FOX/WERRITTY: LABOUR’S ‘SECURITY RISK’ HYPOCRISY REVEALED

Labour Fox-hunter Kevan Jones….bit of a slimeball?

How Labour’s MoD Israel stance when in power was just as fishy

Fox-hunters misrepresented Atlantic Bridge, tried to frame it as extremist

Why is the mainstream press tippy-toeing round the forces behind this manufactured scandal?

Yesterday, I finally posted something on the Fox/Werrity thing. I said that MoD jealousy of personal advisors was not uncommon, and the liberal press are out to get Fox, he being a fully paid-up Thatcherite an’ all. I still think both are true. But the Sting in all this goes well beyond ‘the liberal press’.

It almost certainly derives partly from disaffected MoD briefings. And has been enthusiastically inflated by the harder Left tendency in and around the Labour Party. But it may also extend to a level beyond that.

First off, we need to get a more realistic grip on these ‘shady influences’ behind Adam Werritty. In fact, his consultancy Atlantic Bridge – a charity-cum-think tank started by Liam Fox while in Opposition – is a straightforward Anglo-American pressure group that supports Israel. The Herzliya Conference referred to by sites like Left-winger Craig Murray – attended by Fox and Werritty – is an annual event in which Jewish scholars like Danny Rothschild and Tommy Steiner give their views on what was this year called ‘Shifting Sands in the Middle East’. If you read the Herzliya Assessment, you will read nothing more ominous than views expressing what a majority of mainstream voters in the UK think about the dangers of Middle Eastern instability. (It’s freely available at  http://www.herzliyaconference.org/eng/?CategoryID=464&ArticleID=2252&dbsAuthToken=.)

What the traditionally anti-Israel Left don’t like about either Herzliya or Atlantic Bridge is its accurate empirical assessment of the growing threat to Western interests in the Middle East. I recognise that a section of The Slog’s readership are fully paid-up members of this ancien Moscow tendency, so they might as well stop reading now. Suffice to say that there is nothing in the Herzliya Assessment with which I would disagree.

Further, as Liam Fox has never made any secret of his robust right-wing views in this regard, the attempt by the Guardian et al to depict Werritty’s machinations as somehow treasonous is unmitigated bollocks. Mr Fox is the Government’s Defence Minister, and he is entitled to his views – which, as I say, are shared by a majority of reasonable opinion in the UK….as well as William Hague.

Second, let’s try and get into the provenance of the Fox/Werritty ‘scandal’ story. John Mann, the hard-working Labour MP for Bassetlaw, asked a Parliamentary Question on 1st question Sept 11th: ‘To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times he has met Adam Werritty (a) in total and (b) in his Department’s main building since May 2010.’

I still can’t get a steer on why Mann asked the question, and he didn’t return my calls yesterday. The Leeds MP has no Foreign Office or Defence brief under Ed Miliband, and far from being pro-Hamas is a renowned fighter against anti-Semitism, on the record as declaring that, “Antisemitism on the left isn’t a new problem but it has re-emerged.” During his career, John Mann has persuaded parliamentarians from every continent to come here for the London Conference to Combat anti-Semitism.

A staunch Blairite, Mr Mann voted strongly in favour of the Iraq War, and was the first to call upon Gordon Brown to step down as leader. So: who briefed Mann to ask the question, and why?

The first mainstream press appearance of the Fox-Werritty link appeared on 4th October in the Guardian. The source for this was Labour MP Kevan Jones – and I’m reliably informed that Jones (a man who retains powerful contacts via the Defence Select Committee) was fed the tidbit from ‘concerned’ quarters in the MoD anxious about ‘security threats’. This is the standard  tantrum thrown by those in British foreign relations circles when Ministers don’t hang on their every word.

Remember the oft-reported anti-Jewish sentiment in both the MoD and the FCO. Remember also The Slog being led up the garden path by these spineless reptiles during the Chilcot Enquiry: promising again and again to shop Blair, but lacking the balls to actually deliver. Remember also the astonishment of George Osborne when he discovered that the MoD’s Sir Humphreys seemed unable to grasp that Defence cuts included, um….them.

