good terms with them?

Your assuming that these politicians where brided by these lobby groups.
How do you know that these guys weren't already pro Israel before the lobby group started funding them?
Maybe it was a case of the politician having this position then the lobby who agrees with their position donating to the politicians campaign.
Maybe if you could show a politician who voted against the pro Israel side until he starts getting donations from the lobby group at which point he starts voting the other way.

Your graph also shows that the vast majority of funds where still going to the people who voted for the investigation.
How does that work exactly?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

If you want to read this transcript of a recording of an AIPAC president (without his knowledge) in 1992 it will give you an idea of the undue power they wield. He tells Haim Katz a businessman that he is in "negotiations" with then Presidential Candidate about who should be his Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

Yea please link this transcript, cause to me an out of context quote from a private conversation isn't very convincing.
Maybe you could use snippets from my conversations to accuse me of planning to kill my lecturers, no doubt I've wished death on them a couple of times.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

If you are unable to make the distinction yourself then there is little point in talking to you. Israel is a country.

So why single out this particular lobby and denounce them as undemocratic?
If it's a issue with the policies they have why not discuss this in the politics section?

I don't agree with many lobbies but I don't accuse them of being in a conspiracy.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

Ok and?
We acknowledge that there are many different lobby groups on a variety of issues.
Your source itself mentions an Pro Arab lobby.
Does this lobby have a negative societal impact?

I wouldn't doubt it, but obviously the negative impact is directly proportional to the amount of influence any particular looby group has.

King Mob wrote: »

Like maybe that Israel is the American's only ally in the middle east and the government wants to stay on good terms with them?

That is just not the case at all.

Forgetting the US military base formerly known as Iraq there is Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, Oman, Qatar and probably for. HINT: Anywhere that has not been accused of harbouring terrorists.

King Mob wrote: »

Your assuming that these politicians where brided by these lobby groups.
How do you know that these guys weren't already pro Israel before the lobby group started funding them?
Maybe it was a case of the politician having this position then the lobby who agrees with their position donating to the politicians campaign.
Maybe if you could show a politician who voted against the pro Israel side until he starts getting donations from the lobby group at which point he starts voting the other way.

Okay...

But during the J Street conference, at a well-attended plenary session, it was U.S. Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, who spelled out the issue in the clearest of terms. Refusing to toe the line of the pro-Israel lobby, Filner argued, means losing precious campaign donations.


“I started getting all those phone calls,” Filner said, describing his experience after refusing to support a 1994 resolution backed by pro-Israel activists. “On that vote I lost about $250,000. That kind of money is an intimidating factor.” He later told the Forward that the phone calls he received were from supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Filner’s charge, which became more blunt as he argued that members of Congress make decisions — at times even leading to war — based on the fear of financial punishment by pro-Israel donors, illustrates the challenge facing J Street.

http://www.forward.com/articles/117892/

I'm sorry. I don't have time to answer to rest, but I will try to.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I'll try to answer your points properly tomorrow. But these are the standards expected in the UK.

THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE

SELFLESSNESS
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

OPENNESS
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

LEADERSHIP
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.


These principles apply to all aspects of public life. The Committee has set them out here for the benefit of all who serve the public in any way.


http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

So are you saying that you believe politicians, by-and-large, are fair-minded individuals?

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

On that vote I lost about $250,000

Interesting.

We're presented a graph that shows the 20 year total is, on average, around $80,000 per individual who voted for one particular issue....working out to about $4,000 per person per year.

Now we have one individual, who's stating that a single vote, on a single issue, cost them $250,000....presumably from a single year.

So it would seem that one vote, for one individual, accounts for over 60 people in terms of that year's average....or indeed the entire amount for 3 people over 20 years.

Somehow, the numbers don't gel with each other.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I wouldn't doubt it, but obviously the negative impact is directly proportional to the amount of influence any particular looby group has.

So all lobby groups are bad in your opinion?
Why not take this up in the politics forum?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

That is just not the case at all.

