Wednesday, 8 July 2026

The Long Commute

The late Ruth Ellis’s sentence of death has been commuted to life imprisonment. I can’t. Not in this heat. I just can’t.

Still, it is good to see the King plodding on. As The Honourable Fiona Watson, George Cottrell’s mother was romantically involved with the then Prince Charles. Then a glamour model, she has more recently given at least three quarters of a million pounds to Reform UK, the party of Bonnie Blue. I can’t. Not in this heat. I just can’t.

One of His Majesty’s Counsellors of State has publicly accused one of His Majesty’s Judges of a “whitewash”, but Prince Harry, for it is he, has possibly invalidated the £14.1 million insurance policy that he shared with six other claimants, since the fifth in line to the Throne has arguably perjured himself. I can’t. Not in this heat. I just can’t.

And Prince Harry was previously known for arguing with a bin, which is how Nigel Farage intends to spend the coming weeks. Whatever Harry may call the King, or indeed the bin, Cottrell calls Farage “Daddy”. I can’t. Not in this heat. I just can’t.

All Over Bar The Counting?

Stuart Drummond, H'Angus the Monkey, was the only ever directly elected Mayor of Hartlepool. At the conclusion of his third term, the position was abolished. But you cannot abolish the position of MP for Clacton. Jonathan Harvey, Count Binface, could hold that for decades.

Poor Nigel Farage. His best case scenario is that he will turn out to be marginally more popular than a man with a bin on his head. His second best would be to lose to the bin by fewer than the number of votes for Laurence Fox, or the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, or both.

Tuesday, 7 July 2026

Legitimately Sourced?

Of those who have today lost in court to the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, only Elton John and David Furnish could pay even an equal share of the costs. In fact, they could pay the lot, although that would reduce their fortune by somewhere between eight and 10 per cent. But they and everyone else need to cut all ties to Prince Harry, who submitted a witness statement, ostensibly by the private investigator Gavin Burrows, bearing a forged signature. That is serious.

Also this afternoon, Nigel Farage has likewise cited the privacy of his family. I do not recall his outrage when the media besieged Jeremy Corbyn's home, but Farage should tell Christopher Harborne and George Cottrell to pay for the Clacton by-election, since its purpose is to confirm their man in his position against the sources of the leaks against him, who are inside Reform UK, who want to challenge him for the Leadership, and who have plenty more information to reveal.

Update at 3:49pm: Reform has offered to pay for the Clacton by-election. Now what will Prince Harry, who has made much of his anti-racist credentials, be doing for Doreen Lawrence? The Daily Mail did plenty for her before he lured her away.

The Road Ahead

Keir Starmer inspires righteous revulsion when he claims that his proudest achievement was the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, which finally happened two years after he had withdrawn the whip from seven MPs because they had voted for nothing more than such an amendment to the Humble Address, and when that amendment had been defeated, then they had voted with the Government.

But when Starmer suggests that the Labour victories of 1945, 1997 and 2024 had been the only three ever, then he does not mean anything by it. He is just ignorant. Although, if anything, that is even worse. So much for all those years on the Executive Committee of the Fabian Society, which published his epoch-making 2021 programme, The Road Ahead. No, nor have I. And no, nor will I.

I always laugh when Hard Rightists go off about the Fabians. They cannot possibly have met any. It is not to that source that we must trace Andy Burnham's desire to ban Virtual Private Networks, or the present Government's plan to force YouTube to promote its trusted news sources, which if they had any self-respect would be affronted at the suggestion that they were trusted by the Government.

If YouTube and other such sites promoted the BBC, then should you not have to pay the licence fee to access them, with no escape since you could not have a VPN? If Twitter is so bad that Lisa Nandy, a close ally and a constituency neighbour of Burnham's, has to withdraw from it not only herself but also her Department of State, the one responsible for media regulation, then why not ban it altogether? Watch those spaces. You will soon be able to watch little or nothing else. Otherwise you might realise that, for example, what was presently going on in Iran was not merely an obsequy comparable to that of Ms Diana Spencer, but very probably the largest gathering in human history. There was never going to be a counterrevolution in Iran.

The European Court of Justice has just outlawed even private, non-commercial reproduction of any content, even football scores or weather reports, from RT or Sputnik, and this is one of the many areas in which Britain has never really quite left the EU. Off our own bat, we are enacting the National Security (State Threats) Bill, which would imprison journalists who had so much as reported figures published by countries on the naughty step, possibly including even the China that we allowed to buy pretty much anything it wanted, even schools. And we are set to hand over a major piece of our cultural infrastructure to the foreign behemoth that is Comcast. Talk about a satellite state.