Not a nice bunch of folks on the whole. Kevan Jones in particular you may remember as the shit who tried to smear Sir Richard Dannatt,  stonewalled against UK atomic-damage veterans, and then tried to keep the Gurkha veterans out of Britain….only to find Joanna Lumley on the other side of the debate. On his website, Jones described Joanna Lumley’s behaviour following her fight for Gurkha rights as follows:  ‘Irritating…Mr Jones said that, having raised the issue and forced the change, Miss Lumley had a responsibility to help explain the new rules to the Gurkhas. She had not done so, he said. Ms Lumley refused to comment.’

This is a lie: the Absolutely Fabulous and New Avengers star hit back immediately, saying Mr Jones’ comments were part of “a Whitehall smear campaign.” But Jones has never corrected this on his website. The MP held a junior defence/veterans portfolio under Gordon Brown: but the men around him calling for there to be no cover-up now were themselves frequent users of fob-offs to parliamentary questions about defence. On 18th January 2010, the then Shadow Minister Liam Fox asked a question about materials supply incompetence…always a major problem for the knuckle-draggers in the MoD. This is how the exchange went:

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) requirement, (b) actual number available and (c) percentage shortfall is of each type of armoured vehicle used for pre-deployment training in the latest period for which figures are available. [309235]

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am withholding the information requested to avoid deductions being made about current and future operational capability. Its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability effectiveness or security of the armed forces.’

Bollocks. Mr Davies, by the way, was the minister who claimed more than £10,000 from the taxpayer to repair window frames at the 18th-century mansion he designated as his second home….and insured every antique in the place on expenses. Still, Labour rewarded him well for his work: in the spirit of a reformed House of Lords, he is today Baron Davies of Stamford.

Anyway, nice body-swerve there Quenters. But here comes the bombshell:

During the same debate, Junior Minister Bill Rammell is asked a question on the subject of Israeli army contacts with the MoD. This is his revealing answer (my italics):

Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions Israel Defence Forces personnel have been invited to the UK for discussions with (a) Ministers or officials of his Department and (b) members of the armed forces since 2005; and what topics were discussed; [311032] (2) what areas of expertise of the Israel Defence Forces that have been shared with (a) his Department and (b) members of the armed forces. [311033]

Bill Rammell: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Israel is an important strategic partner of the UK and, as part of that relationship, the MOD has an ongoing and wide ranging dialogue with the Israeli Defence Force and Israeli Ministry of Defence.

Two things here. First, Rammell avoids the question using the standard ‘disporportionate cost’ bollocks. After ‘for reasons of national security’, it is by far the most common cover-up.

Second, this official Labour view on sharing information with the Israelis is in stark contrast to the screams of ‘security risk’ being thrown at Adam Werritty today. Craig Murray’s widely disseminated blog on the subject yesterday labours this point to the nth degree:

‘Werritty is paid by representatives of far right US and Israeli sources to influence the British defence secretary (no evidence provided)..It has been discussed within the MOD whether Werritty is being – knowingly or otherwise – run as an agent of influence by the CIA or Mossad. That is why the chiefs of the armed forces are so concerned….That the British Defence Minister holds frequent unrecorded meetings in the Ministry and abroad with somebody promoting the interests of foreign powers is much, much worse than a little cash-grubbing. That the person representing the foreign powers is actually present, apparently to all as a ministerial adviser, at meetings of Fox with important representatives of foreign nations is simply appalling‘.

Let’s deconstruct this. I have checked with a good defence source on the idea of Werritty being CIA or Mossad; the charge was dismissed as “beyond childish” and “amateur-night conspiracy stuff”.

As for frequent unrecorded meetings with somebody (eg, the Israeli Armed Forces), that seems to have been happening under Labour too…otherwise why not just answer the PQ? (Because Labour’s Left would’ve had a hissy-fit about it).

But the damning phrase in there is this one: ‘Israel is an important strategic partner of the UK and, as part of that relationship, the MOD has an ongoing and wide ranging dialogue with the Israeli Defence Force and Israeli Ministry of Defence.’

