Category: UK

Experts demand an inquiry into death of Dr Kelly

DAVID KELLY: Weapons inspector died sedated with his wrists cut.

ALISON CAMPSIE

A group of prominent medical experts has demanded a full inquest into the death of government weapons inspector David Kelly.

They described the official cause of death, bleeding from a self-inflicted wound, as “extremely unlikely” in the light of evidence since made public.

The call came in a letter to a national newspaper signed by eight senior figures, including Michael Powers, a former coroner; Margaret Bloom, a former deputy coroner; and Julian Bion, a professor of intensive care medicine.

Coalition ministers are currently exploring how best to address concerns over the official version of Dr Kelly’s death.

The scientist was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in 2003 after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story suggesting that a dossier on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been “sexed up” by the Government.

An inquest was suspended to make way for the Hutton Inquiry, which examined the full circumstances surrounding his death.

The inquest was never resumed, with the inquiry finding his death was self-inflicted. But in their letter, the experts claim this conclusion is unsafe.

They write: “We would like to express our concerns about the conclusion as to the cause of death in the light of the information now in the public domain.

“It is extremely unlikely, from a medical perspective, that the primary cause of death would or could have been haemorrhage from a severed ulnar artery in one wrist without any evidence of a blood-clotting deficiency.

“Insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life.

“The inquiry by Lord Hutton was unsatisfactory with regard to the causation of death. A detailed investigation of all the medical circumstances is now required and we support the call for a proper inquest into the cause of Dr Kelly’s death.”

Other concerns have been raised about the inquiry’s finding that Dr Kelly cut his own wrist after consuming a number of high-strength pain-killing muscle relaxants.

Mai Pederson, a colleague who served with him in Iraq, says a hand and arm injury had left him “too weak” to cut his own wrist.

Retired detective Graham Coe, the officer who stood guard over Dr Kelly’s body after it was first discovered, said there was very little blood at the scene.

No fingerprints were found on the knife Dr Kelly is alleged to have used, it later emerged, and he was not wearing gloves when his body was discovered.

In January, it emerged Lord Hutton secretly classified all medical and scientific records relating to Dr Kelly for 70 years, including the post-mortem examination report and photo of his body.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clark would have to overturn the order to allow a coroner’s inquest to take place.

There is ongoing legal action by a separate group of doctors to secure an inquest, while Attorney General Dominic Grieve can apply to the High Court for an inquest if he believes there is considerable doubt in the public’s mind that Dr Kelly killed himself.

, 14 Aug 2010

August 14, 2010
Police charged over Ahmad ‘assault’

Four police officers have been accused of assaulting terror suspect Babar Ahmad as they arrested him in 2003.

The officers, all members of the Metropolitan Police’s territorial support group, will be charged with causing actual bodily harm.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Pcs Nigel Cowley, John Donohue, Roderick James-Bowen and Mark Jones will appear before magistrates on September 22.

Ahmad, 36, was held by officers who raided his home in Tooting, south London, in December 2003. In March last year the Met paid £60,000 damages as lawyers for Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted he was the victim of violence.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer’s decision to bring criminal charges came after an independent review by retired senior judge Sir Geoffrey Grigson into the handling of the case. An original Met inquiry concluded no officer should be disciplined and prosecutors did not bring criminal charges.

Ahmad remains in Long Lartin prison after the European Court of Human Rights halted his extradition to the United States to face terror charges. The court will announce next year whether transferring him breaches his rights by exposing him to life imprisonment without parole and solitary confinement.

ITN

August 12, 2010
Should Turkey Join the EU? The View from Europe

Scott Bleiweis | August 11, 2010

During his recent visit to Ankara, British Prime Minister David Cameron made his stance on Turkish accession to the European Union plain and clear. “I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership,” he said. “Together I want us to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels.” The Belgian government also supports such a position, and has pledged to work with Turkey to make its accession a reality.

In praising Turkey’s participation in NATO (though conveniently overlooking its blocking of NATO-EU cooperation on security issues), Cameron further declared, “It’s just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.”

As Quentin Peel, associate editor of Financial Times, observes, “It was familiar British policy, but spelt out with unusual passion, and very few cautionary words.” The Turkish media also picked up on Cameron’s praise, with the Sabah daily displaying “The EU would be poor without Turkey” as its front page headline.

