It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lord Levy Arrested But Does He “Corrupt” “Our” Foreign Policy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This Jewish guy has been arrested, (but not yet to be charged) for reasons linked to "the cash for honours scandal".
Source…
news.bbc.co.uk...

My Personal Comments…
So he is one of many wealthy, powerful people who contrive to keep Labour in power; and though I hate the thought of corruption as much as anyone else the thought of someone being “rewarded” for making donations to things like schools and hospitals hardly makes my hair stand on ends.

1. What worries me is the thought that this guy might be linked to our foreign policy…
www.ihrc.org.uk...

Quote…
2.

“He met Tony Blair at an Israeli diplomatic dinner in 1994, the year he became Labour leader.”

Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

3. Linked to an “Organisation” calling itself the “Jewish Leadership Council”?
Quote…

“The Jewish Leadership Council, which late last year announced its first director by appointing Jeremy Newmark former PR for the Chief Rabbi, has elected its first executive. The Jewish Chronicle reports that Board of Deputies president Henry Grunwald is heading it up as chair with six other members: Labour Party stalwart Lord Levy,”
www.somethingjewish.co.uk...

4. His is the president of something called “Jewish Care”
Quote…

“Mr Blair was introduced by Jewish Care’s president, Lord Levy, who said: “Thank you for the whole of our community – from the whole of Anglo-Jewry for the support that you have given to this community over so many years, which I am sure will continue.” He also thanked the Prime Minister for his “solid and committed support of the State of Israel.”

www.jewishcare.org...

From Google Search “Lord Levy Jewish”
Ok that’s enough research for now, but I could easily do some more later.

My Analysis…
The reason why I am suspicious is because I know that through an Organisation called Friends of Israel the Israeli government, and its (obviously) mostly Jewish supporters world wide lobby Western policy. The means are thought to be mostly completely legal e.g. like giving money to American candidates just for their election campaign(s).
So maybe the same “work” is going on in the U.K? my question to the ATS board is “is this just a case of someone being punished for being illegally rewarded for supporting the government?” Or does it go deeper than that “was Lord Levy supporting the government because he (like others) has leverage in our foreign policy; and may therefore influence our military, ethical or political decisions in ways that favour “his precious?” state of Israel.
There are certainly after all a lot of similarities between U.S and American political thinking-problems. But I suppose we can only by the evidence; like the links above I uncovered!!!

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)


[edit on 17-7-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
So, he is Jewish...(and???)
Most Jewish politicans take an interest in Israel and the Middle East. Take the Zionist Foundation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a lot of Conservative MPs and other MPs are members. All three mainstream parties have a "Friends of Israel" section. But, we should remember, that our Zionist lobby has little influence compared to its US counterpart.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
This Jewish guy has been arrested, (but not yet to be charged)


- .....or convicted of anything yet either, right?
Surely it is also worth pointing out that he has publicly insisted he is innocent of any crime.

I don't suppose it will come as a great surprise to anyone to hear that Lord Levy is Jewish?


I hate the thought of corruption as much as anyone else the thought of someone being “rewarded” for making donations to things like schools and hospitals hardly makes my hair stand on ends.


- Bit of an overreaction isn't it?
How come anyway?
Should all efforts to the 'public good' go totally unrewarded?

The 'reward', if any ever appears, is, for most people, usually a gong (MBE. CBE etc) or a title (Sir) and not actually that substantive anyway.

Matters regarding those supposedly 'elevated' to the House of Lords in return for money are under Police investigation and we shall have to await the outcome.


What worries me is the thought that this guy might be linked to our foreign policy…


- Why is that a worry?

Britain has a very long history of links to the world and the ME in particular.
Many British people, of all faiths, have been 'friends' to the Israeli 'side' and others to the Arabic and/or Palestinian 'side'; what of it?


2. “He met Tony Blair at an Israeli diplomatic dinner in 1994, the year he became Labour leader.”


- ....and so what?

Lot of people have diplomatic dinners and subsequent 'links' to all around the world, should all those attending a diplomatic dinner in respect of America or anywhere be forever suspect as pursuing US/whoevers' interests and not Britain's'?


3. Linked to an “Organisation” calling itself the “Jewish Leadership Council”?
Quote…
“The 4. His is the president of something called “Jewish Care”
Quote…


- OK, we get the idea the guy is Jewish, and so what?


The reason why I am suspicious is because I know that through an Organisation called Friends of Israel the Israeli government, and its (obviously) mostly Jewish supporters world wide lobby Western policy.


- Is there some special reason why Jewish groups shouldn't be allowed to lobby on behalf of what they see as important to them?

Do you imagine the Israeli government is the only government that lobbies anyone through prominent British MP's or Lords or others?


The means are thought to be mostly completely legal e.g. like giving money to American candidates just for their election campaign(s).


- "mostly legal"?
Have you something you'd like to elaborate on this point or are you just casting or implying a little dirt?

IIRC US law is the same as British law on this point, so long as it's 'domestic money' people can support whoever they like although the limits and transparency rules are different obviously.


So maybe the same “work” is going on in the U.K?


- We also have Jewish groups lobbying in the UK, rest easy on that score Lib.


[ my question to the ATS board is “is this just a case of someone being punished for being illegally rewarded for supporting the government?”


- No.
Let's stick to the facts and they are.....

It's a case of a prominent member of Labour's fund-raising team being required to attend a Police station, then been arrested and released on bail before the evidence is assessed by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and a decision taken on whether he will face trial or not.

All of which is actually down to the new laws this Labour government introduced in relation to open and visible political funding (maybe you would like to squeeze that into this conspiracy of yours?) since 1997.

Unless you reckon you have access to other facts and specifics of the case.......cos if you do I am all ears?


Or does it go deeper than that “was Lord Levy supporting the government because he (like others) has leverage in our foreign policy; and may therefore influence our military, ethical or political decisions in ways that favour “his precious?” state of Israel.


- Seems like you keep coming back to and making a deal about this guys religion without actually coming out and saying what is really on your mind Lib.


There are certainly after all a lot of similarities between U.S and American political thinking-problems. But I suppose we can only by the evidence; like the links above I uncovered!!!


What "evidence" Lib?

The guy's Jewish and a Lord (= is established in a political party & has some political clout).

Surely it's no big surprise that he may, at times, lobby for Jewish interests at home or occasionally speak out on what he believes may be a Jewish perspective on international affairs?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
This guy being Jewish has nothing to do with him being arrested, has more to do with him asking a donator to keep his donation quiet...

Just a note another 13 other people have been cautioned by the police with regards to the cash for scandal investigation......

