[foxdemon]

Al-Jazeera is indeed Qatari and I don't agree with all their output, but as far as this documentary is concerned - the OP - it did a good job. I also look forward to their documentary on the Israeli lobby. As for accusations of terrorism or supporting terrorism, that'd be a bit more convincing if you weren't shilling for a state built by terrorism, which continues to be a terrorist state to this day.

As for the English, of course, I love the English, we're amongst the funniest people ever and I don't care what you say, it'll never stop being true!

Well, that is a very good reply.

I have reasons why I support Israel dispite any wrong doing. Were the world a more reasonable place, I might take a different view.

As regards the English, possibly you are more sympathetic than I am. My ancestors were bound in chains and sent to Australia even though English laws were unjust. I have suffered before their prejudice. But it is love/hate. They are indeed funny. And their ideals are Nobel, even if they so often fail to live up to them. Not all of them are bad. However, you will never convince me that the home county PC toffs are worthy of resepect.

[skinster]

An Al Jazeera Reporter Went Undercover with the Pro-Israel Lobby In Washington
Britain’s broadcasting regulator on Monday concluded that Al Jazeera did not violate any rules in its controversial undercover investigation exposing the Israeli embassy’s campaign to target British citizens critical of Israel, a campaign that included attempts to destroy the careers of pro-Palestinian British politicians.

The move by the communications regulator, known as Ofcom, clears the way for a follow-up documentary focused on Israeli influence in the U.S., the existence of which has previously been suspected but had yet to be made public. Clayton Swisher, director of investigative journalism for Al Jazeera Media Network, confirmed it to The Intercept on Monday. The goal of the British complaint may partly have been to delay publication of the follow-up American version, he said. “At the very same time [as the London investigation] — and we can safely reveal this now — we had an undercover operative working in tandem in Washington, D.C. With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter,” he said.

The four-part series, “The Lobby,” dug into the Israeli embassy in London, as well as several other pro-Israel lobby groups, and their campaign to “take down” British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

The investigation led to the resignation of a top Israeli official in London, as well as a high-profile complaint that Al Jazeera had broken broadcasting regulations in the United Kingdom. One of the complaints charged the investigation with anti-Semitism, but the government board ruled that imputing such a motive to a film critical of Israel would be akin to calling a series on gang violence racist.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wrote to Prime Minister Theresa May in January, calling for a probe into Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy’s then-senior political officer. An undercover reporter secretly filmed Masot discussing a plot to “take down” Duncan, which Corbyn described as “improper interference in this country’s democratic process.” Masot resigned shortly after the recordings were made public.

Swisher, whose writing has also appeared in The Intercept, said that his outlet turned over reams of unpublished audio and video files to demonstrate that its report had not been unfairly edited. “For several months, we were put through the equivalent of an editorial colonoscopy. Turning over emails, different edits, all the raw footage, photos, cellphone messages — basically anything the investigators found of interest,” said Swisher.

Ofcom received complaints about the series from pro-Israel British activists and a former Israel embassy employee. It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy.

It ruled that as per the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s guidance: “It did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations.”

All other charges were also dismissed as Ofcom found the program maintained due impartiality, the footage was not edited in a way which resulted in unfairness, and there was no unwarranted infringement of privacy.

In January, pro-Israel activists in the U.S. began to suspect they’d been infiltrated when footage in America appeared in the British version of “The Lobby.” Tablet began piecing things together and identified the likely hoaxer as a highfalutin British intern who’d dissonantly been renting a fully furnished $5,460 a month corporate apartment.

Swisher wouldn’t confirm or deny the identity of the American operative, but he said that with the American political class focused on foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States, now is an appropriate time to run the follow-up investigation. “I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won’t take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate,”
he said.
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an- ... ashington/

[Political Interest]

Seriously?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England

And there are also Muslims in England. Does this mean England also has a Muslim tradition?

I do not know what you are suggesting with that link. Are you making the argument that Jewish cultural influence is of major significance or are you even going to say that a large part of the British population has Jewish ancestry?

But should you ignore them because they are small?

They are European.

Hong Kong is a wealthy city. It is hardly a burden. And yes, Britain took the easy way out. If you betray those who believe in you, what can you reasonably expect from the ‘new friends’ you mentioned?

Hong Kong is Chinese land. It's a fact.

Something other than throwing them to the wolves?

But you are forgetting that pro-British elements in Hong Kong were able to settle in the UK. They were not just left to the Chinese.

Well, that is easily arranged. So these ‘new friends’ would be located somewhere else in the world?

The only reason the UK has enemies in the Middle East is because it's so called interests put it at loggerheads with popular opinion in the region.

The idea behind patrolling the Gulf is about preventing oil supplies being disrupted. It does highlight a problem the UK has. You need resources. What will you do if all those not so friendly countries decide to cut off your supply of resources?

What is to say they would always be unfriendly? In 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War the US had appalling relations with Hanoi. Now relations are completely normalised. How do you not know the so called enemies might not become neutral if the cause for antagonism is removed?

[foxdemon]

And there are also Muslims in England. Does this mean England also has a Muslim tradition?

I do not know what you are suggesting with that link. Are you making the argument that Jewish cultural influence is of major significance or are you even going to say that a large part of the British population has Jewish ancestry?

What I am suggesting is that English Jews has a long history and that they should also get a say.

They are European.

And?

Hong Kong is Chinese land. It's a fact.

Well it is now.

But you are forgetting that pro-British elements in Hong Kong were able to settle in the UK. They were not just left to the Chinese.

A lot have been left behind to have their way of life and political aspirations to be slowly crushed by the CCP. A little piece of the British tradition being snuffed out. How can you not feel a sense of lose about it?

The only reason the UK has enemies in the Middle East is because it's so called interests put it at loggerheads with popular opinion in the region.

