Espanol / English

Middle East Near You

The untold story: why Priti Patel’s departure is ‘a great loss for Israel’

Priti Patel, Britain's International Development Secretary [John Martin/Facebook]
Priti Patel, Britain's International Development Secretary [John Martin/Facebook]

It is easy enough to understand why an ambitious politician like Priti Patel would have wanted to court Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), described this week by The Jewish Chronicle’s reporter Marcus Dysch as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster”.

But what about the Israeli government and its allies? Why, in the words of Israeli opposition politician Isaac Herzog, was Patel’s fall from grace a “great loss for Israel”?

True, she looked like future leadership material. But in fact, a more interesting answer lies in the story of how the Department for International Development (DFID) has become a key battle ground for Israel and its Westminster lobbyists, an arena for foreign policy by proxy.

First, to set the scene. The current Israeli government is dominated by rejectionists of Palestinian statehood and proponents of the annexation of West Bank land. Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared for the Palestinians to have a “state-minus”, but nothing more.

For a long time, negotiations were the perfect cover for Israeli governments to continue with the colonisation of Palestine. Demands for accountability for Israel’s violations of international law and human rights were dismissed by the likes of the European Union to protect the ‘peace process’.

But now, as a hard-right government expands illegal settlements across East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the stalled peace process is going nowhere fast – and even Israel’s allies are getting twitchy.

In this climate, Israel’s priorities are to divert attention from the apartheid status quo on the ground, and to ensure that a post-peace process vacuum is not filled with serious calls for accountability – and its friends in Westminster (and other Western capitals) are only too glad to help.

That’s where two approaches come into play: first, accusations levelled against the Palestinian Authority (PA) of ‘incitement’ and incentivising ‘terrorism’ by payments to prisoners in Israeli jails; and second, promoting ‘grassroots coexistence’ groups as a constructive step towards peace (as opposed to meaningful steps aimed at ending occupation and structural discrimination).

Each of these strategies has a distinct role to play. Incessantly talking up the issue of PA ‘incitement’, or ‘hateful’ school textbooks, helps ‘balance out’ the obstacles cited by the UK government to making progress in peace talks – ‘incitement’ and ‘violence’ versus settlements and home demolitions – and maintain the false symmetry of demands placed on the occupier and occupied.

Read: BBC journalist deletes tweet about UK’s ‘corrupt’ relationship with Israel

Meanwhile, the renewed push by Israel lobby groups on supporting ‘coexistence’ projects is intended to make sure that the desire to ‘do something’ about the status quo, in light of “stalled” direct negotiations, doesn’t translate into a focus on holding Israel accountable for its whole-hearted embrace of permanent occupation, but rather is channelled into “people-to-people projects”.

In June 2016, a debate on international aid in Parliament was – in the words of Conservative MP Alan Duncan – “hijacked” by MPs who used it “to demonise Palestine and Palestinians”. Both CFI and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) supporters repeatedly challenged DFID’s funding of the PA, in what Labour MP Andy Slaughter criticised as a “concerted campaign”.

Ahead of the debate, CFI Honorary President Lord Polak told the Telegraph that “we have been campaigning for many years to ask DFID to ensure that UK taxpayers’ hard-earned money was reaching the right places and not the wrong pockets”. A month later, Priti Patel was appointed International Development Secretary – and pro-Israel lobby groups had their opportunity.

Patel, described this week in The Jewish Chronicle as “maybe the most pro-Israel member of the Cabinet”, was already a CFI veteran; a few months before her appointment, as then-Employment Minister, Patel told a CFI reception she had been “a friend of Israel” long before becoming an MP.

In addition, Patel brought to her role a somewhat ‘unorthodox’ approach to aid: as was reported at the time, she had previously called for DFID “to be scrapped and replaced”. No wonder then, that CFI “welcomed” Patel’s appointment – and it wasn’t long before Patel was making her mark.