Forgetting the US military base formerly known as Iraq there is Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, Oman, Qatar and probably for. HINT: Anywhere that has not been accused of harbouring terrorists.

And Israel is one of the few successful democracies down there too.

And didn't Osama Bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Okay...

http://www.forward.com/articles/117892/

I'm sorry. I don't have time to answer to rest, but I will try to.

That's not what I asked for.
I asked for an example of a politician who was anti Israeli untill he got donations from the lobby.

This is an example of a politician losing support when he votes differently.
This would happen with any politician who goes against capaigne promises.
Remember how the Greens were screwed over for selling out to FF?

Why would people support someone they see is not representative of their position?

It does not say any lobby withheld money from him rather it was many different private donors.

And what of the people who voted for the investigation you're talking about?
Most of those where also receiving money from the pro Israel side, have they lost money?

But again I fail to see the conspiracy here.

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

Interesting.

We're presented a graph that shows the 20 year total is, on average, around $80,000 per individual who voted for one particular issue....working out to about $4,000 per person per year.

Now we have one individual, who's stating that a single vote, on a single issue, cost them $250,000....presumably from a single year.

So it would seem that one vote, for one individual, accounts for over 60 people in terms of that year's average....or indeed the entire amount for 3 people over 20 years.

Somehow, the numbers don't gel with each other.

What you need to understand is that the PAC in AIPAC stands for a Public Affairs Committee and not Political Action Committee. AIPAC at least openly, is not involved in the funding of anybody. The $4,000 figure you have is from pro-Israel PAC's, not AIPAC. How the Congressman claims to have lost the $250,000 is by calls from AIPAC representitive preseumably connected to private donors as King Mob has said.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

What you need to understand is that the PAC in AIPAC stands for a Public Affairs Committee and not Political Action Committee. AIPAC at least openly, is not involved in the funding of anybody. The $4,000 figure you have is from pro-Israel PAC's, not AIPAC. How the Congressman claims to have lost the $250,000 is by calls from AIPAC representitive preseumably connected to private donors as King Mob has said.

That doesn't really make the numbers fit together any better.

On one hand, we've got someone here talking about a quarter of a million dollars hanging on a single vote....as an example of serious money which can influence matters.

On the other hand, we've got a chart and accompanying logic trying to argue that around $4000 dollars per year is serious money. In fact, if we consider that even no voters get support from the same organisations, the difference becomes just over $2,500 per year.

There's a 100-fold difference here. I find it hard to believe that anyone is seriously arguing that politicians are being bought and sold for $2,500 worth of contributions per year, but thats what the original chart and accompanying logic seems to be suggesting.

The "additional" information you've offered suggests that private donations absolutely dwarf these figures, which would only further call into question the notion that $2,500 is enough to seriously influence politicians.

Seriously....the more one looks at these figures, the less water the original numbers hold.

I'm also sleptical that there's not some sleight of hand going on in those original numbers, along similar lines to the notion that Bill Gates, you and I have an average worth of close on $20 billion dollars apiece. So what are you doing with your 20 billion?

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

So are you saying that you believe politicians, by-and-large, are fair-minded individuals?

No. That is the problem as I see it. That is not to say that it shouldn't be demanded, or that it is somehow impossible.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

No. That is the problem as I see it. That is not to say that it shouldn't be demanded, or that it is somehow impossible.

Then I go back to my original point....if we accept from the outset that politicians are - by and large - not as fairminded as desirable, there is no conspiracy suggested per se by a lack of fair-mindedness.

That's not to say that there isn't one, mind....just that when looking at a group we don't expect to be fair, and seeing they didn't make the decision a fair group would make...isn't that more-or-less par for the course, rather than an indication of foul play?

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

Is there any reason you hold this sentiment?

Here are some recent reasons:

Why is Obama letting Netanyahu thwart his efforts?...And then there is the Israel lobby. The good news is that there is a new pro-Israel organization, J Street, which is committed to the two-state solution and firmly behind Obama.


