Deploring Islam's "Religious Equivalent of Ethnic Cleansing," British MPs Praise Israel

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/the-anti-jihadist/islamic-persecution-of-christians-in-malaysia/

Unlike many Western partisans of the Palestinians, Welsh Lib Dem MP Mark Williams is evidently principled enough to acknowledge the faults of Islamic regimes:

"Christian men and women in Iran are treated as foreigners in their own land, particularly converts from Islam, who are considered more than simply foreigners or second-class citizens; they are considered traitors and are routinely sentenced to death or face trumped-up charges for converting. It is no small wonder that so many have been forced to flee Iran. One of the greatest exoduses of people across the modern world has been people fleeing Iran.

The Iranian regime has long sought viciously to repress anyone who espouses views different from its own, whether those views come from political opponents or the Baha’i community, which has been ferociously persecuted. Mr Ataollah Rezvani was shot in the back of the head, and his body was abandoned by a railway near Bandar Abbas, in August simply for being a member of the Baha’i community. Such persecution has led our Government to condemn Iran’s human rights reputation as “appalling” and to note that Iran’s treatment of religious minorities is “shocking.” We have heard that 80 per cent of acts of religious discrimination across the world are directed at Christians.

Mr Williams was speaking in the House of Commons debate on "Persecution of Christians (Middle East)" held last Tuesday (5 November).

Introducing the debate, Conservative MP Fiona Bruce quoted Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

She went on to observe:

"Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. When citizens are prevented from enjoying that right, the social, political and cultural implications can be serious, as the debate will show. The loss of other human rights can swiftly follow. The debate is therefore important not only for Christians, but for all religious groups and minorities, and indeed for everyone seeking to live out the dictates of their conscience in worship, teaching, practice and observance, respectful of others’ right to do likewise, and under the protection of a state striving to achieve that positive vision under the rule of law. That is a far cry from the reality for many Christians in the Middle East....

Christianity is the most persecuted faith worldwide, so the problem exists not only in the Middle east, but globally.

 The former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in his outgoing interview with The Daily Telegraph, discussed the persecution of Christians in the middle east with the deepest concern of any current issue, saying that

“this is a human tragedy that is going almost unremarked… it is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing. We are seeing Christians in Syria in great danger; we are seeing the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt. There is a large Coptic population in Egypt, and for some years now it has been living in fear. Two years ago the last church in Afghanistan was destroyed, certainly closed. There are no churches left in Afghanistan. Between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have left Iraq. At the beginning of the 19th century, Christians represented 20% of the population of the Arab world, today 2%. This is a story that is crying out for a public voice”.

Let us be that voice today.

.... We should be crying out with the same abhorrence and horror that we feel about the terrible atrocities towards Jews on Kristallnacht and on other occasions in Germany during the Second World War ....

I am very concerned about that and the problem has global implications. I hope that, as a result, we will have many more debates in the House on the persecution of Christians in other regions of the world.

The ACN report discusses how, in virtually every country in and around the Middle East region, Christians report suffering either high, high to extreme or extreme persecution. That includes Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In virtually every one, the situation has worsened since ACN’s last report in 2011, except in Iraq, but only because the attacks in 2009-10 were so large in scale."

Observed fellow-Conservative Mark Field

"In this context, it is important to recognise that there is one state in the Middle East with a proud record of allowing a large degree of religious freedom, irrespective of other elements of the problems that it faces within its borders: Israel. I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about how religious freedom, at least, is protected in Israel, not just for the 20 per cent of its population who are Christian, but for the 16 per cent who are Muslim."  [Emphasis added here and below]

(Fiona Bruce then appeared to damn Israel with feint praise:

 My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I did not include Israel in the list that I read out. The report does not include it among the areas of extreme persecution. I respect what is being done in Israel, although I must say that concerns are now being expressed in Palestine about increasing persecution there.

The report says:

“Christianity may yet remain the largest world religion, but its claims to universality—a truly global presence on all five continents—may soon be lost as it becomes the prime victim in the emergence of theocratic states where minority faith groups—most especially Christians—have no place, except perhaps as third-class citizens.”)

