There is a huge government cover-up in progress over the Werritty connection to Mossad and the role of British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould, and their neo-con plan to start a war with Iran.
Yesterday at 22.15pm I submitted by email a Freedom of Information request for:
All communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems.
At 23.31pm I was astonished to get a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The request was refused as it was
“likely to exceed the cost limit”.
Now it is plainly nonsense that to gather correspondence between two named individuals would be too expensive. They could just ask Gould.
And a reply at nearly midnight? The Freedom of Information team in the FCO is not a 24 hour unit. Plainly not only are they hiding the Gould/Werritty correspondence, they are primed and on alert for this cover-up operation.
Even more blatant was the obstruction of MP Paul Flynn, when he attempted to question Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell on the Gould-Werritty connection at the House of Commons Public Administration Committee. These are the minutes: anybody who believes in democracy should feel their blood boil as you read them:
Publc Admininstration Committee 24/11/2011
Q<369> Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence.
In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed—
Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?
Paul Flynn:> Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.
Chair:> I have to take a point of order.
Robert Halfon:> Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.
Paul Flynn:> I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations”—not from me, from the Daily Mail—“that he was close to the country’s secret service, Mossad.” There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.
Chair:> I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.
Paul Flynn:> Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq—joining Bush’s war in Iraq—and the invasion of Helmand province. We know now that there were things going on in the background while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people in America, who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early years, there was another—
Chair:> Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.
Q<370> Paul Flynn:> Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated because of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.
Q<371> Paul Flynn:> Indeed, which is even more worrying.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I am afraid they were not the subject—what members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant.
But these meetings were held— Chair:> Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.
Chair:> Final question, Mr Flynn.
Q<372> Paul Flynn:> No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far.
You state in the report—on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv—that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> The important point here was that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he had an official with him—namely, in this case, the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.
Q<373> Paul Flynn:> I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.
Robert Halfon:> On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.
Paul Flynn:> It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.
Chair:> Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.
Q<374> Chair:> So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> No.
Q<375> Paul Flynn:> But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.
Q<376> Chair:> I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell:> That is absolutely correct.
Paul Flynn:> The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?
Chair:> We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn:> We haven’t dealt with it as far as it applies—
Chair:> Mr Flynn, we are moving on.
Paul Flynn:> You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.
It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding from precisely the same Israeli sources as Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. He also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
But despite the evasiveness of O’Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O’Donnell confirms vital parts of my investigation. In particular he agrees that the Fox-Werritty-Gould “private dinner” in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into this affair.
Of the six meetings of Fox-Gould-Werritty together which I discovered, five were while Fox was Secretary of State for Defence. Only one was while Fox was in opposition. But O’Donnell has now let the cat much further out of the bag, with the astonishing admission to Paul Flynn’s above questioning that Gould, Fox and Werritty held “meetings that took place before the election.” He also refers to “some of those meetings” as being before the election. Both are plainly in the plural.
It is now evident that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least five meetings while Fox was in power – with never another British official present – they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O’Donnell is right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition is not his concern. But what Gould was doing with them – a senior official – most definitely is.
A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defence Secretary and a paid zionist lobbyist. What on earth was happening?
The absolutely astonishing cover-up and lack of honesty from the government about the Fox-Gould-Werritty relationship is being maintained with cast-iron resolve. Not only is Gould a self-declared fervent zionist, he was born in the same year as Chancellor George Osborne and attended the same private school – St Paul’s. At least some of the time he was meeting Fox and Werrity while they were in opposition, Gould was Private Secretary to New Labour Foreign Secretary David Milliband. That opens up the question of whether David Milliband, another fervent zionist, was part of the discussions with Mossad and US neo-cons on how to engineer war with Iran, for which Werritty was the conduit.
That would help explain the completeness of the cover-up. The government appears able with total impunity to refuse to answer MPs’ questions on Gould/Fox/Werritty, and they will not respond to Freedom of Information requests. It is now proven without doubt that O’Donnell lied blatantly about the number of Gould-Fox-Werritty meetings, and that Mossad was involved. And yet every single British mainstream media outlet still refuses to mention it.