The bad news is that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other defenders of the status quo remain powerful, and they will surely oppose any attempt to pressure Netanyahu.



In May, for example, AIPAC drafted a letter warning Obama to "work closely and privately" with Israel. It garnered 329 signatures in the House and 76 names in the Senate. During the August recess, 56 members of Congress visited Israel, and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that it was a mistake to make settlement construction the key issue and that there was a "significant difference" between settlements in the West Bank and those in East Jerusalem.



If Obama tries to make aid to Israel conditional on a settlement freeze, Congress will simply override him. Putting real pressure on Israel risks alienating key politicians and major Democratic fundraisers, as well as Israel's supporters in the media, imperiling the rest of Obama's agenda and conceivably his prospects for reelection.

http://current.com/16fg24c

"It garnered 329 signatures in the House and 76 names in the Senate."

That is 75% in the house and 75% in the Senate too.

The supposed most powerful man in the world has his hands tied by a lobby group which represents the right-wing of a foriegn nation.

This is from Charles Freeman, Obama's nomination for Chair of The National Intelligence Council. AIPAC objected and slandered him visciously and he was forced to turn down the role. Chief slanderer was an AIPAC Director called Stephen Rosen who turned out to be spying illegally on the US military for Israel, a crime he was convicted for. http://www.stopaipac.org/aipac_spy_indictment.pdf

"I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government," but "I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office."


The set up ... "It is apparent," wrote Freeman, "that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends."


And the pitch ... "The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues."

These incidents are all individual conspiracies in their own right.

bonkey wrote: »

Don't get me wrong...I'm not questioning on the morality of the issue. I'm asking why you feel Britain has acted against its own best interests. What are those best interests, and how would they be better served...in your opinion?

The best interests of the people is improving and sustaining the quality of life of its people and ensuring their personal freedoms in my opinion. Not lying about a war which is against the wishes of the people.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

The supposed most powerful man in the world has his hands tied by a lobby group which represents the right-wing of a foriegn nation.

I'm not sure how any ofthis shows that Britain has acted against its own best interests, which is what we were supposedly discussing.

These incidents are all individual conspiracies in their own right.

Leaving aside that we've switched from teh UK to the US, I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.

A group make a popular proposal. You conclude that this is indicative of a conspiracy...but I'm not sure how.

You then go on to cite an example including details of how the US allowed one of the leaders of this supposedly all-powerful cabal to be caught for spying, tried and convicted. I mean...seriously...is this how you'd expect your pet government to treat you?

The best interests of the people is improving and sustaining the quality of life of its people and ensuring their personal freedoms in my opinion. Not lying about a war which is against the wishes of the people.

You seem to be implying that these are mutually exclusive options.

Given that we're talking about the UK....what if it was a choice...

1) Get into a war that you didn't really stand to win or lose from (other than that it would give you a reason for military expenditure, which in turn could be plowed into the native arms industry)

or

2) Sour relationships with your most strategic ally (the US), and risk the fallout from that.

In such a case, its entirely possible that the whole "improving and sustaining quality of life" is better served by option 1.

marcsignal

you can watch the documentary here on 4OD

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3010424

well worth a look

toiletduck

Oh cool, I was under the impression 4OD was only available in Britain. Cheers.

marcsignal

and another one here about the same lobby in the US

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=2894821400057137878

no surprise that they use the same tactics either...

Nehaxak

I think the conspiracy here is that a very powerful lobby group is trying too and has succeeded in perverting the democracy of another countries politic.

Whether or not the the poster or anyone else believes or not that politicians are in any way fair minded or otherwise is irrelevant.

The standards set down are there to be adhered too and in the cases explored by that documentary, they definetely were not adhered too.

The conspiracy therefore has significant substance behind it, showing and providing documented proof that the lobby group in questions did, has and continues to influence the UK politic for their own gain.

