Peter Oborne’s Dispatches programme was on last night, preceded by the Guardian article and comment piece and Opendemocracy pamphlet (pdf) which were released to coincide with the programme. I have been avidly following the inevitable online wranglings which ensued.
The CST’s response is certainly one of the best, particularly this gem of a detail:
There is another, very simple, example of how the programme makers appear to have decided on their theory and conclusions before accumulating any facts. The Guardian opinion piece states:
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 Guardian news article states:
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.
If both these figures are true, then simple maths should tell Dispatches that joining CFI actually decreases your chance of being elevated to the shadow cabinet; or at least that shadow cabinet members are less supportive of Israel than Tory backbenchers.
My impression is that Oborne overstates his case. Certainly there are individuals and organisations that support Israel but (a) they are doing so for a multitude of reasons and (b) there is no link between them. But then I suppose a programme about how some individuals and organisations quite like Israel would not have been glamourous enough for a flagship Channel 4 programme, unlike suggestions of a powerful and united lobby.
33 Comments
Fair comment, Yossarian. Nice to see that The Spittoon is at least one place on the blogosphere where there is actually some balanced editorial on this matter.
Whatever the truth, the guys at MPAC think Christmas has come early. They haven’t been this happy since Israel lost to England in the football.
Yep, it is depressing how all the usual suspects over at MPACuk line up to regurgitate their barely disguised anti-Semitism at moments like this:
The entire world is controlled by a sinister cabal of Jewish Elders – and the wingnuts that cluster around the feet of the Bukhari Brothers all know this because they read it on a Muslim Brotherhood/Stormfront (delete as appropriate) forum somewhere.
I wonder if the the guys at MPAC appreciate the fact that they live in a democracy where their conspiracy theories are given freedom of expression. It probably doesn’t even occur to them.
Do you really think they would support England in an England v Israel match? I doubt it.
They will support whoever plays against Israel. I do feel such a programme will contribute to anti-semitism though. Very irresponsible by C4.
remember when Dispatches done Undercover Mosque,,they were vilified and accused by Galloway and his angry little band of supporters of producing a hit piece..Now MPAC are providing links to CH4 to “congratulate them”…
If readers of this piece are interested in the influence of the Israel lobby on the foreign policy of western countries, you may wish to read: ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It’s written from a tradition of American foreign policy realism (almost Kissingerian) so cannot be accused, I believe, of populist bias. It sweeps across the latter half of the 20th century to describe the phenomenal power of Israeli, but more specifically Zionist, influence on the organs of US Congress, State Dept. and other organs of state. As the book maintains, there is nothing anti-Semitic about pointing out the illegality of the actions of the Israeli state, nor of its remarkable influence over the conduct of other sovereign states.
I don’t think that anyone is denying that such a lobby exists, indeed numerous such lobbies exist. The US has a powerful Indian lobby too. But there is a thin line between discussing such lobbies and going into age old ‘jews run the world’ co conspiracy claptrap. I’m not suggesting that you’ve crossed this line but the issue should be handled with care.
Fair enough, but note also that issue has to be handled carefully partly because this particular lobby does such a good job of conflating criticism of Zionist ultra-nationalism with anti-Semitism. This has had the effect of closing the space for public criticism of Israeli behaviour, at least in certain Western countries still riddled with guilt for the Christian murder of millions of Jews.
Organizations such as the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee are on the phone to Congressmen, media outlets and public opinionmakers with their vetted commentaries, press releases, thinly-veiled threats of blackmail and character assassination, proposed texts for speeches and official documentation, etc. whenever a decision maker at federal, state or local levels takes up a position that it views to be unfriendly to Israeli nationalist interests. One has to observe the sheer power of this lobby to understand that it is qualitatively different from other interest groups represented in Washington DC. The Indians don’t come remotely close. None of this is to make facile suggestions that Jews run the world. But one can unequivocally state that Zionist interests (backed by people of different faith traditions) have a vastly disproportionate influence in British and US foreign policy.
This comment is revolting.
No – the behaviour of some Israeli, NOT all Israeli as your comment implies.
No – the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazi regime, that also killed a fair few Christians and non-believers of all shades and stripes.
I would be fascinated by your perspective on the Muslim SS units of WWII, incidentally.
