Leaked emails expose top Tories’ historic relationship with Israel

Martin Williams and JOHN McEVOY | Declassified UK

The historic relationship between top Tories and the Israeli government has been laid bare in a remarkable cache of leaked emails seen by Declassified.

Over several years, senior figures within the party exchanged strikingly friendly correspondence in private with Ron Prosor, the former Israeli ambassador to the UK.

In one email, a Conservative lord wrote simply: “If you don’t call me while you are here, I will cry.”

Another Tory grandee told Prosor: “You still have friends close to number ten!!!”

The correspondence was discovered by Declassified after thousands of Prosor’s private emails were published by the file sharing website Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS).

In one case, in 2016, the director of a right-wing British think-tank boasted to Prosor about playing a “key role” in orchestrating critical news coverage about then Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Tory Lord Dean Godson, director of Policy Exchange, said: “We played the key role in organising and placing this excellent double page spread in the Daily Mail, and the quotes inside from some dear comrades.”

The article’s headline accused Corbyn of backing “terrorists who bomb Israel”, and included quotes from the likes of Dave Rich from the Community Security Trust, Labour MP John Mann, and journalist Tom Gross.

Godson attached the article, saying he was “delighted” with it. Prosor responded with a “big hug”, adding: “Phone me today”.

Read more

Extinction Rebellion: the new millenarian cult

Austin Williams
spiked.com

Over the past week, large groups of protesters have brought traffic to a standstill in central London. They have glued themselves to bus stops, pavements and Jeremy Corbyn’s fence. They have stood on top of trains, barricaded bridges, painted slogans on corporate headquarters and planted trees in the streets. Meanwhile, politicians have remained on holiday or cowered in Westminster. The police appear to have no idea what to do when confronted by a mass of people who don’t care if they are arrested. This is Extinction Rebellion (XR) – a new environmental protest movement that is spreading across the country.

I’d argue that three things have influenced the rise of this movement. The first is Brexit. Indeed, the politics of anger, disillusion and frustration unleashed by Brexit are possibly the most significant. There are no statistics on the Leave / Remain make-up of the environmental protesters, but one suspects Remain is overrepresented. That said, to her credit, Dr Gail Bradbrook, self-styled co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, told the Today programme that similar disruptive tactics would be ‘perfectly reasonable’ from Brexiteers ‘if democracy is not being honoured’.

The XR protesters – as Jon Snow might say – are mostly white, middle-class and often elderly. They are demonstrating their frustration that environmentalism isn’t getting enough coverage in the press and that, as XR puts it, ‘conventional approaches of voting, lobbying, petitions and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change’. The first claim might seem to fly in the face of reality for the rest of us, who see climate campaigns, global-warming paranoia and environmental journalism at every turn. But the second point is the most contentious.

The conclusion drawn by XR activists is that democratic change is impossible and disruption is the only way to force change. Rather than pledging to improve the democratic process, to hold people more firmly to account, they are campaigning to work around it. It is the democratic process that they seek to overturn, not capitalism. Forget the old-fashioned arrogance of the Occupy movement’s slogan, ‘We are the 99 per cent’. Forget the stubborn Remainers’ assertion that 48 per cent takes precedence over the 52 per cent. XR types say that they only need ‘the involvement of 3.5 per cent of the population to succeed’.

 Read more

Israel, UK and Brexit

Gilad Atzmon 

Introduction by GA: The following is a translation of the last segment of an article in Ynet  yesterday on Brexit. The article explains that: the Jewish State has located itself as post Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.” And that: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”

A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli ‘plan for the Middle East.’ The following Ynet’s segment provides us with a glimpse into the current ‘Israel’s plan for Britain.’

If you have been puzzled by the insane institutional campaign against Corbyn  (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘antisemitism.’ It is more likely about shekles: Corbyn in Number Ten could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain.’ The Ynet article may also help Brits to understand the bipartisan forces that operate intensively to push Britain to break away from the EU. For some reason some of the staunch Israel supporters within the Government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself, do they do it for Britain, Brits and British national interests or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state.   

The Brexit Hurricane

 https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5456081,00.html

 “…It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When it decided to withdraw from the European Union, Britain was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Brits saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain's steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that "Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well." Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.
Read more

F**k you Sunday Times, but the truth is winning

Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin Johnstone.com

For months leftist analysts have been warning that the increasingly hysterical anti-Russia narratives being aggressively promoted by the western media would eventually be used to target the political left. Those warnings went largely unheeded in the United States where the Russiagate narrative was being ostensibly used to undermine the Trump administration, and the McCarthyite feeding frenzies which have become normalized for American audiences have now metastasized across the pond to the UK.

