Muslims have been understandably expressing consternation at Theresa May becoming prime minister. Whilst the sacking of Michael Gove has brought delight, her appointment of Amber Rudd as Home Secretary is being seen as deeply worrying given Rudd’s policy council membership of the notorious hate-funded Henry Jackson Society. No doubt we will be seeing a continuation of closed society, illiberal security policies in the name of liberalism and freedom, as Muslims remain the punch bag for anti-Muslim rhetoric. May is no friend of Muslims, with animosity towards Islam articulated through counter-extremism rhetoric.
As the Conservative prospective candidates demonstrated their reality by stabbing each other in the back, dropping low-blows about not having children, and employing Machiavellian tactics against each other for once, as the leadership came to a head, it was interesting to note the prominent voices which fell into line behind May.
May’s Pro-Israel Supporters
Rudd’s reward as Home Secretary no doubt came from her timely intervention in the media, telling Sky News that Andrea Leadson was “not in the same league” as May.
Another notable supporter is former chief executive of YouGov, the Iraqi-Kurd Nadhim Zahawi, who is also a Henry Jackson Society political council member. Predictably, Zahawi’s disjointed take on solutions to terrorism is of the neoconservative variety, from incorrectly stating that “research suggests that the most effective way of tackling terrorism is “changing the narrative”” (this is untrue), to talking about refuting the clash of civilisations, whilst conflating terrorism with penal codes in Muslim countries which ironically are part of the gifts European colonialism blessed Muslims with.
Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock’s decision not to stand against Theresa May was a major factor in May attaining a lead during the leadership race. Ruling himself out, he aired his support for May. Of relevance is his involvement with the Zionist lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Late last year, Hancock and Zahawi were present at a CFI briefing with the fascist racist Benajmin Netanyahu. Earlier this year, Hancock met with Netanyahu again to announce proposals to censor the BDS movement and undermine local democracy.
In short, those backing May are vociferous supporters of “one of the most racist societies in the western world”.
Theresa May’ Subservience
Given that Zionists campaigned to ensure a “warm friend” of theirs was choreographed into in power, it is understandable that May herself conforms to a subordinated approach to Israel. Of course this would not be problematic were it not for undeniable overlap between Zionist activists like Michael Gove and their penchant for pushing anti-Muslim policies domestically and whitewashing atrocities in Palestine.
Peter Oborne reminds us of the reckless approach May took in having Sheik Raed Salah’s entry blocked into the UK. His attempted ban and subsequent subjection to a control order, was found to be at the behest of the Zionist Community Security Trust. Oborne notes that May had been “under a misapprehension of the facts,” and made no attempt “to balance its advice with a judgment from any Muslim or Palestinian organisation.” In a speech to Britain’s largest Zionist youth movement, Bneir Akiva, last year, she stated that she was “proud” to “fix” the “problem” of universal jurisdiction law – a law which is designed to hold potential war criminals to account.
This carefree attitude towards Muslims and slavish appeasement of Zionist activism was exemplified further with the discriminatory inquiry into Shari’ah arbitration, with May providing assurances to the Board of Deputies of British Jews that no such inquiry would be made into Jewish Beth Din courts. This attitude is also demonstrated by the fact that the orthodox Jewish community remains immune from the discourse of extremism, further reinforcing the notion that the counter-extremism strategy is really a counter-Islam strategy as stated by Gerald Howarth.
“Secret” Countering Terrorism Collaboration with Israel
Former Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, told the Jerusalem Post that May has supported “efforts to deepen British-Israel ties in the area of homeland security”.
This collaboration has been kept a “secret” as part of her responsibility for the police’s counter-terrorism units and the MI5 security service, with Israeli security officials speaking of “unprecedented intelligence-sharing chiefly on the threat of Islamist terrorism”, according to the Jewish Chronicle.
Is this why PREVENT officers have been caught out referring to pro-Palestinian views as “terrorist-like”? Is this also the reason why Michael Gove’s henchmen Peter Clarke classifies Orthodox Jews who reject the Zionist state as “extremists”?
To what extent has the Zionist state, known for its disproportionate violence, land-grabbing, and formulations of military doctrines which inflict maximum destruction influenced British policing? Has Britain adopted Israel’s use of Mistaravim, a unit which uses Arab-speaking Jews to infiltrate Palestinians and monitor thoughts and actions?
