Chants Of Hate (video)

Here's a mob screaming "Intifada, Intifada!" and other cries against the Zionist Entity at a soccer match in Edinburgh last month.

The lead-up to this hate directed at Israeli players can be viewed directly below it.

Last week, a vast throng at a Khalifah Conference in Ramallah joined in "chants of liberation"; brief footage appears below:

A Welcome New Cyber-Voice: Christian Middle East Watch

Pro-Israel Christians rally in London last year

The past fortnight has not been a happy one for Jewish-Christian relations, as church after church endorses or attempts to endorse resolutions injurious to Israel, the Church of England being the latest ecclesiastical body to show its contempt for Jewish sensitivities and Israel's security.

This latest episode may be read about here and is the subject of a searing criticism by the great Melanie Phillips.

Of some comfort, in these circumstances, is the fact that there's a splendid new UK-based pro-Israel site called Christian Middle East Watch that deserves to become well- known.  As its menu-bar indicates, it's divided into several subject sections relating to Israel and the Jewish People.  Its statement of purpose says, in part:

"We are a long overdue voice coming from the Church in Britain, seeking to bring balance and truth to the debates and issues concerning the Middle East; at the heart of which lies the seeming unending and intractible struggle between the Jewish State of Israel and her Muslim neighbours.

Christian Middle East Watch aims to be a primary source of accurate and balanced information concerning Israel and the Middle East

Great Britain, historically a Christian nation, has unique ties to the Jewish people and Israel. This is principally through her Judeo-Christian heritage, historical links, common democratic values and shared sacred scriptures. We also have many historical links to the Middle East as a whole, having governed much of it in our empire and having helped to bring down the Ottoman Empire in World War One.

In modern Britain today there has been an increase in antisemitism and unprecedented hostility against the nation of Israel, largely because of ignorance and a lack of historical understanding of the current conflict in the Middle East. By addressing the issues that follow, the CMEW is helping to reinforce Britain's Judeo-Christian heritage and the biblical morality underlying our nation's parliamentary and legal systems."

Here's a synopsis of a major article (which really must be read in its entirety) on that site entitled "The Delegitimisation of Israel as a Jewish State":

"The accusations against Israel are serious indeed. But how does the evidence match against these accusations?

No other nation has had to combat, since its birth as a state, the perpetual, aggressive attempts by Muslims to annihilate it that Israel has. The PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoot, Hamas, and more recently President Ahmadinejad in Iran, have all sworn publicly that their ultimate purpose in the Middle East is to destroy the ‘Zionist presence’ and to rid the whole of the land west of the Jordan River from the ‘infidel usurpers’. More recently hostile campaigners have focused their resources on trying to delegitimise Israel politically in the world’s opinion. Isolation spells disaster for Israel - its survival and prosperity depend on its relations with the world in trade, science, arts and culture – all of which rely on its legitimacy in the world's eyes.

Some would argue that this is only the mind-set of extremists, but when these ‘extremists’ become the spokesmen for the whole Palestinian people, supported by delegitimisers in the west, and when Hamas and Fatah, sporadically in coalition, adamantly refuse to recognise the right of Israel to exist, then the world must judge aright in its dealings with the situation.

From the post-World War One San Remo Declaration to the State of Israel's acceptance into the UN in 1949, history shows the complete legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. Her compliance with the controversial UN Resolution 242 and her willingness repeatedly to offer 'land for peace' in binding treaties reveals Israel's heart to maintain peace and her standing in the world by peaceful means. Her record on human rights and integration of minority groups into a tiny landmass alongside her own people displays a tolerance and humanity often found lacking in neighbouring nations. Israel needs not to prove any further her legitimacy in the community of nations; her neighbours should accept and recognise this and make serious moves towards a lasting peace in the Middle East."

And here's the summary of another, entitled "The BDS Campaign Against Israel":

"Israel's detractors in Britain are waging a vicious, often underhand, war against the democratic United Nations member state of Israel. Strongly emotive language is employed, which portrays Israel as exhibiting the characteristics of some of history's most genocidal and despotic regimes. What this language claims to portray, however, is a long way from the reality of life in Israel and the disputed Palestinian territories.

In reality, the boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaign in Britain has failed in its aims to stem trade between Britain and Israel (particularly with the so-called "illegal settlements") and to force major economic players to stop investing in or operating in the country (for example, the campaign against Veolia, a participant in the construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail Transit system). What it does, however, is to poison minds already predisposed to believe the worst about Israel and to draw into the same web those who are ignorant of what actually goes on in Israel but simply believe what they read or are told without checking facts for themselves.

In our major article on the BDS campaign, we expose some of the BDS campaign's tactics and participants."

 Be sure to check this site out!