Yet even Nigel Farage now demands adherence to "Leveson", and the rest of the Right sold the pass when it gave the Government the power to decide who might or might not own a newspaper, a power that the present Government has used because that is how it goes: eventually, the other lot gets back in, exercising the powers that you had taken for yourselves. But since we are here. Only £1.6 billion for ITV's "broadcasting and streaming arm"? The split between that and "ITV Studios" has turned out as well as the NHS internal market, or the split between fiscal policy and monetary policy, or the split between the Royal Mail and the Post Office, or the split between the trains and the track. The one that we can never have is the one that we desperately need, between investment banking and retail banking. But since we are here, it is beholden on the Government to keep free-to-air at least everything that was made by ITV Studios, and to save ITN. Of course, if the rules about impartiality truly existed, then there would be no need to prevent ITN's synergy into Sky News. But since we are here.

Quality of Scrutiny

Sonia Sodha writes:

The government published its draft conversion practices bill ten days ago. The bill was a manifesto commitment and purports to ban something bad - abusive conversion practices aimed at changing someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity. If only that’s all there was to it.

The reality is that this bill is a Trojan Horse that smuggles in a whole host of dangerous unintended consequences that gender activists could use to pursue people who don’t comply with their ideological demands. First, that men who believe they are women should be treated as women for all purposes in society, and second, that gender-questioning children should be affirmed as trans and funnelled onto irreversible medical pathways that come with lifelong risks for their fertility, bone health and brain development.

Abuse, assault and coercive control are already criminal offences in England and Wales. The key question about this bill remains: what does this bill criminalise that isn’t already criminal and which ought to be criminalised? Its proponents - including government ministers - have not been sufficiently clear on this, a worrying sign of just how badly thought through it is. The research on which the draft bill is based - undertaken or commissioned by third-party campaigning organisations like Stonewall and Galop - is threadbare, and does not come close to establishing the extent to which there is a problem with specific conversion practices that should be, but are not, criminal under existing law. Meanwhile, the bill risks criminalising parents and child professionals who don’t accede to children’s demands to be recognised as the opposite sex, with significant chilling impacts, and in a way that represents an unacceptable incursion by the state into parent-child relationships.

The background

Gender activists who hold the quasi-religious beliefs that everyone has an inner ‘gender identity’; that trans people have a different gender identity from the reality of their sexed bodies; and that it is gender identity rather than the scientific fact of someone’s sex that determines whether or not they are a man or a woman, have long campaigned for a statutory ban on what they term ‘conversion therapy’.

For them, ‘conversion therapy’ goes beyond incredibly harmful - and already criminal - practices to try and change someone’s sexual orientation through assault, abuse or coercive control. It means trying to change someone’s ‘gender identity’. They believe that it is abusive not to immediately recognise or affirm a gender-questioning child who says they have a gender identity associated with the opposite sex. This belief is based on the false assertion that ‘gender identity’ is a fixed characteristic like sexual orientation. In fact, as highlighted by the independent review undertaken by the experienced paediatrician Hilary Cass, gender distress in children and young people - many of whom are autistic or grappling with their emerging same-sex attraction - is likely to be transient and naturally resolve in the majority of cases. Gender activists see the key thrust of the Cass review - that gender-questioning children should be treated through holistic, exploratory therapy that explores the underlying reasons why they may be experiencing distress related to their bodies, rather than just take it as read they will grow up to have a lasting trans identity in adulthood - itself as a form of ‘conversion therapy’. The former chief executive of Stonewall has appeared to openly endorse this view.

You cannot understand the conversion practices bill without understanding these roots. It is primarily a tool for campaigners to smuggle in the means to impose their ideology on the rest of society - an ideology that has harmed women and children through its erosion of sex-based rights - using the criminal law, under the guise of banning things that are already criminal. The pledge to criminally ban ‘conversion therapy’ in the Labour manifesto was made to keep these campaigners happy, not on the basis that there is a significant problem with abusive practices not covered by existing criminal statute. We can see this in the fact that the government’s draft impact assessment neither gives clear examples of conduct that should be but is not already criminal, nor establishes that there is a problem new legislation is needed to address.

1. The bill’s potentially harmful consequences

The bill will hopefully be subject to extensive legal analysis by experienced criminal, family and human rights lawyers in the coming months. But here are just a few problems that have been highlighted since its publication.