David Burrowes,another Conservative, reminded the House that 

"eleven Christians are killed around the world every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith. And increasing numbers of Christians are being killed in the Middle East, which is why it is right to focus on the region."

Having spoken heart wrenchingly and authoritatively about the persecution of Iran (that's the same Iran which runs Press TV, upon which Western Israel-baiters including Christian minister the Reverend Stephen Sizer do not flinch to appear) he subsequently remarked:

"Today, we can complain on their behalf. In fact, we can properly take the words of the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, and I will finish by quoting him.

We have already heard that Israel is very much set apart from concerns about freedom of religion, by contrast to the countries that neighbour it. In 2011, Fouad Twal said:

“Does anybody hear our cry? How many atrocities must we endure before somebody, somewhere, comes to our aid?”

.... We must ensure that we use all the channels that we can to stand up for persecuted Christians in Iran."

Welsh Conservative Guto Bebb referred to the situation in Syria before telling the House:

"The other issue I want to touch on was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford [Jeremy Lefroy], who shares a Huguenot ancestry with me. He said that it was to a country’s detriment to persecute its religious minorities. The example I would give, which numerous Members have mentioned, is Israel—a country in the Middle East that is often vilified, not least in this place. When it comes to religious freedom, however, it is important to highlight the difference between the way in which Israel and neighbouring countries behave towards their religious minorities.

The key point is that the Christian population in Israel has increased a thousandfold since the country was established. Christians serve in the Supreme Court, the Knesset and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they are contributing to a stronger country. The situation of Christians in Israel can be contrasted with that of Christians in the west bank, where the Christian population has fallen quite dramatically. In 1948, about 15 per cent of Palestinians identified themselves as Christian; today, that figure has fallen to about 2 per cent. In many ways, the strongest, most economically prosperous country in the Middle East is also the most welcoming of religious minorities. When we discuss this issue, it is important to place on record the fact that there is, in the Middle East, a country that shows us how things can be done differently, and that is leading to a more prosperous situation for all the citizens of that country, regardless of their religion."

Labour MP Ian Lucas pointed out in his speech:

"The hon. Member for Aberconwy [Guto Bebb] mentioned Israel, and it is no coincidence that that country, with its tolerance for religious minorities, is a democracy. For that reason, we need to commit to supporting the progress of democracy in the region, even though, as recent events in Egypt, for example, have shown, that is a difficult course, which often leads us to take one step forward and two steps back, making the political situation difficult to manage."

(Conservative Hugo Swire, Minister of State for the Foreign Office acted somewhat as a damp squib:".... Some interesting points were made about the Middle East as the birthplace of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which makes the religious persecution there all the more poignant. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel and Palestine. It is true that less than 2 per cent of the population of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is Christian today, compared with 22 per cent at the end of the British mandate in 1948. I heard what my hon. Friends said, but we continue to be concerned about access to holy sites for all, including Christians and Muslims....")

Read the entire debate here

Methodist Ministers Denounce Their Pro-Israel Jewish Critics

"There are many paradoxes in the propaganda war against Israel," observed South African writer Steve Apfel earlier this year in a must-read article:

"The most puzzling of them perhaps would be the way many Christian groups and Churches side with the Palestinians. On the evidence one would expect the opposite. Believing Christians have every logical reason to be pro-Israel, where alone in the Middle East Christendom’s holy sites are protected; where Christians may pray openly; and where Christian followers face no pressures to convert.

 On the Palestinian side of the fence none of those freedoms exist.  How in that case to explain groups like the Presbyterians, the World Council of Churches, Christian Aid and so forth aiming their missiles at the Jewish state?  It is the wildest of peculiarities: anti-Israel Christians.

 Population movements tell half the story, though not nearly the absorbing half. In 1949 Israel had a Christian population of 34000; today the number is 168000, and growing. From the Palestinian side the arrows point the other way. Christians have poured out; perhaps 70 percent who once lived in the West Bank now live abroad. Bethlehem, Christianity’s cradle, provides stark confirmation.

