Perfidious Albion’s road of deception and underhand scheming to global war in “The WWI Conspiracy – Part One: To Start A War”

James Corbett, “The Corbett Report (Episode 347: The WWI Conspiracy – Part One: To Start A War)” (November 2018)

At this time of writing, a century has passed since World War I ended, and swept with it into history beliefs in never-ending scientific and technological advancement and empires in Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia). An entire generation of young men was brutally destroyed with grave repercussions for societies across the world that would last for decades to come (and which may still do, in the form of politically conservative societies and cultures with mediocre political cultures and leaders). Yet the ultimate causes of that war remain as puzzling and controversial as they did one hundred years ago.

The conventional narrative of what led to World War I – the various alliances formed by the major European powers that eventually fell into two opposed sides, each jealous of their own political, economic and military power; the competition among these powers for more resources and hence more territory; the nationalism of various ethnic groups in central and southeast Europe, governed by a weak Ottoman empire, which could be exploited by its enemies; the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, and his wife by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo in 1914 – is well known but does not explain why an incident in a small provincial town should have been the tinderbox event that set off a series of chain-reaction events resulting in all-out war. This documentary, the first of a three-episode series made by The Corbett Report, looks at the background of historical events and trends beginning in the early 1890s, when in 1891, three men – the diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes, newspaper editor William T Stead and aristocrat Lord Esher (Reginald Brett), a confidant to Queen Victoria and later King Edward VII and George V, met to discuss and form a plan to extend British rule throughout the world and reclaim the United States as an integral part of the British empire.

The plan which also involves the formation of a secret society, complete with an inner circle privy to esoteric knowledge and an outer circle of helpers who will be allowed to know only what is necessary for them to be of value, sounds completely outlandish but as the documentary outlines, it is carried out very cleverly and progressively, spanning two decades, co-opting Russia and France as allies against Germany, Britain’s main political, military and economic rival, and with the collusion of the British press. Firstly, the funding of the plan is secured by the British waging war against the Boers in southern Africa that results in the separate colonies and republics in that region becoming one unit (South Africa) under British control, and the gold wealth of that unit coming under the control of the British South Africa Company. The Boer War was incredibly brutal, with over 66,000 civilian casualties of whom 26,000 were Boer women and children who died in concentration camps along with another 20,000+ black Africans out of some 115,000 also interred in concentration camps. Secondly, British news propaganda increasingly paints Germany as a hostile and malevolent enemy seeking to stir up trouble in different parts of the world, even in areas where the British are the actual trouble-makers. Third, the British assist Japan against Russia when war breaks out between those two powers in 1905 by denying the use of the Suez Canal to the Russian naval fleet and forcing it to travel around Africa and through the Indian Ocean up towards Japan; Japan was able to crush an exhausted Russian fleet. In this way, Japan becomes a valuable ally to the British in the Far East.

The documentary presents its case well, that a Deep State formed within the British political establishment in the later 19th century and schemed to create conflicts, even wars, to achieve its goal of isolating Germany and targeting that nation for war. The voice-over narrative is delivered at a fairly leisurely pace and interviews with historians back up the documentary’s premise. Archival film footage, photographs and maps of the period help to delineate the world in which European imperial powers dominated all continents.

I would add only that the British desire to put the United States into its proper place as a colony within its empire preceded the machinations of Cecil Rhodes and his fellow conspirators; the British are known to have assisted the Confederate States of America during the US Civil War (1861 – 1865) to ensure the break-up of the US into two weak states that could easily be dominated by a foreign power.

Though the events covered by the documentary occurred over 100 years ago, they are worth viewing as the strategy used by the British to demonise Germany is much the same as the current British-American strategy to demonise and isolate Russia. Again, the English-language news media is being used to suppress truth and to incite public hostility against Russia and its allies in Asia and the Middle East.

Why ‘Wonder Woman’ is Banned in Lebanon: taking a stand against propaganda that denies history and exalts violence and brutality

Nora Barrows-Friedman, “Why ‘Wonder Woman’ is Banned in Lebanon” (Electronic Intifada, 8 June 2017)

With every passing year, the commercial movie industry in the United States, popularly known as Hollywood, reveals itself more and more as the propaganda arm of US foreign policy, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the spate of superhero movies, based on characters in comics published by DC Comics and Marvel Comics. The Batman / Dark Knight trilogy of films directed by Christopher Nolan insinuates that in order for good to triumph over evil, good must stoop to the level of evil (including the killing of innocents as “collateral damage”) and promotes the cynical notion that societies can only function if their citizens are persuaded to believe lies – because knowing the truth would inevitably lead to chaos. These and other superhero films fetishise technology and violence, in the process disdaining character development and sticking to stereotyped plots and narratives that reject diplomacy, compromise and co-operation between opposed forces, preferring instead to solve problems with overwhelming force and violence.

In this context, the casting of a former Israeli soldier, who participated in Israel’s war against Lebanon in 2006, and who supported and praised the Israeli Defense Forces in their pounding of Gaza in mid-2014, as the superhero Wonder Woman in a film of the same name in 2017 takes Hollywood and the superhero movie genre to a new low. Hollywood’s use of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman represents a tacit acceptance of Israel’s ongoing war against the Palestinians and Lebanon. No wonder that Lebanon – admittedly after much prompting from its own activists – banned the screening of the Wonder Woman movie in its cinemas, in line with a law banning transactions that involve Israeli partners which “normalise” or implies acceptance of past Israeli actions or policies that oppress Palestinians and people living in territories neighbouring Israel.

In this interview hosted by Electronic Intifada, reporter Nora Barrows-Friedman speaks with academic and activist Rania Masri who explains why the ban on “Wonder Woman” is a boycott and not an example of censorship. Masri calls attention to the settler movement in Israel which continually encroaches on Palestinian lands and forcibly ejects Palestinians from them with approval and support from the Israeli government. She also reminds listeners that Israel also threatens people in the Shebaa Farms region in southern Lebanon bordering Israel, and people in Syria’s Golan Heights region. Masri then turns her fiery ire onto the English-language press which has deliberately misrepresented the Lebanese ban on “Wonder Woman” as censorship and left out the context surrounding the Lebanese decision.

Masri emphasises that the people now known as Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians were one before World War I and were separated when their lands were divided and claimed by Britain and France as colonies in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement. It was as a result of this agreement that the Zionist movement in Palestine, enabled by the British who thought to use the Zionists as their sheriffs in the Middle East to keep watch over the Arab peoples, took deeper root especially after the Balfour Declaration in 1917, eventually giving rise to the founding of Israel in 1948 after the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun terrorist gang in that year. How galling it would be for Lebanese audiences to watch a film in which the star is not only a former soldier and a proud patriot of a country that still seeks to destroy Lebanon, but is also a reminder of the forced separation of the Arabs in the Levant which deliberately weakened them and subjected them to a subservient role in their own lands.

Left out of Masri’s argument is other reasons why films like “Wonder Woman” are propaganda: they help promote the idea of the United States as an exceptional nation, as they espouse values and behaviours considered typically American, with the result that those who resist the US must want to destroy all that the US supposedly represents and defends; and they flatten history, especially recent history, and drain it of context so it has nothing to teach audiences or to encourage them to think about what they have seen. Masri could have included these reasons in her criticism but perhaps time did not permit and Barrows-Friedman had quite a list of questions to ask her.

Shoplifters: an intelligent low-key film that examines the nature of family and connection in a fragmented society

Hirokazu Kore-eda, “Shoplifters / Manbiki Kazoku” (2018)