Sooooo….what have Liam and Adam changed in, um, that policy then?

At this level, the Fox-Hunt is pure political hypocrisy, simple as that. Look down all the liberal press references to Werritty’s risk to security, and they all use the same basis of complaint:

‘was funded by a corporate intelligence company and the chairman of an Israeli company’, ‘Werritty sat in on a meeting between Dr Fox and the Israeli ambassador’, ‘Fox’s relationship with Werritty may have risked national security by allowiing him into a meeting with a future British ambassador to Israel…’.

This tells us not only the agenda here – position Israel as an enemy, a view diametrically opposite to Labour’s stated view when in power – but also builds on the myth that Adam Werritty is just some sex-mate of Fox’s along for the ride. When in fact – this being part of the impression Left-wingers are keen to give – it’s obvious that Werritty is the long-standing Chairman of a consultancy formed by Tories in Opposition to stop….um, biased and naive Lefties propagating bollocks about Israel within the Defence and Foreign ministries.  Sorry Craig old top, but you’re hoist by your own petard. Or facade, maybe.

In short, simple Dirty Tricks. And a sound wheeze, too: win-win for the British Left. Either we get Fox out, or we don’t….and make Cameron look weak and in fear of his Right Wing.

Except that I suspect the former objective is by far the more important objective for those behind this scheme. There remains, both here and overseas, a powerful Arab Radical/Euro-Left movement to render Israel an isolated pariah in the world. Labour did always stress that they would stand as a mediator – Israeli/Palestinian neutrality was a central tent of Blairism – in the Middle East. But Fox and Werritty do not represent that view. They are far more of a threat to the aims of pro-Islamist radicals.

Fox represents a view at complete odds with hare-brained speeches by Cameron (when in Ankara) on the subject of “the concentration camp” in Palestine. And so now, a pretty serious tug-of-war has started within the Tory ranks. A lot of games are being played here on a lot of levels. But there remains much of which I, for one, am ignorant.

Who, for instance, was Craig Murray’s source for yesterday’s blog at his site? Referred to merely as ‘a source with direct access to the Cabinet Office investigation into Fox’s relationship with Werritty’, why would an unbiased senior civil servant or political adviser to a Right-wing Government leak to a known Leftist campaigner like Craig?

Why did Kevan Jones latch onto John Mann’s question, and hijack it for his own highly political purposes? Did somebody plant the idea for the question in his head? Does Mr Mann, a fine MP, know something we don’t about Adam Werritty? And who is now – in the last 48 hours – working overtime to present Adam Werritty as a harmless twerp-cum-Walter-Mitty-on-the-make figure?

But above all, why are the national media have to be so prissy-tippy-toes about what might or might not be going on here? Most of the public are both confused and uninterested: why is there so much obfuscation to this saga?

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

59 thoughts on “FOX/WERRITTY: LABOUR’S ‘SECURITY RISK’ HYPOCRISY REVEALED

  1. …fully paid-up members of this ancien Moscow tendency
    As I think I was the first to link to Craig Murray this week in the comments here I hope this is not aimed at me.

    They are far more of a threat to the aims of pro-Islamist radicals.
    There are a core of rabid pro Palestinians that comment on the Craig Murray blog. They are far more extreme than the host.

    I don’t for one moment see that the current debate excludes the fact that lobbying is intense towards all politicians. The issue can be seen as a question regarding the health or otherwise of a system that is not honest and open about influence, funding and the potential for corruption in all parties.

    Do you look accross the pond and see nothing wrong with the corporate lobbying that goes on there, much of it influencing foreign and military policy as well as domestic issues? From what I have read it seems that Atlantic Bridge was all for this methodology of corporatism heavily influencing government with the import of the American Way of doing things. I am in the muddled and confused when it comes to the middle east but the Israeli angle via Atlantic Bridge here is probably an adjunct to America’s policy position as much as a funding issue.

    position Israel as an enemy,
    Not me, but also not an ally.