Thats what i love about Spitoon -youre incapable of hiding your rabid zionism
What I love about you, Jonathan, is your patronising attitude to the people of the region in question and your contempt for their right to be rid of clerical fascist scum.
I am a Muslim and a Zionist. I am proud of both.
Hello. By “Israeli behaviour” I was referring to the Israeli state. Sorry, I work with governments on a daily basis and this is familiar shorthand, but maybe not to you. When we say “Brits,” we are referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or when we say “URT” it means the United Republic of Tanzania. So, in this sense, “Israeli” means Israeli state. Indeed, by using the adjective Israeli without the noun ’state’ you could argue that I was being ambiguous or unclear. The implication that I was using this word to describe all Israeli people is yours, not mine. I am surprised that you should choose to take this interpretation.
btw – The Muslim SS units were just as vile as the Christian SS units. Christian ambivalence towards Jewish people has a long history, as we know. Germany morphed this ambivalence to a terrible extreme by combining historical animus with a wounded nationalism, industrial organization and bureaucratic efficiency. Muslim majority states wage less visible and less effective conflicts against their religious and ethnic minorities to this day, including but not limited to Jewish minorities, but thankfully not many have yet approached the factory-scale of murder whose genealogy is European Christian history. You might disagree, but that’s okay. h
So glad I have your permission to disagree.
Fascinating, but hardly relevant, Hannan. However, this is not a matter of degree or the “numbers game”, Hannan. Persecuting people because they are X, Y or Z is not proper conduct.
If you work with governments “every day”, then you will know it is in the syllabus of Diplomacy 101 to never, ever refer to an entire people when you mean to refer to their state, or even government.
Actually, there may be inadvertent anti-Semitism just as much as there may be inadvertent any other order of racism. I would have thought someone at the very heart of diplomacy might be better aware of that.
And you have my permission to wriggle out of that one, too.
Hi, Oh dear. Not sure where or how this exchange became uncivil. I suggest you sit quietly in a room for a while, take a few deep breaths, that sort of thing. Also, I’d be interested to learn more about the diplomacy course you are referring to. Intrigued. Rgds. h
Eh? I’m not being remotely uncivil. I challenge you to show me where I am being so. I would suggest that you stop being so conveniently precious.
On the other hand…
Oh, do go away, you appallingly boring Trot.
How is that for uncivil?
Hannan
Posted November 18, 2009 at 12:55 AM | Permalink
“But one can unequivocally state that Zionist interests (backed by people of different faith traditions) have a vastly disproportionate influence in British and US foreign policy.”
And no doubt you can prove this by citing the M & W “book” as your authority. Not everyone thinks it’s quite as authorative as you do, Hannan:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=343
How about the demonstrably disproportionate influence afoot in the UN that gives rise to 25% of its resolutions being passed against Israel and virtually none against such human rights abusers as the government in Khartoum? Did it ever occur to you that this has a great deal to do with the strong pro-Israel lobbying efforts in the UK, US and Canada?
Quite.
The M-W book has been criticized from both the left and right, with commentators as far apart as Chomsky and Dershowitz having addressed its shortcomings, as they see them. What I wrote was this: “If readers [...] are interested in the influence of the Israel lobby on the foreign policy of western countries, you may wish to read: ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ [...]“. This was a suggestion, not commendation of an authoritative source. To Lynn, I’d be grateful if you could share the source of the info about UN resolutions so that we can chat about it. Are these GA, security council, human rights council resolutions, etc. Many thanks. h
UN Resolutions pertaining to Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
Thanks. Now could you share the list of draft resolutions pertaining to Israel blocked by US and UK vetoes and by the pressure put on non-permanent members of the Security Council? While you dig that up, please consider that these resolutions are not made lightly, and are in response to breaches of international law. The sheer number of instances in which Israel as appeared in such resolutions is a general reflection of the number of occasions in which it has broken international law. Other countries that have gone off the rails have been treated similarly (Sudan has had resolutions passed against it, as well as draft resolutions that were blocked by Arab states, by China, etc.). Unfortunately, you won’t see the UK having a security council resolution drafted against it, but there are, after all, practical limits to democratizing international institutions. To an important extent, the much-flawed machinery of international human rights law provides a platform for historical grievances to be redressed and current day transgressions to be addressed. Sam Huntington, hardly a dove, third worldist or populist on such matters put down the rationale for this when he said, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.” The multilateral machinery, dog-eared and compromised as it is in so many respects, provides a platform for redress in some, if not all cases. Best regards, h
I will do a deal with you, Hannan:
I’ll look up all the resolutions on Israel blocked by the US, if you would care to list all the SC and GC resolutions on Sudan (and I’ll even let you list the General Secretary’s Reports for the former)…
Deal?