Indeed how much civil-liberties eroding influence has come from Israel in the context of May’s Snooper’s charter? The charter would compel telecoms companies and internet service providers to store every person’s communications data, including records of calls, texts, emails and their entire internet browsing history for a year.
Post-Snowden, it is well-known that Israeli companies had reportedly bugged the US telecommunications grid for the NSA. In summer 2014, May visited Israel to meet Israeli experts on cybersecurity where she discussed internet safety and security. It was organised by the UK-Israel tech hub.
Since then, former British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould has become the director of Cyber Security at the Cabinet Office. Pertinently, Gould founded the UK-Israel tech hub.
Gould was linked to the neocon Liam Fox-Adam Werrity democracy-undermining scandal. When reports of Werritty’s procurement of pro-Israeli funding surfaced, Gould was implicated. Craig Murray revealed that the Fox-Werritty link “related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould”.
The debacle demonstrated how neocons and in particular the pro-Israel ambassador undermined democracy in a way which pursued a parallel foreign policy favouring Israeli interests.
It is worth examining the model that Britain is interacting with when it comes to cyber security. Within Israel, telecommunications privacy is far worse than the PRISM revelations. According to Israeli attorney Jonathon Klinger,
“Over the past decade, Israel has enacted a number of surveillance laws that allow unrestrained use of personal information of citizens for routine investigations, not only for the prevention of terrorism.
“Among those laws is one ratified by the Knesset in 2007 allowing police and other agencies to request – and get – information about individuals under investigation, even without the requirement to get a warrant from a judge. Companies are required to supply information on individuals who may be connected — even circumstantially — to a crime.”
Klinger states that these laws have then been used politically, with activists involved in protests over high prices and monopolization in the Israeli economy having their Google mail accounts hacked. Google has also supplied police in Israel with information about hundreds of users.
Israel’s approach has been to merge military, spy agencies, corporations and academia to tackle cybercrime. The “driving force” behind the sector is IDF’s Unit 8200, Israel’s equivalent of Britain’s GCHQ. Israel is developing a new “cyber-city” near Ben-Gurion University, which will be comprised of major multinational corporations, Unit 8200, and disturbingly, Israel’s internal security agency Shin Bet.
Such a set up here in Britain would rightly trigger descriptions of authoritarianism, with online privacy all but eliminated.
Is this future May and Israel’s agents here in Britain envisage for Britain? There are some worrying signs.
The aforementioned May-supporter Hancock in February unveiled plans in Israel for increased security cooperation and research. Hancock was accompanied by executives from major British companies, as well as cyber security professionals from government and academia. The delegation, was led by UK-Israel Tech Hub.
A couple of days ago, Earl Howe, a minister of state for defence and deputy leader in the House of Lords, admitted that the Snooper’s Charter would provide the British government with the ability to force internet service providers to “develop and maintain a technical capability to remove encryption that has been applied to communications or data.” The power would be wielded by incoming neocon Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
It is little wonder that pro-Israel groups, including the Zionist Federation of the United Kingdom, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Community Security Trust, and the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) have welcomed the new prime minister – she takes lessons from Israel.
The JLC has already begun spreading its tentacles of passive aggressive influence by expressing its displeasure at the way in which war crime suspect Tzipi Livni was invited by Scotland Yard to a police interview under caution, in relation to her role in Israel’s disproportionate use of violence in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 (Operation Cast Lead). JLC stated,
“However, the current situation remains unsatisfactory… We hope that Theresa May will continue to support democratic leaders who visit the U.K. and ensure they are treated appropriately.”
The night before May moved into Number 10, she had dinner with Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who described her as “a friend and champion of our community and of other faith”. Mirvis of course has demonstrated his Zionist agenda by joining efforts to amalgamate anti-Zionist views and activism with anti-Semitism.
What matters most for Muslims in terms of engagement with the West and its foreign policy are the injustices taking place in Palestine. Muslims are reminded of these injustices on a daily basis through the targeting of our visual appearance, clothes, mosques and our fundamental Islamic beliefs by those who also advocate for Israel from within the corridors of power.
Given May’s history of starry-eyed infatuation with Zionist “suggestions”, May no doubt continues the legacy of David Cameron as a proxy leader for Israel. This should be a cause for concern not just for Muslims, but for all. As Peter Oborne rightly commented, “Muslims have reason to feel nervous about the prospect of Prime Minister Theresa May. So too should the country.”