    • With respect, I doubt that the comment was aimed at anyone personally, but generally at those who do not agree with the Slogs take on Israel and in any event not meant with hostility (probably pity-rather more insulting I suppose if one is the sort to take offence!).

      My own view is similar to yours-Israel is neither ally nor enemy (it can be either depending on its own self-interest-in other words it is a normal state-what else would anyone expect?).
      With regard to Fox/Werrity, along with the majority of the populace, I wish our rulers would get on with looking after the shop rather than squabbling about this minor and unimportant distraction (obviously if Werrity is trying to influence policy or taking my money it should be stopped-but its what we’ve come to expect unfortunately).
      It seems to have escaped our rulers notice that the economy is on its a*se and getting worse.

      • Mick
        Hear bloody hear….the noise all being made, of course, by those who helped cause the mess. (Which, as you’ll have spotted with every day that passes, was nothing to do with them).

    • Kit
      That was neither suggested nor intended….and I know Craig’s work well enough to see him as entirely different to the nutters…..scroll down to my early comment thread, and you’ll see I applaud his journalism in the piece.
      Don’t read stuff INTO the piece, Kit – just read it. I am making two points: 1. Massive Labour hypocrisy. I loathe the whole kow-tow to the US thing, but New Label were as bad as the Tories in this respect: I see no difference between Blair and Hague, both of whom inserted themselves into the (highly paid) US Establishment’s grubby bottom with all speed.
      2. Misrepresentation by the Guardianistas (yet again) and a rather murky background behind the UK politics being played here….we’re talking security again.
      There’s more to come on this, but I can’t stand it up yet.
      The problem in the end with The Slog is that there are expectations about what I’m likely to think about something. What I’m thinking rarely changes, viz: the rule of law and equality before it come first, and I couldn’t care less who gets hurt if they’re guilty.
      Best
      JW

  2. Oh, looking forward to reading the comments on this one. Did you know we in NZ had a row with the israelis back in 2005. Nasty mossad agents running about the place using NZ passports. THey figured out that the NZ passport is the most border friendly in the world and started making up fake Kiwi ID’s to get one. I reckon as a result of this our passport was reduced from 10 year lifespan to 5, which is a pain in the bum!. It was the biggest diplomatic incident since 1985 when the only terrorist act on NZ soil was committed…..by the French Government. They sent secret agents to blow up greenpeace. Then obfuscated the investigation, tried to hijack the convoy to prison of the guilty, made us put them on a French holiday Island rather than rot in a Kiwi prsion, Then took them home and gave them medals. But back to the Israelis. I just dont get how all the furious Israel haters can be so blinded by rubbish. Yes they treat the Palestinians badly. That needs addressing but its tough when you are surrounded on all sides by those bent on your Destruction because you have a different interpretation of their imaginary friend story. Clearly a life in the sifting sands of the middle east makes your brain go silly.

  3. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye? Maybe some uncomfortable truths that neither side want aired in public? I am ambivalent on the Israeli issue as a whole but, they have been known to hunt with the hounds whilst running with the hare, haven’t they?

  4. I think that you are probably right on this but I am quite amazed at how easy it seemingly would be to get close to the government.

    Don’t they do security checks anymore?

  5. The Herzliya Conference is a NATO conference with a Keynote Addresses by:
    1. H.E. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO.
    2. Gen. (ret.) James L. Jones,
    Fmr. US National Security Advisor;
    Fmr. Commander, US European Command
    and Supreme Allied Commander Europe
    3. Hon. Prof. Lawrence Summers,
    Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University;
    Fmr. Assistant to the US President for Economic Policy
    and Director of the National Economic Council;
    Fmr. US Secretary of the Treasury;
    Fmr. President of Harvard University

    • Rubbish.
      It is NOT a NATO conference: the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) runs it. Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet founded the IPS in 1963. As soon as IPS opened its doors, it was in the vanguard of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
      In 1964, several leading African-American activists joined the staff and turned IPS into a base of support for the civil rights movement in the nation’s capital.
      Richard Barnet’s 1974 examination of the power of multinational corporations, Global Reach was one of the seminal books on the subject.
      In 1976, the Institute’s destiny became irrevocably linked with the international human rights movement when agents of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet murdered two IPS colleagues on Washington’s Embassy Row.
      Since 1994, IPS has also published an annual report on the disparity between CEO and worker pay that has garnered widespread coverage in the mainstream media and helped put the issue of economic inequality at the center of the political debate.
      Most Americans see it as well to the left of Centre.
      Give me the truth, please, not Agitprop misrepresentation.

