As you might have read, a Labour MP called Paul Flynn has caused offence by suggesting that Matthew Gould, Britain’s first Jewish Ambassador to Israel, might have divided loyalties.
Flynn, 76, kicked all this off last Wednesday, when he told a Select Committee discussing the Adam Werritty saga: “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 service.”
Interesting choice of words, no? The clause ‘I do not fall for conspiracy theories but…’ suggests he feels he has this time.
Still, even ridiculous conspiracy theories can be entertaining in a way. So talk to us, Mr Flynn, of your smoking gun. Where is your freeze-framed Twin Tower video, your evidence of doctored moon photographs, your Roswell dolls? Lead us, we beg you, to the very heart of your personal Area 51.
Well, he continued, it was the words of two of his constituents who were arrested when they took part in the anti-Israel flytilla earlier this year that made him doubt Gould. He said: “When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the Ambassador, and they strongly believe… that he was serving the interest of the Israeli government, and not the interests of two British citizens.”
That he would consider the testimony of two anti-Israel clowns – one of whom has happily posed for photographs alongside Hamas terrorists and written that ‘one could hardly blame them’ for hating Jews – more reliable than a distinguished British diplomat is a glimpse of the sort of private hell Mr Flynn might inhabit.
Challenged by the Jewish Chronicle‘s respected Martin Bright to clarify his comments, Flynn waded deeper into the marsh and said: “In the past there hasn’t been a Jewish ambassador to Israel and I think that is a good decision – to avoid the accusation that they have gone native.” He added that the British Ambassador to Israel should be “someone with roots in the UK [who] can’t be accused of having Jewish loyalty”.
The ‘dual loyalty’ accusation is one of the most sickening of antisemitic tropes. It long predates the foundation of the modern state of Israel. It was spread in Medieval Europe, formed a plank of the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as forming a part of the Dreyfus affair. Those who spread such insinuations know they often need no more than nudges and winks, and that it is often the very unfounded nature of their accusations that makes them difficult to defend against.
Indeed, while I am saddened that Labour leader Ed Miliband has yet to directly condemn Flynn’s words, one can almost hear the cries of ‘Well he would’ if or when Mr Miliband does act on this. It’s a wicked cycle.
If Mr Flynn did not mean to make such a wicked insinuation he should clear that up fast. So far, his defence has been: “Today’s accusation… that I have made an anti-Semitic remark is ludicrous. I have been a lifelong friend of Israel and Jewish causes.” No retraction of his accusations about Gould and no recognition of the upset he has caused. In the interests of fairness, you can read the rest of his response here.
I’m disappointed an MP – albeit an obscure one – can make such an outrageous insinuation and get away with it. While Britain got in a flap over Jeremy Clarkson’s silly joke on The One Show, Flynn’s wicked whispers barely raised an eyebrow outside of the Jewish community and its friends.
A final thought: Flynn said that the fact Mr Gould “proclaimed himself to be a Zionist” raises doubt over his suitability to be an Ambassador to Israel. Definitions of the word ‘Zionist’ do vary, but at heart it surely means someone who believes in a Jewish homeland within the land of Israel. Wouldn’t belief in the right to existence of the country you are posted to be a basic requirement for an ambassador?
The sad truth is that Labour can no longer be trusted to combat antisemitism.
They did nothing to stop the political abuse of Universal Jurisdiction; Kaufman and Linton – two MPs who made antisemitic statements within the parliamentary precinct – were still on their list of candidates for the 2010 election; failed to vote against Goldstone Report at UNHRC; Commenced arms embargo on Israel; Miliband when Foreign Secretary said that Cast Lead was ‘disproportionate’; The Charity Commission – led by a Labour Party activist – failed to make War On Want and other Charities live up to their legal obligation to tell the truth about Israel; Brown promoted Ben Bradshaw to Cabinet after he said on “Any Questions” (January 23 2009) “I am afraid the BBC has to stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally… Israel has a long reputation of bullying the BBC…”; Decided to talk to Hezbolla; Initiated separate labelling for West Bank settlement goods in supermarkets.
The days of Blair seem even further away than they actually are.
“I have been a lifelong friend of Israel and Jewish causes. I have visited Israel on four occasions including a private family holiday.”.. By many peoples definition this would also make Paul Flynn
a Zionist
Denis MacShane, the MP for Rotherham has called for a debate on antisemitism. i think he is correct. There are some MP’s who have made antisemitic remarks.However I think that there are many more who just don’t have an understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. They need educating.
Totally agree.
as long as corbyn is allowed to host antisemitic meetings in the house of commons, this is pure cant
So you dont want McShane’s debate, or MPs to be educated about antisemitism? Just leave everything as it is?
