The planned scenario for a war with Iran is playing out before our eyes at frightening speed now. Unfortunately. as I have frequently said, Iran has a regime that is not only thuggish but controlled by theocratic nutters: the attack on the British Embassy played perfectly into the hands of the neo-cons. William Hague is smirking like the cat who got the cream.
The importance of the Fox-Gould-Werritty scandal is that it lifts the lid on the fact that the move to war with Iran is not a reaction to any street attack or any nuclear agency report. It is a long nurtured plan, designed to keep feeding the huge military industrial war machine that has become a huge part of the UK and US economies, and whose sucking up of trillions of dollars has contributed massively to the financial crisis, and which forms a keystone in the whole South Sea Bubble corporate finance system for servicing the ultra-rich. They need constant, regenerative war. They feed on the shattered bodies of small children.
Gould, Fox and Werritty were plotting with Israel to further war with Iran over years. The Werritty scandal was hushed up by Gus O’Donnell’s risibly meagre “investigation” – a blatant cover-up – and Fox resigned precisely to put a cap on any further digging into what they had been doing. I discovered – with a lot of determination and a modicum of effort – that Fox, Werritty and British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould had met many times, not the twice that Gus O’Donnell claimed, and had been in direct contact with Mossad over plans to attack Iran. Eventually the Independent published it, a fortnight after it went viral on the blogosphere.
The resignation of the Defence Secretary in a scandal is a huge political event. People still talk of the Profumo scandal 50 years later. But Fox’s resignation was forgotten by the media within a fortnight, even though it is now proven that the Gus O’Donell official investigation into the affair was a tissue of lies.
Take only these undisputed facts:
Fox Gould and Werritty met at least five times more than the twice the official investigation claims
The government refuses to say how often Gould and Werritty met without Fox
The government refuses to release the Gould-Werritty correspondence
The three met with Mossad
How can that not be a news story? I spent the most frustrating fortnight of my life trying to get a newspaper – any newspaper – to publish even these bare facts. I concentrated my efforts on the Guardian.
I sent all my research, and all the evidence for it, in numeorus emails to the Guardian, including to David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rupert Neate and Seumas Milne. I spoke to the first three, several times. I found a complete resistance to publishing anything on all those hidden Fox/Werritty/Gould meetings, or what they tell us about neo-con links with Israel.
Why? Guardian Media Group has a relationship with an Israel investment company, Apax, but the Guardian strongly denies that this has any effect on them.
The Guardian to this day has not published the fact that there were more Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings than O’Donnell disclosed. Why?
I contacted the Guardian to tell them I intended to publish this article, and invited them to give a statement. Here it is, From David Leigh, Associate Editor:
I hope your blogpost will carry the following response in full.
1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.
2. The Guardian has not “refused” to publish any information supplied by you. On the contrary, I personally have been spending my time looking into it, as I told you previously. I have no idea what the attitude of others in “the Guardian” is. I form my own opinions about what is worth publishing, and don’t take dictation from others. That includes you.
3. I can’t imagine what you are hinting at in your reference to Assange. If you’ve got a conspiracy theory, why don’t you spit it out?
I can understand your frustration, Craig, when others don’t join up the dots in the same way as you. But please try not to be offensive, defamatory, or plain daft about it.
As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.
Possible some Guardian readers will get drawn to this post: at least then they will find out that Werritty, Fox and Gould held many more meetings, hushed up by O’Donnell and hushed up by the Guardian.
It should not be forgotten that the Guardian never stopped supporting Blair and New Labour, even when he was presiding over illegal wars and the massive widening of the gap between rich and poor. My point about Assange is that he has done a great deal to undermine the neo-con war agenda – and the Guardian is subjecting him to a campaign of denigration. On the other hand Gould/Fox/Werritty were pushing a neo-con project for war – and the Guardian is actively complicit in the cover-up of their activities.
The Guardian. Whom does it serve?
Between this and the Wikipedia fall out, the Guardian is in danger of losing credibility.
“As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.”
.
The Guardian has got “integrity”, when did this happen!!!.
I should have mentioned I am fully paid up Guardianista.
I am puzzled.
According to the UK government, the BBC, and the establishment in this country:
1. If a mob of Iranian citizens had gathered in a public place to denounce the Iranian government, and tried to break into some of its offices, and if the Iranian police had then used force to stop them – that would have been wicked oppression, and the fault of the wicked Iranian government.
BUT
2. If a mob of Iranian citizens gathered in a public place to denounce the British government, and tried to break into some of its offices, and if the Iranian police did NOT use force to stop them – that is wicked treachery, and the fault of the wicked Iranian government.
“The Guardian. Who[m] does it serve?”
