ALAN HART: BREAKS SILENCE ABOUT 9/11 ON THE KEVIN BARRETT SHOW
27. May, 2010
Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: “Here’s what may have REALLY happened on 9/11″!
Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really happened on that fateful day on yesterday’s Kevin Barrett show.
Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see http://www.ae911truth.org).
During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel’s record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked theU.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)
Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.
Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan Hart, the American people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is the awareness of the American people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.
Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.
His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor
Exclusive:Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons
Chris McGreal in Washington
The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P W Botha of South Africa. Photograph: Guardian
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.
The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa‘s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were “never any negotiations” between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials “formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal”.
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: “In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available.” The document then records: “Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.” The “three sizes” are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel’s prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with “special warheads”. Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: “It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement… shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party”.
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. “The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date,” he said. “The South Africans didn’t seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime’s old allies.”
Israeli president denies offering nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa
Shimon Peres dismisses claims relating to secret files but US researcher says denials are disingenuous
Chris McGreal in Washington, Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and David Smith in Johannesburg
Shimon Peres (left), whose office says Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa, pictured with Ariel Sharon in Egypt in 1975. Photograph: Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Israel‘s president, Shimon Peres, today robustly denied revelations in the Guardian and a new book that he offered to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa when he was defence minister in the 1970s.
His office said “there exists no basis in reality” for claims based on declassified secret South African documents that he offered nuclear warheads for sale with ballistic missiles to the apartheid regime in 1975. “Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place,” it said.
But Sasha Polakow-Suransky, the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries, said the denials were disingenuous, because the minutes of meetings Peres held with the then South African defence minister, PW Botha, show that the apartheid government believed an explicit offer to provide nuclear warheads had been made.
Polakow-Suransky noted that Peres did not deny attending the meetings at which the purchase of Israeli weapons systems, including ballistic missiles, was discussed. “Peres participated in high level discussions with the South African defence minister and led the South Africans to believe that an offer of nuclear Jerichos was on the table,” he said. “It’s clear from the documentary record that the South Africans perceived that an explicit offer was on the table. Four days later Peres signed a secrecy agreement with PW Botha.”
While Peres’s office said there are no documents with his signature on that mention nuclear weapons, his signature does appear with Botha’s on an agreement governing the broad conduct of the military relationship, including a commitment to keep it secret.
Today politicians and academics in South Africa said the apartheid regime’s cooperation with Israel was an “open secret” and they welcomed the current government’s move to declassify sensitive documents which provided details of key meetings.
Steven Friedman, the director of Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg, said: “There was a close cooperation on a range of issues. In the 1970s and 1980s there was a sudden influx of Israeli nuclear scientists. We knew there was extensive military cooperation.”
Professor Willie Esterhuyse, who played a critical role in opening and maintaining dialogue between the apartheid government and the ANC, said: “Most of us knew there was close cooperation on nuclear research with not just Israel but also the French. But we had no factual evidence. We eventually figured out it was more than just rumours, but we never knew the precise details.”
Opposition politicians praised the post-apartheid government for resisting attempts by the Israeli authorities to prevent the documents from becoming public. David Maynier, the shadow defence minister, speculated that the ANC government had decided it would not be damaged by releasing the documents.
“It did not take me entirely by surprise, because I think it was a pretty open secret there was extensive cooperation between South Africa and Israel. But before now the details were super-secret,” he said.
The South African documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky and published in today’s Guardian, include “top secret” South African minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries as well as direct negotiations in Zurich between Peres and Botha.
The South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who attended the meetings, drew up a memo laying out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Israeli missiles – but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.
“Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available,” the minutes said. The document then records that: “Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes”.
The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.
In the end, South Africa did not buy nuclear warheads from Israel and eventually developed its own atom bomb.
The Israeli authorities tried to prevent South Africa’s post-apartheid government from declassifying the documents.
Peres’s angry response to the revelations is unusual, because of Israel’s policy of maintaining “ambiguity” about whether it possesses nuclear weapons. The Israeli press quoted anonymous government officials challenging the truth of the documents.
Polakow-Suransky said it is possible Peres made the offer without the approval of Israel’s then prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin. “Peres has a long history of conducting his own independent foreign policy. During the 1950s as Israel was building its defence relationship with France, Peres went behind the back of many of his superiors in initiating talks with French defence officials. It would not be surprising if he broached the topic in discussions with South Africa’s defence minister without Rabin’s authorisation,” he said.
