作者： admin

A grassroots petition demanding scrutiny of Israeli-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in British politics has crossed the 100,000-signature threshold required for a mandatory parliamentary debate, forcing what advocates call a long-overdue conversation about foreign influence and democratic integrity in the UK. Scheduled for discussion on June 22, the petition has collected more than 116,000 signatures from UK citizens concerned that unregulated lobbying is skewing government policy, party priorities and public discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The petition’s text frames the debate as an urgent necessity, pointing to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, continued Israeli expansion and repression in the West Bank, and the UK government’s aligned response to these events as evidence of the need to map the full scope of pro-Israel influence across British political institutions. Under UK parliamentary rules, any public petition hosted on the official government website that garners 10,000 signatures requires a formal written response from the government, while any crossing 100,000 signatures must be scheduled for a full debate in the House of Commons.

In its initial response to the petition, the UK government has already rejected calls for a dedicated investigation into pro-Israel lobbying, claiming existing regulatory frameworks already address foreign political interference. Critics push back against this claim, noting that the government’s flagship review into foreign financial interference—led by former senior diplomat Matthew Rycroft—explicitly focuses on Russian, Chinese and Iranian interference and does not mention Israeli influence at all.

Andy Kalil, the creator of the petition, dismissed the government’s position as empty deflection, arguing that clear conflicts of interest between pro-Israel lobbying donations and UK policy on Gaza, the West Bank, Iran and southern Lebanon amount to a major political scandal on par with some of the most high-profile controversies in recent British political history.

Documentation of unreported and disclosed pro-Israel donations underpins these concerns, particularly within the current ruling Labour Party. Data shows that more than half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet have received donations from pro-Israel lobbying groups. One of the most prominent of these donors, Trevor Chinn, contributed £175,000 between 2017 and 2020 to Labour Together, the influential think tank that spearheaded Starmer’s successful campaign to oust Jeremy Corbyn, a longtime critic of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, as Labour leader. Chinn’s donations granted him repeated private access to senior Labour figures, including current Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

That £700,000 in donations to Labour Together during Starmer’s leadership campaign went undeclared to the UK’s Electoral Commission, resulting in a £14,000 fine for the group. After the undeclared funding was exposed in journalist Paul Holden’s book *The Fraud*, reports emerged that Labour Together hired a public relations firm to investigate journalists who leaked the information, then attempted to destroy evidence of a coordinated smear campaign against the reporters.

The pro-Israel funding that flowed through Labour Together was a core component of a successful effort to unseat Corbyn and shift the Labour Party sharply to the right on Middle East policy. Since taking office, Starmer has stated publicly that Israel has a right to cut power and water access to Gaza, a position aligned with pro-Israel lobbying priorities. The think tank has also been linked to a series of coordinated “astroturf” campaigns fronted by groups like the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and Stop Funding Fake News—co-founded by senior Labour politicians Steve Reed and Imran Ahmed—designed to attack independent pro-Palestine media and push left-wing, pro-Corbyn figures out of the party.

Since Starmer took control of the party, one-third of newly elected Labour MPs have professional backgrounds in lobbying, and one-quarter have received direct funding from pro-Israel groups. Even ahead of the 2024 general election, Luke Akehurst, a former director of the pro-Israel advocacy group We Believe in Israel, was selected to run for a safe Labour seat in Durham, reflecting the movement’s deep penetration into party ranks.

Pro-Israel lobbying is not limited to the Labour Party, either. Roughly 80% of Conservative Members of Parliament are members of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), an organization that has provided more than £330,000 to fund 118 MPs’ trips to Israel across 160 separate visits.

Neve Gordon, an Israeli professor of international law at London’s Queen Mary University, argues that the double standard in how foreign influence is scrutinized in the UK reveals clear political alignment. While Russian, Chinese and Iranian interference are repeatedly framed as threats to British national interests and subject to intense regulatory and media scrutiny, Gordon says those countries exert far less actual influence on UK policy than the pro-Israel lobby, whose impact is consistently downplayed. Gordon explains that this double standard exists because the pro-Israel lobby is broadly aligned with long-standing British geopolitical interests, allowing the government to hide its own policy preferences behind the narrative of external lobbying influence.

Jeremy Corbyn, who faced years of pressure from pro-Israel groups during his time as Labour leader, confirmed that this pressure is both political and commercial. He recalled being asked during a private Parliamentary Labour Party meeting whether he would offer unconditional support for Israeli military action, and said he faced constant, enormous pressure across all areas of his leadership due to his dissenting views on Middle East policy.

