Who is the Real Threat to British Democracy? Part II
The pro-Israel lobby and the actions of an employee of the Israeli embassy in London exposed in the Al-Jazeera documentary should be a cause for national concern. However, those sharing the toxic combination of money, undue influence and shady foreign advocacy include organisations infamously familiar to politically-savvy Muslims. The neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS), which is accused of an anti-Muslim/anti-Islam agenda and known for “expressing views characteristic of the far right”, has been a proponent of the “Muslim Trojan Horse” conspiracy theory; that there is an “Islamist” agenda to subvert Western democracies. This is unsurprising. HJS is notably funded by pro-Israel activists and the “sugar-mama of anti-Muslim hate” Nina Rosenwald.
In 2015, the organisation held an event on UK’s counter-extremism efforts. HJS’s Hannah Stuart, on a panel with someone from the “Institute for Strategic Dialogue”, said,
HJS has a history of influencing Parliament in an undemocratic fashion. In 2014, HJS refused to disclose details of its donors in accordance with Parliamentary transparency rules. Despite this, HJS was providing secretariat support for the homeland security and transatlantic and international security parliamentary groups.
Notable in the Al-Jazeera documentary were the links to HJS. The documentary exposed University College Students Adam Schapira and Elliot Miller as having received donations from Israel to set up the campus-based Pinsker Centre. It is a think-tank which funnels monies directly from AIPAC. The link to the US Israel lobby is important. According to Henry Siegman, a former executive director of the American Jewish Congress who serves as president of the US/Middle East Project,
“Islamophobia has gained many followers in the Jewish establishment and at this point has infected American Jewish life… The neocons are to a large extent responsible for that.”
Miller claimed that he did a fellowship at the Israeli foreign ministry and the congressional affairs department. This is of serious concern because Miller is the national organiser for Student Rights at HJS, an organisation dedicated to countering “extremism” on campus. Like the associate director of HJS, Miller reflects a disdain for Islām. He is shown in the documentary yelling “it is a violent religion” at pro-Palestine supporters. Miller openly boasts that the “guy behind [him]” is in Israel and he is the type of person “who could walk into a room with the donor, and the donor will give him a cheque for £2500.” Given HJS’s obsession with supposed Muslim “entryism”, is it not a concern that its employees, secretly financially backed by someone in Israel and an American pro-Israel lobby group, are interfering with the British university student sphere?
The situation is all the more precarious given that the interference stretches directly into the Home Office. A landmark judicial review on “extremism” and its arbitrary application to UK citizens by the Home Office recently revealed that HJS had supplied information derived most likely from data collated by Miller’s Student Rights to the Home Office’s Extremism Analysis Unit (EAU). The EAU’s operations and its secretive collusion meant that HJS was acting as the Home Office’s Israel-funded, subcontracted, surveillance outfit.
HJS’s prostitution for foreign powers does not end here.
In January, it was reported that HJS was receiving £10,000 a month from the Japanese embassy in London to encourage politicians and journalists to speak out against China’s international political moves. HJS had approached Malcolm Rifkind to write an article for the Daily Telegraph. While Rifkind denies knowledge of HJS’s dealings with the Japanese embassy, a question needs to be raised. Why would HJS seek to use Rifkind in the first place? Rifkind, a “leading member” of the “Conservative Friends of Israel” (CFI), has previously been implicated in dubious “cash for access” dealings. In 2015, he was exposed for offering to submit questions to ministers on behalf of a paying client, without revealing their identity. It seems he would be a suitable candidate for HJS’s propaganda operations.
Given the Charity Commission’s aggressive obsession with Muslim charities, the response has been lacklustre. The Commission has stated that they have merely “contacted” the charity for “further info”. Considering the significant implications for democracy, one would think the Commission would be instituting a statutory inquiry into HJS to determine whether the trustees have properly executed their legal duties and responsibilities and to understand whether the charity is actually furthering its charitable objects, or dubiously furthering interests of Israel and Japan.
There are other concerns surrounding HJS that should be made the subject of inquiry. Earlier this month, the Commission started a statutory inquiry into a Muslim charity after it had initial concerns about a lecture given by one of the trustees. HJS’ associate director Douglas Murray has a plethora of alarmingly discriminatory, virulently anti-Muslim views and associations. Murray promotes the Eurabia conspiracy theory about a secret Arab/Muslim takeover of Europe. He has referred to Muslims as a “demographic timebomb” for whom “conditions… in Europe must be made harder across the board”. Professor Arun Kundnani, in his book The Muslims are Coming!, has compared the myth to the Protocol of Elders of Zion. Murray’s views are shared with the neoconservative anti-Islam far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders who has said that “Islam is the Trojan horse in Europe” and “Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time”. It is worth noting that Muslims constitute only 4% of the Netherland population. Interestingly, Wilders is a “good friend” of HJS financier Rosenwald.
These are not views or associations that have been consigned to the past. Last year, Wilders revealed that he wants to ban mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic symbols, the Islamic headscarf, the Qur’ān and preventatively incarcerate “radical” Muslims. He has been banned from the UK in the past and was recently sanctioned by a Dutch court for inciting discrimination. Last month, Murray defended Wilders using typical neoconservative doublespeak, saying that Wilders was not illiberal. His struggle was, ostensibly, a “revolt in defence of liberalism”.
Is this consistent expression and association with anti-Muslim hatred coupled with fascist-apologism not a “concern” for the Commission? Should the Commission not investigate HJS’s “extremism” and speaker policy?
Complaints must be raised to the Charity Commission by those concerned with the repeated sabotage of democratic principles and disturbing rhetoric propagated by HJS. As Britain’s political landscape is continuously subverted, moulded and interfered with by foreign influences through organisations linked to Israel, the incumbency to hold the perpetrators to account continues to mount.
 Ibid., (25:00)
 Ibid., (24:00)