Another thought can they arrest tony blair??


In other words tony will get away with it and the rest will have to suffer..



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
This guy being Jewish has nothing to do with him being arrested,


Of course this guy being Jewish has nothing to do with him being arrested and rightfully so. What some “thick?” people don’t seem to be able to get their heads round is the question of whether this Lord Levy was influencing our foreign policy? Take a look at link number 1 for that, (or any of the others) he was after all our middle Eastern envoy right?

Now because we actually know that this pro Israel (Jewish) guy was influencing our foreign policy, the next question is “why?”
Well er; he er… gives money to the Labour party and is part of many pro Israel organisations? Yeah and he also gets given a lordship for it as well.

What disturbs me: is not whether his secret donations get him a lordship, or various honours. Rather it’s whether his donations were more to enhance his personal ability to work for the interests of a foreign government (i.e. Israel).
A somewhat separate question is whether his work towards the Israeli cause had more to do with his honours or Labour party support-influence than say other more normal political beliefs-ideologies?
But sadly this question is harder to verify.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
What some “thick?” people don’t seem to be able to get their heads round


- Lib matey if you could cut out the invective a little it would make for a better debate, ok?

A different POV is not a case of being "thick" (it ought to be plain but I'll say it anyway) from whichever side of the fence you're on on this.


is the question of whether this Lord Levy was influencing our foreign policy?


- Like all politicians Lord Levy no doubt had his own views on a variety of issues but firstly he did not formulate the government's foreign policy and neither has he conducted his period in those offices alone.

Are you trying to say his every opinion and view is dictated by the Israeli government and that he acts on their behalf........just because he is (a) Jewish and (b) at times has been associated with groups like the UK branch of the 'friends of Israel'!?


he was after all our middle Eastern envoy right?


- That means he had some input, but 'envoy' isn't exactly Ambassador, Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet or the PM or even the Labour party when it comes to policy formulation either, right?


Now because we actually know that this pro Israel (Jewish) guy was influencing our foreign policy, the next question is “why?”


- Because he chose to enter politics in the Labour party and was selected, by others, and agreed to be a foreign envoy in the ME at one point in his political career?

Perhaps because his 'links' to Israel (whatever those actually were in fact and however 'deep' those might have been) may have been positive, useful and productive in furthering the UK government's policy?

......or do you imagine UK policy (which is afterall about a mutually agreed and peaceful settlement between Israeli and Palestinian, via the 'road map' and ending up with 2 viable states at ease and peace with each other) in regard to Israel would stand a better chance of success with someone openly hostile to or with little contact or influence in Israel?


Well er; he er… gives money to the Labour party and is part of many pro Israel organisations? Yeah and he also gets given a lordship for it as well.


- If you're going to suggest that a British political party 'ennobling' a very successful political fundraiser is something new and odd then you really ought to look at the political history of our parties (recent and historic).


What disturbs me: is not whether his secret donations get him a lordship, or various honours.


- Actually he was a fund raiser far more than a personal fund donor......and what "secret donations" do you have in mind?

The recent fuss over loans is hardly a secret now (especially as this Labour gov - unlike the tory party - agreed to reveal all the details of their lenders).
It seemed like a handy 'device' but once it became clear that people were not going to allow this method to carry on on the quiet it has become very open in respect of the Labour party (who are afterall the party of government).

......and party funding in general is something we now know all about thanks to this Labour government passing new laws on the 'transparency' of political funding and donations.

If there was this corrupt quid-pro-quo as you claim or imply then one might have expected the Labour party to have been the last (not first) to opt for full disclosure over loans and funding and never to have passed laws requiring an unheard of level of openness nor set up a Parliamentary Standards Committee with actual teeth.

Did people stretch rules and chance their arm over funding?
Maybe, we shall see how the Police investigation turns out.

.....and even if that was so is that the same as your implication that foreign policy was 'for sale'?
Absolutely not.
There is a hell of a lot more to the formulation of HM's Gov foreign policy than the appointment of an envoy.


Rather it’s whether his donations were more to enhance his personal ability to work for the interests of a foreign government (i.e. Israel).


- You weave a tangled web there Lib.

This working class kid made good was made a Lord in 1997.
He wasn't made a foreign envoy until 2000 - 3yrs after being made a Lord.

He is a successful fundraiser (and the identities of those donating would not have been a secret to the party, he couldn't exactly say it was all from him) not a big personal donor.

If you are saying that he only became a success in his life (poor London east-end working class roots and all) so that he could work for Israel then I think some evidence of that working on behalf of a foreign power and against British interests is the least you can provide.


A somewhat separate question is whether his work towards the Israeli cause had more to do with his honours or Labour party support-influence than say other more normal political beliefs-ideologies?
But sadly this question is harder to verify.


- Well I'm all ears as to what you imagine this "work towards the Israeli cause" actually is and amounts to, and your evidence for claiming such a thing.

Lord Levy does not frame British foreign policy and that policy is in any case perfectly open and clear (re 'the road map'.......which itself is hardly the 'solution' the staunch Israeli side would prefer), so, what is it you imagine he has been doing and what makes you say that......

.....other than very vague dark hints and innuendo that mainly revolves around and relates to his being Jewish.......... and part of a Jewish plot?

Please, please tell me you aren't just rehashing that 7+ centuries old 'Jewish plot' nonsense again



[edit on 13-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
(Sminkeypinkey: I used to the word “thick?” in frustration at being misunderstood).

Here are 12 of the 13 Names: news.bbc.co.uk...
So who’s Jewish?

1. Rod Aldridge: Don’t think so
2. Richard Caring: Don’t think so
3. Gordon Crawford: Don’t think so
4. Professor Sir Christopher Evans Don’t think so
5. Sir David Garrard: Yes
6. Nigel Morris - £1m Don’t think so
7. Sir Gulam Noon
8. Dr Chai Patel
9. Andrew Rosenfeld: Yes
10. Lord David Sainsbury: Yes Jewish family background (yep they founded the supermarket).
11. Barry Townsley Yes: Supports charities aimed at Israel and other Jewish causes
12. Derek Tullett - £400,000
Stockbroker and philanthropist. He is the founder of the money-broking firm which bore his name and was bought by Collins Stewart Tullett three years ago.
I add…
13. Lord Levy yes

Maths…
So out of the 13 names 5 of them are Jewish. This is interesting as there’s only about 350,000 Jews in Britain en.wikipedia.org... yet we have an overall population of nearly 60 million. 60 million divided by 350,000 is 171.4 i.e. there should be 171 non Jews for every Jewish person. So how remarkable that 38.5% of people on this list are Jewish?
I’ll Make the Point Another Way…
Statistics: 13 divide 171 = 0.076 = 0.584% number of Jewish people who should be on that list by chance-the natural distribution of population alone. Of course chance is capable of many things so maybe it’s a coincidence that it’s 38.5% and not 0.584%? (38.5% is only the addition of 5 people out of a list of 13).