Commercial lobbying is also a major factor: Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private weapons manufacturer, held multiple meetings with UK Home Office officials and lobbied the government during its crackdown on Palestine Action, a direct action group that stages protests against the company’s UK facilities. The government ultimately proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization—a decision that was later ruled unlawful by the UK High Court, though the government has continued to appeal the ruling.

Critics of the pro-Israel lobby also highlight its coordinated strategy of framing criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism to silence dissent. Leah Levene and Jonathan Rosenhead of Jewish Voice for Liberation, a group representing anti-Zionist Jews in the UK, point to organizations like UK Lawyers for Israel, which has been accused of waging legal intimidation campaigns against activists who oppose Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and Campaign Against Antisemitism, whose legal actions against pro-Palestine public figures were labeled “abusive” by a UK judge.

Levene and Rosenhead note that mainstream pro-Israel Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Office of the Chief Rabbi have successfully positioned themselves as the sole legitimate representatives of all Jewish people in the UK, erasing dissent from anti-Zionist Jews and flattening diverse community perspectives into a single pro-Israel consensus. When any public figure voices criticism of Israeli policy, these organizations come down heavily to silence that dissent, which in turn undermines open democratic debate by cutting off space for alternative viewpoints.

Hil Aked, author of *Friends of Israel: The Backlash Against Palestine Solidarity*, contextualizes the deep roots of pro-Israel lobbying in British political history, noting that the development of the Zionist movement has long been intertwined with the history of the British Empire. Aked explains that pro-Israel organizers have consistently framed their goals as aligned with British national interests to win support from successive UK governments. A key example, Aked argues, is the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the creation of the state of Israel and was drafted by the same generation of British politicians who passed the 1905 Aliens Act, the UK’s first modern anti-immigration law that blocked Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Europe from entering the UK. This historical context, Aked says, makes clear that Zionism and antisemitism are not incompatible, and that pro-Israel lobbying in the UK is not a foreign import—it has been actively fostered by successive British governments for more than a century.

For campaigners like Andrew Feinstein, co-founder of the anti-corruption non-profit Shadow World Investigations, open debate about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is a core requirement for protecting British democracy. “Unless we are prepared to have a transparent, open and frank conversation not only about the Israel lobby, but about the influence of all money in politics, we will continue to have nothing better than the best democracy money can buy,” Feinstein said.

In a landmark federal court hearing held in downtown Los Angeles Friday, a one-time leader of a majority-Asian Southern California city entered a guilty plea to a federal charge of operating as an unregistered illegal agent for the Chinese government.

Eileen Wang, 56, who stepped down from her position as mayor of Arcadia — a suburban community of roughly 53,000 located 21 kilometers northeast of Los Angeles — earlier this April, formally admitted to carrying out requests for Chinese officials without meeting U.S. legal requirements to disclose her foreign work to American authorities. She was initially indicted on the single charge back in April 2023.

Wang first won a seat on Arcadia’s five-member city council in the November 2022 general election, a body that selects its mayor on a rotating annual basis. Federal prosecutors document that her unlawful activities took place between late 2020 and 2022, a timeline that both city officials and Wang’s legal team confirm ended before she assumed public office.

During the plea hearing, U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu walked Wang through standard procedural checks to confirm she fully understood her constitutional rights and the penalties attached to her guilty plea. Though a Mandarin interpreter was on hand for the proceeding, Wang declined the service, confirming she could follow the hearing without assistance. She was granted continued release on a $25,000 bond ahead of her scheduled October 6 sentencing, where she faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison and three years of supervised release following incarceration.

Court documents attached to her plea agreement detail that Wang collaborated with her then-fiancé Yaoning “Mike” Sun to advance Chinese government propaganda through a digital platform called U.S. News Center. Sun, who also served as treasurer for Wang’s 2022 city council campaign, pleaded guilty to the identical charge last October and is currently serving a four-year federal prison sentence. Wang’s legal team has stated her romantic relationship with Sun ended in spring 2024, and in a statement following her resignation, the attorneys noted Wang “trusted and loved the wrong person, who ultimately led her astray.”