David Singer On Foreign Interference In The Susiya Case

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer has another article via the antipodean J-Wire service.  This one is entitled "Palestine – Foreign Interference Dressed Up As Humanitarian Aid".  It may be said to augment his remarks here

Writes David Singer:

'Attempts by foreign governments and international aid agencies to politically influence the outcome of negotiations begun under the Oslo Accords in 1993 now seriously threaten the total abandonment of those Accords.

The battleground for such foreign interference is Susiya village – located in Area C which comprises about 60 per cent of the West Bank – but where only 5 per cent of the current West Bank Arab population live.
Area C has remained  under the total administrative and security control of Israel for the last 45 years.
All the Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank have been established in Area C.
Allocation of sovereignty in Area C was to be determined in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap of 2002.

Those negotiations have hit a brick wall with the continuing refusal of the Palestinian Authority to resume such negotiations unless Israel places a total ban on further building in the West Bank for the duration of those negotiations.

The Governor of Hebron, Kamel Hamid, has highlighted Susiya’s problems in an open letter – stating

"I would like to draw your attention to the intention of the Israeli authorities to demolish Khirbet Susiya, located south of the town of Yatta in Hebron Governorate. The so-called Israeli “Civil Administration” has distributed final demolition orders on June 12, 2012, to 51 structures in the Khirbet while giving the population only 3 days to object to the decision. The demolition will devastate the lives of at least 160 Palestinians including 60 children. The lawyers of the Palestinian residents of the Khirbet, Rabbis for Human Rights, managed to get a freeze on the demolition for a period of 14 days from the Civil Administration only to find the decision reversed on June 17, 2012."

Susiya has been the subject of many court cases before Israel’s High Court of Justice.

A brief – but incomplete – summary was presented to the Senate of the Australian Parliament by Senator Lee Rhiannon on 26 June 2012:

"Since 1990 there have been a series of demolitions in Susiya and the Israeli authorities have never approved a master plan for Susiya, leaving residents unable to obtain permits for construction. In 2001 all structures were demolished and the residents were forcibly evicted. The residents’ appeal to the High Court of Justice against the action of the Israeli authorities was successful, allowing them to return to their land. In 2011 Susiya had four waves of demolition and, in 2012, the Israeli administration issued a new round of demolition orders."

Surprisingly both the Hebron Governor and Senator Rhiannon fail to mention the current proceedings before the High Court of Justice relating to Susiya and the Court’s decision on 7 June 2012 in relation to the future conduct of those proceedings.

Foreign Governments and aid donors have been pouring millions of dollars into Susiya – despite its long running legal battles and  the continuing uncertainty of tenure for its inhabitants.

Senator Lee Rhiannon told  the Australian Senate:

"Right now many projects financed by overseas aid programs in Susiya in the West Bank are under threat from demolition orders issued by the Israeli civil administration. This includes an AusAID funded health clinic constructed through ActionAid’s local partners. Other projects at risk include a dairy production facility supported by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the construction of four residential shelters funded with assistance from GVC, an Italian NGO; three animal shelters built in partnership with Save the Children UK and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees; and two water cisterns funded by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Organisation and Action Against Hunger. Other aid projects which could be demolished include a community centre and a structure used to store sheep’s milk prior to sale, as well as granaries and shelters for sheep and chickens."

Why would these foreign donors risk spending so much money in an area  where they could possibly see the small population living there be declared as squatters and ordered by the Courts to move?  Why commit internationally solicited aid funds to projects where no building approvals have been granted?

Would this money not be better employed in projects throughout the remaining 40 per cent of the West Bank where 95 per cent of the Arab population live under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority or even in Area C where master plans for Arab villages have been approved by Israel?

The answer can be found in the following statement by the Rabbis For Human Rights:

'At first blush, it may seem that this is "only" about the threat to demolish the entire village of Susya, the homes of these simple cave dwellers of the South Hebron Hills. However, the truth is that the results will affect the fate of hundreds of Palestinian homes throughout the Occupied Territories, perhaps thousands. The outcome may well have an effect on our major appeal to return planning authority for Palestinian communities in Area C to Palestinian hands.'

The erection of illegal Arab structures has gathered pace in Area C as the Palestinian Authority pursues a policy of encouraging illegal land grabs, settlement and building on state lands in Area C.

Such land theft  has consequences – and the Courts are increasingly being approached  to have such activity declared illegal.

Illegal settlement – by either Arabs or Jews – should be regarded with equal severity.

Such conduct can be sought to be justified in the court of public opinion by organized demonstrations in front of demolished shelters using disputed facts – all dutifully recorded on television news and in sensational headlines around the world – or resolved  by the Israeli courts.

Access to the Israeli Court system by Arab residents of the West Bank  has always been available using the services of well funded and well resourced organizations such as Rabbis For Human Rights – whose donors include:.

