With the British political class seized by the Zionist lobby, what are the implications for the democratic process when British lawmakers are in thrall to Israel?
The British political class is captured, and there are many symptoms of this. One such glaring example of this is former minister John Hutton.
He currently sits in the unelected House of Lords, where he shapes legislation. Hutton previously served under Tony Blair as Secretary of Defense during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today he works directly for the Israeli regime as the director of an arms firm that is owned by Israel.
Following his role under Blair, Hutton went on to become chairman of the Royal United Services Institute, a key warmongering think tank that is funded by arms giants such as Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.
He subsequently went on to work as an adviser to Lockheed Martin at the same time as sitting in the House of Lords.
He is now director of the arms firm Pearson Engineering, which was bought out by Israeli arms giant Rafael, which is directly owned by Israel.
Raphael is Israel’s third-largest weapons company, with 8000 employees and over 30 subsidiaries worldwide.
Some of the most famous systems used by the Israeli occupation forces are the Iron Dome, Iron Beam, Trophy, Popeye, and David’s Sling.
Today Lord John Hutton serves as a director of Rafael and its subsidiary Pearson Engineering, alongside three Israelis, the most notable being Dr. Ran Gozali, Executive Vice President of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
The Rafael site in Newcastle has been subjected to constant protest and disruption with Palestine Action shutting it down on Nakba Day.
It is certain that having a member of the House of Lords direct a company provides some protection in chambers of power.
Surely, Labour Lord John Hutton’s conflict of interest as an agent of Israel should disqualify him from the House of Lords.
What do you know about this Arms Company Rafael and its activities in the United Kingdom?
Raphael is directly owned by the so-called state of Israel and it has a subsidiary in this company called Pearson Engineering, which is based in Newcastle.
If you look at its website and its activities in the UK, it talks about all these weapons it makes, the missile defense systems, the drone systems, et cetera, et cetera.
And so it’s engaged in producing the means to kill Palestinians, essentially, in Newcastle and it should be shut down as should all these Israeli arms firms.
David Miller, Academic
How would you evaluate John Hutton’s record as a minister?
His record, obviously, was very much a Blair loyalist; he was put in positions where he could obviously influence policy in the direction of the government and it seems that when he stopped being inside the Labour Party, he’s taken up a role for the Conservative government, too, directing Britain’s involvement and contributions to people’s war efforts around the world.
I think his voting record speaks for itself in what he thinks about humanity and what value he puts on life.
Ian Hodson, Trade Unionist
Would it be fair to describe John Hutton as a sort of a foreign agent of sorts?
Well, we say this kind of thing on the show quite a lot and people sometimes object, but look, he’s working directly, and he is director of a firm which is directly owned by the Zionist entity.
I mean, it’s hard to put it any more straightforwardly than that. He works for Zionists, he works with the Zionist entity and he’s therefore a foreign agent.
I mean in the US, as you will know, we have the foreign agent Registration Act, which was set up in order to stop, and to hold accountable, people who were working for the Nazi regime in Germany. And it still exists on the statute books.
There’s been talk about introducing it here, of course, to target enemy nations.
But you know, if it was introduced, a similar kind of act, and then people like Hutton would have to register as agents of a foreign regime.
In this case, of course, a hostile foreign regime, which is engaged as everyone can see, in genocide.
David Miller, Academic
Where is the pressure coming from to introduce a similar scheme to the United States and to register these sorts of characters?
The pressure comes from those who want to register the likes of you and I and that’s why they’re a bit unsure about doing it because, of course, it would be very, very difficult to exclude a process for Israel.
They want to do Iran and Russia and China. They don’t want to do countries which are, of course, important in penetrating this country, most obviously, Israel, which has an active intelligence operation against this country.
And of course, someone like Hutton is an active agent for a hostile foreign regime as everybody can see.
David Miller, Academic
It’s so all-embracing, I mean, the current Israel lobby is probably the most effective lobby operating in the country at the moment, isn’t it?
It is certainly extremely effective but it’s also a lobby which people don’t understand is actually hostile to the United Kingdom, though people think it’s an ally of the UK.
Of course, there is a sense in which they are allies. And same with the US, the US of course, and the UK, supply them with weapons and training and all that kind of thing.
But they are also actually hostile. You know, it’s the only regime in the world which can shoot down American planes or sink American boats and get away with it.
David Miller, Academic
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that someone can have a role in the House of Lords while they’re being employed by a foreign regime?
I mean, if you contrast the discussion that’s going on at the moment about the ownership of the Daily Telegraph, for example, and the fact that we’ve actually ennobled somebody to sit in the House of Lords who is working for a foreign government, then it’s curious, you know, what we talk about democracy in the UK, and about the ability to make legislation, or have an impact on legislation, when you’re actually being paid by an outside government.
I mean, are you making the decisions in the interest of the people of the United Kingdom or are you making (them in) the interest of the person who’s paying your wages?