Maybe I’m alone but I doubt this is a coincidence. I suspect it has a lot do with Jewish people being (unremarkably) generally quite pro Israel. Which is exactly my original point!!!
Were their donations to the Labour party intended to help ether it, or our country? Or were they more to do with winning over our governments support for the foreign power of Israel? If so it would appear that these lobbying-techniques may be at our expense a lot more than it first appears.

Sminkeypinkey It may be quite natural; and arguably even quite right in our imperfect system that foreign governments (among them Israel) should lobby our government for support (courtesy of the costs-“investments” carried by the British people). But I didn’t see very many Africans, Palestinians, or even Chinese people on that list. Chance?
It kind of fits into my experience that Israel (for a population of only 6.25 million people) is greatly over represented; both in foreign policy support and its lobbying might. This is especially true in the view “that all men are born equal” but perhaps also even in the economic reality that’s in defiance of it.
And if that list is anything to by then something’s clearly not right in the both the system and the moral front, because obviously ethics breaks down when one people is so badly over represented, history is littered with that.

P.S The reason why I said Friends of Israel’s “means are thought to be mostly legal” is because if the accusation against people like Lord Levy is true, and if they have been lobbying our governments foreign in line with Friends of Israel (as I suspect) then perhaps its means aren’t always legal? Or certainly regarding some of things done by its many supporters apparently on its “behalf”. Isn’t it fair to caution any big organisation of that?


Further Reading...
Here’s another Jew using-abusing British foreign policy to help the Jewish State…
Jack Straw provided military equipment to Israel
www.palestinecampaign.org...

Biased Source: Radio Islam Blair’s Jewish Paymasters
www.radioislam.org...

On a Racial Note:
I have a problem with people who support Israel at the expense of our people, just as I have a problem with anyone who supports anything at the expense of our people. But I don’t have a problem with Jews for being Jews; in fact if they don’t support Israel, or even if they have an interesting perspective (that morally justifies their stance in their mind) then they are welcome to join my group of friends.
I am a racist because I believe in racial differences in intelligence, but I don’t believe race is a sharp enough instrument to justify almost any racial discrimination. In my view Jews, Indians and Chinese all out perform European I.Q scores on average (and on average only).

WARNING POSSIBLY “OFFENSIVE” INFO
www.mugu.com...
www.mugu.com...

Hence racial discrimination is still quite a dumb instrument, after all it is a law of physics that nothings pure (even in artificial environments).
Indeed one explanation for these I.Q differences is cultural reasons. I retort “still real”, and in any case; is culture the whole story? Could for example immigration cause selective breeding? (Immigrants to be the best a people has), or does war lower the score? (isn’t it always the believers who will die first in battle?)
But agreeing with the uselessness of racial discrimination has yet to stop me disagreeing with one of the core pillar arguments of modern political correctness (absolute natural racial equality). But at least you know I'm not against Jewish people for being Jewish.

Back to the subject “would you now agree the Labour party, donor corruption investigation list provides strong evidence of Israeli supporters lobbying British foreign policy? possibly against its natural interests?”



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Lib if you want to be understood please leave out the names, we'll all get along a lot better.

In this thread you are being heavy on the innuendo, big on casting incredibly vague accusations and incredibly light on any pertinent evidence.

You have completely ignored the mechanics of how this British government's (or any other 'colour's') policies are formulated to run off and make wild and very vague claims that appear to amount to (though you don't/won't actually come out and say it) UK foreign policy is written by wealthy Jewish people on behalf of Israel's interests - despite it being pointed out that that current British foreign policy could hardly be called 'pro-Israel'.

That list of 13 on which you have based so much relates only to those that lent money in the current 'lending episode' under investigation now.

You'll also find that the preponderance of Jewish people in banking, insurance and the financial world generally (and hence a disproportionate number of wealthy financiers) is due to the unintended consequences of European racism back in the 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th centuries (they weren't allowed property in many places and were the only people who would lend money at interest).

You have to laugh at the unintended consequences (were it not for the suffering those peoples went through at the time).

Same way as the entertainment industry Lord Levy came from has a disproportionate number of Jewish people in it.....lack of opportunities in the regular general employment market make for some interesting outcomes, right?

Really Lib, for someone making such a deal about where we are coming from as a nation and what Britain's interests are I'd have thought you'd have known a little about British and European history and how those things arose.

Anyhoo, that list is not the entire list of Labour's financial backers (which is public information now, thanks to the Labour government, knock yourself out looking into it).

Given the history of Jewish people in the world and today's strategic importance of the ME are you really saying you are surprised that the ME generally and Israel in particular has taken such a lot of time and effort in British (and world) politics?

Your claim to be a racist - but that you don't discriminate on the basis of race despite being a racist - doesn't exactly give you much credibility either.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

What some “thick?” people don’t seem to be able to get their heads round is the question of whether this Lord Levy was influencing our foreign policy?


Who are you calling thick????

So what if he is Jewish, it does not have anything to do with him being arrested.

And Lib stop using the word Jew it is rather disgusting, that to me that is pure racism.




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Lib if you want to be understood please leave out the names, we'll all get along a lot better.


But I did leave out the names.



In this thread you are being heavy on the innuendo, big on casting incredibly vague accusations and incredibly light on any pertinent evidence.


“Big”? “Vague”? Whatever; but this is what I think I’ve done…
1. Point out that despite only 0.58% of the U.K population being Jewish
2. 5 out of the 13 big doggy lenders are Jewish- with Israeli links
3. State that I doubt this is a coincidence; and question whether these (perhaps unremarkably) pro Israel people) were trying to unduly influence our foreign policy? (especially Lord Levy as he was the “British Prime Minister’s special envoy to the Middle East”
4. When you pointed out that it’s not unusual for governments to lobby other governments, I pointed out that there weren’t very many “African, Palestinian or Chinese people on that list. If it’s all quite unremarkable then surely you really would expect a few more Chinese? As they have a bigger economy than little Israel, but (like Israel) also a very active policy of lobbying other foreign government.