In this slow realist drama about an impoverished family in Tokyo, surviving by its wits through a combination of low-paying jobs, living on an aged pensioner’s social security income and shoplifting, director Kore-eda explores a number of themes: the nature of family in modern Japanese society; the loss of connection between individuals and between individuals and community in an urban, technological society; and how people living on the margins of a society that spurns and ignores them come together to survive and find purpose and connection. Osamu Shibata (Franky Lily) and his wife Nobuyo (Sakura Ando) live in a tiny shack in a Tokyo neighbourhood; Osamu is a labourer on construction sites and Nobuyo is a low-paid laundry employee. Grandma Hatsue Shibata (Kirin Kiki) lives with them too: she relies on her old age pension and a regular stipend from a couple, the husband of which is the son of her ex-husband and his second wife. Hatsue’s granddaughter Aki (Mayu Matsuoka), a peepshow parlour worker, and 10-year old Shota (Kairi Jo) make up the family unit. When we first meet the family, Osamu and Shota sneak groceries into Shota’s backpack without paying for them and are on their way home when they come across a tiny 4-year-old girl, Yuri (Miyu Sasaki), shivering outside her family home … in the middle of winter. Father and son take Yuri home where the women feed her and discover evidence of physical abuse on her scarred arms. In spite of their strained finances, the family accept Yuri as one of their own.

Over the next twelve months, Osamu is injured at work and is laid off; the laundry that employs Nobuyo falls on hard times and she is retrenched. Finances are further strained when Grandma dies. While all this is happening, Shota becomes jealous of the attention Yuri, renamed Rin, receives from the women. At the same time he is teaching Rin to shoplift food items and while she is an eager and ready learner, he is beginning to feel guilty about teaching the child how to break the law. Caught in a dilemma, he finds a way to resolve it but his action leads to dire consequences for Osamu, Nobuyo, Yuri / Rin and himself.

During the course of the film, viewers discover that the Shibata family has been cobbled together in much the same way that Osamu and Shota found Yuri / Rin: Shota himself is a foundling and even Grandma was originally a foundling, albeit at the other end of the age range from those usually abandoned and found by others. The make-up of the Shibata family unit and the way in which it came together says something about the fragmentation of Japanese society in which elderly people end up being shunted into nursing homes or aged care places where they may face bullying and abuse. Yuri / Rin finds unconditional love and affection among supposed “kidnappers” but in her original birth family she receives only cold indifference and neglect. Nobuyo has a dark past that involves the murder of a previous husband.

The film’s minimal and understated style, suggestive of a documentary, combined with the laid-back pace and the actors’ naturalistic performances, especially those of the child actors who carry much of the film on their slim shoulders, reveals subtle nuances and social realist criticism in the story that gently unfolds. Through the Shibatas’ interactions, we come to see how cold, unyielding and bureaucratic Japanese society has become. Children are pulled away from people who love and care for them and parked in orphanages or returned to situations where their lives are put in danger – simply because in the eyes of society or the law, this is the “right” thing to do. Director Kore-eda questions the ethics and values upheld by Japanese society and exposes them as hollow shells through a family of morally dubious characters who may have sound reasons for doing what they do to survive.

The issues raised in “Shoplifters” are dealt with intelligently with a minimum of fuss and sentiment but leave a huge impression on viewers. This film is essential viewing.

The Lobby (Episode 4: The Takedown): exposing a brazen suggestion to get rid of a politician

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 4: The Takedown)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In the last episode of Qatar TV station Al Jazeera’s series on Israeli infiltration of British politics and in particular the British Labour Party, Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter Robin is being urged by Shai Masot, senior political officer with the Israeli embassy to form a new activist lobby group called the Young Labour Friends of Israel. Viewers can assume, from information in previous episodes, that Masot will assist Robin financially and direct him to people who will advise Robin on what to do and on details of the pro-Israeli agenda the YLFI will be adopting – as long as Robin and the rest of the organisation he will be chairing stay mum on any connections the YLFI will have with the Israeli embassy. Indeed, Masot goes to considerable length to explain to Robin that he (Masot) cannot be seen to be linked to the new organisation in any way – because such a connection violates British law.

From here on, we hear no more of the YLFI or of Robin’s activities for or with that organisation but the episode picks up where Episode 3 left off in pursuing what happens to Jean Fitzpatrick after her unpleasant encounter with Joan Ryan who reports her to senior Labour Party officials for making “anti-Semitic” statements. Fitzpatrick is subjected to an investigation which eventually clears her name but not before causing her considerable distress.