    • Certainly hope so. I have disliked him since the time he ran for the leadership. He is so blatantly shallow and willing to parrot the views of US interests and is seemingly oblivious as to whether blind obeisance to them is in our national interest. Another bloody Quisling, even though he’s not alone!

  6. Can someone who has some knowledge answer this

    “In the 21st century, is it common practice that senior ministers take personal friends, who hold no official position, who’ve not undergone any scrutiny by the security services, and who don’t draw any salary from the crown, along to meetings, at home and abroad, where matters of state are considered?”

    If it is normal practice, then the question is, should it be; and if not perhaps there’s a bug in the system – a’la the expenses fiasco – that needs to be fixed.

    However if it is not normal practice, then Mr Mann’s question and others would appear to be legitimate and need straight answers – an increasingly scarce commodity.

    I just don’t understand why Fox didn’t give Werritty a job as an adviser when he took up his Ministry. The fact that he didn’t makes me ask why?

    Has anyone considered drafting Hintze as PM, he’s worked for a living, been a soldier, and it seems he’s got something other than a slogans between his ears. I don’t much care what his politics are, I’d just like to see a competent operator in the job.

    • “I just don’t understand why Fox didn’t give Werritty a job as an adviser when he took up his Ministry. The fact that he didn’t makes me ask why?”

      Probably because he would have to be accountable then and people would look at his lack of any qualifications or defence knowledge for such a position.
      It’s a scary thought that someone off the street gets told all of the transport arrangements of our Defence Minister. When he will be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Dubai etc with no background checks being required as he isn’t an employee. All very queer. And dangerous.

      • Since when have qualifications or knowledge had anything to do with who gets Ministerial positions? George Osborne is a prime example.

      • Surely every adviser need not have expertise in the specific subject area, would have thought the department officials do most of that anyway.

        I thought ministers had a coterie of advisers, that they took from one job (eg Defense) to the next (eg Parks & Gardens), Werritty would qualify as a political adviser given he’d been running that lobbying/charity outfit – that’d be OK – wouldn’t it. I dunno I’m just an old engineer.

        Bit unfair to imply that Werritty was picked up off the street, he’s known Fox for ages, he’s known to most of the senior cabinet members – Vague, deCameron, Ozzybonds etc.

      • Foxtrot Oscar
        Spot on.
        The job should go to Major Bob. I mean the Defence Job, not Werritty’s role: Bob is 10x the thinker and human being Liar Fox will ever be.

    • Right Paddy
      I quite agree…and on this basis, Liam Fox (a pillock at the best of times) should be fired.
      But there’s no point in firing him if this kind of behaviour is standard: hence my attack on Labour hypocrisy.

  7. With your dismissive comments about Craig Murray’s left wing blog, why did you take the trouble to post there? As follows:
    “Nice one, Craig. I’ve been posting for days saying this is hot air and bollocks, but maybe it isn’t…very happy to be proved wrong.
    What we see again here is just how badly the West needs a credible, joint effort online from a collection of folks who (while they may have widely varying politics) believe in, and agree about, some key things:
    1. The rule of law and equality before the law is sacrosanct
    2. Media ownership rules need to be radically reformed
    3. Liberty-bending must be sought out and shown up
    Jack P resigned, rebuilt his life based on social service, and was probably guilty of nothing more than shagging a very pretty girl. But he lied to the Commons, and paid the price. Rather than accepting changed standards, we should reinstate the original ones.
    Keep it up
    Slog”
    Is this just trying to increase your audience by trying to keep everyone happy-ish?