A ‘debate’ will simply turn into a party political slanging match. Macshane himself is not innocent of using the subject to score party-political points. All it needs is for MPs to be sent the EUMC Definition (url below)and to commit to not allowing H of C Committee Rooms to be used for meetings where antisemitism runs free.
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
I bet you that less than 5% of MPs have actually read the EUMC Definition.
I am prepared to give MPs a lecture on Antisemitism at no cost if the Labour Chief Whip Rosie Winterton will guarantee 80% attendance from her Party including Corbyn, Flynn and Kaufman.
Why do we continue to be surprised by this. Every other minority seem to be able to claim self determination except the Jewish people and Zionist views are automatically to be dismissed. Flynns defence immediately brings to mind the standard apologia of Jew haters down the years – ‘some of my best friends are Jews…’
I wouldn’t say that, there are over 2000 peoples and about what? 200 countries?
first of all it was condemned by labor MP’s including the shadow foreign secretary but given my current, temporary, wicked state of mind I would like to ask: what would happened if E.Mili would have commented on the issue giving that he is arrr technically/ethnically speaking… you know… Jewish?
I’m surprised that the honourable member hasn’t questioned Ed Milliband’s qualifications for becoming Prime Minister… given that his is, arr technically/ethnically speaking…. Jewish.
Sarcasm intended.
Crow, feeling his brain slip,
Finds his every feather the fossil of a murder.
Who murdered all these?
These living dead, that root in his nerves and his blood
Till he is visibly black?
How can he fly from his feathers?
And why have they homed on him?
Is he the archive of their accusations?
Or their ghostly purpose, their pining vengeance?
Or their unforgiven prisoner?
He cannot be forgiven.
His prison is the earth. Clothed in his conviction, trying to remember his crimes
Heavily he flies.
I trust that after his antisemitic comment about a Jewish Ambassador, Paul Flynn MP has given clear instructions that if he is ever taken ill, he should not be seen by a Jewish doctor.
To my mind the central problem is this: as long as there are prominent, vociferous Jews who say that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state, murderous gentile antisemites can hide behind their skirts.
I wrote to Flynn at his website but my comment has been removed.
I asked about his suitability to be a UK MP, bearing in mind his Irish ancestry. I also asked whether his party leader can be left in place as he is from a Jewish family. Finally, I asked which other ethnic minority civil servant he has had cause to comment about as presumably, they too must have divided loyalties.
Astonishing that the man does not understand what he has done, and that he is still in place. Jonathan is right, Labour has lost the plot with regard to permitting anti Semitism to flourish within the party.
Flynn’s cheerleaders came out, including one called DG, apparently blind to how this might be construed as bigoted, and suggesting that this was just “Zionazi” intimidation. Then a supporter of David Irving suggested that his hero is of a similar mindset. I responded thus on his blog, but expect deletion:
DG: he specifically and unambiguously stated that NO Jew should be an ambassador in this case, because the Jew’s loyalty would NECESSARILY be compromised. Thus, if NO Jew should be an ambassador in such cases, then Flynn necessarily considers ANY Jew a potential traitor to Britain.
If Flynn cannot see how profoundly this feeds on every ancient Judeophobic trope, then he can only reasonably be termed institutionally antisemitic: down to each “atom” he thus illogically claims to be free of such prejudice. He is literally pre-Judging every Jew.
Oh, and I notice Flynn is being welcomed as a fellow traveller of David Irving. I hope this at least gives him pause.
Yep, he cut out half of my response and then said he didn’t imply or believe any of that. And yet, out of his own mouth.
He’s a nasty, nasty piece of work. I just looked at LibDem Voice and some Labour blogs, and they’re overwhelmingly supporting Flynn and agreeing with his point.
Chas, you said you wanted to be positive, and that the majority of the Brits weren’t like this. It’s beginning to feel increasingly difficult to agree with you
Please bring some positive light to the situation of you can. Every day, I see how easily a Dreyfus Affair could happen in this country!
Not much positivity to be had in this episode.
It is worth remembering, though, that Flynn is an obscure, elderly MP and that his silly thoughts have been given minimal attention by the mainstream media. If he had tapped into something that a lot of Brits were thinking then the mainstream media would have gone to town on the story. It didn’t.
And seriously, really don’t draw conclusions about the majority of British people having browsed LibDem Voice and Labour blogs of all things! In the country-at-large, most people don’t give Israel and related matters a moments thought.
Also, look at the widespread condemnation of Flynn’s words. There are quotes from several significant people here and there has been many more condemnations elsewhere. When Martin Bright and I have Tweeted about this issue we’ve had feedback from general Twitter users saying they are disgusted by what Flynn said.
But we are facing a hostile climate to Israel among those who do think/speak about Israel and the Middle East. There certainly are issues with antisemitism in Britain, and the fact that elements of it are becoming worryingly acceptable. I wish it was otherwise.
