Liam Fox, Adam Werritty, and the Guardian’s favorite target: UK Jews who support Israel

A guest post by AKUS

Something quite bizarre is going on in Britain, and the Guardian is in full cry against several leading Jewish figures.

For those of us not up to speed on British politics, here is a synopsis of the action. Liam Fox is – or was until a day or so ago – Britain’s Defence minister (who knew?).  The fuss is apparently because he allowed someone called Adam Werritty to travel overseas in first class with him and attend some meetings, using business cards embossed with the Commons portcullis logo (a no-no)  that described him accurately it would seem as an “adviser to Rt Hon Liam Fox MP”. He got paid for his efforts by some “donors” – remuneration for work being, apparently a cardinal sin for anyone below managerial level at the Guardian.

Werritty is described in his wiki bio as follows.  “Born in Kirkcaldy, Werritty was raised in St Andrews, Fife, and went to Madras College, where he played rugby in the 1st XV”. Seems like a sound chap, probably not Jewish or a Zionist.

Even the Guardian seems to have no idea what was going on or why this is really a scandal but sniffs a conspiracy of some sort:

Politics Live blog: Liam Fox report published (Guardian, Oct. 18)

6.58pm: Here’s an evening summary.

• MPs are going to get the chance to question a minister about the Liam Fox affair tomorrow following the publication of a 10-page report that criticised Fox for falling “short of the standards of conduct required in the ministerial code” but failed to explain why donors were so willing to pay for his friend Adam Werritty to travel with him abroad.

(I have underlined the phrase with its heavy hint of a [Jewish – wink, wink, nudge, nudge] conspiracy to all those following the names of donors – see the “Unanswered Questions” article referenced below).

The Guardian continues:

In response, Fox said: “I accept that it was a mistake to allow the distinctions between government and private roles to become blurred.” But Labour’s Jim Murphy said: “This report only scratches the surface of potential wrongdoing. This is a murky business and it has not yet been resolved.” My colleague Rupert Neate has identified the key questions that remain unanswered.

We find in the “unanswered questions“ article that the Guardian identifies six donors to a company apparently connected to Werritty called Pargav.  Notice that only those associated with Israel in any way have their non-business activities or affiliations mentioned (my emphasis added in the extract below). In a later article (see further below), an additional one of the six called Poju Zabludowicz is also identified as a pro-Israeli businessman:

Liam Fox report: The unanswered questions (Guardian, Oct. 18th)

1 Did Werritty benefit financially from his close relationship with Fox?The report says Fox did not benefit financially from the relationship. But it has not answered whether Werritty profited from Fox allowing foreign leaders and businessmen to assume that Werritty was his official adviser.

The O’Donnell report has named all of the donors to Werritty’s Pargav Ltd company. We already knew about four: Jon Moulton, a Tory donor and private equity tycoon who bought Reader’s Digest; Good Governance Group (G3), a private investigations company staffed by former MI6 officers; Tamares, an investment company owned by Tory donor Poju Zabludowicz; and Michael Lewis, the boss of Oceana Investors and a former chairman of Bicom, an organisation that lobbies on behalf of Israel.

The report added two new funders Mick “the miner” Davis, the boss of Xstrata, the FTSE 100 mining company is also a funder and chair of the trustees of the Jewish Leadership Council. The other is International Resources Group (IRG) Ltd, a lobbying company which has worked in Afghanistan and is owned by L3, a communications company that is part owned by Michael Hintze’s hedge fund CQS. Hintze has already been identified as big donor to Fox and Werritty’s Atlantic Bridge charity.

The Guardian actually repeats the same paragraphs for good measure in its “response” to the next unanswered question.

Suddenly, it’s all about Israel and, presumably, the global if not galactic Jewish/Zionist conspiracy to take over Britain, as reported in the next article, which actually appears on the Israel page (!) even though this is a British scandal – if scandal it is:

Adam Werritty bankrolled by three pro-Israel business tycoons (Guardian, Oct. 1)

“Three of the six donors who funded Adam Werritty‘s jetset lifestyle were prominent pro-Israel business figures.”

So three of the six were not pro-Israel business figures, helping a business man live a “jetset lifestyle” because – goodness gracious – he actually took plane trips overseas for business reasons.

Note that the caption under the picture of (I imagine) Fox and Wrritty ONLY references the three Jewish, Israel-supporting donors.

The non-donor business activities of the owner of Readers Digest (!) and a group made up of ex-MI-6 officers (!), and finally as, a hat-tip to conspiracy theorists, the last donor, “International Resources Group (IRG) Ltd, a lobbying company which has worked in Afghanistan (!) and is owned by L3, a communications company that is part owned by Michael Hintze’s hedge fund CQS” are never revealed, or investigated, or whatever term one wishes to ascribe to the not very well concealed attempt to turn this affair into a Zionist plot. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hintze for a bio of this brilliant Christian scion of a family that fled the Bolsheviks, now among the 1,000 richest men in the world, and notice how his religion and his wife’s multiple charitable interests are not mentioned by the Guardian).

The Independent has its own set of “Unanswered Questions” , which all seem to have pretty innocuous non-answers – e.g.:

Who is Adam Werritty?

The report says he is “not a lobbyist” and that he has a private firm, Todiha Ltd, but does not say what it does.

Was he making money from his relationship with Fox?

The report says Fox made no money from knowing Werritty, and that Werritty did not lobby the MoD on behalf of donors, but does inquire into how he made a living.

What on earth is going on here? Where’s the beef? Why is the Guardian so obsessed with Werritty’s Jewish donors but not the others?

Is the Guardian simply promoting another Dreyfus-style (dual loyalty related) anti-Semitic conspiracy theory in alignment with their obsessive anti-Zionist crusade?