Polakow-Suransky’s book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, is published in the US on Tuesday.
Politician at heart of Israel
Shimon Peres, the man at centre of allegations over nuclear links with apartheid South Africa, has spent decades in government in various cabinet posts, including defence and foreign, as prime minister and now as Israel’s president.
Born in Poland in 1923, he and his family moved to Palestine under the British mandate when he was 11. Many of his relatives were murdered in the Holocaust.
In 1947, he joined the Haganah, the Jewish force fighting for Israeli independence. He was placed in charge of personnel and arms purchases.
He Peres rose quickly through the political world in the years immediately after independence, becoming Ddirector general, at 30, of the defence ministry. In the following years, he played a leading role in building strategic alliances and developing arms deals. One of the most important early on was with France, which played a crucial role in the development of Israel’s nuclear programme. Later, as relations with Paris cooled, he was at the forefront of building links with apartheid South Africa.
Peres was first elected to the Knesset in 1959. He persistently challenged Yitzhak Rabin for the Labour party leadership, only becoming leader in 1977 after Rabin was forced out over his wife’s illegal foreign bank account. He became the unofficial acting prime minister but lost the subsequent general election.
Peres, as foreign minister, won the Nobel peace prize in 1994 with Rabin and Yasser Arafat for the negotiations that produced the Oslo accords.
After Rabin’s assassination in 1995, he became PM and lost the subsequent election. In 2005, he quit Labour to back Ariel Sharon’s new Kadima party. Two years later, the Knesset elected Peres president. Peres married Sonya Gelman in 1945. They have three children.
History suggests British Jewish leaders are wrong to shy away from the notion of distinctive voting patterns among Jews
Geoffrey Alderman
In the early 1970s, as I researched a textbook on the British electoral system, I became aware of a very significant gap in the then existing literature on voting habits among the British electorate. A great deal of material existed, naturally, on socio-economic class and its electoral impact. There was some material – not as much as there might have been – on the relationship between religion and voting. And some research had been carried out into the Irish vote – research that was principally an offshoot of the much greater body of research into “the Irish question”. But on the relationship between ethnicity and voting there was very little indeed. I was determined to repair this omission, and began polling Jewish voting intentions in selected London constituencies.
A phone call reached me from an organisation calling itself the Board of Deputies of British Jews. I was invited to lunch with its so-called defence department. And at that lunch I was ordered – repeat ordered – to cease forthwith my investigation of Jewish voting habits. Jews, I was told, voted just like everyone else. To poll a sample of Jews was to poll a sample of “ordinary” voters – no more and no less. So what was the point of my efforts? Besides, my hosts added, to ask how Jews were going to vote, or had voted, was to plant in the minds of the non-Jewish community, among whom we British Jews lived, the idea that Jews were not fully integrated into British society.I was told that Jews, in fact, were fully integrated. There was, therefore, no “Jewish dimension” to an election, and to suggest otherwise was to place the entirety of British Jewry in some (ill-defined) jeopardy.
I did not pay attention to these strictures. Or rather, I did pay attention to them, but only as evidence that could help me answer the question why the Jewish vote in British politics had been so poorly researched.Within British Jewry, image is everything. And the fact was that for generations, the fathers of the community had decreed that there must be no hint of a special, distinctive “Jewish” vote in the British body politic.
History, however, tells a different story. The votes of Jewish electors played a pivotal role in the epic struggle of Lionel de Rothschild (1847-58) to enter the House of Commons as a professing Jew, because the constituency for which he repeatedly stood – the City of London – contained several hundred Jewish businessmen who qualified for the property-related franchise. The parliamentary career of Samuel Montagu, a Yiddish speaking banker, was built on his relationship with his Jewish electors in that most Jewish of constituencies, Whitechapel, for which he sat as Liberal MP 1885-1900. The near-defeat of the Labour candidate at the Whitechapel by-election of November-December 1930 was a major factor in the decision of Ramsay Macdonald’s minority Labour government to ditch its anti-Zionist policy in Palestine.
The Jewish vote was pivotal to the 1945 victory of Britain’s last Communist MP, Phil Piratin, at Stepney, but it was equally pivotal to the defeat of Maurice Orbach (a self-proclaimed Labour Zionist who had conspicuously failed to support Israel during the Suez crisis) at East Willesden in 1959. In February 1974, his Jewish electors saved John Gorst, a gentile Zionist, from defeat at Hendon North. Four years later, on the other side of London, the Jews gave the Conservative candidate a resounding victory at a dramatic by-election at Ilford North, where Sir Keith Joseph had openly – and most successfully – campaigned for his Jewish brethren to support Thatcherite economic and immigration policies.