Well, of course. That is the case for any nation that requires resources from beyond its own borders. Britain can’t survive without trade. But Britain can’t trade if other countries cut you out. So you have to pursue the sort of policies that will put you at odds with rival powers.

What is to say they would always be unfriendly? In 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War the US had appalling relations with Hanoi. Now relations are completely normalised. How do you not know the so called enemies might not become neutral if the cause for antagonism is removed?

They have a mutual interest in resisting the rise of China.

[Political Interest]

What I am suggesting is that English Jews has a long history and that they should also get a say.

I am not sure why a small minority should have a special say in the affairs of the majority. And why would Jews in England have interests any different to the majority of the English population? Obviously they would not.

And?

They are neighbouring countries and they have some ethnic and cultural similarity to the UK.

Well it is now.

It always was. People do not lose their ethnicity based on who rules them.

A lot have been left behind to have their way of life and political aspirations to be slowly crushed by the CCP. A little piece of the British tradition being snuffed out. How can you not feel a sense of lose about it?

Because I am not obsessed by the British tradition and I am not very fond of it, even though I am from an Anglophone background. Why would I be proud of British colonialism in Hong Kong? I associate it wih the opium trade and other immoral activities.

And those Chinese liberals will not lose their ideals. They can instead fight for them in a unified China and without an association with foreign interests. Chinese liberalism will only appear when it becomes an authentic choice of the Chinese people. The French and American revolutions were not imported from abroad.

Well, of course. That is the case for any nation that requires resources from beyond its own borders. Britain can’t survive without trade. But Britain can’t trade if other countries cut you out. So you have to pursue the sort of policies that will put you at odds with rival powers.

Japan manages to conduct a fair and balanced diplomacy in the Middle East. And it is a country which also lacks natural resources.

They have a mutual interest in resisting the rise of China.

Regardless of interests, diplomacy is shaped by the attitude of one government to the other. The UK does not have an empire and does not require a global presence.

[foxdemon]

I am not sure why a small minority should have a special say in the affairs of the majority. And why would Jews in England have interests any different to the majority of the English population? Obviously they would not.

That is an interesting position. So this would apply to other minorities in the UK such as Pakistanis?

They are neighbouring countries and they have some ethnic and cultural similarity to the UK.

So they would be easier to get along with?

It always was. People do not lose their ethnicity based on who rules them.

China actually has lots of ethnic groups. The southern Chinese aren’t quite the same as the northern Chinese. Furthermore there was a strong influence from British culture in HK which made that community unique. They certainly didn’t want to go back to rule from Beijing.

Because I am not obsessed by the British tradition and I am not very fond of it, even though I am from an Anglophone background. Why would I be proud of British colonialism in Hong Kong? I associate it wih the opium trade and other immoral activities.

And those Chinese liberals will not lose their ideals. They can instead fight for them in a unified China and without an association with foreign interests. Chinese liberalism will only appear when it becomes an authentic choice of the Chinese people. The French and American revolutions were not imported from abroad.

You happily discard them when it is no longer useful. But isn’t that a Colonial attitude?

Japan manages to conduct a fair and balanced diplomacy in the Middle East. And it is a country which also lacks natural resources.

Only because the Americans and allies shape a world order that allows Japan to do that. Japan is changing their foriegn policy to play a more assertive role. For example stationing troops in Africa with an eye to competing with Chinese influence in that continent. This reflects a changing balance of global power.

The UK can’t emulate Japan’s foreign policy if the last half century as the circumstances aren’t the same. If the UK sits back, Uncle Sam has no reason to protect it the way they have been obligated to do for Japan.

Regardless of interests, diplomacy is shaped by the attitude of one government to the other. The UK does not have an empire and does not require a global presence.

There are no empires today (except perhaps the EU). But most countries are looking at a global presence. If the UK gave up on that, it would become isolated and impoverished.

[Political Interest]

That is an interesting position. So this would apply to other minorities in the UK such as Pakistanis?

Yes.

So they would be easier to get along with?

More than likely. I think small European countries are generally very amicable and easy to get along with.

China actually has lots of ethnic groups. The southern Chinese aren’t quite the same as the northern Chinese. Furthermore there was a strong influence from British culture in HK which made that community unique. They certainly didn’t want to go back to rule from Beijing.

I never said China didn't have a lot of ethnic groups. The people in Hong Kong do not have a distinct ethnicity. Rule by the English was not enough to develop a distinct ethnic identity. And I find it very strange why someone from Hong Kong would not consider themselves Chinese. It simply makes no logical sense.

You happily discard them when it is no longer useful. But isn’t that a Colonial attitude?

The problem is that whatever the UK does in this instance will be regarded as colonial in some way, shape or form. In any case, the people of Hong Kong can still pursue liberalism in a unified China.

Only because the Americans and allies shape a world order that allows Japan to do that. Japan is changing their foriegn policy to play a more assertive role. For example stationing troops in Africa with an eye to competing with Chinese influence in that continent. This reflects a changing balance of global power.

Is it because of changing global imperatives or is it because the Japanese government and a significant portion of public opinion is right wing?

And if Japan can exist in a system where another great power guarantees the security of energy and other interests in the Middle East, why can the UK not do the same? And maybe that power will not even be an Anglo-Saxon power.

The UK can’t emulate Japan’s foreign policy if the last half century as the circumstances aren’t the same. If the UK sits back, Uncle Sam has no reason to protect it the way they have been obligated to do for Japan.

Why does the UK need American protection?

There are no empires today (except perhaps the EU). But most countries are looking at a global presence. If the UK gave up on that, it would become isolated and impoverished.

Except the UK's foreign policies are actually making it less wealthy than it could be. A country does not need to be a global military and strategic power to be a major economic power.