I know from a mole that the plot involves a plan to attack Iran. For the cover-up to be so blatant and yet so comprehensively maintained, the secret at the heart of this conspiracy must be great, and those complicit must include a very large swathe of the British political and media establishment.
UPDATE: access to this blog is now blocked from FCO and Cabinet Office terminals. Very wise – truth can be contagious.
“All of which, unfortunately, make his speech more or less incomprehensible to more and more people educated in modern British schools.”
.
.
i dont think he is that much hard work, though i do suspect people hear what they want to hear and of course believe .
.
theres an extraordinary headline in the Independent today:
.
“English Defence League prepares to storm local elections”
.
– if there was any sense of a conspiracy this is it, in the guardian mail and independent the EDL get an rather high profile and not always negative , though it might appear so superficially.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-defence-league-prepares-to-storm-local-elections-6267740.html
.
Someone in high places surely wants them to succeed
On Medialens
.
Re: Is Britain Plotting With Israel to Attack Iran?
Posted by Si on November 25, 2011, 7:30 pm, in reply to “Is Britain Plotting With Israel to Attack Iran?”
.
Excellent piece building on Murray. I was struck by this section:
‘The British media have cautiously raised the issue of apparent Israeli links to Fox and Werritty.
.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the pair secretly met the head of the Mossad –possibly at the Tel Aviv dinner, though the paper has not specified where or when the meeting took place.
.
Last month the Independent on Sunday claimed that Werritty had close ties to the Mossad as well as to “US-backed neocons” plotting to overthrow the Iranian regime. The Mossad were reported to have assumed Werritty was Fox’s “chief of staff.”’
.
Reading that you could be forgiven for believing that the British media is in the game of exposing warmongering – when in fact they are key war enablers.
–Previous Message–
:
: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/25/is-britain-plotting-with-israel-to-attack-iran/
: by JONATHAN COOK
Only slightly off-thread: Not a squeak from our Governments regarding the attempts by the brave crowds in Egypt to rescue their revolution. Better to keep it in the hands of reliable tryants like the military junta.
I wonder what our leaders would say if the crowds were massed in the centre of Damascus or Tehran…
Someone was asking what the Islamophobic zionist Robert Halfon did before becoming an MP.
Here:
http://www.feweek.co.uk/index.php/2011/11/09/robert-halfon-his-story/
.
I could applaud the guy if that were all that there was to him: the bee in his bonnet is well concealed in this account.
Antidote to the above: refers to Halfon’s description, under the shield of Parliamentary privilege, of Engage as antisemitic.
http://londonmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/robert-halfon-mp-warned-in-parliament.html
…which they denied, challenging him to produce any evidence…
as part of his successful attempt to remove the group’s input to the All-Party Group on Islamophobia:
.
“The founder of Muslims4UK, Inayat Bunglawala, condemned the MPs’ decision on his blog under the headline: “Israel lobby gloats over removal of Engage from APPG on Islamophobia”.He continued: “Around six months ago, I wrote that pro-Israeli activists were involved in strenuous efforts to try and hobble a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia… And lo! It came to pass.”
.
Just try hobbling any Parliamentary group with “Antisemitism” as its brief.
Wonder if I tripped a sensitive rule in the auto-moderator? It’s gone, anyway…
this is the gist of it.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/52728/row-over-mps-rejection-islamophobia-group
X-phobia, good; antiYism, bad, eh?
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1686
The Hon. José María Aznar
I would first like to thank the Honourable Robert Halfon, MP, Alan Mendoza and all the people at the Henry Jackson Society. Thank you for making this event possible. I cannot think of a better place to launch the Friends of Israel Initiative than the House of Commons, the very cradle of modern democracy.
(July 2010)
Halfon kept his name away from this one..
http://blsc.org.uk/news/?p=40
(2 March 2011)
Halfon is a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society.