The bill seeks to create a new legal definition of gender identity, using criminal statute

The concept of a transgender identity or gender identity is nowhere defined in law; what currently exists is the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ in the Equality Act 2010. The draft bill seeks to create a new legal definition of ‘transgender identity’:
(8) The circumstances in which an individual has a transgender identity include (but are not limited to) where—
(a) the individual is undergoing, is proposing to undergo or has undergone a process of gender reassignment,
(b) the individual is transsexual,
(c) the individual identifies as neither male nor female or as not solely male or female.
This is an incredibly slippery definition. The bill says transgender identity is not limited to the circumstances it lists. So what else does it include? Does it protect people who identify as animals, or inanimate objects, as the wording of 8(c) seems to suggest? Even the often-invoked concept of ‘non-binary’ is elusive is yet to be authoritatively defined in law. This legislation appears to be trying to create a new and unlimited legal definition of what it is to be trans, that goes way beyond the protected characteristic of gender reassignment that can invoke civil liability. How can you create a criminal offence that hinges around attempting to change someone’s ‘transgender identity’ when the relevant law doesn’t even meaningfully define what it means to have such an identity in the first place?

2. The bill adopts a wide definition of abusive conduct, drawn much more broadly than in other criminal legislation

In the bill, the proposed criminal offence of carrying out an abusive conversion practice has three elements:

1. The act must be a ‘conversion practice’. The bill defines this as
any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual with the intention of—
    (a) causing the individual—
      (i) to have or not to have,
      (ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

 a sexual orientation or a particular sexual orientation; or

    (b) causing the individual— 
      (i) to have or not to have,
      (ii) to believe that they have or do not have,

a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.

The conversion practice must constitute ‘abuse’ of an individual:
(5) The question whether conduct amounts to an abuse of the individual is a question of fact to be determined by reference to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the nature of the conduct.
(6) In assessing the nature of the conduct, consideration is to be given (among other things) to the question whether it involves any of the following—
    (a) words or behaviour of a sexual nature;
    (b) violent or threatening words or behaviour;
    (c) controlling or coercive words or behaviour;
    (d) use of economic pressure;
    (e) use of psychological or emotional pressure.
The abusive conversion practice causes serious harm, or serious alarm or distress, to an individual.
(1) A person commits an offence if the person carries out an abusive conversion practice on an individual which causes—
    (a) serious harm to the individual’s physical or mental health, or
    (b) serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities.
As the criminal barrister Dennis Noel Kavanagh has argued, these three elements create an offence that is much broader than the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, which needs to take place in the context of an intimate or family relationship. Controlling and coercive behaviour explicitly excludes parent-child relationships where the child is under 16, reflecting the fact that parental relationships can involve an element of control, and that separate criminal offences already exist for child cruelty and neglect. There is also no requirement for a duty of care to exist between the alleged offender and the individual subject to abusive conversion practices, such as that that would exist between lecturer and student, or that might exist between religious minister and congregant. The bill risks paving the way for any conduct by anyone that

  • denies person X their ‘gender identity’ - a highly-contested belief system, the denial of which is itself a protected belief under the Equality Act, and 
  • involves behaviour that X believes constitutes psychological, emotional or economic pressure, including one-off incidents, and 
  • causes what X regards as serious harm (the legal threshold for conviction under the bill is actual bodily harm) or serious alarm or distress (a lower threshold)

to become the subject of criminal allegations of ‘abusive conservative practices’. Even if the courts were to interpret these broad statutory definitions quite tightly, the bill lends itself to being weaponised by individuals who threaten to report others to the police simply for not respecting their ‘gender identity’. That includes children coached online to weaponise such threats against their own parents who may not wish to buy their child harmful breast binders (financial pressure?) or to treat their child as though they are of the opposite sex, because they believe it is harmful. Unproven criminal allegations can themselves cause huge problems, in the context of someone’s public reputation, family court proceedings, or social services investigations, for example - particularly given the ideological capture of some state agencies in this area.

The bill also creates conversion practice prevention orders intended to operate to prevent conversion therapy practices from taking place; again, such orders could be weaponised against parents simply seeking to act in their child’s best interests by challenging their belief they are born in the wrong body.

