Bright's Blog

11 comments from readers

knave
20 May 2008 at 17:20

I like Hain martin. He actually would lose the election, as will any Labour leader but he more chance than poor Gordon.

redharry
20 May 2008 at 19:41

'I don't know the truth of the allegations against Hain concerning the funding of his campaign, but I have always liked him and believe he is a man of principle.'

Then let the Jewish Chronicle enlighten you.

'Labour donor calls Hain row ‘rubbish’

17/01/2008

By Bernard Josephs

A community figure named as a donor to Peter Hain’s campaign for the Labour deputy leadership this week dismissed the furore over the undeclared donations as “rubbish”.

International diamond broker Willie Nagel, 83 — one of two Jewish benefactors to Mr Hain’s campaign through the Progressive Policies Forum — told the JC he had donated and loaned money to PPF and had “no objection that this money [had been] used to support Peter Hain’s campaign”.

Mr Nagel added that he “respected his [Mr Hain’s] activities both nationally and internationally”.

Mr Nagel, who is also a barrister, met Welsh Secretary Mr Hain in the late 1990s when the latter was Minister of State at the Foreign Office. With the minister’s support, Mr Nagel — an active opponent of apartheid in South Africa, which Mr Hain fought — devised the so-called Kimberley Process, to end the trade in conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process is now a UN-mandated system ensuring that more than 99 per cent of all diamonds are certified as from conflict-free sources.

Mr Nagel, a member of St John’s Wood Synagogue, was also known to be close to the Conservatives during the premierships of Baroness Thatcher and John Major. He reportedly donated to Mr Major’s Huntingdon constituency, giving rise to reports in the media that he had attempted to interest the then-prime minister in Israeli-made unmanned aircraft at a time when the UK maintained an arms embargo on Israel.

Romanian-born Mr Nagel came to the UK in 1949 after spending several years in pre-state Palestine. He studied at University College London and at Cambridge and in 1959 became an international diamond broker for De Beers.

He has been a vice-chairman of Israel Bonds UK, and played a major role in the Balfour Diamond Jubilee Trust and the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel. He is also a life-long supporter of both the Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel and appears regularly in the JC “Guest List” pages alongside leading Israeli and communal figures.He was honoured by both the German and UK governments for his work in advancing UK-German relations and was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in 2002.

Mr Hain’s other benefactor is Isaac Kaye, a South African-born multi-millionaire and Labour Party supporter. Both men are deeply involved in Jewish communal activities.

Mr Kaye, 78, who donated a total of £14,600 to Mr Hain’s campaign, is the former chairman of Norton Healthcare, which was investigated by police looking into an alleged £400 million price-rigging of pharmaceuticals sold to the NHS.

Arriving from South Africa in 1985, he became a supporter of Tony Blair’s New Labour and a major donor to the party. He also donated £10,000 to Labour politician Frank Dobson’s campaign to become London mayor.

A donor to LFI, Mr Kaye has backed the Community Security Trust, UJIA and other Jewish and pro-Israel organisations. He is on the board of Bicom, the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, and is a governor and major benefactor of the Hebrew University, where he has endowed the Kaye Research Awards.'

Both Hain and Bright funded by BICOM - what a coincidence!

redharry
20 May 2008 at 21:00

More on Hain's backers

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-wh...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/apr/13/politics.partyfundi...

Bright really can't plead ignorance, so he must explain why he goes so easy on the warmonger Hain but is an attack dog wjher Ken was concerned.

Martin Bright
20 May 2008 at 22:58

knave and redharry, but where is writeon? My days would be so empty without you three

redharry
21 May 2008 at 11:23

But not so empty that you can answer any of the points put to you.

To repeat:

'I don't know the truth of the allegations against Hain concerning the funding of his campaign, but I have always liked him and believe he is a man of principle.'

The truth of the allegations against Hain is well known. Just read any of the links given above - none of which he has denied. How did Hain's principles allow him to take money from right-wing businessmen who supported the National Party in Apartheid South Africa?

Where were Hain's principles when Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed, invaded and occupied. Where were they when Guantanamo Bay opened?

ps How do your principles square with taking a freebie to Israel paid for by an arms dealer? Try filling your empty hours by answering that one - if you can.

redharry
21 May 2008 at 12:03

In your interview with Hain

http://www.newstatesman.com/200701220013

You wrote, 'He says he still supports the original decision, not because he backed regime change, but because he believed the threat of weapons of mass destruction was real.'

In the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/21/iraq.labour

Hain said

' Even those countries, like France, Germany and Russia, who did not take part in the military action never disputed the intelligence that Saddam had WMD.'

The truth was somewhat different and you should have confronted Hain on his lies which have been repeated by all the cabinet about France, Germany and Russia.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.htm...

U.S. Allies Were Not Persuaded By U.S. Assertions on Iraq WMD

June 9, 2003

Institute for Science and International Security

Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the U.S. Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions "clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them."1

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6

After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections.

Other experts said that the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that Iraq has WMDs. However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs.

1 "Bush says he's convinced Iraqi weapons will be found," CNN.com, June 9, 2003.

2 "China says studying British dossier on Iraq," Reuters, September 26, 2002.

3 Michael White, "Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons," The Guardian, October 12, 2002.

4 Simon Jeffery, "Putin calls for political solution to Iraq crisis," The Guardian, Sept 26, 2002.

5 "French Intelligence Service Assesses Iraqi War Potential," FBIS, Sept 25, 2002.

6 "French Intelligence Service Assesses Iraqi War Potential," FBIS, Sept 25, 2002.

Martin Bright
21 May 2008 at 12:36

I think you have too much time on your hands. Someone can have principles without having the same principles as you... or even me

MrR
21 May 2008 at 15:01

The future's Bright...the future's Orange coloured?!?!?

redharry
21 May 2008 at 19:27

'Someone can have principles without having the same principles as you... or even me'

I'm afraid you haven't dealt with any of the points put to you. I think I have demonstrated how Hain lied about the intelligence for WMD and who believed it at the time. I think lying to gain support for an illegal war is about as unprincipled as you can get. You, obviously feel different. I wonder why.

Martin Bright
22 May 2008 at 12:12

Mr R -- i like it. Much better headline than mine

redharry
22 May 2008 at 14:07

So, Martin, you can't deal with my accusation that Hain lied about the evidence for WMDs in Iraq and that Russia ans France believed they existed. In the circumstances, 'Hainite' just about sums you up - I can't think of anything worse.