In August 2016, Israeli authorities charged a Gaza-based employee of development NGO World Vision with funnelling tens of millions of dollars to Hamas. Mohammad Halabi was tortured and interrogated for three weeks without legal representation, and charged seven weeks after his arrest. A subsequent Australian government probe found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Israel’s friends, encouraged by Netanyahu’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, jumped on the indictment as an excuse to score propaganda points: NGOs are being exploited by terrorists, Hamas steals from charities, and so on. In the UK, Eric Pickles, then chair of CFI, linked the story to DFID, claiming that the (unproven) “tragic story is symptomatic of the wider abuse of aid money”.

Pickles urged the new Secretary of State “to ensure that DFID exercises far stricter oversight of aid given to Palestinian organisations, to ensure it reaches projects that work for peace rather than hate”, adding: “it is encouraging that Priti is showing an eagerness to tackle these issues”.

Later that month, Patel duly responded via a letter to officials from the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews, saying she was “deeply concerned by these accusations” (the abuses experienced by Halabi in detention were not mentioned).

Though DFID was not funding any World Vision operations in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), Patel continued, the department would “not consider any future funding” to World Vision work in the oPt until the charity completed an audit “and we have had the opportunity to full consider our position”. She added: “Let me reassure you that I am taking this matter extremely seriously”

Patel’s response was cheered by CFI’s Lord Polak: “This is welcome news from the Secretary of State”, he said. “We have been campaigning for many years for transparency and it is clear that DFID are taking this matter seriously”.

Asa Winstaley: Priti Patel scandal is the tip of the Israel lobby iceberg

In autumn 2016, Israel’s friends in Westminster were keen to keep up the focus on so-called ‘incitement’ by the PA. Ian Austin MP, an LFI veteran, invited Patel to meet him and “a small group of colleagues”, in order “to discuss your department’s work in relation to the Palestinian Authority”.

Patel’s swift response revealed that the International Development Secretary was “conducting a full examination of our work in the [oPt]”, including “the future of our support to the PA”. She added: “I would be pleased to meet with you and other colleagues to discuss these issues”.

Then, in October, came the dramatic news that Patel’s department had “suspended” aid to the PA over payments to prisoners, a development hailed by the CFI’s Eric Pickles and Lord Polak as “an important step towards peace”; Patel, they remarked approvingly, had “acted quickly to challenge a long-standing abuse of well-intentioned international aid money”.

Except, it wasn’t quite true. There was no suspension of aid, rather a review, or “examination”, whose results became clear in December, when the government announce that aid to the PA would hence forth be restricted to supporting “the salaries of health and education public servants on a vetted list”. For CFI, Lord Polak, and others, Patel had nevertheless delivered a win.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether Israel’s lobbyists genuinely seek a termination of DFID funding to the PA, as some imply. The continued funding (even in its ring-fenced form) keeps the issue of ‘incitement’ alive at Westminster – and Patel was clearly only too happy to keep it on the agenda, as her February 2017 request to LFI’s Ryan and Austin for evidence of PA ‘incitement’ demonstrated.

Patel delivered another success for Westminster’s pro-Israel lobby groups. In December 2016, LFI chair Joan Ryan wrote to Patel to request DFID’s support for a ‘co-existence’ fund that would “help to build powerful constituencies for peace in Israel and Palestine, forcing leaders in both countries to return to meaningful negotiations”.

After gaining the endorsement of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, in July 2017, Patel’s department agreed to “provide up to £3 million over three years to fund a co-existence or ‘people-to-people’ programme”.

CFI was, of course, “delighted” that Patel had “secured this unprecedented funding”, which, the statement continued, “together with the redirection of Palestinian Authority aid to health and education will ensure taxpayers value for money while directly supporting conflict resolution”.

Israel and its lobbyists clearly had high hopes for Patel. In June, Lord Polak told the House of Lords he was “certain that Priti will continue to ensure that our support goes to the right place”. Pickles hailed “an era where Priti is going to deliver international aid…to people in need that we are going to be proud of”. The change in aid to the PA saw Patel ‘commended’ by Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev.

At the CFI reception in January 2017, Patel told attendees that her department has a “very important role it plays when it comes to Israel”. But the disgraced former minister and the likes of Lord Polak seem to have got a bit ahead of themselves. The confusion in October 2016 over payments to the PA, for example, saw Patel order a freeze even as civil servants were “trying to continue a review”.