And as Dennis has also pointed out, there are unusually no statutory defences to this criminal offence, so it is irrelevant if a parent believes - based on their own understanding of child development - that denying their child certain things might be very much in their best interest. It is hard to see how this criminal offence, broadly interpreted, would be consistent with the right to a private and family life established by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

There is an important carve out for clinical professionals: the provision of health care services will not constitute an abusive conversion practice unless the professional in question acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position. The government says this is the same high threshold that is applied in gross negligence manslaughter, which would provide a significant degree of protection. However, the threat of private prosecutions taken by individuals backed by well-funded campaigning organisations that do not have to meet a public interest test (see below) could impact the extent to which clinicians are willing to work with gender-questioning children and young people. This was a significant risk of any conversion practices bill that was highlighted by Hilary Cass. The bill also creates a separate offence of encouraging or assisting an abusive conversion practice performed outside England and Wales.

3. The bill allows private prosecutions, with no effective safeguard 

Dennis Noel Kavanagh sets out the issues with private prosecutions in this thread. In a nutshell: the default position is that any either-way offence in England and Wales can be prosecuted privately, by an individual or body other than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS faces a public interest test for any prosecutions it might bring. That test does not apply to private prosecutions. Dennis argues the normal practice with politically contentious areas of criminal law, or serious offences, is to include a statutory requirement for private prosecutions to proceed only with permission from the Attorney General or the Director of Private Prosecutions.

Previous drafts of private members’ bills on conversion practices have included a similar safeguard. But the government bill does not. It is easy to see how private prosecutions could be used vexatiously to target and threaten parents, individuals, clinicians and employers who do not abide by the tenets of gender ideology. There are have already been a number of unsuccessful civil claims on the basis that it is discriminatory not to treat someone as though they were of the opposite sex, including men who want the right to use female changing rooms. Given the toxicity of this debate, do we really want to open up the door to potential private criminal prosecutions that would come nowhere near the threshold for public prosecution by the CPS?

Conclusion 

Just as a medical consensus is finally emerging that it has been deeply harmful to treat gender-questioning children as though they have a fixed ‘gender identity’ that necessitates unquestioning affirmation and irreversible medicalisation, a conversion therapy bill has come along that threatens to criminalise parents, teachers and schools, and other adults who are seeking to act in a child’s best interest. It does this by embedding the undefined concept of ‘transgender identity’ into the criminal law, as the basis for a serious criminal offence of trying to change someone’s undefined identity, that could result in imprisonment. 

The bill will also be undoubtedly used to try and prevent people expressing and acting on their protected belief that sex matters in society and law, and that men who identify as women do not have the right to demand to be treated as women in a way that undermines women’s privacy, dignity and safety by eroding their hard-won access to single-sex facilities, services and sports. That a significant number of ministers and MPs could be gullible enough to fall for this ruse tells us a lot about the current quality of law-making and scrutiny.

Monday, 6 July 2026

Hit, Spat At, Beaten

Gosh, even in The Washington Post, Gerry Shih is now permitted to write:

The stone footpath begins at the tomb of King David, revered by Jews, and curves past the room where Christians believe Jesus held the Last Supper. Nearby, the Dormition Abbey towers over a site where many believe Mary slept before being taken to heaven.

Steeped in history and faith, this quiet alleyway in Jerusalem’s Mount Zion was the site of a brazen attack in April, when a Jewish Israeli man from the occupied West Bank shoved a French Catholic nun to the ground and kicked her out of “religious hostility,” according to Israeli police.

The assault, recorded by surveillance cameras in broad daylight, shocked many. But not Nikodemus Schnabel, abbot of the Dormition Abbey, which the nun had visited before she was attacked.

Christians today are “hit, spit at, beaten,” said Schnabel, who has experienced it all — and worse. “There was a video in this case, but you can be sure there are so, so many undocumented things.”

“Believe me,” he sighed, “this is not the case of one lost soul.”

Across the Holy Land, Christians are being targeted by a tide of hostility and violence — attacks that risk drawing the ire of Christians in the United States, including evangelicals who are traditionally among Israel’s most ardent American supporters.

In Jerusalem, Christians say they are routinely harassed by ultra-Orthodox Jews and huddle in fear when Religious Zionists rampage through the Old City, destroying property during their processions.

The alleyway on Mount Zion in Jerusalem where a French nun was attacked by a Jewish man from the occupied West Bank.

Images of the Last Supper are available for purchase outside a door in the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Twenty miles away, in the West Bank’s only predominantly Christian town, Taybeh, the population is dwindling after years of unrelenting attacks and economic pressure from armed Jewish settlers.

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee, an evangelical pastor who has often spoken in Israel’s defense, visited Taybeh last year after settlers allegedly set fire to its most famous landmark, the 1,500-year-old Church of St. George, and denounced what he called “an act of terror,” though he later retracted that statement.