The British Embassy is here in Tel Aviv. In the centre of the map marked with a X. It is a tower block called MigdalOr House and is the location for the Russian and French Embassies and airline and travel offices.
.
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=32.07322&lon=34.76792&z=17&l=0&m=b
.
Nice and near the beach. No naval gunboats for the bathers there nor sewage laden water like Gaza.
Better to search Halfon’s Blog re Israel..
http://roberthalfon.blogspot.com/search?q=israel
Halfon defends Atlantic Bridge as a charity asking why it cannot be treated like the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in today’s FT.
.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e304d018-ff20-11e0-9b2f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ekb6oOyE
Re. Egypt, Komodo: Activist Mona El-Tahawy relates that she was physically (fractured hand) and sexually assaulted by Egyptian police yesterday. Check her Twitter/blog, etc.
.
I see that Christopher Hitchens had been adding to the anti-Iran ferment. His is a great intellect and I am terribly sorry he’s terminally ill. But I think that, not unlike Martin Amis, he’s lost his way to some extent in aligning himself with imperial power in the way he has done. This is from 2010:
.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/08/its_not_just_about_israel.html
.
It’s bad news that India, Pakistan and Israel all have nukes and it’s bad news that the actions of the USA/NATO wrt the region have increased the likelihood of further wars and of nuclear proliferation.
.
What is reqd, really is a regional peace treaty with mutual benefit and multilateral guarantees. The Iranian regime is not a new one, it has been in power for 32 years now, it is repressive and corrupt (and many Iranians would prefer a better system there), but it does not behave in an ‘insane’ manner (it often is portrayed as insane like, say, Idi Amin’s or Bokassa’s regimes). It needs to be engaged properly. This is not appeasement; this is realpolitik.
.
The alternative is for there to be another war in the Middle East. Another conflagration would make it more likely that nukes will proliferate – in the same way India/Pakistan’s repeated wars have contributed to there being nukes on both sides. The India/Pakistan situation requires a soln to Kashmir and an end to Pakistani use of Islamist paramilitaries domestically and in the region. Similarly, a just compromise over Palestine/Israel and, in parallel, systematic measures to reduce tension b/w Saudi Arabia and Iran would help. Such things can be done – as Craig well knows, I would think. My concern is that a number of the major players’ geostrategic interests are not aligned with seeking lasting peace in the region.
.
Put more simply, NATO and/or various ‘coalitions-of-thewilling’ have found that the can conquer any country at will with impunity. This is the danger of there being unilateral military power in the world.
“Put more simply, NATO and/or various ‘coalitions-of-thewilling’ have found that the can conquer any country at will with impunity. This is the danger of there being unilateral military power in the world.”
.
I am afraid that is the intention, Suhayl. Though I’ll be interested to see how the extraordinarily courageous Egyptians fare against their US – funded military. My guess is that any emergent government will only be allowed if it plays nicely with Israel.
,
Otherwise I agree with you. That would be the solution. Unfortunately it ain’t gonna happen. (My Saudi ear to the ground suggests that ordinary Saudis are completely disenchanted with their own regime, and would like some democracy too.As long as Saudi Arabia can be played off against Iran, they’ll have a damn long wait.)
Oh my sweet lord!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible
Thanks, Komodo, that’s really interesting to know. Yes, that is what I think too. Btw, I didn’t know you had a “Saudi ear”! Is it painful? Is it allowed to drive or go out on its own? Reminds me a little of the Gogol story, ‘The Nose’! Do dragons have ears???
FT is registration (8 articles a month) or paywall (full access) restricted, John. Could you c&p the details if you have access, please?
Re. Gove, he may be a bloody-minded neocon, a member of the Henry Jackson Society, and everything else I detest (though his parents have several points in common with my own life)
BUT:
I agree with him on the KJV. It added immeasurably to my appreciation of my own language, despite my rejection of much of its message. The various modern parodies of the Bible in circulation in schools ignore the precision of the language, take liberties with the sense and are usually composed by inferior scholars further from the sources than the KJV.