What of the present electoral contest? Jews, however defined, form no more than half of one percent of the UK population, but they are heavily concentrated in London and Manchester. Of the constituencies in which Jews account for at least 10% of the population, seven are Labour held. One of these – Finchley & Golders Green – is so highly marginal that it seems bound to be lost to the Conservatives irrespective of any special Jewish factor.
But in another, the adjacent Hendon seat, which could fall to the Tories on a swing of about 3.8%, there is an ongoing battle for the Jewish vote.Andrew Dismore, who has held the seat for Labour since 1997, has impeccable Zionist credentials (he would not otherwise have become MP for Hendon), but his constituency standing has been undermined by the Labour’s government’s failure to amend the “universal jurisdiction” law, which currently permits private citizens to apply for the arrest of prominent Israeli politicians who set foot on British soil, and by David Miliband’s recent condemnation of Israel over the use of fake British passports in the Dubai assassination of a senior Hamas terrorist. To add to Dismore’s woes, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee is encouraging its supporters in Hendon to vote for anyone but him. So a curious combination of Jewish votes and Muslim votes for Matthew Offord, his Conservative challenger, could hand the seat to the Tories.
But in a nationwide political contest as knife-edge as the present one appears to be, it isn’t only in recognisably “Jewish” constituencies that Jewish votes count. Jewish voters might prove critical to outcomes in seats as far apart as “Jewish” Bury South (where Ivan Lewis, Miliband’s second-in-command, is facing a very strong challenge from Michelle Wiseman, chief executive of Manchester Jewish Community Care) and East Renfrewshire, Glasgow, in which the comparatively tiny Jewish community may be persuaded to save Jim Murphy, the Scottish secretary, who is, naturally, a leading light in Labour Friends of Israel.
Whatever the present Anglo-Jewish leadership may wish, the Jewish vote, in other words, is very much alive and well.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/19/jewish-vote-really-does-count, 19 April 2010
Andrew Dismore with Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosser, at Trafalgar Square
By Alex Hayes
THE Labour candidate for the Hendon Parliamentary seat has said the intervention of an anti-Zionist Muslim group in his election campaign is “worrying”.
Andrew Dismore has been attacked by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) for his pro-Zionist views and record in Parliament.
After a hustings at Hendon Mosque the group distributed 2,000 leaflets urging people not to vote for Mr Dismore, who is vice chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel, and instead vote for the Lib Dems or Tories.
Mr Dismore said: “What’s worrying is this intervention in the election runs the risk of creating real divisions in the community.
“We’ve had traditionally good relations between the communities in Hendon and we could do without this interference from outsiders.
“I suspect there’s nothing between us on the politics of Palestine.”
Lib Dem candidate Matthew Harris, a vice chariman of his party’s Friends of Israel, has also rejected the backing of the group.
In a statement on his website he said: “I am pleased and proud to be a friend of Israel, campaigning for a two-state solution that will bring peace, justice and security to Palestinans and Israelis alike.
“I strongly dislike MPAC’s policies and its campaigning methods. But if anyone is thinking of voting for me because MPAC has advised them to vote Lib Dem or Tory as a way of ousting Hendon’s Labour MP, I would advise them to vote for someone else – I reject MPAC’s support.”
However, Tahir Shah, a spokesman for MPAC, said the group were not against Jewish people, but opposed Zionists.
He said: “Whatever faith the candidates are makes no difference politically. We are against Andrew Dismore’s record in Parliament.
“He has shown hostility towards the people of Palestine with his voting record.”
Mr Shah said MPAC’s focus was to get more Muslims involved in politics with the major parties to prevent extremism in the community.
12th April 2010
Andrew with Board of Deputies of British Jews President Henry Grunwald QC
• Elland Road protest marked 10 years since death of fans
• MP demands action from foreign secretary
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 April 2010 15.42 BST
Floral tributes were laid by Leeds fans at Elland Road to mark the 10th anniversary of the killing of two supporters in Turkey. Illustration: Dave Higgens/PA
Hundreds of football fans gathered today to mark the 10th anniversary of the killing of two Leeds United supporters in Turkey and called for “justice” in their case.
Christopher Loftus, 35, and Kevin Speight, 40, were stabbed to death in Taksim Square on the night before the club’s Uefa Cup semi-final against Galatasaray on 5 April 2000.