The rest of Episode 4 focuses on Robin’s meetings with British public servant Maria Strizzolo and Shai Masot. Strizzolo, an aide to MP Robert Halfon, happily admits that the Israeli embassy tries to influence and direct British political culture by insinuating itself with party whips who keep order and discipline within their respective parties and alert MPs to attend parliamentary sessions when debating and voting on legislation is taking place. Robin also attends a meeting held by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israeli political lobby organisation in Washington DC, in London. AIPAC’s aim is to encourage and ensure that the UK’s policy on Israeli affairs matches that of the US. What is most alarming though is that at one of Robin’s meetings with Masot, Masot proposes setting up a front company to fight the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement and to “take down” British politicians known for supporting the rights of Palestinians. Masot mentions the name of one particular politician whom he would like to see gone.

That the Israeli embassy would employ people who not only seek to influence and direct British politics but also try to get rid of politicians and members of political parties is astonishingly brazen and makes Israel a major threat to British national security. When this episode aired in Britain, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn complained in an open letter to the Prime Minister and urged her to open an inquiry into the incident. The Israeli ambassador to the UK apologised for Masot’s remark. Masot himself resigned from the embassy and was recalled to Israel. Strizzolo also resigned from the UK civil service. That Theresa May’s government took no further action against Israeli embassy staff or Israel – yet is happy to throw out Russian embassy staff over a poisoning incident involving a Russian traitor spy and his innocent daughter for which it has no proof of Moscow’s culpability – demonstrates its stupidity and incompetence.

At this point, viewers learn nothing more about Robin or the group he was supposed to have set up. Being the final episode, “The Takedown” might reasonably be supposed to clear up most loose ends of what had been begun in earlier episodes. Googling for information on the Young Labour Friends of Israel, I found nothing so that particular abomination presumably stays stillborn.

The entire series has been informative, even if on a fairly superficial and somewhat confusing level. It does not claim to be the definitive summary of how Israel seeks to influence and mould British politics and political culture to its liking. Doubtless there may be other ways the Israeli government tries to inveigle its way into Westminster. At the very least, a scalp has been claimed – but this does not mean the Israelis will not be deterred from what they are doing.

The Lobby (Episode 3: An Anti-Semite Trope): how small-minded cult-like behaviour threatens democracy and citizens’ rights to free speech

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 3: An Anti-Semite Trope)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In this third episode of the four-part series focusing on the Israeli government’s infiltration of political parties and grassroots political movements in Britain, the emphasis shifts away from Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter Robin (who is posing as a pro-Israeli activist ingratiating himself with activists in the pro-Israeli lobby) and to UK Labour Party member Jean Fitzpatrick who is attending the UK Labour Party conference in Liverpool. She strikes up a conversation with people at a Labour Friends of Israel booth at the conference and asks two LFI representatives on how Israel will implement a two-state solution that will suit both Israel and the Palestinians. The representatives either avoid the question or spout tired old rubbish about how the security situation in Israel must improve before work can begin on the two-state solution or how Israel has the issue in hand and is proceeding slowly but steadily. No answer satisfies Fitzpatrick so she repeatedly presses the issue. At last one LFI booth representative (and British Labour Party politician) Joan Ryan cuts off Fitzpatrick and refuses to debate any more with her. Fitzpatrick drifts away and Ryan decides to report their exchange to LFI and other associated pro-Israeli flacks as “anti-Semitic”. One things leads to another and yet another, and it’s not long before Fitzpatrick discovers she is under investigation from her own party for supposedly “anti-Semitic” behaviour at an information stall at the Labour Party conference.