I can’t understand how you can have conservative politicians complaining about the ownership of the Daily Telegraph, which is not, you know, a function of British democracy, but nobody seems to question an ennobled lord, sitting in the House of Lords, paid by the British taxpayer, when he turns up, making decisions about the future of the people that live in this country, and whether or not they get involved in conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with us, and invest in armaments because obviously, you know, the idea that the people who we represent benefit from those decisions made in Westminster in the House of Lords.
Ian Hodson, Trade Unionist
Could you tell us a bit about Luke Lakehurst and his organization?
He was a lobbyist and he worked for arms firms, Meccanica, GKN and a number of others. But then he was brought into the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) , one of the main Israel lobby groups, then he was used to create this other sort of organization out of BICOM called “We Believe in Israel”, which has been in existence for more than 10 years.
So he is a full paid Israel lobbyist at the same time as being on the National Executive Committee of the Labour party and so he’s effectively, as are quite a number of members of the National Executive Committee, effectively an agent of a foreign regime running a political party, the leader of which says he’s a Zionist without qualification.
You’ve only got to give the example of Keir Starmer and you’re already seeing something very strange about the Labour party. We’ve talked about John Hutton, who’s a Lord, and this is all the way through the governing class, these connections with a hostile foreign regime which is the Zionist entity.
David Miller, Academic
Akehurst, a prominent Zionist, sits on the Labour Party’s national executive committee. Given his connections do you think it’d be fair to describe him as a as a foreign agent?
Well, again, you know, this is somebody who’s been receiving payments for that, (working) on different governments’ behalf; I believe they called him their best asset at one point, I think it was on the BBC, I’m sure I saw it on the BBC in a documentary where they refer to him as such.
So I think the idea that somebody who is so heavily influenced by outside forces playing a pivotal role now inside the Labour Party, has got to be alarming. I think when you look at what’s happened to the Labour Party in recent years, and, you know, I mean, there’s all this discussion going on at the moment about the racist attack on Diane Abbott and the horrific comments that have been made about her via a prominent, wealthy individual who’s been contributing to the British political system.
We see that as the reality of what has happened to our political system, and the reason why people now feel so detached from what’s happening in their lives, and why less and less people want to be involved in politics.
I think, you know, the whole position that the Labour Party has taken, in relation to the war on Palestine, is one that’s been heavily influenced by such people, which obviously hasn’t really put them in a very good light, you know.
He has not put the interests of the UK first, in my opinion; he has put the interests of people that he regards as his employers [first].
Ian Hodson, Trade Unionist
British political establishment’s redefinition of extremism
In the UK, it looks like Zionist extremists are defining extremism for the rest of us. Jonathan Woodcock, a member of the House of Lords, is spearheading the government investigation into extremism in an effort to crush support for Palestine.
Even as late as January he took funding from Israel lobby groups, having previously served as chair of the Labour Friends of Israel. Additionally, Woodcock has been to Palestine on an Israel-funded trip where he planted trees with the JNF, Israel’s largest settlement-building group.
He was also part of the consortium which purchased the Israeli lobby-oriented publication ‘The Jewish Chronicle’ in 2020, alongside BBC director, Robbie Gibbs, and John Ware, the journalist who made Panorama programs to aid the witch hunts in the Labour Party.
Charity Commissioner, William Shawcross, and Campaign Against Anti-Semitism founder, Jonathan Sacerdoti. Zionist and rampant islamophobe, Michael Gove, has also been shaping the British government’s definition of extremism, which will include groups like Palestine Action.
Gove is also close to at least three names on Benjamin Netanyahu’s private list of millionaire funders he wanted for his leadership campaign in the Likud, as revealed by the Zionist website Ynet.
One key name was convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson.
As education secretary, Gove gave £2 million of public money to Ronson’s organization, the Mossad trained Community Security Trust, while simultaneously being on its board of advisors.
Another name on Netanyahu’s list was property developer Zak Gertler, who donated £100,000 to Michael Gove just a month before he became Housing Minister.
Gertler is also a patron of the illegal settlement building organization, the Jewish National Fund.
Manny Weiss who is the only director of a company called Manrows Ltd which has also funded Michael Gove in the past was also on Netanyahu’s list.
It seems that Jonathon Woodcock has got quite a position of influence today, does it not?
He’s not the only one, Lord Walney to give him his name, but there’s others. There’s Ian Austin, and there is John Man; these are all people who came from the Labour party and, effectively, are doing the job of the Zionist entity inside the House of Lords.
So they’re involved in this extremism debate, and then tried to expand the definition of extremism so that perfectly legitimate pro-Palestine organizations are regarded as being extremist and can be ,therefore, marginalized or legal actions can be taken against them, or the police can be used against them.
So this is a mechanism to try and expand the definition of extremism to take on the mass movement there is in this country in favour of Palestinian rights and against genocide.
David Miller, Academic
Could you tell us about Woodcock’s unceremonious exit from the Labour Party?