The efforts to use DFID as a vehicle for foreign policy, and specifically, to amplify and advance the propaganda talking points of an Israeli government completely disinterested in compromise, came unstuck.  “More closely aligned with CFI and Lord Polak than her own department’s civil servants”, as The Jewish Chronicle put it, “Ms Patel effectively went rogue”.

Categories
DebatesEurope & RussiaIsraelMiddle EastOpinionUK
  • LevHorovitz

    “True, she looked like future leadership material”…..Very little evidence for this. Patel has a very low IQ. Her old university professor, Anthony King, said her university thesis was ‘so bad I virtually had to rewrite it’. She’s a dunce who was accelerated through the Tory party system to appeal to the UK’s very large Asian vote. Patel has the look of an embarrassing midget contestant from The Apprentice – somebody who is incapable of understanding serious issues and lacks all self awareness. Manipulative Israel wanted to use her stupidity and her dishonesty, but got caught out…All those implicated in this scandal, including Polak and Mark Regev (the creepy infanticide apologist who currently calls himself Israeli ambassador to London) should be investigated fully.

    • OOTrist

      Interesting laundry you’re hanging out there, did she turn you down for date? (smiley here)

      • LevHorovitz

        Oh look – the cowardly hasbara trolls are now all over this thread. Just started your Monday morning shift in the Tel Aviv lies factory have you, you spineless loser. Don’t bring race or religion into this, either. People are sick of your lies. The best thing about midget Patel is that she’s as dishonest and dumb as you, so was easily caught.

        • OOTrist

          You do give yourself away with the full frontal attack. Straight out of the Zionist media playbook. I agree with Tzimmes, you show an unhealthy interest in this woman. And if you can’t handle a bit of innocent fun you’re in real trouble my friend. Have a great day, but leave the crap at home.

          • LevHorovitz

            You and your multiple accounts (OOTrist & Tzimmes – you can’t even think up original troll names because you’re too stupid) are run by the same kind of animals who think the mass murder of Palestinians is “innocent fun”. You and the grinning Patel all belong in the same prison as Regev and Polak. Humanity is sick of you.

    • Tzimmes

      With your fake Jewish name,you protest too much. You show an unhealthy interest in this woman. Very suspect !

      • TiggyTiger

        How is it a fake Jewish name?

    • TiggyTiger

      Midget? I thought she was tall!

  • Seoigh

    She needs to be investigated further and the people who she met and the money she was paid should be also investigated, it just shows that the complaining that Israel does about interference in their affairs while they are interfering all over the world and it needs to be stopped and NOW……

  • Vinegar Hill

    An excellent article that exposes the duplicity of the CFI and the perversion of reality by the Jewish lobbies. Meanwhile Israel abuses and vilolates the legal rights of the indigenous Palestinians on a daily basis and develops its apartheid state across the land. What should one call these despicable racistpolicies that Israel imposes on the Palestinians? Arthur Koestler told the world what the vile Nazis had done to numerous religious and political based groups. Should we not use the same title to describe the policies of the people of Israel who support such abuses? .

  • charliematerne

    Seems like the greatest loss is to the Syrian civilians caught in a war they did not create whose needs are being met by Israel when their own government is unable/unwilling to do so. In the Muslim world, no humanitarian act goes unpunished, unappreciated

    • dancingroads

      What loss? Israel receives billions of dollars a year from the US. it doesn’t need UK aid money. It can afford a few bandages to treat Al Qaeda fighters without our help

      • charliematerne

        So the hundreds of injured Syrian children treated by Israel in the war are of no concern to you? The US gives many more billions to Muslim majority countries, where are they? Your hatred and bigotry truly suppress any humanity that you may have been born with

        • dancingroads

          You have some chutzpah lecturing me about injured children.

          How about the 500 children slaughtered and tens of thousands of children wounded by Israeli shelling of civilians in Gaza? How about a group of little boys playing football on the beach?

          oh and Israel is the NUMBER ONE recipient of US aid. so your statement that the US gives “many billions more to Muslim majority countries” is a blatant lie.