The way in which an argument (about whether the Israeli government is dragging its heels over developing a two-state solution that helps all parties involved in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians) is deliberately exaggerated and blown up into an insidious and ridiculous “anti-Semitic” rant would be deserving only of egg-throwing derision and scorn were it not real. The reactions of Ryan and her fellow pro-Israeli activists (including the Israeli embassy’s senior political officer Shai Masot) can only be described as stupid, deranged and cruel. Fitzpatrick had not expressed a personal opinion about Jewish people or individuals and her initial question had concerned only the Israeli government’s deliberate delay in carrying out the two-state solution. The fact that Ryan could exaggerate aspects of her exchange with Fitzpatrick, twist those aspects into a fairy-tale and then expect her fellow LFI members and others who support her to accept her lies uncritically and without demanding proof shows the depth of deranged idiocy and the narrow-minded and uninformed viewpoints of her intended audience. Ryan and her pals in LFI and other pro-Israel groups repeatedly turn over her exchange with Jean Fitzpatrick among themselves and in their own minds to the point where the reality and actual subject matter of that exchange disappear in their feverish imaginings, to be replaced by their own small-minded fantasies about how Jewish people are continually being harassed and hounded out of whichever communities they live in, in countries where by and large Jewish people and communities rarely suffer discrimination at present.

Robin attends and records other events at the conference but few have the fire of Fitzpatrick and Ryan’s debate. As usual the oily Shai Masot works his crowd by appearing to offer support or money, or bringing together people from different pro-Israeli organisations. In further interviews, Fitzpatrick expresses concern that her encounter with Ryan is endangering her party membership and her fear that other consequences that might threaten her personal affairs may also follow.

This episode demonstrates the real menace that Israeli penetration of political and grassroots activist organisations and movements poses to democracy (or whatever is left of it in Britain) and to ordinary Britons’ right to free speech. Distressingly, when Al Jazeera later asks Joan Ryan about her argument with Fitzpatrick, Ryan continues to assert that any form of “anti-Semitism”, which in her mind covers any criticism or opinion that suggests the Israeli government is less than squeaky-clean angelic in whatever it does, is unacceptable and she will continue to speak out against it at the risk of inviting other people’s judgements on her intelligence. Ryan’s behaviour and the way in which other pro-Israeli activists collude and encourage that behaviour, and exaggerate incidents, building them into something outrageous and entirely untrue, suggest a cult-like mind-set cut off from reality and reason.

An Act of Defiance: a hard-hitting, confrontational film about personal courage and the fight for justice

Jean van de Welde, “An Act of Defiance” (2017)

Quite a hard-hitting and confrontational film this historical drama on the incidents and trial that sent political activist Nelson Mandela to prison for nearly 30 years turns out to be, with a focus on the barrister who defended Mandela and his co-defendants in the trial and how his own life was turned upside-down as a result. In 1963, Mandela and his inner circle of black African and Jewish activists in the African National Congress are arrested at Lillesleaf Farm in Rivonia, in Johannesburg, on charges of conspiring to commit sabotage. Lawyer Bram Fischer (Peter Paul Muller) reluctantly agrees to defend Mandela and the other activists at their trial in spite of his own connections with the African National Congress through the outlawed South African Communist Party; indeed, some of the documents seized by police at Lillesleaf Farm are actually in his own handwriting. Mandela urges his co-defendants to plead not guilty to the charges of high treason, punishable by the death penalty, and appeals to them and their legal counsel to put the South African government on trial during their trial over the system of apartheid blanketing the country’s institutions that denies non-white people the same rights, privileges and freedoms as white people have.

As the trial progresses, Bram Fischer’s sympathies with the defendants are called into question, especially when the legal counsel for the prosecution reveals his link to Mandela’s inner circle, and Fischer and his family are subjected to harassment by the police. While his wife Molly and their children support Fischer and his desire to see justice done – incidentally only two of Fischer’s three children are portrayed in the film – the Rivonia trial has a huge impact on all their lives, even after cross-examination ends, the judge delivers the verdict and the sentence, and Mandela and his fellow co-defendants are forced to return to prison; over the next few years, strange incidents suggestive of continuing government and police harassment occur in the family’s lives which result in tragedy and Fischer’s own arrest, trial, sentencing and imprisonment.

The tone of the film is very sober yet matter-of-fact. Initially it is slow and little of note happens until the trial begins. Then the pace and the tension are relentless as the trial grinds away, wearing down Fischer and his legal team. Relief at the verdict when it comes, is but very short-lived as the film details the consequences of Fischer’s involvement in the Rivonia Trial on him, Molly and other members of his family. The acting is good and consistent if fairly minimal.