 In 1950 the city was 80 – 90 percent Christian; today that fraction is down to no more than 20 percent. So in Palestine Christians run the gauntlet, while in Israel they practice, while in Israel they practice their faith freely. Yet churchmen aim their missiles where?

 .... Christianity under the whip, yet people of the church clamber to help Christian persecutors and punish Christian-protecting Israel. Can men of the cloth, even pooling their faith, justify the perversity? Can they square the circle of anti-Israel activism mixed with indifference to Christendom’s plight hard on Israel’s borders? What if, in good faith and without bad conscience, they cannot? And if goaded to action what would matter most to men of the cloth: attacking Israel or defending Christians?"

 Two years ago, influenced by their conference report which cited such Israel-bashers (advocates of a single state for Jews and Palestinians among them) as Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Robert Fisk and Anglican cleric Stephen Sizer while studiously ignoring mainstream Jewish voices, Britain's Methodists voted to boycott goods from the "Occupied" (i.e. Disputed) Territories, and also voted to review whether Zionism is compatible with their beliefs.

Reflecting mainstream Jewish communal opinion as a whole, the Board of Deputies stated:

"This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and is an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations. Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines."

Very recently, the Board's vice-president, worried that the Methodists at this year's conference would abolish the posts of Secretary for External Relations and Inter-Faith Officer, noted the fragility of relations between the Jewish community and the Methodists and recalled:

"In 2010 the Jewish community reacted with hurt and anger as the Methodist Church accepted many of the provisions of the Justice for Palestine and Israel report.  This document presented a highly selective account of the history of the conflict, misrepresented Zionism and sought to reintroduce the discredited theology of supersessionism, abandoned by mainstream churches because of its ugly legacy of millennia of anti-Semitism. It was hardly helped by the fact that the motion that started this process in 2009 explicitly and deliberately excluded the addition to the document of any views, either from internal voices or external sources, that would have given it some accuracy and balance.

The report, as well as the shameful manner in which it was produced shattered the good relations between the Jewish community and the Methodist Church.  The Board made it clear that normal relations would not be resumed until we saw specific signs that the church was prepared to listen to other views and take them seriouly...

 The resolutions that received and sought to implement the report caused serious damage to the relationship that breeds mistrust even to this day.  The hurt in our community was echoed by anger and surprise among other Christian denominations."

A few days ago, at their conference, the Methodists reiterated their position:

"In view of the continued building of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied land, as well as the repeated condemnation this has received from the UK Government, the Conference:

 Notes that these settlements are illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as confirmed by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

    Joins with the Quakers in Britain in welcoming the June 2012 Parliamentary Briefing of Christian Aid which calls on the Government to introduce legislation to end the trade in products from illegal Israeli settlements.

   Continues to work and pray for peace and justice for all the peoples of the Holy Land"

Among the persistent critics of Israel within the UK Christian blogosphere are two ordained Methodist ministers who not infrequently post denigratory material regarding Israel on the blog of one of them; over the past week to fortnight alone there have been a number of such posts on that blog.  Several Jews, disturbed by this trend, have during the past year or two leapt to Israel's defence as commenters on posts of this nature. One of the ministers (the blog owner) is invariably courteous if sometimes a tad stiff in replies to opponents; the other (who also blogs elsewhere) is apt to temper courtesy to these defenders of Israel with a barbed, sarcastic wit that seemingly substitutes for a more considered or appropriate response on occasion.  For instance, below a post, perhaps best described as ill-conceived, that his colleague had written regarding the Fogel murders, this man of the cloth observed of me: 

"Daphne huffs and puffs. I’d say she lives in a Manichaean universe, but she’s probably not bright enough to know what that means."