          • charliematerne

            An interesting comment. You manage to ignore the fact that Hamas imbeds its fighters in civilian areas (a war crime) does not wear distinctive uniforms to separate their soldiers from civilians (a war crime) uses its own civilians as human shields (a war crime) hiding its soldiers in protected institutions, religious institutions, hospitals UN sites etc. (all war crimes) recruits, trains and utilizes child soldiers (a war crime) while intentionally targeting Israeli civilians (a war crime) and civilian infrastructure (a war crime) The “boys playing on the beach” were sent into an area Hamas had, on previous few days, fired rockets from. The beach had also been bombed in the previous few days by Israel. Who, other than Muslims, sends their children to play on an active battlefield?
            You do not have to believe me on the Muslim funding. The US State Department publishes a list of recipients of foreign aid and the UN publishes a demographics report for every member nation. A comparison of the two lists will show you that the majority Muslim nations receive the vast majority of US Aid (even if you omit the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq) by, at my last check a year ago, more than 9 to 1.
            PS: Don’t look now but you are still ignoring the Muslim on Muslim deaths occurring daily in Syria and the Fact that only Israel has the military might to insure humanitarian aid.

          • dancingroads

            So does every guerrilla army in world history. Its a necessity when fighting an asymmetrical war against a superior enemy. Tell you what. when Israel puts away its attack helicopters, smart bombs, drones, fighter planes, air to ground missiles, artillery, tanks, nuclear weapons and state of the art technology and command and control systems all supplied by a superpower

            THEN

            You can demand that a tiny out-gunned and impoverished guerrilla army put on uniforms and stands and fights according to your definition of fair.

            Deal?

          • charliematerne

            It is not my demand, or my definition of fair, it is the demand of the Geneva Conventions that the Arabs only believe in when they can be used against Israel, Otherwise the depend on the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights that says only Muslims (and even at that not all Muslims) have any rights. Your comment “So does every guerrilla army in world history” is a very sad attempt to deflect from Muslim war crimes. You seem to think that the “Palestinian” Arabs are not intelligent enough to create their own ” attack helicopters, smart bombs, drones, fighter planes, air to ground missiles, artillery, tanks, nuclear weapons and state of the art technology and command and control systems” or even better their own “start up nation” capable of out “economizing Israel”. Somewhat of a demeaning attitude toward the “Palestinians”

          • dancingroads

            OH You want to discuss international law. You have some chutzpah I give you that. Because EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES in the occupied territories is a breach of international law. The occupation itself is one huge ongoing war crime, every settlement is a war crime and a breach of Geneva. every checkpoint, every guard tower, every deployed soldier, every arrested Palestinian sitting in .administrative detention is a violation of international law and Israel has been consistently condemned by every single legal authority in the world.

          • charliematerne

            Where exactly are the “occupied territories”? The Mandate (International Law) states that Israel extends from the Jordan River to the Sea and from Egypt to Lebanon. UN Charter Article 80 affirms the Mandate and incorporates it (and other Mandates) into the Charter (International Law), The Peace Treaty (International Law) between Egypt and Israel states that the only claim to the so-called “Gaza Strip” was Israel’s claim. The Peace Treaty (International Law) between Israel and Jordan states that the only claim to the so-called “West Bank” is Israel’s claim. UNSC Resolution 242 affirms Israel’s right to both the “Gaza Strip” and the “West Bank” ( NOT International Law but the accepted standard for Peace in the ME) ((You might want to read the Laws of War in reference to 1) Defensive Occupation and 2) a State’s right to protect its on land, or ever 3) the rights of the “occupier” in “Belligerent occupations. You will see (if you bother to look) that Israel is in complete compliance) What “International Law” states that a State has no right to “Occupy” its own land? You are a fool to your own propaganda.

          • dancingroads

            Oh so international law is like a pick and mix candy shop to you. You pick the bits you want and throw the rest away.

            How about Geneva seeing that you mentioned it. What part of “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.” is in any way unclear?

