Veiling Islam's Sexism: What the BBC tells the kids

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Dhimmified for Oil: Ffion Jenkins (Mrs William Hague)

Some say that just as England once colonized the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, and the Far East that now, the favor is being returned; the Islamic world is giving the colonizing Mother Country a taste of its own well deserved medicine.

Tragically, this means that infidel women are sexual prey; that their rape, sexual harassment, and sexual slavery is being done quite openly, publicly--just as it is done in the Muslim world....

Will Britain, will all Europe, fight to remain Western countries? Or, hoisted on their own petard of political correctness, will they simply become vassal states of Islam?'

From BBC hack Paul Danahar's Twitter page

And in Britain no entity is more politically correct, more ready to bang the drum for Islam, than the national broadcaster, dear old "Auntie", the BBC.

Among the various non-broadcasting initiatives that the feather-bedded BBC provides with all the money it accrues from hapless licence-payers is a "service" called BBC Bitesize, in which it provides teenagers with information connected with exams.

Among these Bitesize portions are topics related to "Religious Studies". And within that range, the attitudes of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism (in that order) towards "Prejudice and Discrimination" are described.

Under the heading "Inequality in the Christian Church", the British national broadcaster has absolutely no qualms about telling the kids (emphasis added):

Many people think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

The teaching of St Paul is often quoted to support the way some churches today treat women. From the extracts below, it would seem that he believed that the role of women was different to that of men, and secondary to it.

St Paul said:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7

Jesus, however, always showed by his actions that he respected and valued women. He included them among his closest companions, and sometimes went against the conventions of his time which kept men and women apart. Jesus made it clear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan how his followers should treat people – he made no distinction between men and women.

Some Christian denominations have recently begun to allow women to be priests or ministers (eg, Church of England and the Methodist church). Some remain opposed to this (eg, the Roman Catholic Church). Some Christians believe that women are second to men, that men should lead and women should follow (see 1 Timothy 2:8–15).

So although Christianity teaches that everyone should be equal and should be treated the same, this doesn't always happen.

"Fair enough," I hear you say. "That's an accurate and objective summary."

How about this, regarding  "Attitudes to women in Judaism" (emphasis added)?:

"The Tenakh (Jewish Bible) and the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara collected together) describe different roles for men and women.

Traditionally women have a sacred role - they bear children, run the home and take responsibility for their children’s Jewish upbringing. The woman passes on Jewish values and it is because of the mother’s Jewish faith (not the father’s) that a child is born Jewish.

While Jewish law excuses women from some religious duties (eg, they don’t have to wear the tzizit and tefillin) there are some duties that women are obliged to carry out like the lighting the Shabbat candles. (Shabbat is the day of spiritual renewal and rest commencing at sunset on Friday, terminating at nightfall on Saturday.)

Some people say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodox services and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewish women today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men and choose to combine a career with family responsibilities.

Progressive Jews (which includes Jews of both liberal and reform traditions) think that this attitude is wrong and treat women equally in all respects, so they too can become rabbis (Jewish teacher) if they choose to do so."

 Okay so far?

On the basis of the above, we are entitled to expect that BBC Bitesize will tell the kids a little of the sexism inherent in Islam.

However, in sections such as Marriage and Divorce it avoids the sexist bits, and this is what we find, in the section "Islam: prejudice and discrimination" under the heading "Attitudes towards women":

 "Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for a woman to look after the home and family.

Some of these differences and responsibilities are mentioned in the following words from the Qur’an:

O Prophet, direct thy wives and daughters and the women of the believers that they should pull down their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. This will make it possible for them to be distinguished so that they will not be molested. Surah 33:59

Wives have rights corresponding to those which the husbands have, in equitable reciprocity, though, in certain situations men would have the final word and would thus enjoy a preference. Surah 2:229

Men are appointed guardians over women, because of that in respect of which Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend of their wealth. Surah 4:35

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said: Paradise lies at the feet of your mother. (Sunan An-Nasa’i)"

Nice little bit of propaganda there, huh?  Not one honest mention of Islam's sexism, let alone the misogyny that that infuses it and makes Saul of Tarsus/St Paul look like a Sensitive New Age guy in comparison.

In reality, this is what UK Islam's attitude to women looks like (as set out in this important British document of 2012, of which the BBC, if it's worth its salt the enormous amount of public money it gathers via a compulsory poll tax cannot be ignorant).

