masot, ma laasot? (what to do)

Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled?
Craig Murray, Jan 8 2017

There is no starker proof of the golden chains in which Israel has entangled the British political class, than the incredible fact that “diplomat” Shai Masot has not been expelled for secretly conspiring to influence British politics by attacking Britain’s Deputy Foreign Minister, suggesting that he might be brought down by “a little scandal.” It is incredible by any normal standards of diplomatic behaviour that immediate action was not taken against Masot for actions which when revealed any professional diplomat would normally expect to result in being “PNG’d,” ie declared persona non grata. Obama has just expelled 35 Russian diplomats for precisely the same offence, with the exception that in the Russian case there is absolutely zero hard evidence, whereas in the Masot case there is irrefutable evidence on which to act. To compare the two cases is telling. Al-Jazeera should be congratulated on their investigation, which shames the British corporate and state media, who would never have carried out such actual journalism. The British media has parroted without the slightest scrutiny the truly pathetic Obama claims of Russian interference, evidently without reading them. When I was sent the latest “intelligence report” on Russian hacking a couple of evenings ago, I quite genuinely for several minutes thought it was a spoof by the Daily Mash or similar, parodying the kind of ludicrous claims that kept being advanced with zero evidence. I do implore you to read it, as when you realise it is supposed to be serious it becomes still more hilarious.

The existence of a natural preference in Russia to see a Pindosi President who does not want to start WW3 is quoted as itself evidence that Russia interfered, just as the fact that I could do with some more money is evidence I robbed a bank. The fact that Russia did not criticise the electoral process after the result is somehow evidence that Putin personally ordered electoral hacking. The fact that Russia Today once hosted a programme critical of fracking is evidence of a Russian plot to destroy the Pindosi economy. Please do read it, I promise you will be laughing for weeks. In passing, allow me to destroy quickly the argument that “we have smoking-gun evidence, but it’s too secret to show you.” Given the Snowden revelations and the whistleblowing of the former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, for the Pindo government to claim to be hiding the fact that it can track all electronic traffic in Pindostan is risible. This is like saying we can’t give you the evidence in case the Russians find out the sky is blue. If there were hacks, the NSA could identify the precise hack transmitting the precise information out of Faschingstein. Everybody knows that. There were no hacks so there is no evidence. End of argument. They are internal leaks. The two stories, Russian interference in Pindosi politics and Israeli interference in British politics, also link because the NYT claims that it was the British that first suggested to the Obama administration that Russian cyber-activity was targeting Clinton.

Director of Cyber-Security and Information Assurance in the British Cabinet Office is Matthew Gould, Britain’s former openly and strongly pro-Zionist Ambassador to Israel and friend of the current Israeli Ambassador, Mark Regev. While Private Secretary to David Miliband and William Hague, and then while Ambassador to Israel, Regev held eight secret meetings with Adam Werritty, on at least one occasion with Mossad present and on most occasions also with now-minister Liam Fox. My FOIA requests for minutes of these meetings brought the reply that they were not minuted, and my FOIA request for the diary entries for these meetings brought me three pages each containing only the date, with everything else redacted. I managed to get the information about the Gould/Werritty meetings as a result of relentless questioning. I was kindly assisted by MPs including Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and Paul Flynn. The woman with whom Shai Masot was conniving to undermine Alan Duncan, was Maria Strizzolo, who works for Tory Minister Robert Halfon. It was Halfon who repeatedly tried to obstruct Paul Flynn MP from asking questions of Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell that threatened to get to the heart of the real Adam Werritty scandal. Both Robert Halfon and Adam Werrity received funding from precisely the same Israeli sources, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. Halfon also formerly had a full time paid job as Political Director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Halfon’s assistant is now caught conspiring with the Israeli Embassy to attack another Tory minister. House of Commons Publc Admininstration Committee, Nov 24 2011:

Paul Flynn: Matthew Gould has been the subject of a very serious complaint from two of my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the Ambassador, and they strongly believe, (though) it is nothing to do with (their) case at all, that he was serving the interest of the Israeli government, and not the interests of two British citizens. This has been the subject of correspondence. In your report, you suggest that there were two meetings between the Ambassador (Matthew Gould), (Adam) Werritty and Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that in fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number of issues around this. I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran, in the (diplomatic) service. Werritty is a self-proclaimed —
Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the point of this?
Paul Flynn: Let me get to it. Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran.
Chair: I have to take a point of order.
Robert Halfon: Mr Flynn is implying that the British ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, which is out of order.
Paul Flynn: I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading to accusations that he was close to the country’s secret service, Mossad.” (These accusations are) not from me, (they are) from the Daily Mail. There may be nothing in that, but that appeared in a national newspaper.
Chair: I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in these allegations, but it is important to have put it on the record. Be careful how you phrase questions.
Paul Flynn: Indeed. The two worst decisions taken by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of Iraq, joining Bush’s war in Iraq, and the invasion of Helmand province (Afghanistan). We know now that there were things going on in the background (mean)while that built up to these mistakes. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neocon people in Pindostan who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to foment a war in Iran, in the same way as in the early years, there was another —
Chair: Order. I must ask you to move to a question that is relevant to the inquiry.
Paul Flynn: Okay. The question is, are you satisfied that you missed out on the extra four meetings that took place, and does this not mean that those meetings should have been investigated, because of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests?
Sir Gus O’Donnell: I think if you look at some of those meetings, some people are referring to meetings that took place before the election.
Paul Flynn: Indeed, which is even more worrying.
Sir Gus O’Donnell: I am afraid they were not the subject. What members of the Opposition do is not something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. It is not relevant. But these meetings were held —
Chair: Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please?
Sir Gus O’Donnell: I really do not think that was within my context, because they were not Ministers of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all.
Chair: Final question, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn: No, it is not a final question. I am not going to be silenced by you, Chairman. I have important things to raise. I have stayed silent throughout this meeting so far. You state in the report on the meeting held between Gould, Fox and Werritty on Feb 6 in Tel Aviv, that there was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The British ambassador was present. Are you following the line taken by the Sec State for Communities and Local Government, who says that he can eat with lobbyists or people applying to his Department, because on occasions he eats privately, and on other occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the idea? It is possibly a source of great national interest, the eating habits of their Sec State. It appears that he might well have a number of stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting round the ministerial code, if people can announce that what they are doing is private rather than ministerial.
Sir Gus O’Donnell: The important point here was that when the Sec State had that meeting, he had an official with him, namely in this case the ambassador. That is very important, and I should stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you should infer anything from that about the individual’s biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide contacts.
Paul Flynn: I have good reason, as I said, from constituency matters, to be unhappy about the ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about the ambassador. He is unique in some ways in the role he is performing. There have been suggestions that he is too close to a foreign power.
Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Chair, this is not about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be about the Werritty affair.
Paul Flynn: It is absolutely crucial to this report. If neocons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war in Iran, we should know about it.
Chair: Order. I think the line of questioning is very involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask you to ask one final question before we move on?
Sir Gus O’Donnell: One thing I would stress: we are talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service.
Chair: So he is not in your jurisdiction at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell: No.
Paul Flynn: But you are happy that your report is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the affair. Is that your view?
Sir Gus O’Donnell: As I said, some issues arose where I wanted to be sure that what the Sec State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign Secretary told me.
Chair: I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that your report and the affair raise other issues, but you are saying that that does not fall within the remit of your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an ambassador does not fall within your remit at all.
Sir Gus O’Donnell: That is absolutely correct.
Paul Flynn: The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial code was his failure to observe collective responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the same charge there about our policies to Iran and Israel?
Chair: We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn.
Paul Flynn: We haven’t dealt with it as far as it applies —
Chair: Mr Flynn, we are moving on.
Paul Flynn: You may well move on, but I remain very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a matter of great importance.

It is shocking but true that Robert Halfon MP, who disrupted Flynn with repeated points of order, receives funding from precisely the same Israeli sources as (Adam) Werritty, and in particular from Mr Poju Zabludowicz. (Halfon) also formerly had a full-time paid job as Political Director of CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel). It is not surprising that Shai Masot evidently views Halfon as a useful tool for attacking senior pro-Palestinian members of his own party. But despite the evasiveness of O’Donnell and the obstruction of paid zionist puppet Halfon, O’Donnell confirmed vital parts of my investigation. In particular, he agreed that the Fox-Werritty-Gould “private dinner” in Tel Aviv was with Mossad, and that Gould met Werritty many times more than the twice that O’Donnell listed in his “investigation” into the Werritty affair. The truth of the Werritty scandal, hidden comprehensively by the mainstream media, was that Werritty was inside the British Ministry of Defence working for Israel. That is why it was so serious that Defence Minister Liam Fox had to resign. Of the eight meetings of Fox-Gould-Werritty together which I discovered, seven were while Fox was Sec State for Defence. Only one was while Fox was in opposition. But O’Donnell let the cat much further out of the bag with the astonishing admission to Paul Flynn’s above questioning that Gould, Fox and Werritty held “meetings that took place before the election.” He also referred to “some of those meetings” as being before the election. Both are plainly in the plural. It is evident from the information gained by Paul Flynn that not only did Fox, Gould and Werritty have at least seven meetings while Fox was in power, with no minutes and never another British official present, they had several meetings while Fox was shadow Foreign Secretary. O’Donnell was right that what Fox and Werritty were up to in opposition was not his concern, but what Gould, a senior official, was doing with them most definitely was his concern. A senior British diplomat cannot just hold a series of meetings with the opposition shadow Defense Minister and a paid Israeli lobbyist. All of this underlined the pernicious influence that Israel has in the political class, which is founded on the Israeli lobby’s shameless use of cash for influence, as witnessed in the discussion between Shai Masot and (LFI) Labour Friends of Israel and his flaunting of a million-pound budget. Attitudes towards the plight of the Palestinians are an extreme example of the disconnect between public opinion and the views of the political class, and al-Jazeera should be congratulated heartily on giving us a peek into that. No further evidence is required. There could be no more conclusive evidence of Israel’s undue and pernicious influence than the astonishing fact that Shai Masot has not yet been expelled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.