Obviously he pleaded his innocence, and then he left the Labour Party before they could fully investigate the allegations laid against it.
I know if I was being investigated, I’d want everyone to know I was innocent, to be fully investigated and an outcome that would demonstrate that I was being honest, but he chose to vacate because obviously, he must have felt that the evidence that was against him wouldn’t have put him in a position where he believed it would have represented his character in the best light.
I think the fact that he did what he did, by leaving the Labour Party and then leaving that gaping hole about his character, which then seems to have been rewarded by Boris Johnson.
You know, it’s also strange that we have two MPs, Hutton and Woodcock, that come from the same seat. It’s, you know, it’s a strange situation.
Ian Hodson, Trade Unionist
Woodcock actually used to work for Hutton as one of his special advisers.
Woodcock planted trees for the Jewish National Fund; tell us a bit about this organization and what its relationship is with the British political elite.
The Jewish National Fund is one of the four national institutions of the Zionist movement. It has affiliates in 30 or 40 countries around the world.
There is one in the UK called the GLF, UK, and its role is to provide resources in order that money can be sent to the Zionist entity to purchase, or to move Palestinians out of land which they own, and to build settlements on that land.
So it’s a settlement building agency, or ethnic cleansing, as Ian put it. But historically it’s always had, for many, many years now, very senior political figures in the UK; leaders of the Labour Party, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron as patrons of the organization. I think it was Cameron who was one of the only ones who removed himself from the GLF.
There’s been a longtime campaign against the GLF stopped the JNF. And that means it’s slightly less popular. And there’s been some kind of trepidation in some of the British political elites to associate themselves with that.
Nevertheless it still has a strong relationship with elements of the British elite and it’s not moving towards being outlawed as a charity or at least, not yet.
David Miller, Academic
It has such a benign-sounding name, I guess, to a lot of people, could that be one of the reasons maybe why some people might be shy about criticizing it, maybe because it has Jewish in the title, and when you start criticizing that you’re going to be accused of anti-semitism?
Well, almost all the Zionist organizations in this country have Jewish somewhere in the name; there’s the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is a Zionist organization, there is the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the main fundraiser for colonization of Palestine; there is the Jewish National Fund.
They’re all supposed to be the nice organizations which are just dedicated to experiencing Jewish people who didn’t live in occupied Palestine, but of course, you know, that always is at the expense of the indigenous people of Palestine.
So yes, of course they want to present it as being such an innocent thing, but it’s not; this is ethnic cleansing. And it’s an organization which is charged with status in this country to this day.
David Miller, Academic
How do you view Michael Gove redefining extremism?
What I’ve seen over the last few years is the extremism in Westminster; the people that are creating the problems in our communities are being led by politicians.
We have just seen Lee Anderson who’s now gone from labour to the Reform Party, you know, and all the way along, he’s been involved in calls for discrimination against minority groups. You know, I mean, if that was a Reform Party It wouldn’t be welcoming people like Lee Anderson with the history that he has denigrating different communities in our country.
I think the idea that Michael Gove can frame extremism when he’s involved in so much himself. I just think it’s shameful. I mean, the politicians in this country have acted shamefully. What we saw a couple of weeks ago with the speaker and then, you know, the idea that it was done to protect MPs when MPs are at the forefront now.
Going back to Diane Abbott, I mean, it’s somebody who donated 10 million quid to the Tory party that suggested that she should be shot. I mean, you know, we had this situation with Jeremy Corbyn as target practice, in the run up to the general election. None of that was called out by the politicians who are now talking about shutting down democracy.
I mean, when we talk about protests and the right to protest, I think the idea that politicians somehow have the ability to make decisions when they keep making the wrong ones, you know, whether it’s war in Europe or in the Middle East.
We can’t rely on these politicians to make sensible decisions because they make them for political advantage, for political opportunity and populism.
So, I think, the idea that a government in the last breaths of its life should be depicting what people can and cannot do in societies is not, in my opinion, the right way forward. We need to recognize that things have only changed in this country when we’ve come together as people and forced politicians to listen.
As you know, slavery was once legal and it was the people that came together to stop that. Our history is littered with examples of people power forcing politicians to do the right thing.
Ian Hodson, Trade Unionist
Does it surprise you that that Michael Gove is close to some of Netanyahu’s wealthy patrons?
Not at all, I mean, the example of the relationship with Gerald Ronson of the Community Security Trust story, which was some decades ago now, where we find a secret document, which was inadvertently left lying around on the internet, which showed the names of the Advisory Council of the Community Security Trust, which I found and then put together with the fact that the Gove was getting millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at the same time as being on the advisory board and, therefore, had a conflict of interest.
This resulted in huge howls of outrage. “How could you say this about an innocent Jewish organization?” Of course, everybody knows that the extremism of the Community Security Trust, which is technically supposed to be against extremism, which itself is engaged in, through Ronson, the fraudster who runs it through his personal charity and giving money to Jewish supremacist organizations like Chabad.
David Miller, Academic