Note the testimony regarding the oppression of women in Islamic law as set out by female victims of sharia courts operating in Britain and by conultants including such scholars of Islam as the Australian Dr Mark Durie.

See, for instance, this:

"Women’s rights are compromised by the operation of Sharia law in the UK. Sharia Councils often permit polygamy. Men have multiple Nikahs (Muslim marriages) and have multiple wives to gain sex and/or money. Polygamy is not about protecting women.

If women marry through an Imam and they eventually have a problem with their marriage, they will be forced to go back to an Imam and discuss the problem; these women feel intimidated. Many women are unable to discuss their personal issues with an Imam; they feel embarrassed and do not feel comfortable talking to a total stranger about personal issues.

I am in contact with large numbers of women who have a language barrier. They are not in contact with the wider community and they have no understanding of the laws available to them. Instead they believe the lies that their husbands tell them. These women, unable to speak English, are tied to unhappy marriages and have no way of accessing their rights.

If a legal dispute arises they go to a Sharia Council and consult an Imam, they are not aware of the English legal system, nor are they ever informed of their rights under English laws.

Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution that they suffered in their home country. They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The Government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.

For these reasons I am totally against Sharia law in the UK. The law should not be left to religious men to manipulate women in a democratic state. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that everyone in the UK submits to the law equally. I am worried because the Government and people outside the Muslim community are frightened to address sensitive issues like Sharia law, when the wellbeing of the majority is more important that the sensitivity of the minority....

 Shaikh Haitham al-Haddad is a member of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Sharia Council ‘judge’ in London. In a speech entitled "Why Marriages Fail" Shaikh a-Haddad made the following observation: "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves. Even the father of the daughter who is married to the man, he should not ask his daughter why you have been beaten or hit by your husband".

 (Note also this statement:  "People argue that Sharia Councils should be allowed to operate in Britain because Britain allows Beth Din systems, but Jewish Law does not affect mainstream life as much as Sharia Law which aims to control rather than simply affect mainstream life".  Emphasis added)

As Professor Dennis MacEoin, another very respected expert, points out in "Sharia Law or One Law for All?", a paper for the Civitas thinktank in 2009:

"a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam (such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man);  polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is legal: a man may divorce his wife without telling her about it, provided he does not seek to sleep with her; a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for that); a woman may not stay with her husband if he leaves Islam; non-Muslims may be deprived of their share in an inheritance; a divorce does not require witnesses (a man may divorce his wife and send her away even if no one else knows about it); re-marriage requires the wife to marry, have sex with, and be divorced by another man; a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce (which may be initiated arbitrarily by her husband); sharia law must override the judgements of British courts; rights of child custody may differ from those in UK law; taking up residence in a non-Muslim country except for limited reasons is forbidden;  taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; it is undesirable to rent an apartment belonging to a Christian church; a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia; employment by driving a taxi is prohibited; it is allowable to be a police officer, provided one is not called upon to do anything contrary to the sharia; women are restricted in leaving their homes and driving cars; an adult woman may not marry anyone she chooses; sharia law of legitimacy contradicts the Legitimacy Act 1976;  a woman may not leave her home without her husband's consent (a restriction that may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden;  a man may coerce his wife to have sex; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl);  a civil marriage may be considered invalid;  sharia law takes priority over secular law (for example, a wife may not divorce her husband in a civil court); fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty;  recommendation of severe punishments for homosexuals;  a woman's recourse to fertility treatment is discouraged;  a woman cannot marry without the presence and permission of a male guardian (wali); if a woman's 'idda (three months, to determine whether or not she is pregnant) has expired and she no longer has marital relations with her husband, he is excused alimony payments;  an illegitimate child may not inherit from his/her father."

It would be unreasonable to expect a megillah on the BBC Bitesize website regarding Islam's sexist attitude to women, but we are entitled to honesty, to at least some indication of how Islam disadvantages females.

So how is the BBC's whitewashing of Islam in its attitude towards women to be explained?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a Muslim, Aaquil Ahmed, is the BBC's Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion and Ethics?

 Or is it because the left-liberals who dominate Al Beeb despise the Judeo-Christian heritage and save their barbs for that?

 Or is it due to a combination of both?

 Here, by the way, is what some American Muslims replied when asked whether Sharia should  supersede the US Constitution:

(hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Meanwhile, in a must-read article in the current Quadrant, Australia's conservative intellectual magazine, regarding the secularised and myopic West's facilitation of Islamic dreams of hegemony, Jim Campbell notes:

"Perhaps the most dangerous misconception that has gained some traction is the notion that Islamic and Christian values, and by default secular democratic values, are similar. This was suggested recently by a professor of religious studies no less, and on the ABC’s Q&A program [analogous to the BBC's Question Time] by a Muslim guest.

 The most astonishing aspect was not the theological invalidity of the statements, but that no member of the panel or of the audience sought to take issue with the assertion. That silence said a lot about Australia’s spiritual immaturity, as nothing could be further from the truth, as the precepts of Islam and Christianity are diametric opposites. Islam pits Muslims against non-Muslims; Christianity instructs followers to love their neighbors as themselves

 Islam’s aim is the subjugation of all to the God of the Qur’an; Christianity asks people to consider the claims of the God of the Bible and make personal decisions. Islam offers salvation through the coercive performance of “good deeds”; Christianity’s salvation comes through faith in promises of the God of the Bible.

 Are these differences important? They should be for the West, whose secular democracy is founded on the precepts of the Bible. On this issue the West is myopic behind its rose-coloured glasses."

Goes quite a way to explaining Al Beeb's stance, I reckon.

"Will These Brain-Washed Youngsters Ever Accept The Reality of a Jewish State?" (videos)

That's the question posed by Michael Kuttner, a Kiwi oleh, in pointing out the chilling similarities berween the indoctrination of German youth by the Nazis and the indoctrination of Palestinian Arab youth by Hamas as seen in these videos, each of ten minutes' duration:

"Can any sensible person fail to recognize the similarities? Can any sane individual still believe that this new generation is going to transform into democratic loving adults who will live in peace, tolerance and harmony with Jews? Will these brain washed youngsters ever accept the reality of a Jewish State?"

Read all of Michael Kuttner's article here

Meanwhile:

And more in-yer-face Islamic antisemitism, this time from Qatar:

To quote the uploader and translator, Memri.org:

'Animated videos posted on the Internet encourage children to hate Jews. The videos were produced as educational software for "Boys and Girls," the children's section of the Qatari government-owned Internet portal Islamweb.net. A large number of the portal's educational videos were posted on various YouTube accounts. In one video, called "Palestine Is Free," animated figures of children discuss the Jews and their characteristics. "The Jews are cowards," one boy says. "I hate the Jews so much because they cursed Allah." The girl concurs that the Jews are "cowards," adding that they "killed many prophets." After the children vow to fight and vanquish the Jews, the viewers are invited in engage in an activity of identifying Jewish characteristics. In another video, titled "Our Duty towards Gaza," the children are told that the Jews are "criminals," who mercilessly kill Muslims in Gaza. The animated characters recommend praying for Allah to wreak vengeance upon the Jews. At the end of the video, the children are asked to engage in an activity of identifying ways to support Gaza. Both videos were posted on the Internet on December 17, 2015.'

 Incidentally, a new article by the courageous Khaled Abu Toameh here

David Singer: Palestine – Trump Must Blow His Own Trumpet With Greater Clarity

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

One of the world's greatest negotiators  – Donald Trump – has walked straight into a political minefield when telling the GOP presidential debate in Miami last Thursday how he would resolve the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict: 

"I will tell you, I think if we’re ever going to negotiate a peace settlement … I think it would be more helpful as a negotiator, if I go in and say I’m pro-Israel, but at least have the other side know I’m somewhat neutral to them so that we can maybe get a deal done” 

How can Trump be "somewhat neutral" to the "other side"?

Who indeed does Trump consider to be "the other side"?

If the "other side" is the PLO, Trump would have to renege on the  following non-neutral positions adopted by his predecessor President Obama that any new Palestinian Arab state:

 1. Be non-militarised

 2. Recognise Israel as the Jewish State

Trump is certainly not bound by Obama's position on these contentious issues, and abandoning them would certainly be open to him.

Israel however will not forego these demands which It has consistently stipulated during the last eight years are essential pre-requisites for advancing any possible settlement of the conflict.

The only result of Trump's neutrality on Obama's position will see any peace settlement between Israel and the PLO becoming impossible to achieve.