    • Were the comments dismissive? I thought they were raising the question as to whether whoever leaked to Craig had an agenda-always a problem with “leaked” information presumably no matter who the “conduit” is.
      Saying the Craig Murray site is Leftish is hardly being dismissive either.

      Anyway, I certainly read Craig’s stuff, and like everything else I read make up my own mind.

    • Erika
      My suspicion is that I could try to explain to you why I applauded Craig’s journalism (regardless of his politics) until pigs can sing, but it would be pointless.
      The thread speaks for itself.
      There are, truly, times when I wonder what percentage of those reading The Slog really understand the principle behind it.
      PS Had you kept going, you’d have seen my second thread, too….

      • JW
        “There are, truly, times when I wonder what percentage of those reading The Slog really understand the principle behind it.”

        Isn’t that the nature of the beast?

  8. Sir Richard Dannatt and his obsession with FRES was in many ways responsible for inadequate and inappropriate vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan and for the MoD financial crisis. He, the top MoD civil servants were (and still are) not fit for purpose – Ursula Brennan being a prime (and current) example.
    .

      • AJC and Mick C
        Thanks for those. See my Erika response. You just restored my faith in Sloggers.
        Independence of thought has never been valued on the Left; and even-handedness is always undermined by callous cynicism. The Right is almost as bad, but not quite.

  9. I noticed the briefest of mentions in JW’s replies about Major Bob. Behind all this bullshit, bollocks and shady dealings there is a fellow in Westmonster who would be an Ideal Defence Secretary. He has met soldiers, enemy ones with weapons that is. He is honest, decent, straight talking, passionate, well educated, experienced and a powerful speaker and presence. His name is Colonel Bob Stewart DSO and he is on the defence select committee. I suggest a little lobby should be started to get people to realise that the Colonel Bob bloke they saw talking sense on the tv news for years about all the conflicts we have been in recently is actually an MP now and is in the Palace of Westminster and Liam Fox is not fit to tie his shoelaces. Bob for Defence Secrertary, lets get a campaign going!

    • In the US forces it used to be that a junior officer who vaulted more senior officers (on merit over deadwood) effectively forced their retirement.

      We have, and appear to stick pretty strictly to, buggins’s turn. Perhaps Major Bob could vault the lot and start to clear out the deadwood. More Admirals than ships in the fleet!

      While we are at it some of the “Colonel Blimps” now ensconced in the House of Lords and frequently dashing off letters to the press (on cuts and cpability) should be held to account for their roles in the MoD financing debacle (along with previous Permanent Secretaries of the MoD and Ministers of Defence).

    • It is a shame, as he is the man for the job but would recoil at the requirement to sell out his soldiers to the politicians and work to a budget and political agenda rather than the nations actual defence interests.

      • And therein is the nub of the problem, to be a politician you have to be prepared to not only, sell your mother, but your children too. Anybody wanting to be a politician should, never be allowed to become one!

  10. Liam Fox has to go now. David Cameron is looking more and more indecisive. If the axe doesn’t fall soon over this seedy business, the goivernment will fall and we’ll have a Labour Government in the New Year.

  11. JW
    i read your blog to get a different angle on things and fully appreciate what you try and do and you mostly achieve your aims. in this instance i feel you’ve used Craig Murray’s hugely influential and widely read scoop on the Foxitty affair as a springboard for post-rationalising your own previous lack of interest.

    no-one has suggested that Werritty was MOSSAD-influenced or funded or anything. there had been discussion about the possibility of such a connection that could not be dismissed because of the nature of his unofficial appointment. that’s how i read it anyhow.

    keep up the good work otherwise.

  12. I have just had a look at Guido’s place. It is extraordinary rubbish isnt it. Comment threads almost impossible to read and populated by quite ghastly creatures indeed. Bloody awful. Fox resignation live on Sky news now. BBC behind as usual. Cheerio Liam.

    • Don’t read the comments (full of juvenile use of rude words) stick to tracking the blog items – Guido is very very rarely wrong.

      • Oh dont let the slogger see you say that. He will have a fit of the vapors. Anyway, no time to discover the wisdom of gunpowder bloke, I am busy trawling rugby sites for reassurance we can stuff the Aussies on Sunday. Oh and Colonel Bob for Defence Secretary!

