Mick Davis

British Jews discuss peace efforts with Jordan's King Abdullah

Jennifer Lipman — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:35:45 +0100

Representatives of the British Jewish community met the King of Jordan on Friday to discuss the development of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The meeting, hosted by JLC chair of trustees Mick Davis, was also attended by senior figures from the Board of Deputies.

King Abdullah spoke of Jordan’s ongoing dedication to encouraging dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the progress of efforts to promote economic and social development in the Middle East.

"It was an honour and a privilege to have hosted this unique occasion which will now form the basis of an on-going relationship between His Majesty and our community," said Mr Davis.

"We were all hugely impressed with the time and commitment His Majesty continues to devote to furthering peace in the Middle East."

UJIA's Mick Davis to get £29m to stay at Xstrata

Jessica Elgot — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:38:47 +0100

UJIA’s chairman Mick Davis has been offered £29m, with bonuses of a further £6 million, to stay at the helm of mining company Xstrata, after the company merges.

South African-born Mr Davis, the chief executive of Xstrata and chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, is expected to remain chief executive when the company merges with commodity trader Glencore.

He has led the company for a decade, and is one of the highest paid executives on the FTSE 100, earning around £1.5m a year, with almost £2m in bonuses.

Xstrata is one of the top 20 companies on the FTSE100, with a market value of around £42 billion, employing 50,000 people. It is the world's largest producer of zinc, one of the top four producers of copper and a producer of platinum group metals.

The offer has yet to be formally approved by shareholders

JNF leaves JLC over Israel support

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:03:29 +0000

JNF UK has walked out of the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), following rumours that it was considering such a move.

According to the Jerusalem Post the organisation has parted company with the 30-member council over concern about the JLC’s stance on Israel.

JNF UK chairman Samuel Hayek told the Post that the decision was not taken lightly, but made in view of the fact that the over the past 110 years the JNF’s support for Israel “has always been and will remain steadfast”.

He said: “JNF is a charity whose history is intrinsically intertwined with the establishment and development of Israel and whose support for it.”

Mr Hayek added that when it was first set up, the JLC, comprised of heads of major charities, synagogue bodies and key Jewish figures, focused on communal needs. But he said that the focus had now “shifted significantly” towards foreign affairs and the actions of the Israeli government.

He said: “The JLC has sought to take upon itself a leadership role in areas already covered by others such as the Board of Deputies, an elected and representative institution, where as the JLC comprises a self-appointed and non-mandated body.”

The split follows Mr Hayek’s criticism of the JLC for planning a trip to the West Bank and the controversy over executive chairman Mick Davis’ remarks on Israel last year.

Tzipi Livni: We ALL have a voice on Israel

Stephen Pollard — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:00:47 +0000

EXCLUSIVE: Israel's Opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, has made an unprecedented declaration of support for the call by Mick Davis, chairman of both the UJIA and the executive committee of the Jewish Leadership Council, for a role for the diaspora in discussing Israel's future.

Ms Livni, speaking to the JC, said: "As leaders, we in Israel must take into account the concerns of diaspora Jewry. Israel is strong enough to take criticism from within the family of Jews, who say, ok, we disapprove of Israeli policy, but we stand firm for Israel."

The leader of the Kadima Party said that diaspora leaders had a "duty" to speak out when Israel "does something wrong".

She was speaking after Mr Davis called at the annual Herzliya conference for a "global Jewish conversation" about Israel, which recognises the crucial role of the diaspora community in the debate about the country's future.

Ms Livni's response is a radical departure from generations of Israeli politicians who have insisted that the diaspora's role is to give money, and that diaspora Jews should only have a say if they emigrate to Israel, pay taxes and serve in the army.

But Mr Davis, speaking on a panel discussing the future of the Jewish people, said: "Ironically, Jews outside Israel are at the vanguard of the battle over Israel's legitimacy. But because we are diaspora Jews, we have no impact on how Israel itself responds to this battle."

Mr Davis was expanding on a theme that caused controversy when he first raised it last November: that Israel needs to pay more attention to Jews living outside the country and recognise the effect its actions have on the diaspora.

He also defends himself in an article in this week's JC, in which he writes: "I spoke honestly and personally to a group of fellow Jews at the London Jewish Cultural Centre who were thirsty for debate. My words were made into a cause célèbre. Yet Jewish conversations like this are critical." He argues that diaspora Jews "need to drive an agenda".

The JLC chairman could not have chosen a more high-profile platform than the Herzliya conference for his call for a global "big conversation" about the campaign to undermine Israel's right to exist.

He condemned the boycott movement and the "red-green alliance" of the hard left and radical Islam. But he said criticism of Israel should not always been seen as an attack on its right to exist. "Not every criticism of Israel is delegitimisation. Not even every untrue or unfair criticism of Israel is delegitimisation."

Mr Davis urged Israel to reach out to Jews beyond its borders.

"If diaspora Jewish leaders are to deliver effective support for Israel, bringing their entire communities with them in the fight for Israel's legitimacy, their voices need to be heard in Israel. Their perspectives and opinions need to be discussed and considered.

"Israel needs to join the big conversation sweeping through the Jewish world. It is indeed time for a new 'global Jewish conversation'."

Asked by the JC what he thought should be done about the growing acceptance of delegitimisation in liberal circles in the UK, Mr Davis replied: "The definition of who is a delegitimiser has to be a narrower one." He said critics of Israel from inside or outside the Jewish community "should not be automatically labelled as self-hating Jews or antisemites". Liberal Jews and people on the left who were critical of Israel should be brought into the debate.

Others on the panel, which included Sir Ronald Cohen and Nathan Sharansky, proposed a less accommodating view of Israel's critics. Malcolm Hoenlein, of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, agreed that a new approach was needed. However, he said the term "liberal" was too much of a compliment to delegitimisers. "You have to call a spade a spade and show the world the hypocrisy of human rights groups which provide cover for the anti-Israel agenda. When they cross the line, we have every right to expose them."

But in Ms Livni's comments to the JC, she made it clear where she stood on the matter. Speaking, she said, "first as a Jew, and second an Israeli," she declared: "We must draw a distinction between understanding and supporting Israel's values and existence, and criticising any Israeli government's policy. As Jews we are family, and families have the right and the duty to be critical when a member of that family does something wrong.

"We must criticise each other. And diaspora leaders have the same duty to speak out.

"As leaders, we in Israel must take into account the concerns of diaspora Jewry. Israel is strong enough to take criticism from Jews who say, ok, we disapprove of Israeli policy but we stand firm for Israel.

"When criticism is made from love and concern we in Israel must be strong enough to take it."

Stand up to extremists, especially our own

Orlando Radice — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:41:07 +0000

First, Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Mick Davis argues that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state. Communal uproar follows. Then along comes the news that 39 Israeli rabbis signed an edict forbidding Jews from renting property to non-Jews. Did anyone else detect a touch of irony here?

Now, an apparently racist ruling by a group of clerics does not an apartheid state make, but it is a clear signal that all is not well when it comes to Israel's relationship with its minorities. It is surely this issue that we should have been discussing following Mr Davis's statements, without allowing his arguably inappropriate choice of adjectives to turn the debate into an emotional confrontation revolving solipsistically around Anglo-Jewish leadership.

So let's keep to the tenor of the debate, and stay calm. For one thing, Israel's attorney general is currently looking into bringing charges of incitement to racial hatred. Not the actions of a state sliding towards apartheid. And it was not racism that prevented Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - who made a statement condemning the ruling - from applying any sanction against the state-employed rabbis. It was democracy. Mr Netanyahu cannot afford to further endanger his relations with the religious right members of his coalition, who are currently threatening to leave over a law that enables the state to bypass the Chief Rabbinate's authority over conversions in the IDF. Israeli leaders recognise there is a problem here - the president, the education minister and a number of important religious leaders also spoke out against the ruling - but appear to be unable to take any meaningful action to stop it happening again.

Israel's relationship with its large Arab minority is a complicated blend of integration, interdependence and antagonism. Take Safed, the town where this latest round of racist baiting began. Its university, under the supervision of Bar-Ilan, has admitted so many Arabs that they now make up 70 per cent of the student population, a positive sign for intercultural relations. And even though it was the reaction of the town's chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, to growing Arab demand for accommodation in Safed that inspired the anti-Arab edict, Fadi Abu Younes, the former chairman of the National Arab Students' Union, says the views of Rabbi Eliyahu and his followers are the minority.

But the paradox is there for all to see: in Safed, deep distrust sits alongside co-operation. It wasn't a direct confrontation that caused Rabbi Eliyahu to rule that Jewish flat-owners should not rent lodgings to Arab students. His move was based on both his interpretation of halachah and his fear that the students could bring violence and disrupt the Jewish character of the town.

A survey carried out by Ynet this month revealed that 55 per cent of the general population of Israel backed the edict, while among the religious, the figure was 66 per cent. Based on just this information, we can comfortably predict that wherever a growing Arab population and a growing religious Jewish population compete for the same resources, there is likely to be conflict.

A number of regional councils in Israel seem to have made exactly that prognosis. Their solution is to publish admission guidelines to "preserve their Jewish and Zionist character". In the long term, it is hard to see how this will enable the two groups to live alongside each other in peace.