“The Guardian” is a legal abstraction, so of course it doesn’t strictly serve anything or anyone. As for the individual people who work for it, and whose collective behaviour is really in question… of course, each of them does whatever he or she thinks will be best for their future career prospects.
Hardly anyone who matters to an editor or journalist cares what happens to Iran, or Iranians. But many, many of the great and the good sincerely want Iran to be demonized, attacked, and plundered – if only to distract attention from their own misdeeds. (It may be that some of them have “links” to Israel, but who can tell?)
“The art of leadership . . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category”.
“As I said, it would be honest of you to publish my response in full if you want to go ahead with these unwarranted attacks on the Guardian’s integrity.”
.
The Guardian has got “integrity”, when did this happen!!!.
==============================================================
I think you will find that what the Guardian actually has is “intergity”.
Tom
Aah yes, “Warders are ye, whom do ye ward?”. I shall correct my grammar immediately.
Tom Welsh –
Good point.
I am not surprised by David Leigh’s reply. What can one expect from a newspaper who accepts that mentioning America’s slavish support for Israel is anti-semitic.
The Guardian is not a news service. It has found a nice establishment role in sanitising dissent. I have lost track of the number of times I have been deleted from CiF.
But you know what? I am going to post this article on CiF this morning. Let’s see how long it takes for them to ban me!
Great article, Mr Craig Murray.
I am going to post this in another blog, with a link back to this website.
Tony,
‘I should have mentioned I am fully paid up Guardianista.’
The Graun doesn’t require you to pay for its services…. not yet anyway. But I’ve heard a ‘pay-wall’ is in the pipe line.
It’s done. I posted it on the comments section of Julian Borger’s blog (UK breaks with Iran, but can anything sway the regime?) at 11:21 am today.
Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and I will earn a multiple lifetime ban from the Guardian. It would be an honour.
The Guardian has lost all credibility.Its constant attacks on Assange and the deleting of anything anti Israel on it CIF section just proves this point. You cannot even go on their CIF section and state well known facts the facts without being branded an anti semite.They have just joined the rightwing Israeli/American media train. Bunch of jokers.
I was watching all the berks who work for them slagging Assagne the other day on that silly documentary on more 4, I have a feeling that the viewpoint was obvioulsy sweded in their favour as Assange had about 5 minutes talking and the guys from the Guardian were on there every two seconds giving their side of events,they left out that they released the password to those secret files in their crappy book.
Regrettably, my posting went on the 3rd page of CiF meaning it’s in a forgotten corner of the debate graveyard already but let’s see how the “moderator” reacts.
Maybe David Leigh was working on something to do with this and it was a long investigation. Although, if that were the case I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say to you that something was in the pipeline.
.
He does sound quite annoyed. Is he famous for having a short temper or did you make accusations about his professionalism?
.
One more thing, there does seem to be something of a dog-that-didn’t-bark question that I have. Is your story about Fox-Werrity-Gould appearing on Press TV or IRNA or FARS? I only had a cursory look through Press TV (and had a shower afterwards, of course) but I didn’t see anything there. Why not?
Dear Mr Murray. do you remember Gordon Brown making a speech in parliament after the hacking revelations. he eluded to Rusbridgers deficiency in making the pm aware of Coulson’s long list of criminal acts. Cameron’s assistance did not pass these concerns on to Cameron which allowed Cameron to say he was not aware of Coulsons past bad acts.
Njegos – you write: “I have lost track of the number of times I have been deleted from CiF”
Ditto.
I’ve just had a comment moderated in The Guardian. I think it was because I mentioned ‘a blog which I am not allowed to mention’ in bold. Or possibly because I copied part of Courtnay Barnett’s remarks on your previous thread.
Or possibly because of both.
Anyway, Comment is not Free.
Ken,
It’s been clear for a while that The Guardian has made an editorial decision to go soft on Israel. You may remember the editorial a few weeks back, wherein the readers’ editor essentially said that any comments critical of Israel are going to come in for intense scrutiny. He even said that moderators will make it their job to analyse any mentions of the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘hidden meanings’. Real couldn’t make it up stuff!
Also, until recently there used to be almost daily CiF articles on Israel/Palestine. Now, I can’t remember when was the last time I saw one. No bad thing, IMHO, I used to be a regular commenter on those threads, but more or less gave up because of the ridiculous moderation policy and the fact that the mods were so obviously running scared of CiF Watch – even though comments naming said group would instantly be deleted, CiF Watch’s ‘editor’ would regularly come on CiF boasting of his identity.
I can’t help thinking that the Guardian’s enthusiastic promotion of their new US edition has something to do with all this? Either way, it seems clear that the Graun has had its arm twisted big time, just like the BBC before them.