But can he make them read it?
And Origin of Species, I am sorry to say, is not likely to appeal to young people for its writing style…
Suhayl…earholes. 🙂
Interestingly too, Saudi Arabia was not as conservative and repressive wrt social activity prior to 1979. Women were allowed to drive and so on. It was not a liberal democracy obviously but it was slowly reforming under King Faisal. The current situation internally developed immediately following the Islamist Mecca mosque takeover, which ended very bloodily.
.
The last truly independent ruler of consequence of Saudi Arabia was King Faisal, who was assassinated in the mid-1970s. His Oil Minister was Sheikh Yamani – remember him? Since them, the rulers largely have been US stooges. One imagines that the powers-that-be did not want OPEC to act as an economic block (remember 1973). The stooges of Saudi Arabia led considerably to the (Sunni) Islamist militaries/paramilitaries of Afghanistan-Pakistan (and elsewhere). So, yet again, as with Iran 1953-1979-now, we can see that messing about with countries, trying to leverage resource hegemony, etc., simply leads to future wars. But as you suggest, Komodo, the sowing of chaos in the region, pitting one against the other, and so on, may well be the underlying intention. As you know, it’s called neocolonialism. In recent years, of course, direct intervention in ‘The Greater Middle East’ (now there’s an imperial term worthy of Cecil Rhodes!) has again become a strategic tool.
I checked out Robert Halfon’s interests and he has just set up a management and consultancy company called Eucalyptus Leaves Ltd. Its address is in Derby. Wonder if it’s another not for profit company? He is 100% shareholder. At least he’s declared the interest, unlike those who forget.
.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07661118
.
There is no harm in keeping an eye on its activities.
@ Komodo
“I agree with him on the KJV. It added immeasurably to my appreciation of my own language, despite my rejection of much of its message. The various modern parodies of the Bible in circulation in schools ignore the precision of the language, take liberties with the sense and are usually composed by inferior scholars further from the sources than the KJV.
But can he make them read it?”
Hmmm… i very much doubt if he can make them read it. Todays yoof? The Bible or…XBox/Internet/Angry Birds etc…i doubt it.
Wonder who lives in a house like this? The reg address of Eucalyptua Leaves Ltd.
http://g.co/maps/9d7qz
Suhayl – once again I can only agree. Oil prices have been the issue throughout. And they apparently justify propping up a Wahhabi theo/autocracy while simultaneously demonising a Shi’a theocracy. Note also that the Iraq invasion followed closely on Saddam’s statemet of intent to sell oil in Euros, which the Americans couldn’t print on demand, and I believe Ghaddafi was of the same mind shortly before “we” “assisted” his end. Not that either of them were nice guys.
Commission calls for think-tanks’ funding disclosure
By Jim Pickard, Political Correspondent
Political think-tanks would be forced to disclose more information about their financial backers under proposals by the Charity Commission in the wake of the closure of Atlantic Bridge, a charity set up by former defence secretary Liam Fox.
.
Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the watchdog, said on Tuesday that politically minded charities always raised “tricky questions”. There was a thin line between educational research that charities are allowed to do and political activity, which is banned, she said.
.
More
On this story
Fox charity tax bill latest link with tycoon
Confusion over Fox’s Sri Lanka trust
Charity Commission makes inquiries more transparent
Private schools win review on charitable status
.
“I have suggested that we have a look at think-tanks generically in the next year or so and I think in the context of requiring information from think-tanks it might be worth considering a bit more transparency about sources of funding,” Dame Suzi told the Commons’ administration select committee.
.
“Where you are drawing these very, very difficult lines, where organisations are getting their funding from may help you make those difficult judgments.”
.
At present, charities print annual statements but donors can give money anonymously. The question of whether these gifts are appropriate is decided by a charity’s trustees.
.
Atlantic Bridge, founded by Mr Fox and run by his friend Adam Werritty, was wound up voluntarily by its trustees last month. The commission had found in July 2010 that its “current activities must cease immediately” because it promoted a stance close to the Conservative party.