Guido Westerwelle, Germany’s foreign minister, is also a strong supporter of Turkey’s EU membership, but got into trouble with domestic leaders in Berlin last January after he “gave his word” as foreign minister that Germany would not actively block Turkish accession. “I want to encourage you [Turkey] to carry on,” he said, though not everyone in the German government agrees with him. Chancellor Angela Merkel has made comments favoring a “privileged partnership” status for Turkey, as opposed to full membership.

Negotiations with Turkey on accession would remain fair and open, Westerwelle insisted on his recent visit, but the outcome of such talks might not result in full membership. He mentioned Germany’s great interest in having “such a strategically important partner…orientated on Europe.” But in interviews before he left Berlin he talked of Turkey being “not ready” for membership, and of the EU being equally unprepared for Turkey. Not surprisingly, these comments received less attention in the Turkish media than Cameron’s did.

According to Peel, “in terms of realistic European politics, Westerwelle was closer to the mark than Cameron. He hammered home the message that Turkey still has much to do in terms of judicial reform and guaranteeing minority rights to qualify for EU membership. It is not a comfortable message, but it is necessary.”

Cameron’s statements were certainly bold, but his “desire to please his hosts” may result in the setting of dangerous and unrealistic expectations. UK journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft goes so far as to say when “when Cameron, like Tony Blair before him, trumpets the Turkish cause, it only confirms Continental suspicions that London is acting on behalf of Washington.” Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, Wheatcroft notes, are both “openly skeptical” about Turkey joining the EU.

Peel concludes, “Both Cameron and Westerwelle are right that Turkey should be encouraged to join the EU. It would be of great strategic benefit to both. That does not mean it can be done. Europe’s politicians are going to have to do a huge sales job to persuade their own public opinion that it is a good idea. Making nice noises in Ankara won’t help. The real test will be with voters at home.”

Scott Bleiweis is an intern with The Atlantic Council editorial office. He is currently pursuing a masters degree in International Studies with the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Photo credit: Getty Images.

August 12, 2010
Blair must be arrested

John Pilger

Published 04 August 2010

Having helped destroy other nations far away, our former prime minister — “peace envoy” to the Middle East — is now free to profit from the useful contacts he made while working as a “servant of the people”.

Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes; Blair’s, which has earned him a £4.6m advance, will appear next month.

Now consider the Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, of a kind the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.

In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and US forces.

Such carnage was justified with lies that have been exposed repeatedly. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament: “We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . .” Last month, the former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller told the Chilcot inquiry: “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad.” Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: “Substantially.”

The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.

Voracious greed

Documents released by the high court show that British citizens were allowed to be abducted and tortured under Blair. In January 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, decided that Guantanamo was the “best way” to ensure that UK nationals were “securely held”.

Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20m, much of it as a result of the ties he developed with the Bush administration. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair’s “consultancy” deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets an estimated £2m a year for “advising” the investment bank JPMorgan and undisclosed sums from other financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.

In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as “peace envoy” in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which has awarded him a $1m “peace prize”. In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.

His collaborators are numerous. The cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Straw, later appointed “justice secretary”, suppressed the relevant cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party leadership supported Blair’s epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband sought to cover up Britain’s complicity in torture. He promoted Iran as the next “threat”.

Journalists who once fawned on Blair as “mystical” and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media’s gulling of the public, only the Observer’s David Rose has apologised. The WikiLeaks exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians such as Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair’s rejuvenation of “enlightened” imperialism, remain silent about the “moral truancy”, as Pankaj Mishra wrote, “of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world”.

The fugitive

Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the “threat” of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, Blair faces a similar risk in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain’s Kissinger, who plans his travel outside the US with the care of a fugitive.

Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted. It defines this as a “crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter”. International lawyers described this as a “giant leap”. Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.

On 21 July, Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later “clarification” that he was speaking personally, the Deputy Prime Minister had made “a statement that the international court would be interested in”, said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.

Blair came from Britain’s upper middle classes which, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit

New Statesman

August 10, 2010
UK Proscribed terrorist groups

These terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under UK legislation, and therefore outlawed in the UK.

Proscribed terrorist groups

46 international terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these, two organisations are proscribed under powers introduced in the Terrorism Act 2006, as glorifying terrorism

14 organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under previous legislation.

List of proscribed International terrorist groups

The information about the groups’ aims was given to Parliament when they were proscribed.

17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)

Aims to highlight and protest at what it deems to be imperialist and corrupt actions, using violence. Formed in 1974 to oppose the Greek military Junta, its stance was initially anti-Junta and anti-US, which it blamed for supporting the Junta.

Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)

ANO’s principal aim is the destruction of the state of Israel. It is also hostile to ‘reactionary’ Arab regimes and states supporting Israel.

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

The precise aims of the ASG are unclear, but its objectives appear to include the establishment of an autonomous Islamic state in the Southern Philippine island of Mindanao.

Al-Gama’at al-Islamiya (GI)

The main aim of GI is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state through all means, including the use of violence. Some members also want the removal of Western influence from the Arab world.

Al Ghurabaa

Al Ghurabaa is a splinter group of Al-Muhajiroun and disseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism.

These terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under UK legislation, and therefore outlawed in the UK.Proscribed terrorist group

s46 international terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these, two organisations are proscribed under powers introduced in the Terrorism Act 2006, as glorifying terrorism14 organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under previous legislation.List of proscribed International terrorist groupsThe information about the groups’ aims was given to Parliament when they were proscribed.

Al Ittihad Al Islamia (AIAI)

The main aims of AIAI are to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state in Somalia, and to regain the Ogaden region of Ethiopia as Somali territory via an insurgent campaign. Militant elements within AIAI are suspected of having aligned themselves with the ‘global jihad’ ideology of Al Qa’ida, and to have operated in support of Al Qa’ida in the East Africa region.

Al Qa’ida

Inspired and led by Usama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.

Al Shabaab

Al Shabaab is an organisation based in Somalia which has waged a violent campaign against the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union peacekeeping forces since 2007, employing a range of terrorist tactics including suicide bombings, indiscriminate attacks and assassinations. It’s principal aim is the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia, but the organisation has publicly pledged its allegiance to Usama Bin Laden and has announced an intention to combine its campaign in the Horn of Africa with Al Qa’ida’s aims of global jihad.

Ansar Al Islam (AI)

AI is a radical Sunni Salafi group from northeast Iraq around Halabja. The group is anti-Western, and opposes the influence of the US in Iraqi Kurdistan and the relationship of the KDP and PUK to Washington. AI has been involved in operations against Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I).

Ansar Al Sunna (AS)

AS is a fundamentalist Sunni Islamist extremist group based in central Iraq and what was the Kurdish Autonomous Zone (KAZ) of Northern Iraq. The group aims to expel all foreign influences from Iraq and create a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armée) (GIA)

The aim of the GIA is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.

Asbat Al-Ansar (‘League of Partisans’ or ‘Band of Helpers

Sometimes going by the aliases of ‘The Abu Muhjin’ group/faction or the ‘Jama’at Nour’, this group aims to enforce its extremist interpretation of Islamic law within Lebanon and, increasingly, further afield.

Babbar Khalsa (BK)

BK is a Sikh movement that aims to establish an independent Khalistan within the Punjab region of India.

Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA)

ETA seeks the creation of an independent state comprising the Basque regions of both Spain and France.

Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA)

BLA are comprised of tribal groups based in the Baluchistan area of Eastern Pakistan, which aims to establish an independent nation encompassing the Baluch dominated areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ)

The main aim of the EIJ is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state. However, since September 1998, the leadership of the group has also allied itself to the ‘global Jihad’ ideology expounded by Usama Bin Laden and has threatened Western interests.

Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM)

The traditional primary objective of the GICM has been the installation of a governing system of the caliphate to replace the governing Moroccan monarchy. The group also has an Al Qa’ida-inspired global extremist agenda.

Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades

Hamas aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state.

Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (HUJI)

The aim of HUJI is to achieve though violent means accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, and to spread terror throughout India. HUJI has targeted Indian security positions in Kashmir and conducted operations in India proper.

Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (Bangladesh) (Huji-B) The main aim of HUJI-B is the creation of an Islamic regime in Bangladesh modelled on the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami (HuM/A and Jundallah)

The aim of both HuM/A and Jundallah is the rejection of democracy of even the most Islamic-oriented style, and to establish a caliphate based on Sharia law, in addition to achieving accession of all Kashmir to Pakistan. HuM/A has a broad anti-Western and anti-President Musharraf agenda.

Harakat Mujahideen (HM)

HM, previously known as Harakat Ul Ansar (HuA), seeks independence for Indian-administered Kashmir. The HM leadership was also a signatory to Usama Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa, which called for worldwide attacks against US and Western interests.

Hizballah Military Wing

Hizballah is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel, and aims to seize all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from Israel. Its military wing supports terrorism in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

Hezb-E Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)

Led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who is in particular very anti-American, HIG is anti-Western and desires the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic State in Afghanistan.