    • Isn’t it ironic that MPs kicked up a fuss over the search of Damien Green’s office sans warrant on the grounds that confidential papers relating to constituents’ private matters might be exposed.

      All you have to do is follow Oliver Letwin around the park. What a pratt.

    • I’m sure our socialist media will satisfy your lust for coalition blood, whilst rarely blinking an eyelid at the endless corruption, incompetence and malfeasance under 13 years of New Labour.

    • If the Fins think they have any hope of getting Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal they are more deluded than Hattie Harman, nuclear free middle east? what is it with these idiots?

    • Well Israel is never going to give up its nuclear weapons-everyone knows that, so presumably this is an attempt to get support for pressure on Iran not to develop them (which it isn’t going to do anyway).
      All just PR and waffle on the part of the relevant parties.
      Also I don’t think the figures you give are correct, because they assume that all the Muslims are going to be united-ain’t never gonna happen.

  13. Hello John,
    just a few points for clarification/edification/elaboration from your article above.

    <<>>

    Sorry to have to be the one to say this, John, but blind support for Israel by the West is the basis of and reason for any growing threat to Western interests.

    <<>>

    I know these aren’t YOUR words, John, but exactly HOW is Israel an “important strategic partner”?

    <<>>

    So….a plausible denial, then???

    <<>>

    Are you talking about the Labour GOVERNMENT (not the party in general)? If so, when was Labour EVER neutral? I seem to remember a front page (Independent) during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (the 2006 invasion, that is). The front page was a sketch showing all except TWO countries calling for a UN ceasefire. The two? Not hard to guess. Britain and the USA. Tony Blair’s first action as a new MP was to join the Labour Friends of Israel organisation.

    <<>>

    You may want to ask why “concentration camp speech” Cameron was patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), up to May of this year. Just as a “by-the-way”, his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure as PMs.

    Kennyboy

  14. My apologies….those brackets << I put around the quotes actually deleted same quotes. Here's a re-issue which should make it easier to follow:-
    Hello John,
    just a few points for clarification/edification/elaboration from your article above.

    What the traditionally anti-Israel Left don’t like about either Herzliya or Atlantic Bridge is its accurate empirical assessment of the growing threat to Western interests in the Middle East.

    Sorry to have to be the one to say this, John, but blind support for Israel by the West is the basis of and reason for any growing threat to Western interests.

    ============================================================================

    Bill Rammell: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Israel is an important strategic partner of the UK and, as part of that relationship, the MOD has an ongoing and wide ranging dialogue with the Israeli Defence Force and Israeli Ministry of Defence.

    I know these aren't YOUR words, John, but exactly HOW is Israel an "important strategic partner"?

    ============================================================================

    Let’s deconstruct this. I have checked with a good defence source on the idea of Werritty being CIA or Mossad; the charge was dismissed as “beyond childish” and “amateur-night conspiracy stuff”

    So….a plausible denial, then???

    ===========================================================================

    Labour did always stress that they would stand as a mediator – Israeli/Palestinian neutrality was a central tent of Blairism – in the Middle East.

    Are you talking about the Labour GOVERNMENT (not the party in general)? If so, when was Labour EVER neutral? I seem to remember a front page (Independent) during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (the 2006 invasion, that is). The front page was a sketch showing all except TWO countries calling for a UN ceasefire. The two? Not hard to guess. Britain and the USA. Tony Blair's first action as a new MP was to join the Labour Friends of Israel organisation.

    ============================================================================

    Fox represents a view at complete odds with hare-brained speeches by Cameron (when in Ankara) on the subject of “the concentration camp” in Palestine.

    You may want to ask why "concentration camp speech" Cameron was patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), up to May of this year. Just as a "by-the-way", his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure as PMs.

    Kennyboy

  15. Pingback: FOX-WERRITTY, PHILIP HAMMOND, DAVID CAMERON, Sir HUMPHREY & THE LEFT: | The Slog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s