People call this a “cash for honours scandal”; but with the above facts in mind surely it becomes fair to question whether this is in fact a “cash for foreign policy scandal (with honours)”. And of course this is speculation because I can only piece together various facts like Lord Levy’s middle eastern envoy role, from pre existing internet documents, I cannot go to a microphone that may have recorded an incriminating conversation; because of course I’ve never had a hidden microphone. But with the above facts in mind my speculation is still fair-right speculation is it not?



(though you don't/won't actually come out and say it) UK foreign policy is written by wealthy Jewish people on behalf of Israel's interests


No I'm quite happy with saying that; it is my accusation throughout this thread.



- despite it being pointed out that that current British foreign policy could hardly be called 'pro-Israel'


Please point out why British foreign is hardly in Israel’s interests. We don’t economically sanction them, I think we are still willing to sell weapons to them, and don’t we take America’s stance on the international issues almost word for word?
Assuming these things are correct then what is it about our foreign policy that makes the whole thing as good as against Israel’s interests? Sounds interesting!


As for the banking thing how many of these people had banking routes in the 14-17th century? Furthermore through it is a true phenomenon, my perception of racism is that overall it tens to make the people of a population poorer. Therefore I don’t think it makes an adequate explanation for why 5 out of 13 big “doggy” Labour donors on the list are Jewish (especially in the absence of a 14-17th century banking history, although one them (not sure which one) might).

As for my own personal position on race perhaps your right; maybe I'm not a racist as long as I believe racial discrimination is too blunt a method to justify imposing discrimination. But I think not believing in “universal natural racial equality” makes me one (at least technically, but also in the eyes of many (even most) people).



Given the history of Jewish people in the world and today's strategic importance of the ME are you really saying you are surprised that the ME generally and Israel in particular has taken such a lot of time and effort in British (and world) politics?


Fair point but unfortunately as the worlds 4th biggest economic power I think it makes a lot of sense for Israel (or its supporters) to an interest in our politics. We can sell weapons to them, enable donations or trade with them, and basically do little about the Palestinian issue. By (coincidence) we helped remove Saddam from the region, and as he supported groups against them; I think that’s a demonstration that our foreign policy does still matter to them. Hay if it wasn’t for us there would be no Israel (well historically anyway).



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
The point sminkeypinkey is trying to make, i think, is that the fact that a leading member of the Labour party has been arrested and questioned about the allegations of "selling" peerages is more interesting than the fact that some of the people involved are jewish! if these people were French, German or from outer space would you be so irate.

Why dont you debate the politics and not the religion of several of those alleged to have participated? this is a political forum after all.

How can you call yourself Liberal1984 and start a thread which comes across as extremely racist?



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Deja vu! Jack Abramoff ala Great Britain. He was robbing the indigenous tribes of America to rob the indigenous tribes of Palestine. We need to route out scalawags like this from our governments and our policy making. These people do not have our interests in mind.
Lets see where this guys rabbit hole goes.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
But I did leave out the names.


- You tried to justify using a name when I commented on it, all I'm saying is please don't use the name-calling and why.

If we're going to have good quality debate here and attract others to join in and add to them then take the comment in the spirit it was intended and move on and not argue over it, please.


1. Point out that despite only 0.58% of the U.K population being Jewish
2. 5 out of the 13 big doggy lenders are Jewish- with Israeli links


- You have tried to build a statistical case on the basis of what has been made public about this investigation only; 13 individuals, this is hardly representitive of the Labour party's donor list (and it entirely ignores any other party's list too).


question whether these (perhaps unremarkably) pro Israel people)


- Where is your evidence that these people are not only "remarkably pro-Israel" or have ever actually done anything tangible that could be called "remarkably pro-Israel" in terms of shaping Britain's approach and foreign policy?


were trying to unduly influence our foreign policy? (especially Lord Levy as he was the “British Prime Minister’s special envoy to the Middle East”


- Well I would just point out tha again you are ignoring how British political parties and governments construct and implement things like their foreign policies.

Once again you inflate out of all proportion the status of 'envoy' when compared to Ambassador, Minister, Cabinet Minister, Foreign Secretary, PM, House of Commons, Houise of Lords or even the Labour party itself in terms of how British gov functions and constructs policy.


. When you pointed out that it’s not unusual for governments to lobby other governments, I pointed out that there weren’t very many “African, Palestinian or Chinese people on that list.


- A 'snap-shot' of 13 people on a very small singular list can hardly be described as representitive or much of a case to build so much upon IMO.


People call this a “cash for honours scandal”; but with the above facts in mind surely it becomes fair to question whether this is in fact a “cash for foreign policy scandal (with honours)”.


- Like I said if you'd care to show the "facts" about how British Foreign policy has actually been corrupted then I'm all ears.

So far you have thrown out a series of mostly vague accusations but have completely avoided showing how British policy could be corrupted (given the way it is formulated) or has been actually corrupted (given what it currently is).


No I'm quite happy with saying that; it is my accusation throughout this thread.


- Then let's hear the facts that got you to make this accusation, what actual foreign policy can you point to as having been corrupted?

So far all I've seen is lots of the use of the word 'Jew' and a heap of unsubstantiated vague comments about the intent of those wealthy Jewish guys because 5 of them appeared on a list of 13 political donors.

They donated money to a political party; a party btw which made this list public the instant there was any hint of wrong-doing.


Please point out why British foreign is hardly in Israel’s interests.


- No, I didn't say that British policy is 'not in Israel's interest'
(how could or why should that always be the case anyway)?

As far as Britain is concerned a peaceful settlement is absolutely in Israel's interests and ditto the Palestinians'.
Quite obviously that outcome and those interests are not in conflict with Britain's preferred outcome or interests.
So it is plain that countries sharing interests isn't of itself a corrupt thing anyway now, right?

What I was saying is that British current declared foreign policy in relation to Israel (ie the 'roadmap' etc) would not be Israel's preferred or chosen 'solution'.
Far from it.
One cannot point to it and say 'oh yes, it's obvious, that is so obviously a case of British foreign policy formulated for or by or on behalf of Israel'.


We don’t economically sanction them


- No we don't.
But we do impose a licencing system of export controls on what we will and will not export to them (and there are other EU restrictions IIRC).


I think we are still willing to sell weapons to them


- British arms exports to Israel are tiny (I linked it on another thread, £25million last year IIRC), mostly things like Land rover military vehicles or electronics parts (this is also complicated by British based US-owned subsidiaries doing the some of the supplying).


and don’t we take America’s stance on the international issues almost word for word?


- No, not quite.
British 'involvement' with Israel is nothing like as deep as that of the USA's.

But if you're going to talk about who else has a foreign policy skewed towards Israel then I think that is another matter for another thread on another board.