Trump would also need to shred commitments binding America made by the last Republican President – George W Bush – to Israel on 14 April 2004.

These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress 407:9. They were given to support Israel's unilateral disengagement and total evacuation from Gaza - and included:

1. Like Obama - committing to Israel's well being as a Jewish State

2. Settling Palestinian Arab refugees in any new Palestinian Arab State rather than in Israel.

3. Israel having secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

4. Recognition it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

Obama tried to downplay his obligation to uphold these American commitments but still was unable to broker an Israel-PLO agreement. Any attempt by Trump to follow in Obama's footsteps would similarly fail.

More seriously however it would signal a gross betrayal by a Republican president of a former Republican president's Congress-endorsed commitments to a loyal friend and ally that would send America's reputation and integrity for honouring commitments made by it to other nations quickly sinking to rock bottom.

Rubio has already agreed to honour these Bush commitments.  Trump's stated neutrality position seems to indicate he might not.

Trump's neutrality could be construed quite differently however if the "other side" is not the PLO.

Direct negotiations between Jordan, Egypt and Israel to replace the moribund Israel-PLO negotiations could allow Trump to adopt a "somewhat neutral" stance because Israel has had signed peace agreements with Egypt since 1979 and Jordan since 1994.

Peace is far easier to accomplish with states already at peace with each other than with a hostile non-State group pledged to destroy the other party to the negotiations.

CNN and Fox's blanket coverage of the primaries over the coming weeks gives those interviewing Trump ample opportunities to get him to explain how he hopes to become "somewhat neutral" and with whom.

The interviewers may need to be "somewhat confrontational" in their questioning.

Trump needs to blow his own trumpet with greater clarity by providing more detail on how he hopes to succeed where previous presidents have embarrassingly failed.

"The Millionaires & Billionaires of Zionist Persuasion ... Within The Ruling Classes" (video)

Here, in all its breath-taking repugnance, is an illustration from deep with the British Labour Party of the vile and vicious antisemitism that my previous post touches upon.

This odious individual trying to defend his antisemitism to the BBC's Andrew Neil on the "Daily Politics" show, is Old Trot Gerry ("The Jewish Question")  Downing, a revolutionary socialist from London via Ireland who has now been expelled by the Labour Party, in which he was an activist. (See here and here)

Just a taste of the obscene antisemitism to be seen on this creep's Twitter page

Defiant and unashamed, he says he will appeal the decision to expel him.

 As a prominent left-leaning British Zionist and academic observes on Facebook:

"Gerry Downing does not believe anything different from a huge number of Labour members including the leader; that the antisemitism and violence of Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS are fundamentally defensive against the agressive systemic global violence of Zionism and imperialism. It is an entirely standard worldview in the UK.This is not of course to defend it, but to illustrate the depths of the problem."

 

"BDS is Nothing Less than a Declaration of Economic War against the Jewish People"

"BDS is antisemitism pure and simple...."

A truly excellent, even uplifting, speech this past week by Aussie federal Liberal MP Michael Sukkar (a Roman Catholic of Lebanese and Norwegian parentage):

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

"It is with some dismay that I rise today to acknowledge that 2016 marks 15 years since the seeds of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, also known as BDS, began against Israel at the World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001. What passes for left-wing thought in our day and age has never been noted for coherent logic or factual accuracy. Nowhere are these leftist moral and intellectual failings more obvious than on the question of Israel in general and on the BDS campaign against the only democracy in the Middle East.

The member for Fremantle [Melissa Parke], who, I must say, made my day with her recent announcement of her departure from this place, exemplifies the Left’s noxious intellectual bankruptcy on matters Middle Eastern. By hitching her wagon to the anti-Israel BDS she exemplified how those who claim the rubric of progressive are actually quite oppressive when it comes to the Jewish People.

Ah, so ...

Make no mistake, BDS s nothing more than a declaration of economic war against the Jewish people. We have all seen the BDS causes and the antisemitic ugliness. We saw this on the streets in mob-scene blockades of Jewish owned businesses in Melbourne. We have also seen BDS in all of its genocidal ugliness when its founder, the Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, made it clear that the movement would settle for nothing less than the elimination of Israel as we know it.

Barghouti [see, e,g. here] makes no bones about his ultimate objective. He declared in 2014:

“Definitely, most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”

Re Israeli General Benny Gantz; on this site

It is clear that all those who support BDS, including the member for Fremantle, would grant the right of national self-determination to the Palestinian people but are determined to deny that right to the Jewish People.

