How Labour used the law to keep criticism of Israel secret

The British government might have failed to keep the first draft of their infamous dodgy dossier from ever becoming public, but the Foreign Office did manage to persuade the Information Tribunal, which adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act, to remove a reference to one particular country: Israel.

They didn't even argue that the inclusion of Israel's name would harm national security, they simply pointed out that the Israelis might get pissed if the reference were made public so we should cut it.

And what was the reference?

Along with unfavourable references to the US and Japan, the reference to Israel was written in the margin by someone commenting on the opening paragraph of the Williams draft. It was written against the claim that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".

So, someone has, I presume, pointed out that Israel has blatantly flouted the United Nations authority even more egregiously than Iraq has and this has been deemed unfit for public consumption.

Now the very fact that Israel possesses over 200 nuclear warheads and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty speaks for itself. Likewise, the amount of UN resolutions against Israel is a matter of public record.

So why would the government be so keen to remove a comment pointing out something which anyone paying attention already knew?

In statement to the tribunal, Neil Wigan, head of the FO's Arab, Israel and North Africa Group, said he did not know who had referred to Israel in the margin. He went on: "I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein."

Its disclosure would seriously damage the UK's relations with Israel, Wigan said. The comparison with Saddam and the "implied accusation of a breach of the UN's authority by Israel are potentially very serious". It was "inevitable" that relations beteen the UK and Israel would suffer if the marginal note were allowed to enter the public domain, he added.

Wigan observed: "Unfortunately, there is perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] are prejudiced against the country". The note on the Williams draft dossier "would therefore confirm this pre-existing suspicion and would increase the damage".

Writing in October last year, he noted that "criticism of Israel received a huge amount of media coverage". The margin comment mentioning Israel would thus be given a "high profile". Harming relations with Israel would undermine the FO's ability to prevent and resolve conflict "through a strong international system".

So, because there is a "perception" in Israel that the F.C.O. are prejudiced against them - probably because they say things about Israel which are demonstrably true - then all references towards Israel's flouting of the UN must be removed.

The Foreign Office did not object to references to other country's remaining in the published draft.

Alongside the claim that no other country apart from Iraq had twice launched wars of aggression against neighbours, the unknown FO official writes: "Germany?" and " US: Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico". Against a reference to the use of chemical weapons, the official has written: "Japan in China?"

And again, it appears that the FO official is simply doing his job and pointing out holes in the argument being presented in the draft and possible places where someone might question the veracity of what is being claimed.

This only goes to highlight the lengths that New Labour will go to in order not to offend the Israelis.

However, it pales in comparison to an extraordinary story in yesterday's Independent which told the tale of what happened when Maj-Gen Almog, an Israeli Major-General accused of war crimes, landed at Heathrow airport.

The police, who were waiting to arrest him, were so fearful that they would be met with an armed response if they entered the plane which Almog was refusing to disembark from - obviously having been tipped off by someone that the police were waiting - that they had a two hour stand off and then allowed the plane to take off again with Almog still on board.

Imagine any other person accused of a crime being allowed to leave the country because police feared if they attempted to arrest them they might be met with armed resistance.

The options open to the police were numerous. They didn't have to storm the plane, they could simply have prevented it from taking off and sent in negotiators to wait until Almog was willing to hand himself over.

But no, he was simply allowed to flee the country despite the fact that lawyers standing next to the police had already convinced a magistrate that Almog had a case to answer for the bulldozing of 59 Palestinian homes. I can think of no other circumstance in which the suspect of a crime would be allowed to flee. Only a person suspected of war crimes would ever be treated in such a way. Other criminals are, for the most part, treated equally before the law. But war criminals - because they tend to be members of a state - appear to fall into a different judicial system.

Not only was Almog allowed to flee the country, but Jack Straw later apologised to Israel for this embarrassment to one of it's "military heroes".

Kate Maynard, of the solicitors' firm, Hickman Rose points out:

"He apologised for a judicial process," Mr Maynard said. "This case was not a stunt; it was an effort to bring Almog to justice in a place where he would have a fair trial, because he has complete immunity in Israel. To have it thwarted, and then to have an apology, is incredible."

So who tipped off Almog that it wouldn't be wise for him to disembark at Heathrow? I imagine the very same government officials who are so anxious not to annoy the Israelis that they are removing all references to Israel from the dodgy dossier.

There was a day when a Labour government might have been expected to be honest about who was flouting UN resolutions and who was not. Likewise, there was a time when warrants for arrest - even if they were warrants for the arrest of former statesmen like Pinochet - could expect to be acted upon.

No more. Israel have become so good at equating any criticism of their policies with anti-Semitism that the British government now fall over backwards not to offend them. This is a very dangerous path.

I know that in the United States votes for anything involving Israel often produce results which resemble Saddam Hussein's election victories, but one would hope that here in the UK we would still be able to remain objective on this subject.

It should never be unacceptable to state the truth, just as it should never be acceptable to allow suspected war criminals to flee the country.

And yet here we are...

Click title for full article.

Tags: Dodgy dossier, Iraq war, Israel, United Kingdom, war crimes, Almog, Heathrow airport, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown