Sir Alan Duncan does it again

I first wrote about Sir Alan Duncan in a blog of June 2021 that was subsequently republished in Mondoweiss.

I reviewed his entertaining and acerbic diaries of his experience as a Foreign Office Minister in the Government of Theresa May, from 2016 to 2019. He drew attention to her Government’s appalling acquiescence in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, and its damaging interference in Britain’s internal affairs through lobby groups.

Notably, he pointed to the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which had conspired to prevent Duncan from being appointed to a ministerial post dealing with Middle Eastern matters and for which he was well qualified. As an advocate for Palestinian rights and critic of Israel, Duncan was a key target for pro-Israeli lobbyists.

Duncan is back in the news, having just been exonerated from spurious antisemitism claims from within the Conservative Party. He got his message out through a press conference staged by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) on July 16th.

It is a bizarre case where Duncan was put through a complaints procedure, but in the absence of a named complainant. Anyhow he pointed the finger fairly and squarely at the party’s top brass, accusing them of allowing his old nemesis, the CFI, to exercise undue influence.

Duncan stood accused of using antisemitic tropes in part because he was accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their own country. This is an absurd accusation given the overriding loyalty to Israel exhibited by some Jews of Zionist persuasion. Indeed, due to diverse ethnicity and origins, we may postulate that many British citizens feel dual loyalties, and may not pass Norman Tebbit’s Cricket test.

Dual loyalty?.......................Perish the thought!

It is Holy Writ among pro-Israel advocates that British Jews cannot possibly be more loyal to Israel than the UK. The idea is enshrined in the sixth contemporary example of antisemitism in modern life in the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

When quoting this example, Israel enthusiasts habitually fail to mention the all-important qualification cited in the definition, i.e. taking into account the overall context. Such dishonesty is par for the Zionist course.

Duncan confronted this thinking head on, saying that:

Money, improper influence, and the promotion of Israeli interests above our own have contributed to the destruction of the UK’s independent foreign policy - - - - The flow of money and the influence behind the scenes that attaches to it need to be exposed.

He singles out Lord Polak, CFI’s honorary chair, for criticism, saying:

In my view, I think he should be removed from the Lords because he is exercising the interests of another country, not that of the parliament in which he sits. 

Lord Polak; a leading player

Phil Miller and Simon Hooper of Declassified UK went on to produce a scorching article about Lord Polak, based on an analysis of his allowance claims and voting. He had claimed almost a quarter of a million pounds between 2015, when David Cameron made him a peer, and was likely to have claimed a similar amount just for 2024.

These allowances are perfectly within the law, but Polak had taken this money while, primarily, pursuing the interests of Israel, and not the UK. According to Miller and Hooper:

Polak has made no secret of his determination to use his place in the Lords to continue speaking up for Israel.

Indeed Polak had once boasted that the Prime Minister had:

given me a once in a lifetime opportunity to enter the House of Lords which will enable me to continue to advocate for Israel.

They conclude that:

the House of Lords expenses system effectively means that UK taxpayers are subsidising Polak’s lobbying activities.

They provide instances where Polak appears to have used his position to advance the interests of Israel. For example, he had promoted closer ties between the UK and Arab states that have normalised relations with Israel including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco (through a parliamentary group supporting the Abraham Accords). He had also pushed CFI’s flagship policies to ban Hamas in its entirety, and the Lebanese Hezbollah movement.

While the ban on Hamas and Hezbollah suits the Government of Israel, it runs counter to the UK's interest in keeping open channels of communication with these bodies. While Hamas’s military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001, both Labour and Conservative governments had seen fit to avoid outlawing the group’s political wing, recognising its important political role in running Gaza’s civil administration could be complicated by a ban.

Minimal mainstream publicity

Despite considerable circulation on social media, Sir Alan Duncan's newsworthy press conference has been massively underreported in the mainstream media. of the Tories doing the bidding of the Israeli lobby, on July 16th. 

On Friday July 19th, and again on Thursday July 25th, I googled the words Alan Duncan July 2024 to see which news outlets had mentioned it in their written feed. It was overwhelmingly mentioned by non-mainstream outlets catering for specialist readerships, including:

• several with a Middle Eastern focus, including Middle East Eye, Middle East Monitor, The National News, The New Arab and Anadolu;

• some left-leaning outlets, including Declassified UK, Novara Media and Jewish Voice for Labour, and one specialised in Muslim affairs (5Pillars UK).
  

On April 4th and 5th, several mainstream outlets including the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Sky News and LBC reported that Duncan had been placed under investigation by the Conservative Party. However, of these, only the Guardian followed up by reporting online Duncan’s very newsworthy press conference revealing that the complaint against him had been dismissed. The Tory press and the Murdoch newspapers did not seem to have mentioned it at all.

This is how the British mainstream media reports Israel/Palestine matters that reflect poorly on the British establishment. They practice censorship by silence, failing to report highly newsworthy stuff that doesn't fit their narrative.  Such, for example, was the fate of Greg Philo and Mike Berry, two very accomplished researchers in journalism who, in 2019, demonstrated the gross inaccuracy in public perceptions about the level of antisemitism in the Labour Party. They attributed these perceptions to misinformation spread by the self-same media, including the supposedly impartial BBC, and the liberal Guardian. The authors published their findings in a book called Bad News for Labour, but no mainstream outlet ever reviewed it.

Fellow victims must work together in solidarity

By unapologetically denouncing the Zionist lobby's shenanigans, Alan Duncan has set a remarkable example for politicians in his own and other parties.

Maybe Duncan inspired Lord Nicholas Soames, Hon. President of the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC), who spoke at the King's Speech Debate of 25th July, reminding the House of Lords about the importance of the international rule of law, which should apply to alll equally.  I wish I could point to a Liberal Democrat who has stood up to the Zionist machine like Sir Alan.

All those of good will should combine to combat the misrepresentation of people who justly criticise Israel - remembering that Labour figures like Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn and Chris Williamson have borne the brunt of Israeli interference in our internal affairs. The challenge is such that we cannot afford to be divided along party-political or factional lines.