As for the banking thing how many of these people had banking routes in the 14-17th century?


- I couldn't say about the 5 you pointed out, it was a general point about wealthy Jewish people.
In terms of Jewish people generally then quite obviously it applies to a fairly high proportion of Jewish people because it is still evident in the financial world today.


Therefore I don’t think it makes an adequate explanation for why 5 out of 13 big “doggy” Labour donors on the list are Jewish (especially in the absence of a 14-17th century banking history, although one them (not sure which one) might).


- You're once again using a tiny unrepresentitive 'sample' to try and tell a complete tale.

It's a logical nonsense and can't be done.

Stop digging this hole Lib.

Those people lent money to a political party at a time when the law was such that they could quite legally keep their identity and lending a secret.
Things and the law have changed and they and their loans are no longer secret (and the Labour party has revealed all of it's lenders and donors).

So just what is so 'dodgy' about it or them?


But I think not believing in “universal natural racial equality” makes me one (at least technically, but also in the eyes of many (even most) people).


- Well I suppose it depends what you mean by that.

In the case of the study you linked to it not only is it enormously disputed but it clearly shows minuscule differences and is based on small samples.
I wouldn't go making much of that one if I were you.


Fair point but unfortunately as the worlds 4th biggest economic power I think it makes a lot of sense for Israel (or its supporters) to an interest in our politics.


- OK but when and how could that ever not be the case in such a volatile region and where the UK has so many close links and important interests in so many nearby countries?


We can sell weapons to them, enable donations or trade with them, and basically do little about the Palestinian issue.


- As I said we don't sell much military stuff to them (not in terms of actual weapons).
Foreign political donations are illegal here (or are you now just going to claim Jewish=Israel).
'We' get lots of complaints from Israel because we tie Israeli exports with what is happening to the Palestinians and their economy (in the wider EU sense).

Lastly if you really imagine the hours/days/months/years/decades! of effort spent by British governments of all colours amounts to trying to "do little about the Palestinian issue" then I can only wonder what you imagine would amount to 'a lot'!


By (coincidence) we helped remove Saddam from the region, and as he supported groups against them


- I'm not sure that is very true; he gave money to the families of those who died but whether he actually gave direct support to the various groups I wouldn't be so sure (certainly not as much a say Iran may do or Saudi Arabia).


I think that’s a demonstration that our foreign policy does still matter to them.


- ....and so what?
Of course it does "matter to them" but that alone is hardly a firm basis to leap off at these various tangents from.

Our ME policy matters enormously to Saudi Arabia........and what?

How does that one fit into this pro-Israel British stance you claim because from what I see in terms of trade, arms exports and strategic interest one could say all you have said about SA with far more justification than Israel.


Hay if it wasn’t for us there would be no Israel (well historically anyway).


- I doubt that.

With or without a Balfour declaration I think a Jewish 'homeland' would have been inevitable; especially after the treatment vast numbers of Jewish people received in continental and eastern Europe before and during WW2.

Once again I'll ask.
Forget all the 'maybes', 'perhaps' and any other innuendo.
Let's have the issue out and nailed down.

What part of British foreign policy can you show that Lord Levy, or any other Jewish donor, got formulated or changed to suit Israel and which was at odds with the stated formal foreign policies of this British government?

Cos otherwise (and I think I've given more than enough time to draw out anything of substance that might have been in here) I'm calling this as nothing more than a wordy dressed up racist/sectarian crock which we don't tolerate here and taking action about it.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by supersaint
The point sminkeypinkey is trying to make, i think, is that the fact that a leading member of the Labour party has been arrested and questioned about the allegations of "selling" peerages is more interesting than the fact that some of the people involved are jewish!


Well everyone is free to talk about Lord Levy being arrested and entirely ignore the points I’ve made about 5 out of the 13 (revealed) donors being Jewish. I suppose it depends on what you find interesting, personally I find the prospect of peerages being sold in return to donations to schools or political parties interesting, but not particularly alarming. This comes from my dull view of the House of Lords (which through an excellent debating society) can ultimately be overruled by the House of Commons using the parliament act. In reality its only power is to the make the House of Commons “think again” (that’s if they want to think again); and in today’s world this event is more likely to governed by public opinion polls, which themselves are influenced by undemocratic factors such as who owns, controls or may bias the mainstream media networks towards one view or attitude over the other.

Thanks for asking whether I would care if people France, Germany or from outer space were influencing the media. The answer if yes if there was a Friends of Germany or Outer Space organisation (particularly the outer space one) if its known to have great influence over just about all five English speaking nations, or alternatively core European members. Friends of Israel has both almost in full.

Lord Levy has been the PM’s Envoy to the Middle East, and judging from my internet research at least 5 of the 13 members are pro Israel. Therefore they would seem to constitute an extension of most (if not all) of Friends of Israel’s objectives-interests. I dislike the state of the pro-Israel lobbies influence, because its power seems to be based not so much on merit of argument, but strategy, funding and the seemingly intellectually blind loyalty of many of its contributors. I take because (as the Labour donor itself indicates) its representation-influence is unrivalled even by much bigger nations like China. Therefore even before we consider whether we like its stance on say the Palestinian issue, or English weapons sales to Israel we can say two things it is powerful, and powerful out of representation to Israel’s 6.25 million population.
The fact that I dislike Israel’s current (and a great deal of its past) conduct as a nation, merely intensifies my regret of the pro-Israel’s lobbies current influence over other people, from other nations often with other interests (and if left naturally other opinions about Israel’s conduct as nation or influence in the world). Call it “my opinion only” but without a proper democratic footing all power is the devils power. I don’t just mean that spirituality every power that bi-passes democracy does two things 1: Work towards a self interest that always involves the oppression-dehumanisation of others (trading arms as an example can do both).
2. Stifle the wealth of wisdom that comes from an informed population, and which becomes apparent through “the free market of ideas” in open-liberal informed discussion-debate. (Well if aren’t aware of the powers that be actions then how can we contribute to their wisdom, let alone judge them?)

Friends of Israel irritates me because if its power influence is beyond its head-count, or economic weight; as a great deal of evidence (perhaps literally more than a hundred times the amount on this thread) then it resembles a terrorist organisation. And the more its power defies ether its own head count, or its own economic contribution in the global economy then the more this is so because terrorist organisations too have a great deal of influence which defies head count, or economic contribution.
Of course only a few would accuse Friends of Israel of murdering people; but arms sales to nations that can’t be trusted with them to use them properly-within the laws of war kill people, holding up-perverting the international response to e.g. what’s currently happening in Lebanon may also kill people (its that’s the case which judging by both George Bush and Tony Blair’s (almost identical responses) I suspect it is).