Whilst I don’t approve of the numbers game, I do find it reprehensible that you clearly want to downplay the fact that the UN has rather ignored a barbarous Islamist regime in Sudan that has, in the last 20 years, been responsible for the deaths of well in excess of two million people in the South and West of its own country.
Abu Faris,
As much as I hate to intrude on this rather fascinating ding-dong between yourself and Hannan, I would like to know what exactly you mean when you refer to yourself as a Proud Zionist. As a Zionist, do you unequivocally support Israeli state actions at the expense of Palestinian rights to self-determination? Or merely the right of Jewish return to the holy land? Or a mocktail (keepin’ it Halal, yo) of the above.
Im just curious. You see, in my 24 years on this planet, I have yet to see/hear/catch-wind-of a Muslim who has referred to himself as a Zionist, let alone a proud one.
Hassan (I’m not quite cool enough to refer to myself as ‘h’, ala Hannan)
Also, on a slightly less digressionary note. Is it not possible to condemn both Israeli aggression AND the massacre in Sudan? It just seems as though defenders of Israel will seek to justify/deflect criticism of the Zionist state by citing other examples of atrocities (hey, at least were not as bad as those Sudanese eh?). Likewise, Muslims will often ignore the shortcomings in their own people, focusing instead on the actions of Israel/America/UK/.
Hassan
Thank you for your questions, which I think deserve some sort of serious answer.
You ask, quite reasonably:
If you do not mind, I think I need to unpack this, by answering first what I mean by Zionism – and so, what makes me a Zionist.
Edmund Standing, a very courageous blogger for whom I have the highest regard in his exposure of fascism, has recently provided I think a very succinct definition of what it is to be a Zionist. He writes:
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/18/bnp-legal-director-continues-anti-israel-hatemongering/
In these terms I am a Zionist.
Why I am I proud to be a Zionist? On a human level because it has meant that I have supported the rights of others, in this case the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination. Such care is, I think, something worth being proud of in oneself.
Yet there is another reason too, one explored most valiantly by other Muslim Zionists, such as (perhaps most intelligently) Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi. Shaykh Palazzi position is firmly founded in a reading of the Qur’an. David Margolis writes:
I also agree with this leader of the Muslim community in Italy when he argues:
http://www.amislam.com/margolis.htm
So another part of my pride in being a Zionist is inextricably linked to my pride in my Muslim faith:
Qur’an 17:104
Qur’an 5: 20 – 107
You ask:
Of course I do not. I do not unequivocally support anything that people do (or do not do). Zionism is the support for the Jewish people’s right to self-determination; this certainly does not abrogate anyone else’s rights, in my opinion. I do support the right of the Jewish people to a state premised upon their own Jewish identity – so, to answer your final implication, I am not a “One Stater” or supporter of the Binational so-called Solution. I do support the Two State Solution; but ost importantly, I utterly and without reserve call for the peaceful and mutually beneficial solution to all outstanding issues in the region.
You ask:
Abstractly this would, of course, be the case. But let us take this concrete case by case. I uterly loathe the “numbers game”: “my massacre is bigger than yours”, so to write. I find it morally repellent a position to quantify so human suffering, or to set it upon some sliding scale of acceptability.
Certainly it is the case that there have, in the history of modern Israel, some instances of gross violations of human rights. However, save in a very few exceptional cases, these cannot be shown to be the policy of the Israeli state, its strategy, even its raison d’etre.
Unfortunately, this can be shown to be the case in, for example, Sudan. The Sudanese regime has deliberately and with malice aforethought targeted, persecuted and eliminated human lives on the bases of those people’s ethnic identity, religious identity and gender.
Despite the often tragic excesses of Settlers, or even scared-out-of-their-wits IDF soldiery, I find no evidence that the Israeli state has ever set out on a course of the physical extermination of its perceived opponents.