That is after all what a lobby group aims to do, however, it is and was used in instances to turn attention away from and garner support against the condemnation of significant human rights abuses and war crimes carried out by the Israeli state.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

And didn't Osama Bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia?

Yeah and there is 'Al Qaeda' from Britain, Israel and the US. Timothy McVeigh was an American too, of Irish Catholic heritage I believe. But, much like your bin Laden statement it has nothing to do with your false statement about the US having Israel as teh only ally in the region.


That's not what I asked for.
I asked for an example of a politician who was anti Israeli untill he got donations from the lobby. [/quote]

Seriously what are you talking about? "anti Israeli"? Do you mean like a white nationalist or jihadi or something? You don't have to be anti-Israeli to strongly disagree with their war crimes - its called empathy for a fellow human being.

King Mob wrote: »

But again I fail to see the conspiracy here.

Well maybe if you watch the documentary then, have you? Just because something is real doesn't mean its not a conspiracy.

Black Uhlan

Nehaxak wrote: »

I think the conspiracy here is that a very powerful lobby group is trying too and has succeeded in perverting the democracy of another countries politic.

Whether or not the the poster or anyone else believes or not that politicians are in any way fair minded or otherwise is irrelevant.

The standards set down are there to be adhered too and in the cases explored by that documentary, they definetely were not adhered too.

The conspiracy therefore has significant substance behind it, showing and providing documented proof that the lobby group in questions did, has and continues to influence the UK politic for their own gain.

That is after all what a lobby group aims to do, however, it is and was used in instances to turn attention away from and garner support against the condemnation of significant human rights abuses and war crimes carried out by the Israeli state.

Well Said! it's the loss of equal representation in democracy that is the conspiracy.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Yeah and there is 'Al Qaeda' from Britain, Israel and the US. Timothy McVeigh was an American too, of Irish Catholic heritage I believe. But, much like your bin Laden statement it has nothing to do with your false statement about the US having Israel as teh only ally in the region.

I misspoke when I said "only".
However they are one of the few.

You're the one who brought up terrorists.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Seriously what are you talking about? "anti Israeli"? Do you mean like a white nationalist or jihadi or something? You don't have to be anti-Israeli to strongly disagree with their war crimes - its called empathy for a fellow human being.

By anti Israeli I meant politicians who voted against things that were of benefit to Israel.
For example the people who voted for the investigation which you where originally referring to.

The other example you have provided is simply a case of a politician losing support by making an unpopular policy decision.
Not very suspicious.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Well maybe if you watch the documentary then, have you? Just because something is real doesn't mean its not a conspiracy.

No the only valid points you are making are about the power lobbies have, why not discuss this in politics?

I'd hazard a guess and say it's because they aren't as lenient on unsupported claims there as they are here.

bonkey

Nehaxak wrote: »

I think the conspiracy here is that a very powerful lobby group is trying too and has succeeded in perverting the democracy of another countries politic.

I would argue that its a question of political philosophy as to whether or not a lobby group being successful is in any way a "perversion" of democracy.

Without first establishing that, then there is no notion of conspiracy.

That is after all what a lobby group aims to do, however, it is and was used in instances to turn attention away from and garner support against the condemnation of significant human rights abuses and war crimes carried out by the Israeli state.

You seem to be suggesting that there is a distinction in what is acceptable for a lobby group to do, and what not...that it would be ok (at a guess) for a lobby group to pressure politicians to do what you see as morally right, but that its a perversion of democracy to pressure politiicans to do what you see as morally wrong.

Again...its a question of poltiical philosophy, rather than a conspiracy.

marcsignal

bonkey wrote: »

Again...its a question of poltiical philosophy, rather than a conspiracy.

tbh, I thought it was strange this thread was posted in Conspiracy Thoerys for a start, it's more like 'uncommon knowledge' imo. I think the conspiracy charge is born out of the fact that when the charge itself is made, it is staunchly denied by the perpetrators.