International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)

ISYF is an organisation committed to the creation of an independent state of Khalistan for Sikhs within India.

Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)

The IAA’s aims are the overthrow of the current Yemeni government and the establishment of an Islamic State following Sharia Law.

Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)

The primary strategic goal of the IJU is the elimination of the current Uzbek regime. The IJU would expect that following the removal of President Karimov, elections would occur in which Islamic-democratic political candidates would pursue goals shared by the IJU leadership.

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

The primary aim of IMU is to establish an Islamic state in the model of the Taleban in Uzbekistan. However, the IMU is reported to also seek to establish a broader state over the entire Turkestan area.

Jaish e Mohammed (JeM)

JeM seeks the ‘liberation’ of Kashmir from Indian control as well as the ‘destruction’ of America and India. JeM has a stated objective of unifying the various Kashmiri militant groups.

Jeemah Islamiyah (JI)

JI’s aim is the creation of a unified Islamic state in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Southern Philippines.

Khuddam Ul-Islam (Kul) and splinter group Jamaat Ul-Furquan (JuF)

The aim of both KUI and JuF are to unite Indian administered Kashmir with Pakistan; to establish a radical Islamist state in Pakistan; the ‘destruction’ of India and the USA; to recruit new jihadis; and the release of imprisoned Kashmiri militants

Kongra Gele Kurdistan (PKK)

PKK/KADEK/KG is primarily a separatist movement that seeks an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey. The PKK changed its name to KADEK and then to Kongra Gele Kurdistan, although the PKK acronym is still used by parts of the movement.

Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT)

LT seeks independence for Kashmir and the creation of an Islamic state using violent means.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

The LTTE is a terrorist group fighting for a separate Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)

The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi (PIJ)

PIJ aims to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to create an Islamic state. It opposes the existence of the state of Israel, the Middle East Peace Process and the Palestinian Authority, and has carried out suicide bombings against Israeli targets.

Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party – Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi – Cephesi) (DHKP-C)

DHKP-C aims to establish a Marxist-Leninist regime in Turkey by means of armed revolutionary struggle.

Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat) (GSPC)

Its aim is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.

Saved Sect or Saviour Sect

The Saved Sect is a splinter group of Al-Muajiroon and disseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism.

Note: The Government laid an Order in January 2010 which provides that Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path and London School of Sharia should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the names Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.

Sipah-E Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) (Aka Millat-E Islami Pakistan (MIP) – SSP was renamed MIP in April 2003 but is still referred to as SSP) and splinter group Lashkar-E Jhangvi (LeJ)

The aim of both SSP and LeJ is to transform Pakistan by violent means into a Sunni state under the total control of Sharia law. Another objective is to have all Shia declared Kafirs and to participate in the destruction of other religions, notably Judasim, Christianity and Hinduism.

Note: Kafirs means non-believers: literally, one who refused to see the truth. LeJ does not consider members of the Shia sect to be Muslim, hence they can be considered a ‘legitimate’ target.

Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB)

JMB first came to prominence on 20 May 2002 when eight of its members were arrested in possession of petrol bombs. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous fatal bomb attacks across Bangladesh in recent years, including suicide bomb attacks in 2005.

Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari’at Muhammadi (TNSM)

TNSM regularly attacks coalition and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan and provides direct support to Al Qa’ida and the Taliban. One faction of the group claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on an army training compound on 8 November 2007 in Dargai, Pakistan, in which 42 soldiers were killed.

Teyre Azadiye Kurdistan (TAK)

TAK is a Kurdish terrorist group currently operating in Turkey

(Note: Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK) was removed from the list of proscribed organisations in June 2008, as a result of judgements of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal.)

Proscribed Irish groups

Continuity Army Council Cumann na mBan Fianna na hEireann Irish National Liberation Army Irish People’s Liberation Organisation Irish Republican Army Loyalist Volunteer Force Orange Volunteers Red Hand Commando Red Hand Defenders Saor Eire Ulster Defence Association Ulster Freedom Fighters Ulster Volunteer Force

August 6, 2010
Fury as Israel president claims English are ‘anti-semitic’

Israel’s president has accused the English of being anti-semitic and claimed that MPs pander to Muslim voters.

By David Harrison and Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem

Israel's President Shimon Peres said that England's attitude towards Jews was Israel's "next big problem". Photo: REUTERS

Shimon Peres said England was “deeply pro-Arab … and anti-Israeli”, adding: “They always worked against us.”