As a result, the Poms have now quickly found themselves in a political environment where anyone who remembers the Blair government's lies about Iraq is smeared as a "useful idiot", a private British citizen can be falsely labeled a Kremlin bot by a mainstream publication without retraction or apology, and a BBC reporter can admonish a veteran military analyst for giving a truthful analysis about the alleged Douma chemical attacks on the grounds that it could hurt the "information war" against Russia.
And now, in what is undeniably a whole new level of Russophobic shrillness, Russia is being blamed for the gains made last year by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

Read more

Making sense of the 'anti-semitism' hysteria surrounding Jeremy Corbyn

Jonathan Ofir
Mondoweiss

Once again, a wave of hysteria concerning the British Labour's alleged 'anti-Semitic problem' is at a high. The target has always been leader Jeremy Corbyn and his fierce critique of Israel, considered dangerous by the more conservative Blairites and those further right in the political spectrum. Labour has been fighting for its soul, with activists trying to defend their right to oppose Israeli policy, or even Zionism, without it necessarily meaning that they are anti-Semites.

But it is of course the anti-Semitism accusation that is the most effective, and the conservative Jews are eager to make it stick. And now, international mainstream media is shamefully assisting - not only BBC and Washington Post, but also the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz.

Amanda Erickson's article in Washington Post Sunday is titled: "In a brutal open letter, Jewish leaders in Britain accuse Jeremy Corbyn of anti-Semitism". She takes the word of "Jewish leaders" for her opening sentence:

"The Labour Party has a long history of troubling behavior, according to Jewish leaders in Britain."

She continues with an example:

"In 2016, former London mayor Ken Livingstone was suspended from the party after he said Adolf Hitler had been a supporter of Zionism in the 1930s."

But what if that was largely accurate? Livingstone had said that Hitler was "supporting Zionism", referring to the Transfer Agreement of 1933-39. But Livingstone's words are being twisted again and again in a desperate attempt to avoid the very issue - that he was actually referring to a factual historical event, with legitimate appraisal of it.

Erickson refers to the current controversy:

"Then, on Friday, Labour lawmaker Luciana Berger, who is Jewish, challenged Corbyn's office to explain something he had posted on Facebook in 2012. In the post, he was responding to Los Angeles-based artist Kalen Ockerman, who had complained that one of her [sic; Ockerman is a man] London street murals was being painted over in response to criticism that it was anti-Semitic."

Read more

Britain has a real choice on June 8 and the Establishment is terrified

Neil Clark
Sputnik

For the first time in a quarter of a century, the British electorate has an opportunity to make a clean break with the banker-friendly neoliberal policies which have dominated politics since the era of Margaret Thatcher and which have led to a major redistribution of wealth away from the majority to the super-rich.

Well, we can't say we haven't got a choice.

Labour's manifesto, while still being nowhere as left-wing as the ones the pipe-puffing Harold Wilson won two elections on in 1974, nevertheless returns the party emphatically to the territory it occupied before the grinning faux-progressive Tony Blair came along in the mid-90s and turned Labour into a more socially liberal version of the Tories. There's pledges to renationalize Britain's railways — easily the most expensive in Europe — set up a publicly owned energy supplier and take water in England back into public ownership.

The rich will pay more tax, zero hours contracts will be outlawed and tuition fees will be scrapped. If it's an exaggeration to call the manifesto socialist, then its certainly social democratic and offers hope of a better future for millions of ordinary Britons who have seen their living standards fall dramatically in recent years. By contrast the Tories have lurched still further to the hard right and their elite-friendly agenda could not be clearer.

[...]

There's money a plenty to bomb Syria-and continue with the neocon policies of endless war — but not enough to provide pensioners with winter fuel payments or all infants with free school lunches. The desire of the elderly to pass on their property to their children will be hit by what has been labeled a new "Dementia Tax" to pay for social care. Pensioners will also be hit by replacing the "triple lock" on their state pensions with only a "double lock." Meanwhile, corporation tax will fall to 17% by 2020 — the lowest rate of any developed economy.  


Read more

Political Timing of Manchester Terror Attack is Suspicious

Joe Quinn
Sott.net

Given that Islamic terrorism has been the most influential political and social meme of the last 17 years, the motive for a 'Muslim terror attack' at a UK concert venue 2 weeks before a UK general election may be more complicated than it at first seems.