It's interesting that the lobby groups in the C4 doc, seem to be structured and engineered in such a way, that it makes it difficult to trace the sources of donations, and that donations come from groups of 'individuals' on a particular committee, as opposed to coming from any particular organisation.
This imo gives rise to feelings of 'conspiracy'

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

I would argue that its a question of political philosophy as to whether or not a lobby group being successful is in any way a "perversion" of democracy. .

I would argue that a foriegn body registered and posing as a domestic body working for the interests of same foriegn body is as clear-cut conspiracy as you can get. Especially when you see the results in the yearly (taxpayers) billions in "aid", military secrets given and international diplomatic leverage - an effective license to perpetrate war crimes on innocent civilians.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

No the only valid points you are making are about the power lobbies have, .

Thanks for clearing that up for me. :rolleyes: Must try harder!

Anyway, did you or anyone else watch the documentary? any thoughts?

(Anyone more capable than me able to find a link for it? The Channel 4 link won't work for me because I'm outside the UK and Ireland.).

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

I misspoke when I said "only".
However they are one of the few.

Does "misspoke" mean completely wrong? And if so, does it change anything from your original point?

By the way, I've already shown you that "few" is also incorrect. Even from the list I gave you. How many countries do you think are in the ME
?

nullzero

Interesting "debate" so far.
One theme I see in most posts is how this topic fits into the Conspiracy theories forum. Fair enough I suppose, however Isreal is a particularly unique country which divides a lot of people on many issues.
Being "anti Isreali" isn't something thats is easy to pull off.
Isreal is directly linked to Zionism which is then falsely linked to all people of the Jewish faith.
One major problem I'd have with pro Isreali lobbies influencing major political parties in foriegn countries would have to do with Isreal's awful human rights record.
Just to set the recored straight before I go any further, I am not anti semitic or a far right skin head loony just because I dissaprove of Isreal's behaviour towards it's "neighbours".
The idea of re establishing a "homeland" for the Jews is not something that is bad in itself, however the way in which it was achieved created the situation we have today in the region, which I will assume most people will have at least heard about on some level.
I also have a problem in the way in which America funds and arms the Isreali's to perpetuate the situation between Isreal and Palestine.
Since 1948 all Isreal and America have done is antagonise the Palestinians into terrorist action and make them look unreasonable and evil in the process.
Isreal and by association the USA, through their actions seem to have no interest in peace in the region.
Isreal is one of the leading terrorist states in the world today partnered by THE leading terrorist state the USA.
None of this is wacky conspiracy theory either, it's mainstream stuff covered exstensively by main stream reporters and researchers based on openly available evidence.
There are mountains of conspiracy theories regarding Isreal and its formation, implicating the usual suspects like the Rothschild and Rockerfellar families etc... However you dont have to go very far at all to realise that Isreal isnt a poor defenceless country of peaceful Jewish people being harrased by their unreasonable and fanatical Muslim neighbours.
If there were lobby's for North Korea or Iran influencing political parties in the UK plenty of people would be up in arms.
The difference with an Isreali lobby is that it is now accepted, athough it is false, that being anti Isreali is the same as being anti semitic which is tantamount to growing a funny little moustache and popping a swastika onto your arm and denying the haulocaust.
The only difference between what Isreal does to the Palestinians and vice versa is that we have been conditioned to believe that Isreal's actions are justified. Killing people and going out of your way to make their lives miserable is not justifiable on any level. It wasn't right when the Nazi's did it to the Jews, and it's still not right now that the Isreali's are doing it to the Palestinians.
If you feel that it's "fair enough" for a country such as Isreal to weild power over major political parties in other countries then I'd suggest you take your head out of the sand and start looking at the world objectivly.
While there mightn't be a hidden conspiracy here, the big openly admitted one is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can open their eyes long enough to see it, and an open endightment of those who can't bother their arse to do likewise.