            Look. I am not going to argue the toss with you over this. I don’t need to. I merely have to note that EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT CONCERNED WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE WORLD without a single exception defines the territory taken in 1967 to be occupied land as does every single nation in the world as well as the UN General Assembly and Security Council and that Israel by refusing to leave and instead by settling that territory is in breach of the Hague conventions,. the most basic principle of international law. that very clearly states ” the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”

          • charliematerne

            If you read Geneva in context rather than as a “pick and mix candy shop ” you will see that the statement includes the word “Forced” and applies to the practices as employed in WWII Europe. If you bother to read UNSC Resolution 242 you would see that it refers to lands “occupied” not to lands captured or more accurately liberated from illegal Jordanian and Egyptian Occupation. It was the Egyptians and Jordanians who (illegally) acquired Israeli “territory by war”. Your arguments are not only weak, they are false, no matter who agrees with them

          • dancingroads

            oh ok so you are right and every institution concerned with international law in the entire world is wrong. The United Nations, both Security Council and General Assembly. The International Committee of the Red Cross. Every government in the world except Israel. The international Court of Justice. The EU. the Non Aligned Movement. The International Commission of Jurists., The World Court, Amnesty International. Human RIghts Watch. 28 UN resolutions including 54, 111, 233, 234, 236, 248, 250, 252, 256, 262, 267, 270, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 468, 476,

            All are wrong and only you and Israel are right.

          • charliematerne

            I notice you omit the relevant resolution UNSC 242, the ONLY resolution agreed to by all parties, Arabs, Israelis, the UN, even the US, Russia and the EU as the standard for Peace in the ME. 242 states that Israel “should” not must, withdraw from territories (NOT “all” or “All the”) territories it “Occupied” in 1967 and that it should “withdraw to secure and recognized borders”. Israel “Occupied” Sinai and withdrew in accordance with 242’s call for “land for Peace” not “Peace for Land”) Israel “captured” but did not “occupy” Gaza and the West Bank because, according to the Mandate, the land was already Israeli territory. In keeping with 242, Egypt disavowed any Arab claim to Gaza that it had occupied. In the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan relinquished any claims to the so-called “West Bank” (renamed by Jordan) that it occupied in its illegal invasion in 1948. The ICJ advisory opinion was so flawed that many jurists called it an “Ipse dixit” opinion, (Ipse dixit is a Latin legal term for what your mother used to use on you … “Because I said so”)
            The “World Court” is the ICJ, you are repeating yourself, see Ipse dixit statement above.
            The “International Commission of Jurists” is an NGO with no weight in law.
            Your argument gets weaker the more you comment. It can not win because it attempts to ignore the words on paper in International Law

          • dancingroads

            Sigh

            242 repeats the Hague convention principle “”inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” What part of the Hague convention is in any way unclear

            The clear meaning of the resolution is summed up by Russia who said

            We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from ALL and we repeat, ALL territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries” cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war”

            How you can interpret 242 as in any way entitling Israel to settle half a million squatters in occupied territory in violation of the Geneva convention is an exercise in chutzpah that is breathtaking.

            oh and incidentally, there was nothing defensive about the 6 day war. Israel started that conflict when it destroyed Egypts air force on the ground. Israel was the aggressor

          • charliematerne

            In 242, “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” is a two edged sword. It speaks of Israel’s “acquisition” of Sinai and the Golan. It also speaks to the illegal Jordanian and Egypt occupation of Jewish land. 242 recognizes the difference in a war of aggression (1948, 1967 by the Arabs) and a war of defense (1948, 1967 Israel). Another problem for your side of the discussion it that the words ” inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” was intentionally placed in the Preamble. In 1928, the ICJ (Danzig decision) ruled that the Preamble are not binding. The ruling applied to League of Nations resolutions but carries over to UN resolutions. The “Clear Meaning” of the resolution was the unanimous vote on the final well discussed British draft (unanimous means the Soviet Union also voted in favor) The wording of 242 was accepted by the UNGA, SC, Arabs, Israeli’s, EU, USSR. It is the ONLY resolution to ever gain such support. The omission of the words ALL and THE was intentional. Requiring that Israel return to the Green Line would be rewarding the Arabs for their aggressive misbehavior and penalizing Israel for exercising her RIGHT to self-defense (Article 51). 242 clearly refutes your claim that Israel was the aggressor. The Arabs attempted to insert the aggressor language into 242 and attempted to introduce additional resolutions condemning Israel as the aggressor. All such attempts were rejected. Look up the Latin legal term casus belli, it will help you understand why such condemnation was rejected

          • dancingroads

            So you reject the UN. you reject the ICJ, you reject the World Court, You reject the International commission of Jurists, you reject the Red Cross, You reject Amnesty. You reject the consensus of world governments, You reject the EU, you reject the non aligned movement, the African Union,. the Arab League., the Security Council, you reject over 200 UN resolutions.