While highlighting the role that members of the South African Jewish community played in fighting apartheid alongside Mandela and other black Africans, the film does little to show the support non-white people might have demonstrated for Fischer and the hostility he and his family might have faced from their own Afrikaner community. Divisions among the whites in their attitudes toward the Rivonia Trial and its participants could also have been shown. Ironically, for all the emphasis the film places on how South African Jewish individuals worked with black people to fight apartheid, most black characters in the film are basically passive bystanders. Without the overall political context that was South Africa in the early 1960s, viewers outside the country who have little knowledge of its history before the 1990s will not be able to appreciate the depth of hatred and enmity against Bram Fischer for defending Mandela and the activists from the government and its institutions, the huge risks he took in doing so and the sacrifices he was forced to make later. The film highlights how the search for justice and the advancement of society demand considerable personal courage from individuals who, all too often, end up being persecuted and suffer great personal tragedy.

The Invisible Man’s Revenge: a messy plot and flat uninteresting characters underline this cheap film

Ford Beebe, “The Invisible Man’s Revenge” (1944)

It could have been an interesting character study about various individuals’ motivations and greed, and how far they’re prepared to go to get what they want, but this film, done cheaply and cynically to cash in on previous films based on the H G Wells’ novel “The Invisible Man”, turns out to be a mess in terms of its plotting and character development. The criminal Robert Griffin (Jon Hall) escapes from an asylum and pursues a wealthy couple, Sir Jasper and Lady Irene Herrick (played by Lester Matthews and Gale Sondergaard) whom he accuses of having left him for dead in Africa years ago and of whom he demands his share of the wealth they gained from discovering diamond fields during a safari trip. The couple trick him of his rightful inheritance by drugging him, destroying a document they find on his person that proves his claim and then booting him out of their mansion. Griffin finds refuge with a cobbler, Herbert (Leon Errol), who tries to help him with his claim but is unsuccessful. Griffin next comes across crank scientist Drury (John Carradine) who makes him invisible in an experiment. Griffin uses his invisibility to extort money and property out of Sir Jasper Herrick and to claim the hand of Herrick’s daughter Julie (Evelyn Ankers) in marriage; the fellow also helps Herbert win a game of darts at his local pub.

Griffin discovers how he can become visible again and murders Drury to regain his normal appearance. However this visibility is only temporary and Griffin must resort to killing another man to recover his appearance so he can marry Julie. The next man Griffin targets for death is Julie’s fiance Mark Foster (Alan Curtis), thus setting up a showdown between the two men for Julie’s affections.

The film intentionally makes all its characters unlikable and not at all heroic. Most characters are greedy and will stop at nothing to get what they think they deserve. Ankers’ character has hardly anything to do at all apart from looking pretty as the love interest. Hall as Griffin lacks charisma and is workman-like in portraying the deranged killer. As Griffin is already a deranged serial murderer, the film does not need to investigate the question of whether a person might remain moral if s/he has numerous opportunities to perform unethical actions without fear of punishment. (It’s possible that as a result, the film suffers from the lack of tension that such an issue would offer.) The Herricks manage to live another day but not without suffering considerable psychological trauma. Foster arrives late in the plot and bravely offers a fight but his character remains flat; he and Julie do not even get a chance to hold hands. Too much in the plot is told, not shown, violating a basic rule of story-telling. Even the sets used in the film look cheap and tired.

The film is not essential viewing for fans of horror unless they are keen to see the entire series of films (all independent of one another in plot and characters) on the Invisible Man.

The Lobby (Episode 2: The Training Session): undercover investigation reveals fanaticism and sociopathy

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 2: The Training Session)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

Continuing on from Episode 1 “Young Friends of Israel”, in this episode Al Jazeera’s undercover investigator Robin discovers more about how far the Israeli government seeks to influence and mould British political policy to favour its own policies with regard to how it treats Palestinians in the territories it occupies and its ambitions and agenda in the Middle East, through the Israeli embassy’s meddling in the affairs of the Labour Party (UK) and in particular the youth organisations and other movements connected to it. Here, the focus is on the party conference held in Liverpool and the activities the Israeli embassy (through its senior political officer) engages in with various activists already embedded in organisations like Labour Friends of Israel and We Believe In Israel to lobby Labour Party attendees. Having already ingratiated himself with these activists, Robin is tasked with setting up a new youth movement, the Young Labour Friends of Israel (what an imaginative name), attached to the Labour Party and to liaise with other pro-Israeli activists to help promote the movement.

