THE ROYALS’ ISRAEL ‘BOYCOTT’ CAUSES UPSET AMONG BRITAIN’S JEWS
“Leaked email reveals royal rebuff on Israel” ( JC, November 16). So what’s new?
Many years ago, my wife was told by the then Israeli ambassador that Elizabeth the Queen Mother would dearly have loved to visit Israel, but that this was vetoed by the Foreign Office. Nothing has changed in the meantime, nor is likely to change.
The royal boycott is an affront to all British Jews, for whom Israel is and always has been the focus of their religious faith. Ernest G Kolman Oldfield Lane North, Greenford, Middlesex
Prince Charles’s declared wish in 1994 to be “Defender of Faiths” rather than “Defender of the Faith” never looked very plausible.
Then we learned that his son Harry thought it perfectly acceptable to go to a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi.
Now we learn that a visit to Israel by the Prince is viewed by his aides as unacceptable because of the risk that he might somehow be corralled into a PR campaign for Israel “to help burnish its international image”. Such concerns do not seem to have stopped him visiting many other countries — in 2006 alone the USA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan.
It’s no wonder that there is a thriving campaign for an elected head of state. Jonathan Hoffman firstname.lastname@example.org
The email from Clive Alderton, a Foreign Office official seconded to Clarence House, provides clear proof, if any such were needed, of the deepseated antagonism towards Israel within the Foreign Office. It also goes a long way to explaining why Islamicsourced antisemitism has been able to flourish unchecked within this country. Geoff Jacobs email@example.com
The late and much-missed John Paul II paid a state visit to Israel. He had no fears of being used to “burnish Israel’s international image.” His visit was a great success, and Catholics proudly show it in videos of his life and ministry.
Why is Prince Charles different? Andrew M Rosemarine firstname.lastname@example.org
The royal family is not the government, thank goodness, or the anti-Israel feeling in Prince Charles’s office might be a more serious issue. However, the majority of Britons are probably influenced by the actions of the Queen and her family, and actions often speak louder than words.
The Windsors give lavish entertainments to the Saudis, forgetting that this regime would most likely behead some of the Windsor women for their divorces, clothing, sexuality, the fact that they drive cars etc, if they were Saudi women. Then the Windsor family refuses to make official visits to Israel because to do so would upset the Saudi and other murderous regimes. I’m afraid there’s only one spin to be put on this — hypocrisy; and one word to explain it -— oil. It’s possible that Charles doesn’t share the views of the congenital toadies who run his office. If he does not, then he should say so. Otherwise it might be a good idea, in the future, if all Jews in Britain, when offered a title, refused it. Joan Stuchner Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Following Israel’s resounding 2-1 defeat of Russia with all the benefits that brings to England’s sporting morale and indirectly to the country’s economy, isn’t a royal visit the least that Israel is owed by way of thanks? Or is the email reproduced on the front page of last week’s JC the last word on the subject? Edward Black Hampstead Way, London NW11
Why should Israel expect Prince Charles to visit Jerusalem when its own government is in such a hurry to give it away? Sol Unsdorfer email@example.com
What a disgraceful leading article on the front page this week. Why should Prince Charles go to such a controversial part of the world? I would advise him against it.
Also, I find very embarrassing your How Jewish Is...? column. June Randall firstname.lastname@example.org