Tag: corruption

Disappointing debate about lobby influence


Debate about Israel’s extensive lobby activities in parliament unenlightening

June 2026

LETTER ADDED: 29th June

When we vote for someone to become our member of parliament, there is an understanding – not always spelled out in so many words – that MPs are there to represent us, their constituents, and once in parliament, to represent the interests of the country.  If they assume office of some kind, they will of course have many meetings with interested parties and discussions with other countries.  But all along is the principle that it is our nation which is being represented and the public at large being protected.

In recent years there has been a rising tide of concern about outside influence and role of think tanks and lobbyists. Basically the system is not working according to Transparency International and only 4% of lobbyists are registered making the legislation meaningless.  Collectively, they spend millions of parlaying their influence and often the question is who is funding them? Much of their funding is opaque but is believed to be American commercial interests pushing against climate change, fighting hard not to see controls on their media platforms and for us to leave the European Convention.  The egregious payment of £5m to Nigel Farage (which is being investigated) has attracted much media attention but we should not lose sight of the drip, drip of smaller sums into the pockets of our representatives. 

Israeli lobbying

Another worry has been the influence of the largest and best funded lobby organisation funded by Israel to promote its interests. They have created a series of ‘Friends of Israel’ groups in all the main parties. There are believed to be 200 such MPs across parties with the predominant membership being Conservative. Over 60 are on the Labour benches.  

Many in the public are concerned at the extent of this influence and a petition attracted 118,000 signatures leading to a debate in Westminster hall on 22 June.  They called for ‘an inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy’. The debate can be read here.

Their influence was immediately felt in the debate.  ‘Why is Israel singled out for this kind of enquiry?’ it was asked.  Why not the Gulf states for example? 

Another line of argument was that it echoed historical tropes of hidden Jewish control and allegations of poisoning wells during the time of the Black Death for example and the infamous ‘blood libel’.  Needless to say, the anti-Semitism allegation was made by Richard Tice among others. The frightening effect of these allegations on Jewish people was also mentioned. 

“This motion is antisemitic in its very motivation and at its core. As such, we should utterly reject it”

Richard Tice (Reform).

A consistent problem has been the confusion between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israel.  It has been argued that there is a degree of overreach as far the former is concerned.  Much use has been made of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.  As the Jewish academic Omer Bartov explains in his book Israel: What Went Wrong? (Fern Press, 2026) ‘The IHRA definition was the product of a European effort to promote Holocaust remembrance and education: it was never meant to serve as a basis for legislation and enforcement, but it has nonetheless morphed into an instrument for silencing criticism by law and duress’ (p58).

Anti Semitism definition criticised

The IHRA provides 11 examples of what might be termed ‘anti-Semitic’ but as Bartov points out, however objectionable some of such statements [in the IHRA list] may be ‘they are not, in and of themselves’ antisemitic (ibid).’  Herein lies the problem seemingly swallowed by several of the MPs making their speeches: legitimate criticism of Israel and their disproportionate destruction of Gaza and south Lebanon, and their policy of killing children, is by this definition, anti-Semitic. We argue it is not.

The Debate

The debate itself was disappointing for its lack of any kind of forensic analysis or the setting out of facts about the terrible events which took place on October 7th and subsequently.  Absent were any references to the bloodthirsty comments by leading Israeli politicians – not extremist firebrands – but members of the Knesset and Likud politicians.  The deputy Speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi for example, suggested ‘we need to separate the children of the women and kill the adults in Gaza’ (ibid p128).  There are many such repulsive statements from politicians like Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and others. 

‘Why only Israel’ was the cry from several MPs?  We can sympathise to an extent with this question which is probably due to our short attention spans and a media which finds it hard to fund overseas reporters.  Little is heard about the fearful abuse of Uyghurs in China, or the continuing persecution being carried out by the Junta in Myanmar, and Sudan has quietly slid out of the news.  Ukraine is in and out of the news. 

Circular argument

There is a degree of circularity in the argument however. Because Israel is seen as some kind of beacon of Western values in the Middle East, the only democracy it is claimed and an example of a brave little country surrounded by Moslem states some bent on its destruction: when it is seen to violate those norms of behaviour, there is a reaction. The demolition of entire apartment blocks because they claim there is a Hamas control centre within, or a member of Hezbollah in south Lebanon (a policy even President Trump is finding hard to accept) the seizing and confinement, torture and mistreatment of medical staff and hundreds of children, the destruction – the wanton destruction – of water treatment and other infrastructure like hospitals and schools and the deliberate policy of withholding food aid and medical supplies, the seizure of all cultivable land in Gaza, even with the enfeebled reporting by British media, some of this has seeped into the consciences of the British people.  Which has led over a hundred thousand to ask has our political class been corrupted by an Israel lobbying organisation?  In short, if you want to be regarded as a beacon of Western values then you must behave like one.   