His remarks, made in an interview on a Jewish website, provoked anger from senior MPs and Jewish leaders who said the 87-year-old president had “got it wrong”.

But other groups backed the former Israeli prime minister and said the number of anti-semitic incidents had risen dramatically in the UK in recent years.

The controversy follows the furore last week over David Cameron’s remark that Gaza was a “prison camp”, as he urged Israel to allow aid and people to move freely in and out of the Palestinian territory.

Mr Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is three years into his seven-year term as president and was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2008, said that England’s attitude towards Jews was Israel’s “next big problem”.

“There are several million Muslim voters, and for many members of parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected,” he said.

“And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment.

“They abstained in the [pro-Zionist] 1947 UN partition resolution … They maintained an arms embargo against us in the 1950s … They always worked against us. They think the Arabs are the underdogs.”

By contrast, relations with Germany, France and Italy were “pretty good”, he added.

He made the comments in an interview with the historian Professor Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev published last week in Tablet, a Jewish news website.

The wide-ranging interview covered Mr Peres’ role as one of Israel’s longest-serving political leaders – an MP for 48 years, twice prime minister, and holder of other ministerial posts over the decades. He is firmly on the Israeli Left.

He was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 jointly with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for his part as foreign minister in the peace talks which produced the landmark Oslo Accords.

But following his comments, James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “Mr Peres has got this wrong.

“There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries.”

The MP added that he could “understand the frustration” that people in Israel felt with “certain elements of the British broadcast media” which present an unbalanced view of Israel.

He said: “I can understand Mr Peres’ concerns, but I don’t recognise what he is saying about England.”

Yet in Israel, Mr Peres is far from alone in holding such views, which have gained a wider following, particularly on the Right, since the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat over accusations that Mossad sent agents using British passports to assassinate a Hamas commander in Dubai.

Aryeh Eldad, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, accused Britain of working against Israeli interests for decades – ever since it “betrayed” its promises to build a Jewish homeland when it governed Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

“Both governments from the right and the left prefer Arab interests over Israeli interests,” said Mr Eldad, whose father Israel was a leading figure in the Stern Gang, the most radical of the Jewish terror groups that fought British mandatory rule.

“The other layer is an ongoing, subtle form of anti-semitism. It is not as overt as it was in Germany, it is a quiet, polite form.”

Some leading Jewish commentators in Britain disagreed. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, minister of Maidenhead synagogue and a writer and broadcaster, said: “I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.

“Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-semitism but it is not endemic to British society.

“The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live.”

Mr Peres found support, however, from other pro-Israeli groups. Jacob Vince, the director of Christian Friends of Israel, said there was anti-semitism in the UK although many people had a positive view of Israel but were unwilling to express it publicly.

Mr Vince said it was “difficult to see how many MPs would not be influenced by the number of Muslim voters in their constituencies”.

The Government was not treating Arabs as the underdogs but rather was trying to appease them, he said. “The question is how well they understand those with whom they are seeking conciliation.”

Mr Peres is “measured and moderate,” he added.

He said: “His comments have serious connotations and I am sure would not be said lightly.”

One Israeli politician expressed disbelief that the doveish Mr Peres had launched such a broadside against the British.

Benny Begin, a cabinet minister whose father Menachem was prime minister and before that leader of Irgun, the group that killed 91 people in an attack on Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946, said: “Peres? I simply can’t believe he said that.”

The latest figures show that the number of anti-semitic incidents in Britain is rising, according to the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity set up in 1984 to monitor such incidents.

The situation in Britain had worsened “significantly” in the past decade, a spokesman said.

In 2009 there were 924 anti-semitic incidents, the highest figure since CST began keeping records in 1984, and 55 per cent higher than the previous record in 2006.

The figures include reports, accepted only when backed by evidence, of physical assaults, verbal abuse and racist graffiti.

The monthly figure has soared from 10-20 incidents in the 1990s to 40-50 now.

Last year nearly half of the 924 anti-semitic race attacks recorded by the CST showed a political motivation, with 66 per cent of those including some reference to Israel and the Middle East.

A 2009 report by the US-based Anti-Defamation League found one in five Britons admitted Israel influences their opinion of British Jews, and the majority of those said that they felt “worse” about Jews than they used to. It found, however, that Britain was less anti-semitic than other European countries.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7920330/Fury-as-Israel-president-claims-English-are-anti-semitic.html, 31 Jul 2010

August 5, 2010