Sassoon –
It’s the fate of everyone who dares to step outside the narrow debate parameters of CiF.
For motivation, look instead at the Guardian US edition. They’re trying to crack the US in a big way and they’ve completely changed their coverage regarding Israel.
.
But they always changed their tune in the run-up to war. Someone has a word in their ear. You could almost read it as a confirmation of UK government policy.
Craig, you sound surprised. In all honesty, what did you expect? The Guardian is part of the establishment.
.
I stopped taking the Guardian seriously, as a newspaper which reported honestly but tended to favour the left, about halfway through the Blair years.
.
What took me so long? I know, I’m naive.
.
There isn’t a newspaper I’d give my money to any more, only buy them for train journeys – I give it to MSF instead. The Telegraph is the best of a bad lot – despite it’s politics it’s at least professionally produced and still LOOKS like a newspaper.
Three small points
A war with Iran is likely to be to annex their oil reserves, so excuses are needed to invade.
I don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but why only a fuss about Iran when Israel already has illegal ones?
The point about The Guardian, to me, is its refusal to investigate, to check out the claims. But that applies to all our print media, doesn’t it?
Ok, an update:
I have received 2 recommendations on CiF. Still not banned. The “moderator” is obviously on an extended tea-break.
1. I know nothing of any Israeli stake in the ownership of the Guardian. As it is owned by the Scott Trust, not any Israelis, your suggestion sems a bit mad.
Is anyone suggesting that the Guardian, or the Guardian Media Group, is owned by anyone other than the Scott Trust? Not me. It is what the GMG owns, and what its sources of revenue are, that is of interest.
To repeat (again) GMG lost £54M last year. GMG sold half its holding in Trader in 2007. GMG received a half-share in a “special” dividend from Trader Media this year. This amounted to £50M (I will correct these figures if they are wrong). The co-owner, with 49% of its shares, is Apax. They also took £50M in dividend. In total that is more than a third of Trader’s total revenue for 2011. Not profits, revenue.
Eighteen months ago, the CFO of Trader, Andrew Miller joined the GMG board as CEO.
.
All this looks remarkably convenient for GMG, to say the least. My opinion (Sue, Grabbit and Runne advisory) is that Apax is propping up GMG’s failing operation via some very strange accounting in Trader.
.
Apax is not an Israeli company. However, one of its co-founders, and present trustee, is Sir Ronald Cohen, who has very close ties to Israel. It has very extensive Israeli interests. Some of these are indicated here:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/rotten-fruit-delivered-to-apax-partners-investor-in-israeli-agribusiness-7895#.Ttdpa4SGVvA
.
Disclaimer:
Opinions and conclusions stated by me on this topic are exclusively mine without any input by Craig, or other commentators on this site.
Komodo: Is anyone suggesting that the Guardian, or the Guardian Media Group, is owned by anyone other than the Scott Trust? Not me.
.
Presumably it is an answer to Craig Murray’s message to David Leigh. We don’t know what Craig Murray’s mail to him was that David Leigh is answering here. Are you sure he is answering you directly?
As for war with Iran, I am rather hoping that statements from the Israelis recently – that they are not planning on it – will defuse tensions. (Yes, they could be lying, but what is said in public still matters).
.
Sadly I think a reticence at the Guardian to publish may have as much to do with the overtly antagonistic attitude evident in Leigh’s email as a fear of the lobby backlash if they publish. Mainstream left thinking has been eviscerated with the rightward shift of all the traditionally left parties in Britain (and in the US) and it’s been replaced with a “balance” that, in fact, does not achieve that lofty goal at all.
.
I suppose also it matters how the message is delivered to the Guardian et al too. “You’re all stooges of the military industrial complex” may not be the best way to get journos on side, as @Angry says – even if with some it is effectively true. I used to be quite a committed Graun reader, but too many MSM errors of this kind have pushed me over to the Morning Star. That’s not without its problems either, but I sense its heart is much more in the right place.
.
I don’t doubt that Leigh doesn’t think the ownership of the Guardian makes a difference, but if they have Israeli backers I am surprised he doesn’t know about it. Of course, he’s still annoyed over the Assange affair, and not just ‘cos they fell out. Leigh published the Wikileaks encryption password in his book, which (as Leigh later discovered) is the digital equivalent of revealing ones secret sources.
One should perhaps mention the change in corporate governance of the Guardian, it is now owned by the Scott Trust Limited, a limited company. A change that happened in 2008 about the same time as it’s drift to the right and neocon cheerleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited
As a limited company it now perfectly feasbile for Israeli investment to happen and something that may or may not be significant is the appearance of Anthony Salz, an executive vice chairman of Rothschild who joined the board in 2009.