One key documented incident from June 2021 lays out the core of Wang’s cooperation: after a Chinese government official sent Wang a link to an op-ed written by China’s Los Angeles consul general and published in the *Los Angeles Times*, Wang shared the link to her collaborative website within minutes. The op-ed rejected international reporting of systematic human rights abuses including persecution, forced labor and mass incarceration against Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region, falsely claiming “There has never been genocide in Xinjiang or forced labor in the region’s cotton fields or any other sector.” The United States and dozens of other nations have formally recognized Beijing’s systemic repression of Uyghurs and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang as genocide and crimes against humanity.

Local reactions to Wang’s plea have reignited long-simmering tensions in Arcadia, a city with a large concentration of Chinese American residents. Many local residents and former elected officials have argued Wang should have been removed from office immediately after she first became linked to the FBI investigation into Sun’s activities.

Current acting mayor Paul Cheng has pushed back on that criticism, noting the city charter only grants the city council authority to remove a sitting member after they have been convicted of a felony crime — a milestone Wang had not reached prior to her guilty plea. “We are not law enforcement investigators, and politicizing an active federal case would only undermine the ongoing investigation,” Cheng explained of the council’s previous inaction.

Exclusive new data obtained by Middle East Eye (MEE) has uncovered a striking electoral trend from England’s 7 May local elections: candidates who publicly backed Palestinian rights outperformed nominees from most major established parties, only trailing the right-wing Reform Party in win rates for contested seats.

The data confirms that public opposition to ongoing British policy cooperation with Israel remains a deeply resonant political issue across England, and that running on a clear pro-Palestine platform has emerged as a measurable predictor of electoral success in dozens of local races.

All candidates who signed the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)’s widely supported “Pledge for Palestine” secured victory in 27% of the seats they contested. By comparison, Reform candidates posted a 30% win rate, while the Labour Party — the current national governing party — won just 22% of its contested seats, and the Liberal Democrats followed closely behind at 21%.

More than 1,600 candidates across the political spectrum signed the pledge, which commits elected officials to use their local office to advance Palestinian human rights. Signatories vow to take all appropriate steps to uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and to support efforts to secure accountability for what the pledge frames as Israel’s crimes of genocide, military occupation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

The pledge also requires candidates to prevent their local councils from complicity in or normalization of Israel’s alleged violations of international law. Key commitments include divesting council pension funds and other publicly administered assets from companies that enable these violations, and aligning local procurement policies with these goals.

Signatures came from a broad cross-section of political groups: more than 1,000 Green Party candidates, over 200 Labour candidates, more than 200 independent and small local party nominees, as well as a number of Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates. Pro-Palestine candidates were particularly likely to run and win in seats with large youth, student, ethnic minority and Muslim populations.

One of the most high-profile successes came in Hackney, east London, where 31 Green candidates signed the pledge, including mayoral candidate Zoe Garbett, who won her race. The Greens secured a dominant majority on Hackney Council, taking 42 of the body’s 57 total seats. In neighboring Haringey, north London, the Greens surged to 28 council seats, overtaking Labour and coming just short of a full majority, with 26 of the party’s successful candidates having signed the pledge. Across the Midlands, in Bradford and Birmingham, dozens of independent and Green signatories won their local council contests.

Jeanine Hourani, a representative of Palestinian Youth Movement Britain — a partner in the Vote Palestine grassroots coalition that backed the pledge campaign — emphasized that the results confirm Palestine is a critical local issue for voters across England. “In the months leading up to election day, 16 local campaigns were launched, spending thousands of hours canvassing and organising dozens of local action days,” Hourani said. She added that the outcome highlights how essential grassroots community organizing is to the pro-Palestine movement, while sending a clear warning to mainstream elected officials: “Pledge signatories collectively outperformed almost every political party, and their successes will only grow as we look towards the 2029 general election.”

Asma Alam, a newly elected Green councillor for Manchester’s Burnage ward, who won her seat after signing the pledge, framed Palestinian rights as an inherent local government responsibility. “If councils have power over pensions, procurement and public money, then Palestine is absolutely a local government issue,” she said. Alam pointed to Greater Manchester’s pension fund, the largest local government pension pool in England, valued at more than £31 billion. Campaigners have identified nearly £905 million in fund investments tied to companies that they say are complicit in Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. “We cannot pass motions, say the right things, and then carry on as normal,” Alam said. “For me, this is simple: I will not take a council pension while that pension is tied to Palestinian suffering. Divestment is not symbolic. It is about refusing to let public money bankroll injustice.”