This year, tension has risen across Israel. There was a second round of race riots in Umm al-Fahm in October, involving a march by extreme-right activists which Avishay Braverman, Israel's Minister for Minority Affairs, called a "destructive and dangerous provocation aimed at inciting against the town's Arab residents". In Lod, a new 3m-high wall was completed, dividing an Arab suburb from a Jewish village in a neighbouring municipality. Also in October, in Beit Fajar, a mosque was torched by religious settlers as part of a "tit for tat" policy to exact revenge on the government for evacuations.

Mohammad Darawshe of the Abraham Fund Initiatives, says, "This year has been one of the worst for Arab-Jewish relations in a decade that is the worst in 40 years".

Israel, as its declaration of independence states, is founded on the principle of "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex". We must battle to uphold this value because the kind of inequality we are seeing today can rip Israel apart from the inside without any of its external enemies making a move.

This means speaking out against the extreme elements in our world, just as we expect other societies to clamp down on hate directed against us. This may be a tough benchmark to apply to a still-young state that is surrounded by hostile groups who define themselves in relation to their hatred of it. The very fact that we hold such a standard to the one we love is no less than a demonstration of our attachment - that is the way it is in Jewish families.

Left-wing criticism is not right

Miriam Shaviv — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:07:39 +0000

What is really behind the objections to Jewish Leadership Council chief Mick Davis's criticism of Israel? Is it what he said? To whom he said it? Or is the real issue, perhaps, who said it?

At that now notorious panel debate, Davis seemed to blame Israel for the collapse in the peace process, blasting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for "lacking courage" to take steps towards a "great advance". He implored the Israeli government to recognise that its actions "impacted" him in London - implying that diaspora Jews were equal stakeholders in the Middle East conflict. And he confessed that Anglo-Jewry's leaders are afraid to speak openly about Israel's problems, re-enforcing the myth (proven false by his own words) that those holding dissenting opinions are suppressed.

To many, all this added up to an unjustified attack on the Jewish state. Others took no issue with the content of his talk, or respected his right to hold these views, but questioned his judgment in saying all this publicly. "He is giving ammunition to our enemies", they said - and this at a time when Israel is battling delegitimisation.

I do wonder, though, whether many of his criticisms would have been judged to be quite so contentious had they been made by someone else - someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Mick Davis is head of the UJIA, which is considered by many British Jews to lean left. Seated on the same panel as US journalist Peter Beinart, author of a much-discussed essay critical of America's Zionist leaders, and Guardian and JC columnist Jonathan Freedland, his comments were, before he even opened his mouth, going to be interpreted as reflecting a leftist bias.

Davis went out of his way to reinforce this impression, positioning himself as part of British Jewry's "left-of-centre leadership". His comments were then all couched in the language of the left - using the dreaded phrase, "apartheid state" (although denying Israel was one - yet), referring to Israel's "minority issues" and doubting that Israel is a "moral nation"- again, yet.

It was inevitable that he was going to be slammed. Over the past few years, the quality of our communal discourse has deteriorated so shamefully that leftist Zionists who query Israel's path find their loyalty to - and love for - the state routinely doubted (see what happened to Beinart). Those on the right are so involved in defending Israel that some of them seem to have convinced themselves that it is perfect.

But, of course, you do not have to be on the left to be deeply concerned about Israel's future. Even on the right, only those wearing blinkers can deny that Israel is on a very worrying path.

Unlike Davis, I do not believe that the impasse with the Palestinians is Netanyahu's fault; no "courageous" steps will bring about an agreement in the absence of a Palestinian partner. And yet, I know that every day that goes by without a settlement is a demographic time-bomb for Israel. Peace is currently not in Israel's hands to deliver. But Davis is right - where is its strategy for handling the conflict in the meantime?

As an Israeli citizen, I would have voted for Netanyahu (had I been in the country) and would vote for him again. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni seems invisible. Nevertheless, there is no denying Netanyahu is a weak, indecisive leader. His Israel is ungovernable, with policies driven by coalition parties looking out only for their own constituents. I really miss Arik Sharon, who could get things done.

I worry, too, about the shrinking number of Israeli citizens equipped to enter the workforce because of their poor education. For how long can Israel's economic miracle last? And my heart is broken by Israel's secular population, which has become alienated from Judaism, and by Israel's religious establishment, which has done much of the alienating.

As for the way Israel treats its Arab population, I don't think Israel behaves "immorally" - every country, including the UK, has difficulty integrating its minorities and closing socio-economic gaps. Add the nationalistic element into the mix, however, and Israel is clearly playing with fire.

But let me repeat: I am solidly on Israel's right, a supporter of Sharon and Netanyahu. Is my loyalty to Israel suspect now, too? Or is that the kind of treatment reserved only for those on the left sharing their concerns, those like Mick Davis?