On Word Control…
Finally you say this thread “comes across as extremely racist” and of course you are totally right. But I challenge you to find an example of me “discriminating against any race.” You see all I did was say “these people influencing our government are Jewish, and that led me believe they are pro Israel, and wow they are”. Certainly evidence of racial discrimination, but nothing to do with discriminating against any particular race.
Privately I think it’s been a very enjoyable challenge to argue a “fair case” in spite of the PC mind having deliberately-voluntarily jerked it into action. (Needless to say as a politically and (especially socially) authoritarian mindset I have very little respect for PC “thought” wherever I find it). And it really is a mindset I'm spending a great of time of arguing against, put a certain set of words and in a certain order and a way it goes, the “thick” thing is; that had I communicated exactly the same meaning but with different words the PC social-political mindset word not have been triggered. Ha, ha, ha!
I repeat: haven’t used the words I’ve used like “Jewish” over pro “Israeli wrongly” inaccurately in any way (according to literal common meaning) unjustifiably. In fact (when you think about it) (if you think) the words “pro Israel Jew” just add a little bit more detail over the words “pro Israeli”, and if it weren’t for political correctness there would be nothing out of place at all with that all.

What I’ve done is funny because it shows PC thinking is triggered by a given set of words; over their even their instantly understood-literal meaning.
So basically we are still having a good debate about exactly the same thing, my wording has only caused it to be a little more ferocious than usual (which is good). I will not submit to using certain words over others in the face of political correctness.

Here’s a good example…

Originally posted by supersaint
Why dont you debate the politics and not the religion of several of those alleged to have participated? this is a political forum after all.


P.S You obviously didn’t notice; I'm not referring to people’s religion on here!!!
I can understand you thinking it’s racial because I’ve brought up the fact that these people are Jewish, as a extra (some would say unnecessary) detail regarding my points-facts about the pro Israeli lobby. But I haven’t seen much discussion about religion on this thread; therefore (even with all such things considered) hasn’t this interpretation of yours been little a like something visiting from er… “outer space?”

(I Nearly Forgot) Why I'm Liberal?
I hate authoritarianism, I believe in the freedom of the individual (especially about things like adults been allowed to spoke pot, I think the role of law should almost be entirely confined to safeguarding the liberty-freedom of all individuals (hence I support a secular Muslim Sunni dictatorship in Iraq, to prevent the fundamentalist Muslim majority oppressing liberty, be it alcohol consumption, different faiths living in close physical proximity, or woman just not being stoned-severely punished for mob courts charges of say adultery). That is (quite literally) just a few of reasons why I call myself a liberal. Still question my description? I think you will find I'm a liberal in the extreme, or though not so extreme I won’t support greater sentences to protect society from criminals as they too are (unwittingly or otherwise) are enemies of liberalism (as one of many examples there’s hardly anything liberal at being forced to make a donation to a criminal at knife point; therefore the criminal should pay the authoritarian price “re-education plus incarceration”).



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Sminkeypinkey


You have tried to build a statistical case on the basis of what has been made public about this investigation only; 13 individuals, this is hardly representitive of the Labour party's donor list (and it entirely ignores any other party's list too).


Agreed the five Jewish out of 13 names regarding secret-criminal donations only reflects the 13 names of disgraced donors made public.
Now if only we knew all (or at least some more) of the criminal donors to the Labour Party (or indeed other parties) then we would know how representative the criminal “Jewish influence” (Joke! it really is better described as “pro-Israel influence”) actually is.
As for more general donations they probably mostly come from the sort of English people who vote for them in an election; but I would be personally surprised if (regarding big donations) the list wasn’t fairly representative (regarding an out of proportion with population number of donors being pro Israel, and Jewish). However I repeat (in agreement) that in the absence of more criminal names, or just more big donor names; neither of us will know how politically representative (or indeed for what it’s worth ethnically representative) the list actually is.



Liberal1984 quote: were trying to unduly influence our foreign policy? (especially Lord Levy as he was the “British Prime Minister’s special envoy to the Middle East”

Sminkeypinkey- Well I would just point out tha again you are ignoring how British political parties and governments construct and implement things like their foreign policies.


I see so you donate lots of money to the Labour Party, become a personal friend of Blair, and then the PM’s Envoy to the Middle East. Is that how we do foreign policy? If so I'm not ignoring it, merely highlighting it. Maybe you thought I was ignoring something else that’s relevant to the point? If so please spell it out to me.


Once again you inflate out of all proportion the status of 'envoy' when compared to Ambassador, Minister, Cabinet Minister, Foreign Secretary, PM, House of Commons, Houise of Lords or even the Labour party itself in terms of how British gov functions and constructs policy.


I mean Blair appoints his own cabinet, which presides over a government majority. These things are clearly very important, and Blair directly controls one and Influences the other. So having a donor become his Envoy to the Middle East (and in my allegation) possibly even a friend because of his donor history, is very important, a lot more than just merely a member of the House of Lords.

For the record I'm only building a case that wealthy pro-Israeli people are influencing British foreign policy out of all proportion to the Jewish-Israeli peoples head count, economic size or value to the British interests (especially against other nations).
For specific bits of foreign policy they have may influenced I need their own testimony, not just their recorded actions. I don’t have access to any of their own testimony about their personal political agendas, or accomplishments. I can certainly show these people are pro Israel, that they number 5 out on the 13 on the list, and point to pro Israeli lobbying in the U.S, and how 5 out 13 on the list looks consistent with pro Israeli lobbying here. Admittedly I posted a question, not a complete answer. Otherwise this thread would have been in the wrong section (heading to the news section). Like many things on ATS till we have all the facts (or at least many more) the question will never be complete, just more complete with the right feedback.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
if only we knew all (or at least some more) of the criminal donors to the Labour Party (or indeed other parties) then we would know how representative the criminal “Jewish influence” (Joke! it really is better described as “pro-Israel influence”) actually is.


- Go do your own leg-work.

If you wish to make these kind of accusations then go and look up what is going on, obviously the detail of political donation is not widely known or general knowledge so you'll need to come back and back your claims with some facts
(and then maybe you'd care to explain why no-one but you can see this obvious linkage).

Thanks to the law(s) passed by this Labour government all political donations of over £5000 from any individual or business entity must be publicly declared so you should be able to do this......if you really want to try to make the case and despite this obvious contradiction.


However I repeat (in agreement) that in the absence of more criminal names


- What is supposed to be "criminal" about any of this?