Things are not right in Israel, perhaps – but you are not likely to be murdered along with your entire community just in case you are Palestinian, to give a case in point – and no hyperbolic use of terms such as “genocide” or “oppression” can alter this fundamental distinction between the reality of being a Palestinian and the reality of being a Nuba or Darfuri in Sudan.
I would agree with this only if you would insert the quantifier “some” before the phrase “defenders of Israel”: Some defenders of Israel…
Just as much: Some Muslims ignore the shortcomings…
I think that would be better. I certainly do not ignore such shortcomings – nor do others on this sterling website.
Many thanks for your questions. I hope I have given you some food for thought.
As an addendum:
I wrote, above (it may not be there yet, as it seems to be awaiting moderation):
I should like to expand upon this. In my view:
Zionism is the support for the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in the form of the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel in the Land held Holy by all three Abrahamic Faiths. It is the support for the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state; and the recognition of the right of the Jewish state to its self-defence against those who would seek its elimination.
Abu Faris,
First and foremost, I would like to thank you for responding to my question with such a thoughtful and well-articulated answer. Although I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying – from both a political and religious perspective – I do see your ‘angle’, so to speak. It was indeed, ‘food for thought’.
Anywho, I will reply with something more substantial when I have time.
Hassan.
i would say that the last bit about the right of the state to self-defence is implicit in the “continued existence” bit, i see no particular reason why the state of israel’s self-defence should be considered any differently from that of other states, except insofar as as a jew, i would prefer that jewish values be adhered to at all times, as opposed to when convenient or when they serve the aims of the religious nationalist lobby. i’d certainly call myself a zionist and on much the same terms as abu faris does, albeit as a jew i also have come to have definite reservations about the formulae bandied about by those who consider the state to be a religious entity. i have difficulty nowadays in considering the state “reshit semihat ge’ulateinu”, the “beginning of the joy of redemption”, because i can’t see any joy or any redemption coming any time soon the way the state is conducting itself, i think it is increasingly looking like the state’s ideological mission has gone backwards since the glory days of 1967.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I look forward to your reply, Hassan.
I included the bit about self-defence, bananabrain, because amongst the other things that Israel seemingly is not allowed to do (along with exist) is defend itself. I would agree though, that in general and all other things being equal, this would be subsumed under the right to continual existence.
I mentioned the comment about the state of Israel as a Jewish state in the sense of it being a state of not only all its people, but especially of its Jewish people. This seems to me to be concomitant of the right to self-determination.
Generally, I am on record as being suspicious and hostile (even) to nationalism. However, I find no contradiction between a general dislike of nationalism (as an ideology) and support for the right of peoples to their self-determination.
I certainly would and do take notice of your comment that Israel may have been “going backwards” since ‘67. This view is shared by a number of Israeli friends of mine too.
elegantly phrased, abu faris. the “jewish vs democratic” argument is one that is much on my mind, so i think i might adopt your formulation as one which expresses not only its importance as a sanctuary, but also its importance as an indicator of jewish values and morality.
i’m not sure i entirely understand why that would be the case, but you have given me what could be an important insight in relation to this:
perhaps national self-determination is not a test of jewish values so much as jewish values are a test of national self-determination? one might also say the same thing about islamic values, i think, given that so far no state which has espoused islamic values has managed successfully to display them in such a way as to inspire emulation.
as you will remember from our dealings with the “ethnic englishness” question, the way i address the issue is this: i see nothing wrong with patriotism, because it involves being proud of something that you are or aspire to be. i see nothing wrong with national self-determination, because it involves the right to define yourself in your own terms. the problem i see with nationalism, however, is that it seeks to define *others* in terms of your choosing, which is why it so often expresses itself in terms that we both dislike.
the rot set in, in my view, when the almost miraculous success of the 6-day war and the recovery of jerusalem convinced some religious people that there was something religious going on and that therefore, the state was essentially acting as G!D’s instrument and were stupid enough to conclude that, therefore, if they co-opted the state’s agenda, they could make the instrument function faster. of course, it has been spectacularly bungled, just as the socialist zionist dream of a workers’ paradise in the middle east where we worked the land by day and danced the hora all night was shown to be Νεφελοκοκκυγία in no uncertain terms. well, the cuckoos are really coming home to roost this time.