Even more suspicious is the fact that there appears to have been a deliberate set up for this event that makes it clear that the goal was to directly attack the reputation of the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Immediately after becoming the Labour party leader in 2015, the British media decided that Corbyn's history of acting as a would-be peace broker in the Northern Ireland conflict between Irish Catholics and the British state made him an easy target. In January this year, British Foreign Sec. Boris Johnson defended talking to Donald Trump by saying it was better than talking to Jeremy Corbyn who "advocated talking to the IRA".

In recent months however with election day looming, media focus on Corbyn's 'support for terrorists' took a back seat to more important domestic policies like the dire state of the UK health care system and the Conservative party plans to make it (and everything else) much worse for the British taxpayer.

Last Friday however, the British Daily Telegraph ran a story reporting that MI5 had 'opened a file' on Corbyn in the early 1990's due to his support for a united Ireland and fears that he was a 'threat to national security'. In that report, the Telegraph reminded readers that when he was interviewed by the BBC in August 2015 during his Labour party leadership campaign, he refused five times to condemn IRA violence, preferring instead to condemn all violence by all parties.

Strangely enough, two days later (last Sunday) in an interview with Sophy Ridge on Sky News, Ridge asked Corbyn five times to condemn IRA violence. In response, Corbyn reiterated what he had told the BBC two years ago, that he condemned all killing, whether by the IRA or the British state or its proxy 'loyalist' forces (an early version of 'ISIS' with a white Western twist), and refused to be coerced into singling out one party or minimizing one set of atrocities to score political points.

While this was a reasonable position to take, in the 48 hours since then, the British media has gone into overdrive to paint him as a terrorist sympathizer, with headlines like "Growing row over Jeremy Corbyn's links to the IRA as he refuses five times to condemn the militant group" and "Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA", (despite the fact that in the Sky News interview he said "I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA").  

Read more 

House of Commons: Jeremy Corbyn response to Chilcot

The Politics Hub

See also: Jeremy Corbyn responds to Chilcot: "The Iraq war was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext"

Coup against Corbyn: Tony Blair's elites try to snatch Labour Party back from the working class

Nafeez Ahmed
The Canary

Steve Topple and Elizabeth Mizon contributed to research for this story.

The latest coup attempt against Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party is being led by an elitist Blairite network who have always seen his sudden rise to leadership as a threat to their waning control of the party.

An investigation by The Canary reveals that the organisers of the campaign are part of a pro-Blair 'old guard.'

In the run-up to the Labour leadership elections in September 2015, they had tried to re-model the party along the lines of a pro-war, pro-corporate vision linked to the US Democrat Party's neoconservative wing. 

But Jeremy Corbyn's victory completely scuppered their plans.

15 shadow secretaries of state and nine shadow ministers who have resigned from Corbyn's opposition cabinet all have affiliations to, or are involved with, the Fabian Society - the London think-tank affiliated with the Labour Party.

The Fabian Society was a major force in establishing the intellectual basis of New Labour under Blair's premiership and has remained closely aligned to Blair's supporters in the party. It was also the main force attempting to re-impose a Blairite vision on the party before Corbyn's surprise leadership victory.  

Read more

Mammonism, Brexit and The Rest of Us

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani 

Alimuddin Usmani: Following the victory speech by Nigel Farage, you wrote on your Facebook wall: “It is easy to grasp why British workers support Farage and not the Labour Party.” 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlN9o3g-yuA

Can you explain this further?

Gilad Atzmon: Farage’s ideas are coherent and consistent. They reflect the feelings of the poor, the oppressed and the working people who have been reduced into a workless class. Whether Farage can help them is an open question but he offers a clear vision of change fuelled by nostalgic glory and a strong sense of belonging.

Corbyn, on the other hand, has little to offer although this is not entirely his fault. The Labour philosophy is full of contradictions and holes. On the one hand, Corbyn and Labour claim to represent the worker and the poor. But Corbyn and his party also subscribe to cultural Marxist and cosmopolitan ideas that advocate immigration, diversity, identitarian politics and various measures of ‘correctness.’  One cannot support the worker while simultaneously advocating immigration that puts local jobs at risk.

In the aftermath of Brexit, Farage talked directly to British workers about a new future and the prospects for renewal of manufacturing and housing. At the same time, Corbyn was holding forth in support of refugees and against racism. Important topics; but not immediately relevant to those out of work.

The next question is why this contradiction is embedded in Labour and Left politics. The Labour Party is:

1. dominated by Jewish cosmopolitan ideology; and

2. funded by Jewish oligarchs.