About 300 Leeds United fans gathered outside Elland Road in Leeds today. They laid dozens of bunches of flowers, team shirts, scarves and other tributes around the statute of Billy Bremner and also at the brass plaque a few metres away which commemorates the deaths.
Chris Loftus’s brother, Andy, stood alongside the Leeds North East MP, Fabian Hamilton, who told the crowd Turkey needed to do more to bring those responsible to justice. Hamilton said he had also written to the foreign secretary, David Miliband, to ask him to put pressure on the Turkish authorities.
A number of people were arrested following the deaths in 2000 and four men were found guilty of involvement in the murders by the Turkish courts but all still remain free as they pursue an apparently interminable appeal process.
“There’s a very, very strong feeling, especially amongst the families, that justice has not been done and nor has it seen to be done in Istanbul,” said Hamilton.
“The people arrested and convicted of these dreadful murders have never actually served any time in jail – they’ve been released on bail pending appeal for the last few years. No trial date has been given for that appeal hearing.
“This is absolutely appalling and I’ve been putting pressure on the foreign secretary and on the chief constable of West Yorkshire to take some action to pressurise the Turks to actually so something.”
Asked what influence the UK can bring on Turkey, the Labour MP said: “Turkey has ambitions to join the European Union and I think this could be part of that pressure on the Turks to put their judicial system in order, to see that justice has to be seen to be done especially for the families here who are very angry that nothing’s happened and that the people who are guilty of these crimes have never actually served any time in jail.
“That’s appalling and that’s the pressure we can put on the Turkish government. They want to join the EU. They’d better get their judicial system in order and they’d better ensure that the families here are satisfied that justice has been done.”
After Hamilton addressed the crowd, those who gathered, including many children, observed a two-minute silence.
A one-minute silence was also observed before Leeds United’s 2-1 victory over Yeovil at Huish Park. Both teams wore black armbands in memory of the killed supporters and Leeds fans, in an echo of what happened before the Uefa Cup match against Galatasaray took place on 6 April 2000, turned their backs on the match for the first minute in protest at the lack of justice for the Loftus and Speight families.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/apr/05/leeds-kevin-speight-chris-loftus, 5 April 2010
Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent, and James Hider in Jerusalem
A serious rift in relations between Britain and Israel opened yesterday after a criminal investigation uncovered “compelling” evidence that Jerusalem had cloned the UK passports used in the assassination of a senior Hamas operative in Dubai.
Britain responded by expelling a senior Israeli diplomat, believed to be the Mossad station chief in London; imposing new travel advice, warning Britons of the threat of state-sponsored identity theft in Israel; and demanding a public assurance that Israel would never misuse British passports again.
Israel’s Ambassador expressed his disappointment but said he was determined to “strengthen the firm foundations” of the relationship between Britain and Israel. The froideur only increased, however, when it emerged that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had cancelled his scheduled attendance at a reception marking the renovation of the Israeli Embassy yesterday.
Instead, Mr Miliband told the Commons of the conclusion of the investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and denounced Israel’s behaviour as “intolerable” and displaying a “profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.
“The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury,” he added. He said he had demanded a formal assurance that the fraud would not recur from Avigdor Liebermann, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The travel advice to be issued to British citizens would depend on the answer that he received.
Diplomatic sources told The Times that the assurance would have to be public — in effect, forcing Israel to admit its involvement in the fraud and, by implication, in the assassination of Mahmud al-Mabhuh on January 19.
Suspicions fell on Israel’s intelligence agency immediately after the killing, but they were reinforced when it emerged that all of the Western passport holders whose identities were used were also Israeli nationals. Mr Miliband said that Soca investigation had lead directly back to Israel and that no other country appeared to have been involved.
“Given that this was a very sophisticated operation, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judges it is highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service,” he said. “Taking this, together with other inquiries, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports.”
The passports of Irish, German, French and Australian citizens were also used but those countries are yet to conclude their investigations.
Israel said that it regretted the British move to expel the Mossad representative but, while the Government in Jerusalem was measured in its response, , MPs from the far Right denounced the British as untrustworthy “dogs”.
“I think the British are behaving hypocritically,” Aryeh Eldad, of the National Union, an ultra-nationalist, pro-settler party, told Sky News. “Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?”
Michael Ben Ari, another National Union MP, said: “The British are dogs but they are not loyal to us . This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism”.