Don't you understand the facts of these 2 stories (cos they are not quite one and the same)?

The law at the time these loans were made was that the loans did not have to be publicly declared (ie a loan not declared was a perfectly legal thing, nothing "criminal" about it).

To combine and confuse this with the separate allegation of criminal behaviour, that money was donated political parties to gain peerages, is just muddying the waters.


I see so you donate lots of money to the Labour Party, become a personal friend of Blair, and then the PM’s Envoy to the Middle East. Is that how we do foreign policy?


- No.

The foreign policy of this government was not decided by Lord Levy, as an envoy or not.

This government's foreign policies have been constructed between the agreed political policies formulated and voted upon by the Labour party, the Cabinet, the Foreign Office, the Foreign Secretary, other individual members of the Cabinet and PM (and all in discussion with each other and their collective staff).

Substantive measures as and when they arise are then put before Parliament, go through committee stages and after several 'readings' in HOC & HOL go for Royal Assent.

The idea that Britain's ME foreign policy is made up or altered just by Tony Blair and Lord Levy (under instruction from Israel) is frankly laughable and so wide of the mark.

.....and if you really and honestly don't know how British governmental policy is formulated and enacted then perhaps you ought to go and learn a lot more about it instead of making superficial comments on the basis of a bad or partial understanding of how it all works.


I mean Blair appoints his own cabinet, which presides over a government majority.


- Whilst that is strictly true to the letter of procedure it isn't as simple as that.

Tony Blair selects his cabinet from amongst the senior members of the Labour party, it practice it isn't the free choice you imply it to be.


For the record I'm only building a case that wealthy pro-Israeli people are influencing British foreign policy out of all proportion to the Jewish-Israeli peoples head count, economic size or value to the British interests (especially against other nations).


- Sorry but I haven't seen anything actually 'built' yet.

I wish you'd get on with it because amongst all of this all you have done is point out 5 guys on a small list of 13 rich people who lent money to the Labour party were Jewish.....so what?

You then go on to claim that those donor's/lenders and maybe many more Jewish donors/lenders are exercising an influence on Government policy against British interests (cos in the case of British interests and Israeli interests coinciding why would or should anyone be bothered by that?) and on Israel's behalf.

But you have not shown a single element of British policy which has been altered since 2000 (the year Levy became envoy) to Israeli's and not British interests.

In fact the opposite is true; British policy in regard to the ME is continued and deepening friendly engagement with several neighbouring Arab countries (including the sales of arms vastly greater than the very tiny amount 'we' sell Israel) in the region and a 'solution' to the Israeli/Palestinian issue that is certainly not Israel's most preferred option for an outcome.

The rest of the "out of all proportion" stuff is merely an opinion that would down-play the ME and Israel as not quite such a big deal to British interests which, IMO and given the strategic importance of the region to Britain, is rather absurd.

Once again Lib I'll give you the chance to come up with something substantive......?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
more rich jew bashing....*sigh*

Jewish Care btw is simply a Jewish charity. Just as there are muslim charities etc etc



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Go do your own leg-work.

If you wish to make these kind of accusations then go and look up what is going on,


Ok I Have...

Stage Two of “Who’s Jew? And Does it matter?”


PART One
Here is a list of all the individuals who gave £250,000 plus to the Labour party. Information from: www.electoralcommission.org.uk...

Note: The Labour Party has received 70 such donations; only ten of them are from individuals, and these came from only 6 people. They are…

1. Mr William Haughey OBE: 05/12/03: £333,000
Mr William Haughey OBE: 12/11/04: £ 330,000.00
Mr William Haughey OBE: 21/10/05: £ 330,000.00

2. Lord Paul Hamlyn: 19/12/03: 500,000.00
Jewish news.bbc.co.uk...

3. Sir Christopher Ondaatje CBE: 19/12/03: £ 1,000,000.00
Sir Christopher Ondaatje: 27/12/04: £ 500,000.00

4. Lord Paul Drayson: 17/06/04: £ 505,000.00
Lord Paul Drayson 21/12/04: £ 500,000.00

5. Lord David Sainsbury of Turville: 10/03/05: £ 2,000,000
Jewishwww.radioislam.org...
“Other major benefactors to the Labour Party apart from Levy, Gavron et al are the Jews Maurice Hatter, David Sainsbury and Robert Earl, each of whom contributed at least one million pounds.”
www.seanbryson.com...

6. Lakshminiwas Mittal: 13/07/05: £ 2,000,000.00

Two of these individuals is Jewish, and they made 2 donations worth a total of 2.5 million; that’s (31.25%) of the total £7,998,000 raised from all 6.

PART Two

Here is a list of all the individuals who donated 100,000 to 250,000 to the Labour party. Information from: www.electoralcommission.org.uk...

Note: The total number of such (registered) Labour Party donations is 92. 16 of these were from individuals and these came from only 12 people. They are

1.. Sir Alan Sugar: 09/06/01: £ 200,000.00
Jew
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.radioislam.org...
www.mjcc.org.uk...
flintoff.org...

2. Lakshmi Mittal: 28/06/01: £ 125,000.00
Richest Asian in Britain: news.bbc.co.uk...
news.indiainfo.com...

3. Sir Ronald Cohen: 24/02/02: £ 200,000.00
Jew born in Egypt, married to an Israeli and Jewish
business.guardian.co.uk...
hbswk.hbs.edu...
Sir Ronald Cohen: 17/02/03: £ 250,000.00
Sir Ronald Cohen: 12/05/04: £ 250,000.00
Sir Ronald Cohen: 26/04/05£ 250,000.00

4. Bill Kenwright: 13/06/02: £ 200,000.00

5. Sir David Garrard: 23/05/03: £ 200,000.00
Jew Racist link: www.heretical.com...
Racist link: www....[hate-site-nolink]/forum/showthread.php?t=138395
politics.guardian.co.uk... (Relevant as he (and many other Labour donors) were first members of Lord Levy’s pro Israel charities.

6. Denise Gleeson: 23/08/04: £ 119,967.00 (bequest: yes)

7. Sir Sigmund Sternberg: 05/11/04: £ 101,384.00
Jew www.london.diplo.de...
www.threefaithsforum.org.uk...

8. Mr William Bollinger: 14/01/05: £ 250,000.00
Mr William Bollinger: 16/01/06: £ 250,000.00

9. Nigel Doughty: 10/02/05: £ 250,000.00
10. Derek Tullett CBE: 16/03/05: £ 200,000.00
11. Jon Aisbitt: 13/04/05: £ 250,000.00
12. Mr Michael Watts: 26/03/06: £ 150,000.00

STATISTICS
There are 267,000 Jews in the United Kingdom, this has a population of nearly 60 million. This information is from the 2001 census and can be found here en.wikipedia.org...
Divide 60 million by 267,000 and the ratio is 1 Jew for every 224.7 non Jew.
Some estimates have put the number of Jews at 350,000. So 60,000,000 divide 350,000 puts the ratio at one Jew for every 171.4 non Jews.