It seems from a post he made elsewhere that this minister regrets the Balfour Declaration and labours under the misconception that the Palestinian Arabs were "forcibly expelled" during Israel's War of Independence:

'In 1915, during the First World War, Britain made a deal with the Sharif of Mecca: in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally, the promise of British support for an independent Arab kingdom when the war was over. But then, in 1917, Britain reneged on the deal and issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to support the establishment of a Jewish state – in Palestine.... It was a formula for a catastrophe. Fast-forward to 1947-48, the UN partition plan, and the blessing of the establishment of the state of Israel for the Jewish people becomes a curse for the Palestinian people – 700,000 uprooted, evicted. Palestinians themselves call this massive dislocation the Nakba, which is Arabic for – “Catastrophe”. Over sixty years later and one generation of homeless, refugee people has become three. There is no reason to be optimistic that it will not become four.'

Some of the latest pro-Israel comments on the several posts regarding Israel that have in rapid succession  appeared on the blog in the past week or so have considerably riled the two ministers, to judge by the tone of a rare joint  "editorial" that they have posted:  

'... "being Jewish" is a complicated, not a monolithic concept, and ... there is no such thing as the Jewish view of things, including, indeed especially on the vexing and volatile issues of Zionism and Israel.  [So much for those Board of Deputies' statements, then!]

... Yet there are a few folk who comment on this blog who only show up only when the post is on Israel [well, they are Jews, after all, and unlikely to be concerned with the finer points of Methodist practice and belief], and who act as if Christians who disagree with them are anti-Semitic at worst, and egregiously misinformed and wrong-headed at best. They also seem to act as if fellow Jews who disagree with them are, at worst, disloyal or self-loathing, a disgrace to the cause of Israel, if not Judaism, and, at best (like said Christians), are egregiously misinformed and wrong-headed, and therefore dismissible with due condescension and even contempt....

 The ministers added, with what might be considered delicious, presumably unwitting, irony

Churchill said that "a fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.".... Personally, we find "fanatic" or "maniac" unduly provocative epithets, but we are certainly dealing here with people who are obstinate, belligerent, apparently inerrant, and certainly lacking both a sense of humour and the willingness to empathise with another point of view.'

What, I wonder, could have got under the ministers' skins sufficiently to provoke that outburst comprising their joint editorial?  Was it this response of an always impeccably polite Anglo-Jew, to this report from the Independent newspaper (like the BBC and the Guardian, not known for its friendliness towards Israel) that the blog owner reproduced:

'If this were being done to little children, it would indeed be cruelty. But the ‘children’ referred to here are great big wallops of 15 or 16, strong enough to kill a grown man and old enough to know what they’re doing. While they might be children according to English law, in Hamastan they are treated as fully fledged footsoldiers. If there’s any abuse going on, it’s the brainwashing of these teenage boys by their cynical masters in an echo of the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army....

 A 12-year-old boy has about 75% of the physical strength of his adult self: combined with the lack of empathy common in boys, this makes him an excellent weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous. The treatment described is necessary to shock them out of their feelings of impunity and invulnerability: the detention is vital to stop them from attacking Israel. They need to understand that their enemy has no respect, but just contempt, for their attempts to become jihadis and shahids. You could call it a form of de-programming.

.... Supposing the Israeli authorities contacted the parents of these teenagers and told them that, as parents, they were responsible for their children’s actions. Do you think the parents (as in a civilised society) would say: “Yes, they’ve been very naughty, we’ll accept responsibility for whatever they’ve done, give them to us and we’ll make sure they never do that again.” Or is it more likely that they would say: “Allahu akbar! Khaybar ya-yahud! My son is a glorious shahid, and I am only sorry that he did not manage to kill you!”

My point: the Palestinian Arabs cannot disclaim all responsibility. Nobody has a right to demand that Jews not defend themselves against physical attacks. Israel will not be a nation of humble martyrs.'

Was it this response from a feisty Jerusalemite, a long-serving IDF member and veteran of the Six Day War as well as of many a verbal skirmish on the blog in question?:

'''every Palestinian child is treated like a potential terrorist" – as far as I am concerned, this is the way the Arab children are brought up. I’ve seen it myself. During the 1st Intifaddah as a reserve soldier I was driving a jeep at the end of a patrol when I suddenly saw a 12-year old standing and holding something bright and shiny. I realized what it was just a second before he was about to throw it at the jeep - and at me. A Molotov cocktail!