To swim against the tide, Chas asks “Wouldn’t belief in the right to existence of the country you are posted to be a basic requirement for an ambassador?” Well, not necessarily – the ambassador is representing the country that sent him there, not the one s/he is posted to – and, arguably, if true, Gould’s comment is inadvisable. It would have been much better if he had stated that Israel had a right to exist, etc. Using the ‘Z’ word is rather a hostage to anti-’Z’ feelings! As for my “not necessarily”, would we want a UK ambassador to be supportive of Nazi Germany? North Korea, as it is?
There is a genuine argument that it was not wise to appoint Matthew Gould as Ambassador to Israel, and the accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at MP Paul Flynn MP by Dennis McShane, and reported by Martin Bright in the JC, do not address that argument.
Of course being Jewish does not in any way disqualify Matthew Gould from being a British ambassador. We are fortunate in the UK to have many brilliant Jewish diplomats. Jon Benjamin in Santiago is an example of an absolutely first rate ambassador with whom I was once privileged to work.
But Israel/Palestine remains, beyond dispute, a scene of unresolved conflict. The Israeli government, for example, recognises that conflict by invoking the San Remo Agreement to justify its naval embargo of Gaza. The San Remo agreement only applies in times of armed conflict. The dispute is also witnessed not just by events on the ground, but in diplomatic terms by the whole paraphernalia of Middle East peace negotiation, including the post of Quartet envoy occupied by Tony Blair.
So the situation surrounding Israel is not normal and involves conflict. That is, of course, by no means unique. Nearby Cyprus is subject to a dispute that has many parallels. I was Head of the FCO Cyprus section for three years, and tried hard but failed to make progress in resolving the “Cyprus question”. Winning trust was extremely difficult; it would have been well nigh impossible had I been ethnically Greek or Turkish. For the Head of the FCO Cyprus section, or for our Ambassador in Nicosia, to be ethnically Greek, Turkish or either shade of Cypriot just would not be practically useful. I hope nobody will accuse me of being anti-Greek or anti-Turk for saying so.
Similarly, it is just not helpful to have an Ambassador in Tel-Aviv who is Jewish or Palestinian. It just isn’t practically wise. This is not a matter of high policy. There may be Jews or Palestinians of such exceptional personal qualities they could rise above any suspicion of partisanship and be effective. But Matthew Gould has proven himself not to be that talented.
Matthew’s frequent declarations to the Israeli media of his personal commitment to zionism are neither helpful nor necessary for a diplomat. Take for example this from the Jerusalem Post of 29 May:
“British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”
That really is a very peculiar thing for a diplomat, who is supposed to have just the one national commitment, to say. I was dismissed as an Ambassador – by FCO ministers including Dennis McShane – for too strong a personal commitment to human rights. A personal commitment to zionism is by comparison a good thing, apparently.
We also cannot pretend that in 2011 to declare oneself a “zionist” in political terms merely has its 19th century meaning of somebody who believes in the existence of a state of Israel. The readership of the JC knows that the term “zionist” has accrued baggage of support for settlements and a greater Israel, for the annexation of the whole of Jerusalem, and of links with the non-Jewish foreign policy neo-Cons both sides of the Atlantic. who also declare themselves ardent zionists at every opportunity.
It is also worth noting that, of the entertained guests who have passed into Gould’s Tel Aviv residence, a disgruntled British Embassy source tells me that well less than 5% of invites have been to Israeli Arabs who constitute 20% of the population.
Finally, we have to consider the extraordinary relationship of Gould with Adam Fox and Liam Werritty. It has been shown that the trio met at least seven times, including several meetings before the election, according to Gus O’Donnell’s replies to Paul Flynn at the Public Administration Committee. The FCO refuses point-blank to say how many times Gould met Werritty without Fox, and refused within the hour (at nearly midnight!) my emailed Freedom of Information request for the Gould/Werritty correspondence.
No other official was ever present at any of the Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings – one of many strange facts about them. Gus O’Donnell’s report mentions only two of what we now know was a much larger series of meetings. We really need to know what Gould, the “committed zionist”, was doing with the two extreme Atlanticist neo-cons – and why the government is so anxious to hide it..
That is a genuine question, and to scream “anti-semite” at anyone who asks it devalues the term.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/12/the-gould-werritty-investigation-continues/
Although Israel is a strategic ally of the UK it nevertheless does not officially recognise Israel as “the Jewish” state – only as a state for all its citizens. Does Gould?
[...] this controversy stems from two of Flynn’s constituents who were arrested for taking part in the Flytilla during the summer months who have spoken of their experience with Gould which Flynn thought was [...]
[...] this controversy stems from two of Flynn’s constituents who were arrested for taking part in the Flytilla during the summer months who have spoken of their experience with Gould which Flynn thought was [...]