The narrative tends to jump and chop around, making viewing hard to follow, and Robin’s task in forming the new group is mentioned no further. Enough other things happen during this episode that are sure to stun viewers harder than cows being hit and shocked in abattoirs. One pro-Israeli activist admits to accepting help and funding from the Israeli embassy and then goes on to say that his organisation goes to great lengths to distance itself from Israel to appear “independent”. In another part of the film, several people discuss a plan to form a new group in the UK that will link up with the main pro-Israeli lobby group in the US, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee aka AIPAC. Much of the film is taken up with a training session at the Labour Party conference which is more or less dominated by pro-Israeli activists lecturing the audience on anti-Semitism: a few attendees are shocked at what they hear and protest that opposition to Israeli government policy and actions and elements of current Zionist ideology does not constitute anti-Semitism. One of these attendees is Jackie Walker, vice-chair of Momentum, and herself of mixed Jewish and black ancestry, who is later interviewed at length in the film.

A truly disturbing moment in the film comes when pro-Israeli activist Ella Rose, director of the Jewish Labour Movement, is rumbled by Electronic Intifada for having held a job with the Israeli Embassy; for this, she is criticised by Jackie Walker on social media (for presumably not having revealed her full work background before applying for the post). Rose’s reaction to Walker’s criticism is to threaten the diminutive Momentum vice-chair with violence. Walker’s shocked response to Rose’s vindictive threat can only be imagined.

The deliberate secrecy and duplicity with which the Israeli embassy representative and his pro-Israeli activist pals plan to infiltrate the Labour Party conference with their propaganda and money (amounting to one million pounds), the evasiveness of the various organisations when later questioned by Al Jazeera over their connections with the Israeli embassy, and the thuggish and hostile response of Ella Rose over her exposure by Electronic Intifada reveal the sociopathic and fanatical mindset these people share and the danger they pose to the Labour Party and British politics generally. Unfortunately, the actions of these pro-Israeli activists and the government that feeds and funds them make this documentary necessary for the rest of us to watch, to remind ourselves of the extremes they may well be prepared to go to, to succeed in their quest.

Don’t Torture a Duckling: behind the sensationalism, a surprisingly thoughtful and critical film

Lucio Fulci, “Don’t Torture a Duckling / Non si sevizia un paperino” (1973)

Fret not, no ducklings, nor indeed any animals, were harmed in the making of this giallo film which, under cover of admittedly gratuitous nudity, violence and gore, is actually a serious examination of the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude towards sexuality and of the insularity and poverty of a small rural Sicilian village and the complacency, ignorance and corruption that exist as a result. A series of murders of young boys in the town attracts media attention from all over Italy and reporter Andrea Martelli (Tomas Milian) is sent by his newspaper employer in Rome to investigate. Police quickly find various suspects: the local village idiot Giuseppe (Vito Passeri) and gypsy witch Magiara (Florinda Bolkan), whom the police quickly find are innocent of the murders when more murdered boys are found. Martelli follows the police case and offers some insights to the main investigators; he also befriends a young woman, Patrizia (Barbara Bouchet), whom he recognises from having seen old photographs of her in newspapers back home, and who is currently lying low in her dad’s mansion in the wake of a drug scandal. The villagers dislike Patrizia for her modern fashions and she becomes a suspect in the murders in their eyes. Martelli also meets the local priest, Don Alberto (Marc Porel), who runs a boys’ group at the church and gets them to play football in the church grounds to keep them out of mischief; for this, the villagers admire him.