....Your consistent attacks on the State of Israel place you in the camp of enemies of Israel. You’ve done this too often, which is why I and other Jews appear here from time to time.

As for “Palestinian children are treated differently than Israeli children”, how many “palestinian” children have been murdered by Israeli suicide-bombers and other Arab terrorist acts? In fact, I would be correct in saying that “Israeli suicide-bombers” is an oxymoron! You have a rebuttal for that?....

 Richard .... Your tone is always moderate, I have never felt anti-semitism in your words, and you allow me a lot of leeway on your blog.

But when I see time after time that you publish attacks on Israel, I must draw from this a statistical conclusion.

.... As for criticism and its intentions, I think that you’d have to get far more involved in understanding the super-complicated structure that is today’s Israel and the pressures under which it exists, if you really wanted to assist it as a friend. You – or anyone – can’t just pick a headline from an anti-semitic newspaper – and publish it as “friendly criticism”. Doesn’t work.

Regarding ‘turn the other cheek’ .... In today’s world this would be regarded as a Leftist policy.

That is not the Jewish way. The basic Jewish command is to stay alive. Hence the Talmudic instruction “He who comes to kill you, get up and kill him first”. Meaning we show no understanding for those intent on killing us.

A case in point is the Western, Christian world’s weak, Leftist fumbling around with pre-nuclear Iran, more or less giving in to it, while (unfortunately non-religious) Israel is preparing to meet Iran in the Tamudic sense. And of course, to survive it.

That’s why we’ve been around for 3,500 years.'

    Or was it this response of mine?:

Christian victims in Iraq; below: in Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria

"Significantly, Richard, you have omitted the part of the [Independent's] report in which an Israeli spokesperson explains his country’s policy regarding these detentions. That really isn’t cricket, you know.

As for the delegation, there would appear to be some usual suspects among them.

Ah! If only certain Christian clerical bloggers devoted as much time drawing attention to the savagery in the Islamic world against Christians - their fellow Christians! - as they do in itemising the faults, real and imagined, of the little Jewish State struggling to survive.

This, for example:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3135/muslim-persecution-of-christians-may-2012

To say nothing of attacks on Coptic persons & property

.... How very sad that the Copts, as well as people in parts of the world who were introduced to Christianity by European missionaries (colonialists, some might call them) and are cleaving fast to the Christianity they imbibed, are now left to their fate by Christians in the West, people who not only through ties of faith but through obligation and duty should be publicising their plight and pleading on their behalf. People who, I repeat, are quick to condemn little Israel for misdeeds real and imagined, yet stay shtum when innocents are slaughtered by rapacious Islamists determined to oust Christianity wherever they encounter it....'

In the course of  my remarks, I included a reference to the Barnabas Fund, which fights on behalf of persecuted Christians worldwide but which has been condemned by such leftist organisations as Hope Not Hate for stoking Islamophobia.  To quote the Fund's International Director, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo:

I've shunned bloodier graphics of anti-Christian crimes

"We have been deeply saddened that some Christians regard Barnabas Fund as preaching hatred when we raise the plight of the persecuted Church, and the growing influence of Islamism and its impact on the Church and the Christian heritage and liberties of Western society. We are unshakably committed to our stated goals and will continue to pursue them with vigour, for the sake of our Lord’s persecuted people at home and abroad."

Indeed, in a much earlier post (on which none of us three made a comment) entitled "Responding to the 'counter-jihad'," the minister whose blog it is opined:

 'Hope Not Hate has compiled a worryingly long list of organisations and individuals that make up this ‘counter-Jihad’ movement....

....Fear and hatred of others are a continuing temptation. The desire for a scapegoat on whom to pin the world’s ills is never very far away, especially at times of economic uncertainty.....

