The Jewish Chronicle - - COMMENT&ANALYSIS -

“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 jonathan.hoff­man@bt­in­ter­

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 kfir163@ya­

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 a@rose­ma­

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

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 jran­dall100@hot­

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.