Meanwhile, a string of social media posts from neighboring Lebanon, where Israeli soldiers have recorded themselves smashing Christian icons and defacing churches despite calls for discipline from military commanders, have reinforced a sense that animosity toward Christians is being normalized under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, the most right-wing in Israel’s history.

For decades, Christian monastics and pilgrims, easily identifiable with their robes and crosses, faced harassment in Jerusalem. But the number of incidents nearly doubled from 2023 to 2025 and is on track to reach a new high this year, according to the Rossing Center, an interreligious organization in the city. 

At different times in the past 18 months, the two joint-chief rabbis of Israel, David Yosef and Kalman Ber, have issued statements condemning attacks on Christians as antithetical to Jewish values and as a “severe phenomenon” that “must be eradicated.”

But local and national political leaders have often kept their silence.

After the attack on the nun on April 28, which drew condemnation from the French Consulate, the Israeli Foreign Ministry was one of the few official voices that issued a statement, calling the assault a “shameless act” that contradicted Israel’s founding values of “respect, coexistence and freedom of religion.”

Netanyahu’s office did not comment at the time of the assault but in a statement to The Washington Post said: “We have made it clear that any acts of violence and vandalism of this type will not be tolerated. Those who commit such acts will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” 

When an earlier wave of harassment targeting Christians made headlines in 2017, Itamar Ben Gvir, then a settler activist and lawyer, gave a radio interview to defend spitting at Christian monks and churches as “an ancient Jewish tradition.”

“I don’t think this represents any violation,” said Ben Gvir, who today leads Israeli law enforcement as minister of national security, a post he was given despite having been convicted of supporting a Jewish terrorist organization and inciting racism. “Why do we turn this into a criminal matter?” 

A spokesman for Ben Gvir did not respond to requests seeking comment. 

Francesco Ielpo, the custodian of the Holy Land and a senior Vatican official in Jerusalem, said he feared the growing influence of Israel’s far right will push Christians in Israel and the Palestinian territories to leave, accelerating a pattern of emigration among a prosperous and well-educated minority group. 

Although Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics says the population of Christians in Israel and Jerusalem has ticked up about 1 percent annually to 184,200 at the end of 2025, or 1.9 percent of Israel’s population, Christian leaders say the official data does not reflect that many Christians included in the census mostly live abroad. 

In the West Bank, the Christian population has hovered between 40,000 and 50,000 for years, as emigration balances out births. 

“The general atmosphere is this: Many people are afraid,” Ielpo said. “I can give good works and health assistance. I can give good schools. But all this is not enough. You need hope to remain.” 

Christian village under siege 

From a vantage point an hour north of Jerusalem’s Old City, Suleiman Khouriyeh pointed in every direction to explain how the residents of Taybeh — a village that, according to the Gospels, once gave refuge to Jesus and his disciples — now cannot find relief themselves. 

Khouriyeh, the mayor, was blocked from harvesting his four-acre olive grove after settlers closed in from the west, seized his land and built a fence. Across the valley, a local businessman, Hanna Massis, was building a multistory hotel but halted construction because of settler attacks. 

Bashir Marouf, the owner of a house on a street where settlers often arrive at night to set up roadblocks to disrupt the local traffic, had long fled. 

To the south was Roland Bassir’s cement factory, its office windows shattered and its machinery destroyed from a recent attack. Initially, in late 2023, settlers set up a single tent on a nearby hilltop. One tent became a few trailers, then a small farm. 

Over the next two years, settlers from the outpost began taking their cattle to graze inside the factory premises and forcing Bassir’s workers to leave in the middle of the day, according to Bassir and videos his employees recorded. 

They lofted an Israeli flag, vandalized cars and smashed equipment. During two attacks, on Sept. 14 and March 14, they shot in the air with rifles, Bassir said. Struggling to keep the factory running, Bassir has laid off nearly all of his 45 employees. 

After sinking more than $100,000 into the business, Bassir was ready to abandon it, he said. He has already applied for a U.S. visa. “If I get it, I will leave tomorrow,” Bassir said. “There is no future. Every day I think it might be my last day here, because I might be killed.” 

In the past 10 years, 10 extended families have left Taybeh for the United States, Latin America and Spain — a significant exodus for a town of 1,500 residents, Khouriyeh said. 

“They can’t handle living here,” Khouriyeh said. “It’s really hard, especially for young men who don’t have jobs and are forced to leave. What we see is Israelis taking the whole area.” 