The Jewish Left is pro immigration, pro identitarian politics, pro LGBT and so on. Jews realize that when things turn sour, it is the working class that turns against the Jews. This causes them to feel threatened by a cohesive working class. They prefer the working class to be broken into an endless number of different sectarian and identity groups. Jews would prefer society to be seen as a manifold of tribes and synagogues. That way the Jews are just one tribe amongst many. It is the Jewish Left that taught us that ‘the personal is political.’ These are the same people that trained us to talk ‘as a’: ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Muslim,’ ‘as a gay, ‘as a Jew’ and so on.   They have succeeded in dividing us.

Farage offered the Brits an opportunity to re-unite and think once again as Brits. At least 52% of the Brits bought into his call. His support included the vast majority of nonurban Brits who were apparently impervious to the Labour party’s contradictory position.

Read more

 

SOTT Exclusive: Brexit's main goals: Oust Jeremy Corbyn and expand predatory capitalism in Europe

Joe Quinn
Sott.net

Everyone seems a bit confused about the recent "Brexit", what the point was, who was behind it, who will benefit, who will suffer, etc., etc.

For a start, the "Brexit" vote will change nothing. The UK will not leave the EU, that was not the point, and not really possible unless we are to assume that the Anglo 'elite' are happy to see the complete dismemberment of the United Kingdom itself. The reality of the situation is that the British politicians and backroom boys who pushed for the referendum cannot simply invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and declare that the UK is leaving. In fact, as has been seen in recent days, they are extremely reluctant to do so. And for good reason.

Before the UK connection to the EU can be severed, the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would all have to agree to such a move. But a majority of the people of both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against the 'Brexit', and the Scottish First Minister has made it clear that she and her leading SNP party will never accept a departure from the EU and will, before that happens, hold another referendum for Scottish independence, which would undoubtedly result in a resounding 'yes' vote (just like last time). The Northern Irish Assembly is also very unlikely to go along with any move to leave the EU due to the issues it would bring up with the Republic of Ireland.

The stage-managed Brexit referendum provided a 'mandate' from the British people to leave the EU. But the 52% that voted to leave did so largely because of the systematic campaign of fearmongering over ISIS and refugees to which they have been subjected over the past 4 years. Both ISIS and the refugees being a direct result of the US and British proxy war in Syria.

So having created the conditions whereby a majority of Brits wanted out of the EU because of refugees, and then allowing them to express that desire publicly, the Anglo elite is now using that manufactured 'mandate' to threaten the EU central powers (Germany and France) with the possible destruction of their EU superstate. Here are some little known facts about the real center of power in the EU. 

Germany controls the policy, the exchange rate, the quantity of issued debt, the interest rates.

The Germans have tailored a monetary policy (low debt, low deficit, strong currency) that perfectly fits their economy (strong and competitive because the US needed supplier countries created it this way, along with Japan).

Meanwhile this pro-German monetary policy strangles other European countries that are unable to be competitive on international markets (the euro being too strong) and unable to improve their economy (no debt, no loan to boost private and public sectors).

The main victim of a European implosion, then, would be Germany. 

Read more

See also:  Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else? 

 "All fundamentals indicate that the global economy is going down regardless of what central banks and international financiers do in the long run. The only question is whether or not they feel it is time to pull the plug on one of the last remaining bubbles (stocks). A successful Brexit could be a perfect scapegoat for the next leg down in the economy, or it could be a perfect placebo to boost markets for a short time if it fails. In either case, I have no doubt that the outcome has already been decided." - Brandon Smith

 

UK elite using Brexit to remove Corbyn from power

Borislav (Translator)
South Front

The political upheavals marked by Brexit, also griped the shadow Labour government. 172 members of the British opposition party voted that their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, be removed from office in an internal vote of no confidence, which was held on June 28. This means that 81% of the MPs from the Labour Party lowered their trust credit for the eccentric of the British political scene, known for his rebellious character and principles.

Although Corbyn was accused by his colleagues for leading a "lackluster" campaign that failed to convince more supporters to vote to remain in the UK in the European Union, the Labour leader has categorically stated that he has no intention to resign. According to the majority of MPs failure of their campaign is due to their traditional voters, giving their votes for the Eurosceptic Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson, as well as nationalists who blindly follow populist Nigel Farage.

Corbyn's reason to lightly overlook the results of the no confidence vote lightly is that because his colleagues choice doesn't have a rational legitimacy. "Ever since I was elected leader of the party 9 months ago, we are having constant victories vs the government's attacks against the standard of living," he said, adding that last month the Labour Party became first political force within local elections.