b’shalom
bananabrain
It is a matter of relief that some of the views expressed above are limited to the thumb twiddling of the idle, and are not likely to influence any decisionmaking. There is a 2002 proposal from the Arab world to unconditionally accept the state of Israel as a reality, based on the 1967 borders. This has been shunned by Israel and the US. While kicking up a fuss by misquoting Ahmedinejad’s remarks about wiping Zionism from the pages of history, the state of Israel has all but wiped another people off the map. Maybe this wasn’t the result of policy but a 60-year accident that just happened. How careless. The illegal blockade of Gaza. The illegal and disproportionate bombing last year. The blocking of the Goldstone report. I would like to know what a unitary state looks like where the rights of one religious community are given special status. What would the legal, policy and institutional apparatus look like and how would differentiation between citizens look like? And although it’s long past, let’s not make light of the Balfour Declaration. Under what authority could the leader of one people grant a second people the land occupied by a third people? And by the way, the government in Sudan is villainous and it’s resource-hungry aggression against it’s own people is terrible. We see the same with the Chinese in Tibet and Uighur AP, and in the US pursuit of manifest destiny Westwards, resulting in the genocide of native Americans. Religious and secular holy books have always been invoked to justify the rights of one people over those of another. So long as we seek solutions through state formations, the cycle of violence and recrimination will continue. Which suggests instead that civil action motivated by the interests of common humanity offer a more durable–and less adversarial–basis for working things out. The Jewish people have a right to be at home wherever they are domicile, as do other peoples. The question is, is the answer two states, one state , or none?
Unlike your own dearly-held views, of course.
This is a complete distortion of events:
The three key clauses for Israel, outlined by the Arab League in the 2002 Saudi Initiative adopted at the Beirut summit were
I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return, Arab leaders guaranteed a cessation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel and to fully normalize relations with the Jewish state.
On March 24, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon landed in Israel and was met by Israeli Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz. Ban and Peretz discussed a range of political and security matters. Ban met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday, March 25.
As a member of the international Quartet Commission (United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia), Ban said on March 24 in Cairo, “We [U.N.] expect that the national unity government [Palestinian Authority] will meet the expectations of the international community for peace and security in the region.”
The Quartet requires that the PA government fully recognize the State of Israel, comply with former peace agreements and renounce terror.
However, the Hamas-led PA unity government, comprised of Fatah, Hamas and independent technocrats, refused to accept all three of the Quartet’s conditions.
Consequently, the 2002 Arab League Initiative was run-into-the-sand by the intransigent position of the PA – and in particular Hamas’ course of violent jihad and its policy of the elimination of the state of Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s repeated denial of the Holocaust, his sponsorship of anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers, his clear statements regarding the elimination of the State of Israel are without doubt and are clearly evidenced.
The state of Israel has not “all but wiped out” the Palestinian people. Millions of them continue to live inside and outside the ‘67 borders of Israel – as you know perfectly well. This is simply childish hyperbole on your part.
As it did not actually happen, it was neither a matter of policy or accident. What is careless is your inability to take care examining the conditions and facts of the region.
The continued breach of truces by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, together with other “intransigent” Palestinian groups. The continued smuggling of weapons into Gaza. The failure of the Hamas dictatorship in Gaza to address the needs of the people of that area, instead using them as the world’s biggest human-shield. The refusal of the Hamas fascists to allow the up-coming elections for the PA in Gaza (in the full knowledge that they are going to lose). The imposition of a vile, Islamist state of terror and intolerance in Gaza… shall we continue to trade evils? Or shall we acknowledge that your “freedom fighters” are self-interested bigots who are increasingly rejected by the Palestinian people themselves?
Disingenuous balderdash. You are aware that the (unwritten) British Constitution makes a special place for the Church of England? At the other extreme, your darling Ahmedinejad’s country’s constitution makes a special place for Shi’a Islam. Take your pick.
I don’t know – as this is not what actually happened.
“And by the way…”?!?!?!?!
That just about sums your line up… oh – and by the way the genocide of two million plus Sudanese by their own government is a bad thing too.
Save us, please, from your grave concerns for these “other” people, who you so easily consign to the sidelines of current affairs.