Support for the BDS program, at the very time we watch the rest of the Middle East sink into the bloody abyss of inter-ethnic and interfaith conflict, can only be explained by two possibilities. Either the member for Fremantle and her BDS buddies are afflicted by a terminal state of delusion or a more ancient and insidious bigotry lurks beneath their fine words and lofty proclamations.

Proponents of BDS like to claim that they hold the moral high ground, but their uncritical endorsement of Barghouti and others like him puts them in very dubious company indeed. It is a strange bedfellows relationship when feminists and socialists put themselves in league with the sharia-law-advocating Jihadi fanatics of Hamas. In fact, just a few days ago in Gaza a senior Hamas commander, Mahmoud Ishtiwi, was tortured and executed because he was gay. According to the New York Times, the Hamas minister for defence: …is harsher than other leaders—he wants his army to be pure.

But I guess disagreements over the status of women and gay rights pale by comparison to the fundamental issue that unites the so-called progressive left and the ultraconservative sharia-compliant Islamic right—mutual hatred of the Jewish State.

The Palestinian constitution declares that a future Palestine will be an explicitly ethnic Arab state whose legal code will be founded upon Islamic sharia law. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has vowed it will be a Jew-free country, declaring he ‘won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli’ within its borders.

I will conclude with a simple observation that BDS is antisemitism pure and simple. It is antisemitic because it seeks to deny to the Jewish people the same rights of national self-determination that it supports for the Palestinians. BDS is also antisemitic because it supports the cause of a Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews. It is for these reasons that BDS has been categorically rejected by the Australian People, who have consigned this movement to the extreme margins of our society."   [Emphasis added]

  More of that ilk regarding BDS:

Meanwhile, in the dear old Motherland:

David Collier has a good post about this UCL iniquity here

More Travels in Eurabia (videos)

More of what Canadian broadcaster Ezra Levant found in Eurabia recently:

Top video:
'Meet “the hero of Cologne” — and other immigrants who love Europe's culture of freedom.'

Bottom video:
'Political dissidents across Europe are fighting back in the midst of the mass Muslim migration that is threatening to change their continent. I'll show you what they said, and tell you why it matters.'

"In Public, Bethlehem Christians Laud Their Happy Coexistence ..."

We're used to slurs against Israel regarding the shrinking Christian population of Bethlehem.

(The accompanying vile pictures/posts are  recent posts by members of Facebook group Christian Friends of Palestine, by the way.)

So it's good to come across a recent article by Robert Nicholson, who sets the record straight.  He writes, inter alia:

'In 1990, Christians made up a majority of Bethlehem's residents; today they make up only 15%. Some say Israel is the reason for the decline, but then why is the Muslim population of Bethlehem growing when both sectors face the same exact set of circumstances? Jewish sovereignty does not, ipso facto, lead to Christian emigration.

Inside Israel, the Christian population has been growing steadily for decades. The decrease of Christians inside the Palestinian territories is due more to rising Islamism and bad governance by the Palestinian Authority. 

It is no coincidence that Bethlehem was mostly Christian until the 1990s. Until then, Bethlehem was ruled directly by Israel. Palestinian Christians (and Muslims) could travel freely inside Israel, visit the beach, and shop in Jewish neighborhoods. That all changed in the mid-1990s when Israel agreed to let the PLO rule parts of the West Bank and Gaza under the Oslo Accords.

 The Palestinian Authority is, by its own constitution, an Islamic state that embodies the principles of shari'a, and Christians are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. It is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity. Moreover, living as a Christian, one is constantly reminded that he or she is not a member of the majority culture.

 In public, Bethlehem Christians laud their happy coexistence with their Muslim neighbors. They don't have a choice. They are hostages inside their own city.'

Read the entire article here

Two more current nasties from Christian Friends of Palestine members illustrative of the antisemitism that impels many of them.

(That Bruckner dame's incorrigible.)

WCC mischief here

And, with regard to the terrible plight of Middle Eastern Christians generally:

To quote the uploader of that trailer:

"Faithkeepers is an upcoming documentary film about the violent persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.

The film features exclusive footage and testimonials of Christians, Baha’i, Yazidis, Jews, and other minority refugees, and a historical context of the persecution in the region."