.
Amanda Bowman, former chief executive of Atlantic Bridge Inc – the US wing of the charity – recently described its UK partner as a “shell game”, a reference to a confidence trick.
.
Robert Halfon, a Conservative MP on the committee, accused the commission of having been more tough with rightwing charities such as Atlantic Bridge than their leftwing equivalents.
.
“There is a view that you are more lenient to charities, so-called charities on the left, and much harsher with those that are regarded as the centre-right,” he said.
.
Mr Halfon asked why the commission differentiated between Atlantic Bridge and Labour-leaning think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research.
.
But Sam Younger, chief executive of the commission, said this was not the case. The commission issued a report in 2008 heavily criticising the Smith Institute, a Labour-supporting think-tank.
.
“I think I’m right in saying that in the case of Atlantic Bridge, part of the reason the investigation was done [was that] there was no evidence of research that was being published and widely disseminated,” he said. “In the case of IPPR it wouldn’t be like that.”
.
Dame Suzi acknowledged that the issue was very sensitive and that it was often difficult to determine the point at which educational research “slips into political activity”.
.
A spokesman for the IPPR said: “As the Charity Commission makes clear, a number of think-tanks have charitable status. We hold public events, publish research and disseminate our work widely. We are open and transparent in all that we do.”
.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e304d018-ff20-11e0-9b2f-00144feabdc0.html
There’s an issue there that isn’t being addressed. Charities like thinktanks claim to be educational, in order to qualify as charities. But “education” covers a wide field, from GCSE coaching to disseminating propaganda for foreign powers. A line needs to be drawn. There is no sign of that happening.
Thanks Mary for posting that. I hadn’t realied. I thought it was today’s news but when I checked again found it was a month old. But still relevant. Sorry.
Should a British Ambassador be giving his opinion on an internal matter to a member of parliament in the country to which he is Ambassador? In other words, interfering.
.
‘In related news, British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould expressed concerns to Likud MK Ofir Akunis, one of the initiators of the bills, over the proposed clause that would limit the amount of money that Israeli political NGOs could receive from foreign governments. Gould told Akunis that the UK supports human rights work in a large number of countries and that UK support for NGOs is not aimed against the Israeli government. Gould also cautioned Akunis that, if passed, the bill would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.’
.
http://bicom.org.uk/news-article/knesset-committee-advances-bill-limiting-ngo-funding-2/
I suspect the address you found is that of one of Halfon’s scruffier chums? I found another address:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/110830/halfon_robert.htm
He appears to be using it as an account for payments for his literary efforts as well as his business consultancy.
.
Must be a high-powered business consultant, btw. His sole contact with business appears to have been as a membership tout for a hotel. And he’s BA politics, MA Russian and European Studies. (which might be seen as, er, spooky)…not even an MBA.
Mary, isn’t that what Craig did in Uzbekistan? “Interfered”?Different situation, obviously and different aims. Just saying. NGOs have been used as an arm of imperialism, to erode the power of the nation-state, so this may be the dynamic to which to refer here. Also, if Gould was arguing in this instance for human rights in Israel, how can that be entirely a bad thing?
No doubt Gould was conveying HMG’s position. And maybe remembering that Anglo-Jewish NGO’s would also be liable to suppression as well.
Eucalyptus Leaves:
Toxic.
Grown widely in Israel, originally introduced to drain swamp land for settlers.
Known by Arabs as “the Jew’s Tree”
.
Appropriate.
Don’t make me laugh Suhayl. Gould and human rights? He wants to have killed, maimed and shredded human beings 1000 miles due east of Israel.
In other words, in this instance, he appears to have been using diplomacy (“it is in your interests to comply, my friend, you will look good!”) to further UK interests in Israel. Isn’t that his job? It doesn’t detract from the main plank of this thread in any way. But I think we need to remain analytical and not jump at every possible ‘bait’ (as it were).