From a cache copy of a press release
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jpR8Ro7aZo8J:www.gmgplc.co.uk/press-releases/2009/anthony-salz-joins-the-scott-trust/+apax+salz&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a
As you scroll further down the Press Release you’ll see mention of Apax. Something that’s mysteriously disapeared from the current version.
Anthony Salz, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, has been appointed to the Scott Trust.
The Scott Trust is the owner of Guardian Media Group (‘GMG’). GMG’s portfolio includes the Guardian and Observer newspapers, the guardian.co.uk website, the Manchester Evening News and other local and regional newspapers, regional radio stations, Trader Media Group (publisher of the Auto Trader magazine and website), and Emap (the business-to-business media group).
The Scott Trust was created in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.
Before joining Rothschild in 2006 Anthony Salz was best known as one of the UK’s leading corporate lawyers. He spent most of his legal career with Freshfields, becoming Senior Partner in 1996. He was Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC from 2004 until the end of 2006.
He is, among other things, Chair of the Eden Trust and a trustee of the Royal Opera House, the Tate Foundation, the Media Standards Trust and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Liz Forgan, Chair of the Scott Trust, said: “Anthony Salz’s wide experience of the cultural, media and corporate worlds will bring valuable strengths to the Trust. We are delighted to welcome him.”
In October 2008 the Scott Trust became a limited company to strengthen the protection it affords to the Guardian. All trustees became directors of The Scott Trust Limited.
(ends)
Further information: Chris Wade 020 3353 4041
http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/ScottTrust
Notes for editors
The Scott Trust was created in 1936 to protect the legacy of the long-standing editor and latterly owner of the Guardian, CP Scott: the independent, liberal journalism of his newspaper. The core purpose of the Scott Trust is “to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity”.
The Scott Trust Limited is the sole owner of Guardian Media Group plc (‘GMG’). GMG’s portfolio comprises:
• Guardian News & Media: the Guardian and Observer newspapers and guardian.co.uk.
• GMG Regional Media: the Manchester Evening News and its website, and other regional newspapers in the North West and South of England.
• GMG Radio: regional radio stations across the UK under the Real Radio, Smooth Radio and Rock Radio brands.
• GMG Property Services: providers of software to independent estate agents.
• Trader Media Group: one of Europe’s largest specialist print and online media companies, and publisher of the Auto Trader website and magazine. Trader Media Group is jointly owned by GMG and Apax Partners.
• Emap: the B2B publishing, events and information business, also jointly owned by GMG and Apax Partners.
The Trust Board is chaired by Liz Forgan and currently consists of executives within GMG, external members, a member of the Scott family and a member of Guardian News & Media’s editorial staff.
The current directors of The Scott Trust Limited are:
Liz Forgan (Chair)
Larry Elliott
Andrew Graham
Will Hutton
Carolyn McCall
Geraldine Proudler
Alan Rusbridger
Jonathan Scott
Maleiha Malik
Anthony Salz
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15797257 for Israeli propaganda by the BBC.
Also: part of an e-mail I received from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign:
I hope that everyone who takes the
> Guardian will look at the double spread Northern Israeli
> tourism ad in today’s Guardian Weekend (26 November 2011). It shows the Golan Heights as part of Israel and among other gross statements
> it extols the ‘hidden gem’ of the Galilee and the fact that
> ‘quaint villages have opened their doors to visitors’- they
> don’t mean the unrecognised Bedouin villages
> presumably. The words ‘Arab’ and ‘Palestinian’ do not appear
> once, instead the article presents the area as the cradle of
> Judaism and Christianity.
From our beloved Guardian of Israeli sensitivity:
“njegos
1 December 2011 11:21AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
And in the comments box of course:
“Your comments are being premoderated.”
So I lasted about an hour before the bouncers threw me out of the party.
I hope the god-damned rag goes bust. It’s a disgrace to journalism.
Doug,
I don’t buy the Guardian, so wouldn’t have seen that ad. If the Guardian did run it, that’s further evidence that they are now little different from the Torygraph or Times in their coverage of Israel. A shame, because until very recently they used to feature some excellent writing on Israel/Palestine, including their breaking, along with Al Jazeera, of the ‘Palestine Papers’.
In fact, while it has long been clear that the CiF moderators were being pressured by CiF Watch et al, the dramatic turn-around in the Guardian’s coverage – or lack thereof – of I/P issues dates back only a few months. That really does make me suspect that it’s more about the Graun trying to crack the US market than the influence of Apax, though that too may be an important factor. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the Graun simply is not worth reading on ME issues any more. Like I say, it is a shame.