          • charliematerne

            If you studied as much as you rant you just might learn something. I do not “reject” the UN, I “object” to how some of its members have hijacked it. The ” International commission of Jurists” is an NGO and has no legal authority. The Red Cross is the interpreter of the Laws of War (IHL) and stated, after Oslo, there was no longer a need to monitor the situation in Gaza or the so-called “West Bank”. I reject Amnesty and “the consensus of world governments” “the non aligned movement, the African Union,. and especially the Arab League”
            If you read the UN Charter you will see that resolutions (GA & SC) are recommendations not requirements (unless passed under Chapter VII)

          • dancingroads

            . I reject Amnesty and “the consensus of world governments”

            Of course you do. You have to. You are defending a rogue state in breach of international humanitarian law.

            “The Red Cross is the interpreter of the Laws of War (IHL) and stated, after Oslo, there was no longer a need to monitor the situation in Gaza or the so-called “West Bank”

            As for the ICRC I don’t think they got your memo. because Oslo was in 1995 and in 2001 the ICRC stated.
            “the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the state of Israel, including East Jerusalem”.

            The ICRC also holds that “the displacement of Palestinians that may occur due to the settlements also violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

          • charliematerne

            You ignore that while Geneva still applies, since Israel stated it would abide by it even though it did not apply, the ICRC stated that it did not need to monitor the situation any longer. I got the ICRC memo. (Geneva applies when one state Occupies the sovereign territory of another State.)
            Your second statement is even more ridiculous . Things that ” may occur ” are not violations of anything until they do “occur”. Stop fishing for comments and read

          • dancingroads

            the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the state of Israel, including East Jerusalem”.

            seems crystal clear to me.

          • Helen4Yemen

            The question is this: why is the Ashkenazi on that land?
            Is he not European? If not, tell me what he is?

          • dancingroads

            “The Mandate (International Law) states that Israel extends from the Jordan River to the Sea and from Egypt to Lebanon.”

            What are you talking about. This is utter drivel.

          • charliematerne

            So now, International Law, as unanimously accepted by the League of Nations and incorporated into the UN Charter in Article 80 is now ” utter drivel”? Only in your limited world

          • dancingroads

            “Who, other than Muslims, sends their children to play on an active battlefield?”

            Have you ever been to Gaza? I have. Its tiny. Its also the most congested place on earth. When Israel bombs it the entire place is a battlefield. What do you suggest the residents do, fly away? They live there. Those children lived there and all your obfuscation cannot hide the simple fact that Israel deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. The very fact you have to put the word children in inverted commas tells me everything I need to know about your moral compass. You are engaging in the worst kind of victim blaming, blaming children for playing football on a beach when Israel decide to bomb them. That;s akin to blaming a woman for being raped because she walked home at night.

          • charliematerne

            You might (but probably won’t want to read the report from the High Level International Military Group on the Gaza conflict. it can be found at
            “HIGH LEVEL INTERNATIONAL MILITARY GROUP THE GAZA CONFLICT IN 2014 “

  • Fred Mace

    A traitor going unpunished. She should be deported to her country of origin or become an Israeli citizen. Either way she is not welcome here.

  • Fred Mace

    Going unpunished. Leave Great Britain on a one way ticket

  • Nige from France

    Incredible that Patel..of Indian origin condones the same sort of genocide that Great Britain perpetrated on India that Israel is foisting on Palestine.

  • StopZionistCensorship

    the media tell us who they claim are future leadership material. the constant narrative is that we need more gays, Asians, blacks and transgenders as ‘leaders’ rather than anybody with actual policies that may improve our lives . what the Middle East needs is peace , something the terror loving Netanyahu regime strongly opposes

    • TiggyTiger

      How about a gay person with policies?

  • Robin Morritt

    In short: Priti Patel is a foreign government agent.
    If she isn’t properly punished, things are going to get worse.