Viewers can smell from a mile away who the serial killer is likely to be: sure as heck, the killer turns out to be the one person everyone least suspects. Fulci throws in plenty of red herrings to keep viewers guessing as to who the killer might be: the young bored woman who flaunts her naked body to the wide-eyed youngsters? the reporter who tampers with the crime scene? the town idiot who buries one child’s body and pitifully tries to extort a ransom from his parents? the witch who makes voodoo dolls in the likeness of three boys and stabs the dolls? the mad woman with the mentally retarded daughter? Significantly, Fulci doesn’t play fair with viewers and the killer’s identity is only revealed with a plot twist. On the other hand, the plot moves smoothly and surely to the climax which fittingly takes place on top of a mountain with stunning views of the Sicilian countryside: quite literally, a place between heaven and earth, and the serial killer falling to his death (and by implication, to Hell) in a suitably gory way.

While the acting is average, and a couple of actors go over the top, the plot nevertheless is unsettling (even if some of its details don’t quite gel) and the cinematography is very effective in drawing out the horror, the violence and above all the ignorance and superstitious character of the villagers. Modernity at times is but a slim cover for the deeply irrational nature of the people, evinced in their hysteria over the boys’ deaths and their unwavering, unquestioning loyalty to the Church. Even the police, for all their supposed expertise, are not immune to arresting people simply because they are outsiders, despised by their community.

The killer’s motivation that children should be despatched to Heaven to preserve their innocence and prevent them from maturing and gaining sexual awareness (which might lead them into sin) might seem shocking to modern viewers but makes good sense in a film that dares to address the boundary between childhood and the sexual innocence associated with it on the one hand, and maturity and sexual awareness on the other, and how communities and institutional religion deal (or fail to deal) with the transition from childhood to maturity adequately. From failing to deal with this transition might emanate other social evils such as scapegoating others and social oppression, in particular the social oppression of vulnerable groups such as unattached women and the mentally ill. In spite of its tendency to sensationalism, this film proves to be surprisingly thoughtful and critical of unquestioned tradition and the human preference for following custom for its own sake.

The Lobby (Episode 1: Young Friends of Israel): how Israel infiltrates youth groups and organisations in Britain

Clayton Swisher, “The Lobby (Episode 1: Young Friends of Israel)” (Al Jazeera, 2017)

In recent years, a movement known as the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement has grown – especially among young people – to protest the Israeli government’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. To counter the BDS movement’s popularity in the United Kingdom, the Israeli government has resorted to penetrating university student unions, grassroots activist movements, think-tanks and youth groups allied to major political parties with propaganda, money and offers of trips to Israel. This first episode of a four-part series focused on the pro-Israeli lobby in the UK follows an undercover reporter, known as Robin, who ingratiates himself with activists in several of these groups and the contacts they have with the Israeli embassy in London.

For a 25-minute documentary, running at a brisk pace, this film is very dense with information on various groups, several of which are connected directly or indirectly to the British Labour Party – the film does not follow equivalent groups affiliated with the Conservative Party which already has a pro-Israeli platform – and in which a number of activists are working with a contact from the Israeli embassy to present a more benevolent and favourable view of Israel and its policies, and to push back “anti-Semitism”, as they define it. Astonishingly, most of these activists know one another and the Israeli embassy contact very well, and have also done some work at the Israeli embassy. Robin is encouraged not only to set up a pro-Israeli group but also to accept a job at the Israeli embassy, which is also interested in recruiting him. This perhaps suggests that these activists form a very small, cliquish network, and their work is likely to be cut out for them trying to convince others to join them. Unfortunately, due perhaps to Robin’s need to keep the real nature of his investigations secret, he does not ask these people how successful they have been so far.

One disturbing aspect of the film comes when two vice-presidents of the National Union of Students (NUS) talk to Robin about getting rid of President Malia Bouattia for supporting the BDS movement and criticising Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians. One of the vice-presidents is revealed as having accepted a free trip to Israel through the Union of Jewish Students, which itself has received money from the Israeli embassy.

This film sheds a light on how Israel attempts through underhanded ways to influence political discourse on issues affecting not just its own politics but on the politics of other Middle Eastern states. It is worth following to get an overview of how far it will go to advance its own interests by infiltrating student organisations in universities and branches of political parties aimed at encouraging young people to enter politics.