One issue which emerged, albeit briefly, was the question of Elbit Systems a firm based in Britain with 16 facilities.   It has considerable support from the British government and the firm is engaged in joint ventures with UK firms to build drones. It is these drones which inflict such damage on people in the area and our continued support for the firm, the political cover given them and the draconian treatment of protestors which has caused resentment among many.   It was noted that the firm has easy access to ministers and civil servants, ‘in and out like a cat flap’ someone said.  

An issue not debated was the funding of trips to Israel.  As Declassified has revealed these are considerable in number. Conservative Friends of Israel has funded no less than 155 trips in a decade more than any other government. What are the MPs seeing and been shown?  It is not clear.  The prisons where boys are badly treated?  Unlikely.  The ruins of hospitals, schools and the like in Gaza?  Probably not.  The villages attacked and burned by settlers on the West Bank?  Improbable.

Was the debate enlightening?  Yes and no.  About the issue in question and the undue influence on policy and support for Israel which seems unconditional and not influenced in any meaningful way by the atrocities carried on there, the answer is ‘no’.  A debate built around the never-ending anti-Semitism claims about any or all criticism of Israel the state and the IDF was never going to enlighten us or them. 

About the lack of transparency and the role played by powerful and well-funded lobby organisations of which Israel is thought to be the largest and best funded, the answer is ‘yes’.  It has enabled the government to continue its support for Israel unimpeded by much in the way of questioning or obstruction from its back benchers or the opposition significant numbers of whom are members of one or other of the Friends groups. It was David Cameron, the ex-prime minister who, after the Greensill scandal that ruined his reputation, said Lobbying was the ‘next big scandal waiting to happen’. It is continuous and is in fact a perma scandal. The debate is but another example of how our parliamentary system has been corrupted by outside influence.  The very lack of insightful debate and lack of facts was revealing in itself.  Only one MP in the debate declared his interest as a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

The ending

The end was interesting: Richard Tice MP again ‘Now that we have debated this appalling motion, is there a minimum timeframe before we have to debate it again?‘ To which the reply was in part ‘When reflecting on how this debate has gone, and more widely on how the Jewish community in particular has reacted to the petition, I would certainly argue that it should not come back for another debate, even if it reached that threshold. We have had an opportunity to air our views, and we have collectively called it out for what it is’ (John Lamont MP). Mr Lamont is a member of the CFI which he did not declare and does not appear on the They Work For You website under ‘Register of Interests’ [accessed 27 June 2026].

The tragedy of all this is that these ‘friends’ are not in the final analysis, doing Israel any favours. Peace and stability will only come to the region and to Israel if it can live and work with its neighbours. Simply arming and supporting a thuggish regime bent on war, destruction and killing is not in its best interests. Unless it completely destroys the entire population of Gaza – total genocide that is – there will be a residue of bitter resentment of a people treated so harshly and so cruelly that revenge inevitably will be a prime motive. Those parliamentarians are thus twice guilty: allowing themselves to beguiled into an uncritical support of a brutal regime and secondly, not in fact acting as they should as honest critics to the Israeli government to counsel a non lethal approach to every problem.

[letter in the Guardian, 29th June]

Israel’s actions are fuelling antisemitism around the world | Israel | The Guardian

We are shortly to have a new prime minister and one hopes that he or she will address the issue of corruption and undue influence head on.  Trust in our politicians will only be reclaimed if the issue of lobbying and its pernicious effects are forcefully tackled.  Meanwhile, Israel if free to continue its violent actions safe in the knowledge that the UK parliament has been successfully tamed. John Glen, the Conservative member of parliament for Salisbury, is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Full list of all MPs believed to be members of Friends of Israel.

0

Fascinating discussions at Lviv Book Forum


Several fascinating discussions at the Lviv Book Forum organised by the Hay Festival. Serious debate about the role of oligarchs in British cultural and political life

October 2022

If you missed the debates at the Lviv Book Forum you missed some of the best debates this year especially its focus on the role of Russian oligarchs and their dirty money in influencing British cultural and political life. Debates of this nature seldom make it into the open air in Britain, one reason being – as was explained – because of the effective lack of free speech in the UK arising from the punitive nature of our libel laws. Oligarchs and other wealthy individuals can launch what are termed SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) which effectively silence critics and frighten publishers and journalists. Costing millions to defend they exert a chilling effect in the UK and make Britain the libel capital of the world.