The dramatic coup attempt was largely known about. The rebellion against Corbyn began on Sunday with a series of resignations that in no time swelled to more than 50. One reason for the looming discontent in the opposition party was the dismissal of Foreign Minister in shadow, Hilary Benn. While considering Corbyn to be a good man, he announced that their leader can not manage the party and bring it to victory in parliamentary elections. For his part, Corbyn suspected that it was Benn who tried to lead an internal rebellion against him.  

Read more

Guardian sinks into gutter on Corbyn – again

Jonathan Cook

This is way beyond a face-palm moment.

Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review into the Labour party’s supposed “anti-semitism crisis” – in fact, a crisis entirely confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much else) are being thrown at Corbyn to discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this campaign and Labour’s reponse here, here and here.

In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of states that are Islamic. He said:

Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.

But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even close.

Read more

‘Tony Blair lied on Iraq and will be exposed by Chilcot report’ – Corbyn

Comment: I'll believe when I see it.

-------------------

RT 

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lies about weapons of mass destruction and his secret war pact with former US President George W Bush will be exposed by the Chilcot Inquiry, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has said.

Sir John Chilcot is due to finally release his long-delayed report on the legality of the 2003 Iraq invasion on July 6, seven years after the inquiry was commissioned.

Corbyn made the remarks on Tuesday in a speech at the London School of Economics to honour the late Ralph Miliband, a Marxist scholar and father of Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband.

While Corbyn supported some of the domestic achievements of Blair’s “New Labour,” he argued it had stuck too closely to its neoliberal, Thatcherite ideological roots.

Addressing Blair’s Iraq legacy, Corbyn warned: “The Chilcot report will come out in a few weeks’ time and tell us what we need to know, what I think we already know: There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no ability to attack within 45 minutes and a deal had been done with Bush in advance.”

Corbyn took a leading role in opposing the 2003 invasion both inside and outside parliament.

Asked if Blair should be tried for war crimes, Corbyn said: “If he’s committed a war crime, yes. Everyone who’s committed a war crime should be.

“I think it was an illegal war, I’m confident about that, indeed [former UN Secretary General] Kofi Annan confirmed it was an illegal war, and therefore [Blair] has to explain to that.”

“Is he going to be tried for it, I don’t know. Could he be tried for it? Possibly,” Corbyn added.

Some MPs are trying to revive a campaign to have Blair prosecuted for his part in the war, either at an international tribunal or by a special parliamentary impeachment process.

Although rare, parliament can impeach a current or former official. It would involve a member of the Commons presenting evidence in the manner of a parliamentary motion, and if carried, it would then move to the House of Lords. If it was also passed by the Lords, the impeachment process would resemble a conventional trial.

The last time parliament attempted to impeach anyone, however, was in 1806, according to the BBC.

Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Alex Salmond said Monday that, rather than parliamentary impeachment, he favored Blair being brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

However, the ICC has said it is not yet able to exercise jurisdiction over international “crimes of aggression” – the offense often connected with Blair’s role in Iraq.

The ICC will rule on whether to extend its powers to try suspects of aggression on January 1, 2017.

UK could apologize for creating Israel: British MP

Comment: Brave woman. Labour Party "group think" in operation. Corbyn is obviously suffering from decades of brain-washing inculcated by the Zionist machinery. Any criticism of Israel is thus deemed "anti-Semitic."  

Indeed, Israel should never have been created at all since it was purely a British and Zionist exercise in geopolitical power. 

-------------------

Press TV

UK Labour politician Rupa Asha Huq has suggested that Britain could apologize for helping to create Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, a new report claims, further fueling an ongoing row over Israel that has seen senior Labour members suspended by the party.

Huq, a member of Parliament (MP) who represents the London borough of Ealing, made the remarks at a meeting with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign last year, the Daily Mail reported Sunday.

In response to a question about whether London should make an apology, Huq said: “1948; that happened under a British government. To my mind, an apology – yes. You could do one. A Labour Government could probably get that through.”

However, she noted that an apology would be subject to criticism similar to those former Prime Minister Tony Blair faced for bringing up long-past historical events, including the Irish potato famine and slavery.

The revelation comes shortly after Huq was attacked for defending fellow Labour MP Naz Shah, who was forced to apologize for backing calls for Israel’s “relocation” to the United States.

The former mayor of London Ken Livingstone (pictured below) became the most prominent Labour figure to face the same fate as Shah after defending her and adding that Adolf Hitler was a Zionist.

Read more