.... What I do see is a nasty alliance of fear-mongering bigots who are stoking up resentment and hatred. The fact that there are "christian" groups involved in this is an affront to the gospel.'

Now,  in response to those aforesaid remarks of mine and related ones by me, the other minister, Kim, observed: 

'Islamic crimes against Christians — Richard doesn’t need to raise his voice in outrage because the condemnation is tacit. Nor, in any case, do Christians have any theological warrant for privileging themselves when it comes to criminal behaviour. Crimes against children, however — some people seem to be defending them, so the condemnation must be explicit.

Sadly, there are graphic examples more horrific than these

.... [A]lthough the UK’s Charity Commission ruled that the Barnabas Fund “does not appear to be inciting racial hatred” ... a quick read of its widely dissiminated booklet Slippery Slope: the Islamisation of Britain suggests to me that it is an alarmist little piece of work with a whiff about it of that kind of anti-Semitism known as Islamophobia. About Barnabas abroad I do not know and therefore will not comment. If it’s working for reconciliation and peace, and counselling Christians to love their Muslim neighbours and to maintain a non-violent witness at all times, that’s great.'

 As for me:

'Daphne ...  does more than appear to be inciting religious hatred …'   

Later, picking up on a theme of minister Kim's, I observed:

'I would like to point out to Kim that – desirable though peaceful solutions to conflicts undoubtedly are – in some circumstances negotiations, as Neville Chamberlain found, are useless. What, for example, would be the basis on which Israel would negotiate with Iran, whose leaders, like Hamas’s, want the Zionist Entity extirpated? And want it extirpated they certainly do, by some means. For militant Islam, bent on re-establishing the Caliphate, the very existence of a non-Muslim state in the region – even one as tiny as Israel is (the size of Wales, remember) – is an outrage. That is the reality of what Israel faces.

    I would also draw to your attention the many videos on the web in which Islamist clerics inveigh in bloodthirsty and antisemitic terms (”the descendents of apes and pigs”) against Israel and Jewish Israelis.

    And see this example of poisoning tender young minds – since you inveigh against Avraham’s supposed militarism, inveigh against the choice example of militarism exposed here:

    http://challahhuakbar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/palestinian-kindergarten-promotes.html

His response, as I'm sure he would agree, was fatuous.

Meanwhile, the erudite Anglo-Jew had observed in response to a comment from the blog-owner:

'Thank you, Richard, for the link to that instructive expatiation of the meaning of that section of the Sermon on the Mount. It highlights one of the central problems that we Jews face when trying to explain our position to you Christians. From the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE until 1947, we Jews have in fact turned the other cheek, trying to awaken your conscience by appealing to your better nature. That might have worked if there had been hundreds of millions of us to sacrifice and all the time in the world to wait until your consciousness was raised. But Hitler and his millions of willing helpers gave us the definitive answer. Our enemies do not have a better nature. Would that it were otherwise.'

 And the feisty Jerusalemite observed on the post that Kim proceeded to add to the blog, a post also critical of Israel:

'There should be discussion between Jew and Christian – we both inhabit the same world, and meet at many and varying tangents. But the Christian world has yet to come to grips with the concept of the new, independent Israeli Jew, who is the anti-thesis of everything Christianity has taught since its inception.'

For a joint Jewish-Christian rally in Rome against Islamic persecution of Christians see here where it is noted:

'While the West is now endlessly focused on “Islamophobia,” a potential genocidal Christianophobia is spreading through Islamic lands. And as the rally in the Coliseum has clearly shown, it pairs up with another kind of hatred: Judeophobia.

Today there is only one country in the Middle East in which Christian numbers are not declining but continues to increase: Israel. The Jewish State hosts a multitude of Christian creeds, confessions and cultures.....

Christians should see Israel as the first line of Western defense in the battle for non-Muslim survival and prosperity in the world....'