On a recent afternoon, Khouriyeh sat in his office with municipal employees, venting about the Western governments that they believed should do more to protect them — if not as Palestinians, then at least as Christians. 

The following year, the village felt relieved when Huckabee, Trump’s new ambassador to Israel, visited. 

But their appreciation turned to fury when Huckabee retracted his statement after Israeli police denied finding clear evidence of an arson attack. 

Months later, villagers found clips of Huckabee telling Tucker Carlson in an interview that Israel had the divine right to claim as its own the Palestinian territories and parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

“Someone ask Huckabee, is he America First or Israel First,” a young municipal employee, Jeries Taye’e, angrily demanded.

“He’s Israel First,” Hanna snorted. 

Mayor Khouriyeh raised his hands, then posed a question: Without a change in policy in Israel — and in Washington — what will happen to the Christian population here?

“We have the oldest holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Nativity,” Khouriyeh said. “But what is the value of an empty church without Christians?”

International dimensions

At a time when Israel already faces international isolation and criticism over its actions in Gaza, particularly from the Islamic world, tensions with Christians could further undermine a crucial pillar of support, some Israeli analysts warn.

In America, Christian conservatives — who traditionally leaned pro-Israel — have questioned Vice President JD Vance at public events about Israel’s treatment of Christians, noted Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis, an expert on U.S.-Israel relations at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank that advises the government. Christian nationalist commentators who are influential on the American right, like Carlson and Candace Owens, also frequently cite reports of attacks and harassment against Christians when they lambaste Israel, Ben Sasson-Gordis said.

“The violence against Christians and the [Israeli] political figures who encourage it are bad enough that something needs to be done about them,” he said. “But it’s also important to pay attention to the way it alienates Israel’s friends and provides tools for Israel’s detractors.”

These days, the slew of headlines suggests that anti-Christian sentiment has grown particularly quickly among Israeli youths, said Yisca Harani, the founder of the Religious Freedom Data Center, a Jewish Israeli group that operates a hotline for reporting attacks against Christians in Jerusalem.

Harani now organizes a group of about 100 Jewish volunteers to walk alongside Christian nuns whenever they leave their homes, and since the May attack, nuns have called Harani every day requesting a protective presence. The problem begins with education, said Harani, an observant Jewish Israeli who has pushed Jewish religious schools to teach more about the history of Christians in the Holy Land.

“Half of Israel is greatly affected by the rhetoric of Jewish supremacy and Jewish exclusivity,” Harani said. “What can only be the outcome if in school they say: ‘All gentiles want your annihilation, remember what the Christians did, remember what Hamas did.’ People therefore look at the world through glasses of fear, estrangement and, finally, animosity.”

For Nikodemus, the Dormition Abbey abbot, the change in atmosphere is more easily explained.

When he first traveled to Israel in 2003, he saw advertisements at the Tel Aviv airport showcasing the country as the home of Christian holy sites. The minister of tourism at the time held receptions where the young Benedictine monk was welcomed. But over the years, the occasional curses that Schnabel encountered in dark alleys became spitting and open confrontations in broad daylight.

“That’s the difference between then and now,” Schnabel said. “The government.” 

One major shock for Schnabel came in 2015, when Jewish extremists set fire to the Church of the Multiplication where it is said Jesus performed the miracle of feeding 5,000 people with two fish and five loaves. 

A decade later, one memory from the arson trial has stuck with Schnabel: the attorney delivering a fiery courtroom argument in defense of the young Jews accused of terrorism. 

That lawyer was Itamar Ben Gvir, now the minister of national security.

Infraction

Who is this Taylor Swift? Is he a footballer? Perhaps he will be the next recipient of the FIFA Peace Prize? But who should be the FIFA Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Economic Sciences? And why?

Without having to do anything to avoid it, I have managed not to see a single moment of the World Cup, and my life is quite complete. But I should still like to welcome the United States to the club of true footballing countries, defined by their shamelessly corrupt relationship with FIFA. Donald Trump admits that he does not know what a red card is, yet he can still have the ban attached to one overturned, and he is being backed by people who thought that Belgium was trying to play against an American team of only 10 men.

Folarin Balogun's Nigerian parents were happily settled in London when airline staff would not allow them to fly back from a trip to New York because his mother was seven months pregnant. Only for that reason was he born in the United States, returning at two months old to the United Kingdom, where he grew up, giving him his unmistakable Multicultural London English accent. All the way up to under-21 level, as recently as 2022, he played for England. Specifically, of course, he played "soccer". Not exactly Trump's base, is he?