• Caritas Belgium
• Church of Scotland
• Church of Sweden
• European Commission
• Evangelical Church– Starkenburg West
• Ford Foundation
• New Israel Fund
• Norwegian Church
• Swedish Church

Rabbis For Human Rights are quite blunt and unapologetic as to the outcomes they are seeking in taking up the cudgels in Susiya to try and extend Palestinian Authority influence and control in Area C. They – and foreign governments and aid donors – should let the Court rule on the disputes in Susiya  and indicate their readiness to abide by the Court’s decisions.

Playing politics by building illegal structures that could face demolition is a reckless mismanagement of aid funds.

Foreign governments and aid donors should not try to pretend that their interest in Susiya is purely humanitarian. It clearly is not.'

Crossposted from here

Breaking News: Methodist Ministers React To Pro-Israel Jewish Criticism

Remember how I drew attention, a couple of posts ago, to a duo of blogging Methodist ministers' extraordinary joint denunciation of their pro-Israel Jewish critics? A denunciation that remains inexplicable?

Well, the ministers have now reacted to the pearls of wisdom I cast:

Another Methodist minister, who has a blog of his own, adds:

The above testimony to Christian charity, concern for Jewish-Christian relations, sensitivity towards the mainstream Jewish position regarding Israel, and (vide my post) compassion for Christians suffering the most heinous Islamic persecution abroad, is taken from here

US State Department Questioned Regarding Israel's Omission From Anti-Terrorism Summit

Last year, under the leadership of the United States, the Global Counterterrorism Forum (which met in Istanbul this June) was formed under the leadership of the United States, to "provide a unique platform for senior [counterterrorism] policymakers and experts from key partners in different regions to share key insights and best practices".

Apparently to placate co-chair Turkey, Israel was omitted from membership of this forum, which in addition to Turkey and the United States, comprises Algeria, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom (where, incidentally, a planned Al-Quaeda terrorist plot against London Jewish targets has just been revealed).

The Obama government promised that a means would be found to include Israel, yet Israel still awaits inclusion.

Here's what the State Department said early last month:

Question: Has Israel requested membership to the Global Counterterrorism Forum? Has the United States, as a co-host of the forum, sought to get Israel involved?

Answer: Our idea with the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) was to bring together a limited number of traditional donors, front line states, and emerging powers develop a more robust, yet representative, counterterrorism capacity-building platform. A number of our close partners with considerable experience countering and preventing terrorism are not included among the GCTF’s founding members.

We have discussed the GCTF and ways to involve Israel in its activities on a number of occasions, and are committed to making this happen.

Senators Joseph Lieberman and Mark Kirk wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing concern about

"the absence of our ally, Israel, from the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), which you attended in Istanbul last week….

 As you know, there are few countries in the world that have suffered more from terrorism than Israel, and few governments that have more experience combatting this threat…

 We look forward to hearing from you about whether the Administration shares our views that Israel rightfully belongs as a full participant in the GCTF, and what, if any, steps you are prepared to take to right this wrongful omission."

And now Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has written to Secretary Clinton:

 "I am well aware that Turkey, one of the co-chairman of the Forum is in opposition to an Israeli presence, but with all due respect to Turkey or any other country, the Forum was created by the United States and Israel is amongst the United States’ most reliable and trusted allies.

…[H]aving a Global Counterterrorism Forum and not including Israel, is like having a global technology conference and excluding the United States of America. There is no one with more experience at combatting terrorism or educating civilians about it, than the State of Israel. I think the time has come for the United States to make it very clear why Israel continues to be excluded.“

Read more here and here

"D'You Wear A Swastika?": Our Old Friend In A Fix (video)

Here's our old friend from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstrating, this time not in Dublin but in London, against the Steinmetz "Blood Diamond" on display in the Tower of London.

Just after our old friend, hardly the picture of sartorial elegance equal to the occasion, enters the splendid foyer of De Beers to attempt to deliver a letter demanding that the diamond be removed from the Tower, he's confronted outside by a clearly irate supporter of the Zionist Entity.

This black-clad supporter, as beefy as our old friend is lean, raises the subject of the massacre of Israelis, to which he receives the dismissive response "Israelis are war criminals ...".

For all his apparent loquacity, our old friend seems decidedly reluctant to engage with this guy, who tells him "You're a disgrace, and evil" and a few other things besides.

Our old friend and his pals are soon yelling in stentorian tones outside De Beers, and purporting to speak in the name of the "People of England".  Before that, holding placards in Arabic as well as in English, they seem to have made friends with a lady in a hijab as well as with a group of Moroccan passers-by.  The video ends with footage of their huge Israel-demonising banner unfurled by the Statue of Eros in Piccadilly Circus.

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)