How remarkable then that in both list’s one third of the people are Jewish?

I spell it out…
Part 1: Registered Donations 100,000 to 250,000 thousand pounds…
Statistics: 16 individual donations: from 12 individuals: 4 of whom are Jewish and who made: 6 of the 16 donations: Worth: 1,251,000 (38.5%) of the total 3,246,000 raised.

Part 2: Registered Donations over 250,000000…
Statistics: 10 individual donations: from 6 individuals: 2 of whom are Jewish and who made: 2 of the 10 donations: Worth: 2.5 million (31.25%) of the total £7,998,000 (nearly a quarter).

Statistics for all Registered Donations over £100,000
1. 26 Such donations
2. From: 18 individuals (there’s no repeated names between lists)
3. 6 of whom are Jewish
4. Who made 3,751,000 (33.36%) of the total 11,244,000

Conclusion: Jewish people make up one third of the people of private individual Labour Party donors. They also make up one third of the total money raised. This is in contrast to the U.K population where out of 60 million people, only 350,000 are Jewish. This means for every Jew there should be 171 non Jews. This means that in a neutral world only 0.58% of the money on the Labour party list should come from Jewish sources.
We do not live in an equal-neutral world but isn’t it remarkable how big the difference between 33.36% and 0.584% is?

How do you explain that non racists?
Do you go my way and blame it on Israeli lobbying? Or do you go your way of blaming it on social factors, or dare I suggest race?
Maybe you don’t explain it all? Maybe all you do is ask whether people like me are racist and to try and win an argument through methods of guiding popular opinion in contrast to logical outcome? Well; please tell me how you explain these facts?
Perhaps a crazed racist working within the electoral commission has removed large sections of the non Jewish names? And therefore made it look like Jewish people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of individual donations; so that someone like me can post it on ATS. Then again maybe all I’ve done is risen to sminkeypinkies challenge and shown you the facts?

Counter Perspective: The total number of Labour Party donations over 100,000 is (70 plus 92 = 162). Only 26 of these came from individual donor donations, and all 26 came from only 18 individuals. Therefore the Labour party is far more reliant on Union donations than it is on individuals. So (at least in theory) it is also more dependant on unions than individuals. It would be interesting to know how many of its union paymasters are Jewish (pro-Israeli?) And it would be interesting to know why the unions are still supplying the Labour government with so much income. Is it all because socialist-workers values? Or is there (I ask again) some sort of political conspiracy going on?
Even so what a remarkable foreign-ethnic combination Labours rich donors are? How surprising so much of their money comes from people with loyalties to other countries? I ask again is it cash for foreign policy with honours?


By the Way…
Out of 16 Registered Donors…
3 of them are Lords…

Lord Paul Hamlyn (Jew)
Lord Paul Drayson
Lord David Sainsbury of Turville (Jew)

And 5 of them are Sirs
Sir Christopher Ondaatje
Sir Alan Sugar (Jew)
Sir Ronald Cohen (Jew)
Sir David Garrard (Jew)
Sir Sigmund Sternberg (Jew)

So 6 of these 8 titles are Jews. Maybe that’s what’s being going on? Maybe Labour has been selling titles to rich foreigners (7 out of 8 have such foreign links), in order that these people (feeling insecure about their Englishness) may infiltrate-blend in with our society some more?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Interesting Liberal. I can see your point of concern, and I don't think it's entirely baseless.

its not so much that the guys are jewish, but from pro-Israeli special interest groups. What would be the reaction is say 5 of the 13 guys on the list were say, retired Enron execs or defense contractors?

Its like the U.S. policy towards Israel. There is a powerful lobby in the states that has far too much influence in our policy regarding the middle east.

And given the fact that Israel has been quite callous regarding the Palestinians, ignoring U.N. directives and engaging in human rights violations, I find it especially disturbing that the U.S. shows so much more favor and support for such a country.

But as far as the UK goes, the question would be, how much support does the |U.K. show and give Israel in comparrison with other countries? If its biased in favor of israel, Id worry. But if its even handed, Id not worry as much.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Your 5 out of 13 Enron execs or defence contractors analogy is brilliant Skadi_the_Evil_Elf. I would add that these Jewish people’s activities may not be in the Jewish Races interests.
Hitler (or more specifically his Nazi Party) built up arguments like mine (perhaps predictably both true and untrue ones). And if there should ever be another Nazi Party then it will do the same. Quite simply these people could well be a disgrace to their race, just as every race-population has people who are a disgrace to their race. The remarkable thing (this time) is through racial profiling it has been possible to reveal a very straight finger of guilt directed at these people, and of course they probably think they are helping Israel; and maybe they are, in fact that’s just the problem, or at least the corrupt fashion in which they do it (as opposed to straight forward merits of argument). It’s because of this they are truly a disgrace-threat to their race. And of course that’s what can happen to anybody who disregards ethical ways of doing things.
Because what’s alarming is that these people seem to constitute a group, working for a foreign governments interest, and which (according to registered electoral commissions data) is out of all proportion to that of any other nation (especially one of a population totalling 6.25 million people). But if you’re a British Jew minding your own business then I would like to know how they are working in your interests? Especially if you too really do have moral-ethical questions regarding Israel’s conduct. Because its in this way these Jewish people threaten all Jews in a way which draws diluted comparisons with how Muslim suicide bombers living within a community of peaceful Muslims threatens all that community (whether the community agrees with the suicide bomber or not).
Racial discrimination (although arguably not criminal profiling) is an enemy, but equally so, so too are these people (unless of course your as good as one of them).

The instinctive political correctness thinking earlier proved quite an enjoyable well stoked battle; but neither (as things stand) is it a particularly easy battle for anyone to avoid. Perhaps especially given other areas where certain Israeli groups are thought to be influencing the press?
Jews of Britain be warned its people like these who pose a long term (perhaps total) threat to you. I may be no such threat to you; but isn’t it because of various pro Israel activities (that lack a proper democratic base) that anyone remotely like me could so easily become such a threat to you (whenever the time calls)?
Maybe the Jews of Britain support these conspirators? But if not it’s surely for their sake too that this people be exposed and flushed out of our political system.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join