Why do Russians come to Britain and establish themselves here? This was a major part of the discussion because they are to be found in other parts of the world. There were a number of factors which made Britain particularly attractive it was explained. Firstly, English which was spoken internationally. Secondly, it was the no questions asked culture here: no one asked where the money came from and the agencies which were supposed to check on this kind of thing, looked the other way. Our private schools were another attraction as was easy access to and entry into, the political elite. Members of the Lords for example, were happy to sit on various boards of companies set up by the oligarchs. This easy access to the elite meant all sorts of powerful people were happy to attend parties where political influence took place. Fourthly, Oliver Bullough also spoke of the wide range of services offered in London for example, legal, financial and public relations. The ‘easy come, easy go’ culture combined to make London the key magnet for dirty money and illegal wealth.

One of the participants, Catherine Belton, spoke of the ease with which assets were acquired for example football clubs such as Chelsea. This provided further cultural power and how sports journalists were only too happy to criticise her work in return of favours and interviews with key players.

Misha Glenny explained the origins of the whole process which (as ever) started during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership although he said it carried on under Major, Blair and Brown and is well and truly alive today. Mrs Thatcher’s central plank was to reduce subsidies for the arts and encourage private patronage. This opened to door for wealthy individuals to put money into galleries, museums and orchestras and other cultural institutions. It also gave them influence over the sort of things which are put on.

But more importantly, it gave them a philanthropic reputation which brings us back to the libel issue because, to pursue a libel claim, you had to establish a reputation to defend here. Their philanthropy did this even though the sums involved were peanuts in terms of the wealth extracted from Russia.

The Independent (?) online newspaper, owned by an oligarch was give as an example with a piece it published regretting the non-invitation to Vladimir Putin to the Queen’s funeral.

In the following day’s session, Phillippe Sands spoke of the huge sums given to the Conservative party. He also spoke of the somewhat different opinion in the UK of Boris Johnson to that which he enjoys in Ukraine. The view in the UK was more ambiguous and even sinister. The point being that when Russia first started on its activities in that country, there were many in the UK who were able to downplay its importance and many happy to claim that ‘Ukraine was always part of Russia’.

The combination of these forces, the highly successful political and cultural influence the oligarchs had acquired, the ‘no questions asked’ financial milieu and the ease with which money could be siphoned off to network of tax havens centred on London, combined with massively expensive and oppressive libel laws, meant the UK’s political process has been compromised.

The implication for human rights is clear. Wealth and influence buys silence and complicity.

Matters changed with the invasion in February. Oligarch’s assets were frozen and the plight of Ukrainians could no longer be brushed away. Film of Russia’s activities, the massive number of human rights abuses and evidence of torture together with bombing civilian targets, became obvious to all. Suddenly, things Ukrainian were everywhere, with a concert at the Albert Hall for example and Ukrainian food being more visible. However, the speakers were not convinced this would be permanent. The scale of their financial power and the likelihood of compassion fatigue would probably mean over time, their steady return and influence.

If you missed it then you can access it via this link. Books referred to:

Moneyland, Oliver Bullough,

McMafia, Misha Glenny

Putin’s People, Catherine Belton

0

Arms firms’ staff employed in the Ministry of Defence


Report reveals the extent of arms firms’ staff employed in the MoD

28 September 2022

A report by Open Democracy reveals the extent of penetration of the Ministry of Defence by individuals employed by the arms companies. This raises immediate issues of conflict of interest, national security and the awarding of millions of pounds of contracts to those same firms as well as the question of licences allowing arms sales to proceed. Open Democracy report that the government would not say whether such secondments represented a conflict of interest.

There has been a long running campaign by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT, to hold the government to account for sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. These weapons have been used in the war in Yemen causing untold misery and destruction and the deaths of at least 8,983 people. CAAT had some success and there was a brief moratorium. The government resumed offering licences claiming that violations of international human rights were ‘isolated incidents’. CAAT reports that an appeal is to be heard on 31 January 2023.

Firms include BAE, Leonardo and Qinetiq which has a large presence near Salisbury. The numbers are not small and around 50 individuals are involved. It has been confirmed that they were largely concentrated in the UK Defence and Export directorate which is involved in helping firms sell arms overseas. CAAT points out that it shows that the secondments are deeply embedded in the ministry. The government should be keeping a close eye on what arms are exported to which regime with proper attention to the human rights of the people involved in conflicts. This does not seem to have happened in the case of Yemen and free reign has been offered to companies to sell weapons to Saudi which have been used to bomb schools, hospitals, weddings and other targets. RAF personnel were also revealed to be involved in the activity.

An additional factor is what is called the ‘revolving door’. Senior civil servants, some ex-ministers and senior forces personnel – such as Generals and Admirals – leave or retire from their jobs and take lucrative positions in arms companies with only cursory checks. ACOBA is the government body charged with overseeing this is but has been widely criticised as ‘toothless’. A Private Eye report describes in detail the extent of the corruption. CAAT comments that staff leaving the forces or the MoD take with them extensive contacts and a deep knowledge of how the ministry works. Existing staff are reluctant to upset the arms companies for fear of jeopardising a lucrative consultancy or board appointment when it is their turn to retire. Transparency International have also reported on this problem in a report.