 (For the Board of Deputies and the Church of England see here)

A Brave pro-Israel Jewish Voice is Raised on Behalf of Christians Persecuted in Islamic Lands, of Israel’s Treatment of Christians, and of European Civilisation

Florentine-born Italian journalist and parliamentarian Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice-President of Italy’s Foreign Affairs Committee, is one of the public figures who earlier this year joined former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in launching the admirable and long overdue Friends of Israel Initiative. Ms Nirenstein, who is Jewish, takes more than a passing interest in the Middle East and antisemitism. She has participated in several conferences on antisemitism, contributed articles to a number of English-language magazines including Commentary, and written such books as Terror, the new anti-Semitism and the war against the West (2005) and Israel is us - a personal odyssey to a journalist's understanding of the Middle East (2009).

Just this month she organised a mass rally in Rome on the theme “For the truth, for Israel”, during which over sixty pro-Israel speeches were made by renowned individuals from across Europe drawn from a range of fields. This great and noble rally, which attracted some 3000 people, was billed as "the first European, bipartisan event aimed at restoring the truth regarding Israel, putting an end to the barrage of lies that are hurled at Israel every day and to the double standard used by the media and international organizations."

But Ms Nirenstein is not only concerned for the well-being of her co-religionists and of Israel. She has now spoken up on a topic which, shamefully, is apparently regarded as taboo in left-liberal Western circles – the appalling treatment of Christians by some Islamic regimes. “Islam does not like Eastern Christians: it has forced them to flee and now they account for only 6 percent of the population in the Mideast”, she said this week. She pointed out that, in contrast, the Christian population of Israel has increased – at present, Israel is home to 163,000 Christians, and it’s predicted that in fifteen years’ time this number will have risen to 187,000. “In Muslim countries, on the other hand, Christians are on the wane, but the 50 churches present in the Holy Land seem not to notice. They prefer to dump on Israel, where they enjoy full freedom of worship and expression”, she observed, in an obvious reference to Sabeel.

Ms Nirenstein also turned her attention to the Vatican Synod on the Middle East. She characterised a document – which speaks in the name of "us Christian Palestinians" and avers that “the military occupation is a sin against God and against man” - as “written in a tone of theological excommunication towards the State of Israel”. The document excommunicates Christians who support Israel, compares to South African apartheid the defensive barrier that has virtually halted terrorist attacks on Israel, appears to justify terrorism in speaking of the “thousands of prisoners who languish in Israeli jails” who are “part of the society around us”, describes “resistance to the evil of occupation as a Christian’s right and duty”, excoriates the West Bank Jewish communities, and in essence repudiates Israel’s right to exist. She pertinently asks, regarding Synod policy: “But if there are no sanctions against what Christians suffer in Islamic countries and if they continue to blame the Jews who have nothing to do with it all, how do they think they will be able—morally and practically—to sustain this?”

Nor is Ms Nirenstein reluctant to address the issue of Islam in Europe, a topic from which so many politicians and commentators resile. Referring to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s observation that Germany's “multikulti” approach to immigration “has failed, utterly failed,” Ms Nirenstein has said: “The point is that certain cultures very often have no intention of mixing in with ours, despite our actions and best intentions. Paris has become a city in which more than 200,000 people live in families where polygamy is common practice. In Italy 30,000 women have been subjected to genital mutilation and Islamic courts – ninety-odd in London alone – inflict sentences that are inconceivable.” Citing a number of worrying trends – including the fad T-shirt worn by young Muslims in Stockholm that bears the provocative legend "In 2030 we will take over" – Ms Nirenstein warned:

“When we are faced by a culture like that of Islam, there are forms of irreducibility that run up against legal and moral issues with a whole range of subtleties. For us, ‘immigration’ is a sacred term, filled of a sense of guilt, of generosity, of religion and liberal or left-wing overtones. But democracy is also a sacred term, our most important conquest: the masses of immigrants that do not share our democratic values put it in danger. And while we think that allowing immigration is a duty of democracy, we don’t understand that we are putting it at stake. Perhaps Chancellor Merkel—democratic German, pro-Europe, middle-class, complex-ridden and shy as every cultured German is—has succeeded in posing the question.”