The electoral success of pro-Palestine candidates comes against a backdrop of growing tension between the national Labour government and pro-Palestine activists within and outside the party. In January, Communities Secretary Steve Reed issued a warning to all Labour-run local councils that they could face legal action if they move to boycott Israeli businesses, directing councils to a 2016 national government ban on procurement boycotts targeting Israeli firms and companies that trade with Israel.

Over the past two years, dozens of local authorities have passed votes to boycott companies linked to Israeli war crimes, arms supplies to Israel, or economic activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. Multiple local council pension funds — including those in Islington, Lewisham, Wandsworth and Caerphilly — have already removed companies listed by the United Nations as operating in occupied Palestinian territories from their investment portfolios.

Prominent veteran pollster Sir John Curtis noted after the elections that the Green Party, which drew the largest share of pro-Palestine candidates, inflicted far more damage to Labour’s vote share across England than the Reform Party, a shift that experts attribute in part to the Green Party’s clear embrace of pro-Palestine policy.

MEE, which publishes independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and global affairs, obtained the exclusive data for this report.

ASTANA, KAZAKHSTAN — At a high-stakes summit of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) held Friday in Central Asia’s capital, top leaders from the bloc have issued a stark warning to member state Armenia: move forward with plans to seek European Union membership, and face immediate suspension from the Moscow-dominated economic alliance. The public rebuke amplifies already simmering tensions between the Kremlin and Armenia’s pro-Western government, just days ahead of a critical national parliamentary election that will shape the small Caucasus nation’s future geopolitical alignment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was joined by the heads of state of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan — the four full voting members of the 2015-founded single market bloc — in issuing the demand. The group emphasized that Armenia’s formal bid for EU membership creates “significant systemic risks” to the collective economic security of all EAEU members, who enjoy tariff-free movement of goods, capital, and labor across their shared market. They instructed top regional officials to prepare a comprehensive policy report by December detailing the procedural and economic implications of suspending Armenia’s EAEU membership.

In an unusual step that goes beyond standard bloc diplomacy, the four leaders also called on Armenian authorities to put the geopolitical choice to a national public vote: let Armenian voters decide between pursuing integration with the EU or retaining full membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. That call has already been rejected by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who has led the country since the 2018 Velvet Revolution and is currently campaigning to retain his office in the June 7 parliamentary election.

The escalation from EAEU leaders is no coincidence: it comes just over a week before Armenians head to the polls, with Pashinyan’s government having spent the past two years steadily shifting Armenia’s foreign policy away from Moscow and toward Western institutions. Last year, Yerevan signed a US-brokered peace deal with neighboring Azerbaijan, ending decades of armed conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Since then, Pashinyan has openly declared his government’s intention to pursue full EU membership, and already suspended Armenia’s participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Moscow-dominated regional security bloc.

This deliberate westward pivot has enraged the Kremlin, which has long viewed Armenia as a key ally in the South Caucasus. Putin has repeatedly warned Pashinyan that moving closer to the EU would bring severe economic consequences for Armenia. In recent weeks, Moscow has already taken preliminary punitive steps: it has threatened to cut off supplies of heavily subsidized natural gas — a critical energy input for Armenia’s economy — and imposed a full ban on imports of Armenia’s signature brandy, as well as fresh fruit and vegetable products. Analysts widely view these measures as direct interference in the upcoming election, designed to turn voters against Pashinyan and his pro-Western agenda.

Putin doubled down on that position Friday, stressing that Armenia cannot maintain membership in both blocs simultaneously. He warned that if Armenia withdraws from the EAEU, the country could see its total gross domestic product drop by as much as 14% as it loses access to the large, tariff-free Eurasian market. In comments that carried clear historical weight, Putin also drew a direct parallel between the current standoff with Armenia and the 2014 crisis in Ukraine. At that time, Ukraine’s decision to move forward with an association agreement with the EU led to the ouster of Moscow’s allied president, Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, the outbreak of a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, and ultimately the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — the largest European military conflict since World War II.

Pashinyan has pushed back against the Kremlin’s warnings, arguing that for the immediate future, Armenia can balance its existing EAEU membership with deepening political and economic cooperation with the European Union. As campaigning enters its final stretch, the election is set to deliver a clear verdict on whether Armenians will back their government’s push westward, or pivot back to closer alignment with Russia.