The sale of arms is a profoundly sensitive issue. What arms are sold to which regime is a matter of considerable importance. Films of conflicts around the world always show the various groups armed to the teeth with a wide range of weapons sold to them by overseas firms including those from the UK. These weapons cause untold misery, death or maiming of thousands of people and children. We surely have the right and expectation that the MoD is adopting the highest of standards in deciding on these matters and that decisions are taken with the greatest of integrity.

Yet what we find is that ministers are pusillanimous over the issuing of licences, that large numbers of staff from arms companies are involved in the decisions being made and that senior staff and military people are working in the expectation of being employed by the very companies they are supposed to be in control of.

The result of their actions is the death and suffering of people subject to bombing, drone attacks, cluster munitions, shelling and other outrages courtesy of UK arms firms aided and abetted by a deeply compromised Ministry of Defence. Is the Ministry working on our behalf, or to serve the interests of the arms firms?

0

Sportswash


Use of sport to promote interests of unsavoury regimes on the rise

The latest example is the heavyweight fight in Saudi Arabia involving Anthony Joshua.  The fight was approved by the WBA, the World Boxing Organisation and International Boxing Federation.

Readers of this site need no introduction into the unpleasantness of the Saudi Regime.  Its activities in Yemen we have featured many times on these pages.  With British and American support

Anthony Joshua (Wikipedia)

and armaments, it has carried out a bombing campaign in that country with little regard to international human rights law.  Schools, hospitals, wedding ceremonies and civilian areas generally have been bombed sometimes using what is called ‘double tap’ that is, going in for a second time when the aid workers arrive causing extra mayhem.

Human rights are low on the agenda with floggings, torture, amputations and executions the norm.  There have been 148 executions so far this year.  Women’s rights activists, lawyers and members of the Shia minority have all been targeted.  But never mind, there’s money to be made in them there dunes so lets go for it.

There has been a wide range of criticism of the boxer himself and the promoters, Matchroom Sport for taking the Saudi shilling for this event thus taking part in an attempt to sanitise the regime.  They denied the charge that they were sportswashing.

Never mind the stonings, public executions, or human rights, Eddie Hearn is more than happy to follow the money

Daily Telegraph, 16 August (Eddie Hearn is Joshua’s promoter)

What does Anthony Joshua himself say?  He is reported not to have known who Amnesty International was saying in a BBC interview that he spent most of his time in Finchley training.

I appreciate them [Amnesty] voicing an opinion.  And it’s good to talk about issues in the world.  But I’m there to fight.  If I want to put on my cape where I’m going to save the world, we all have to do it together.  The questions and the things that are happening in the world in general can’t be left to one man to solve.  We all have to make a difference.”

I’ve actually been to Saudi Arabia and I’m building a relationship,  Some of the questions that the world has to ask, maybe I could be a spokesman?  It’s a blessing and they can speak back.  And that’s relationship building, rather than just accusing, pointing fingers and shouting from Great Britain.  In order to ask questions, and people that may want to make change, you have to go and get involved.  Daily Telegraph 6 September 2019

Matchroom’s site makes only scant mention of the human rights aspect.  “We are an independent company of passionate individuals” it tells us on its site: presumably the passion is confined to sport.

Of course, Joshua is not the first and certainly not the last to be involved in the process of sportwashing regimes such as Saudi Arabia.  His ‘crime’ of agreeing to fight in the kingdom does not compare with the UK government’s support and agreeing to the supply of arms to this regime over many years.  Members of the Royal Family have been happy to get engaged with a fellow royal family.

The difference is that this fight will have been seen by millions hence the purse of £40 million that Joshua will earn (there are other higher figures).  Those millions of viewers are likely to be left with an impression that it is all right to engage with such a regime.  But they have been willing stooges in the process of trying to sanitise them and its attempts to make a comeback after the murder of Khashoggi.

Sport has had its fair share of scandals.  Doping, cheating, bribery: a seemingly endless stream of less than salubrious behaviour.  FIFA and the Olympics are replete with corruption.  To many, Joshua is a hero and on the sporting front he no doubt is.  But as a hero he has a responsibility, as do those behind him, to recognise the influence he has on followers.  Some day, the sporting fraternity are going to have to recognise the role they play in shaping people’s – particularly young people’s – minds and the influence they have.  And that may mean saying ‘no’ to performing in a country where women have few rights and are imprisoned for seeking them, where torture is a way of life, and hacking off heads and limbs part of the legal system.  Good way to earn £40 million.

Last word to Matchroom:

We got criticized for coming here but these people have been amazing. The vision they have for boxing in this region is incredible and they delivered.  [Accessed 8 December]

Sources: Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Amnesty

2

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