I stand by my criticisms

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:06:38 +0000

In these pages last week, Jonathan Freedland accused me of indulging in a "viciously personal" attack on, and misrepresenting the views of, Mick Davis.

Let me begin with a clarification. My source was the Jewish Chronicle itself, which summarised Davis's remarks by stating: "One of British Jewry's most senior leaders this week shattered a long-standing taboo by publicly criticising Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the peace process, voicing moral reservations about some of Israel's policies and calling for criticism of Israel to be voiced freely throughout the community."

In an exchange of correspondence initiated by Mr Davis, who also claimed I misrepresented him, I responded that if the JC report was incorrect or if quotations attributed to him were false, he was duty bound to request a correction - something he failed to do for obvious reasons.

I am personally unacquainted with Mick Davis and hold no animus against him even when he depicts me as "that mad Australian who attacks everyone".

My criticism was not about freedom of expression or the right of Davis to criticise Israel. My concern is about the propriety of a person holding one of the most senior positions in a major Jewish community publicly questioning the morality and "courage" of the democratically elected leadership of Israel and, from the vantage-point of London, having the gall to challenge Israeli security policies which have life-and-death implications for Israelis.

It is in this context that Davis made the bizarre statement: "I think the government of Israel has to recognise that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, the UK. When they do good things, it is good for me, when they do bad things it's bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognise that."

I am also appalled that, instead of rallying Jews to support an embattled Jewish state, Davis called on them to join in the criticism of Israel. It is not surprising that Freedland, who admits he condemned Davis for speaking at a rally supporting Israel, now rushes to defend him.

Having occupied senior leadership positions in national and global Jewish organisations, I reaffirm the view that a person heading bodies like the UJIA and JLC is totally out of line in making such remarks. I would further submit that, in the United Kingdom, where demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel - not to mention antisemitism - have reached record levels, it is the height of irresponsibility for a communal leader to behave in this manner, knowing that such remarks represent fuel for our enemies.

No other Jewish community in the world would tolerate such outbursts from a leader. American Jews are more inclined towards liberalism than their Anglo-Jewish counterparts but one could not visualise any mainstream American Jewish leader expressing such views.

My vexation is not merely that Davis still fails to appreciate that he was out of line, but that most Anglo-leaders lack the backbone to condemn his behaviour or have become so adjusted to living in an environment hostile to Israel that they cannot even appreciate the lack of propriety when one of their leaders acts in such a manner.

It was shameful that Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom was obliged to intervene and say what should have been conveyed to Mick Davis by his peers.

I hope Mr Davis resumes his positive work on behalf of Israel but refrains from unleashing his personal criticism until such time as he retires from his leadership positions. Had he not held office when he made his remarks, I doubt whether anyone would have noticed.

Anglo-Zionist pioneers of the calibre of Chaim Weizmann would turn in their graves were they aware that those who consider themselves Jewish leaders could voice public condemnations of Israel, when the embattled Jewish state is a facing such enormous pressures from a biased and largely hostile world.

Davis row 'sideshow' says Sacks

Simon Rocker — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:31:44 +0000

The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, has said that controversy over UJIA leader Mick Davis's criticisms of Israel is "the wrong debate" which distracts from the real issue.

Lord Sacks had previously made only a brief statement, saying there was "much to be gained" from honest debate over Israel as long as it came with unshakeable commitment.

But he has now changed tack in an essay on last week's Torah portion, published on the United Synagogue website.

He wrote: "There has been massive debate in Anglo-Jewry in the past few weeks as to whether we should take a unified stance in our support of Israel or whether we should openly air our differences. It's been a noisy debate, a shrill debate, but it's the wrong debate, and it is deflecting us from the real issue, which is hardly discussed at all."

Comparing the Middle East conflict with the "sibling rivalry" between Joseph and his brothers, the Chief Rabbi said that Israel's opponents - Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran- refused to recognise its existence as a matter of religious principle.

"While we as Jews argue among ourselves as to this policy or that, as if this were remotely relevant to the issue of peace," he said, "we fail to focus on the real issue, which is, so long as Joseph's brothers do not recognise his right to be, there can be no peace, merely a series of staging posts on the way to a war that will not end until there is no Jewish state at all."

Misplaced shots at true Zionist

Jonathan Freedland — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:12:37 +0000

Nearly a month has passed and the fallout keeps falling. The episode that future historians of Anglo-Jewry will surely dub "The Mick Davis Affair" goes on and on, as supporters and critics of the chairman of the UJIA argue ferociously about his right to speak, his motives and his judgment following the remarks he made about Israel and the diaspora at a public meeting in London in mid-November.

As it happens, I was at that meeting. In fact, I was in the chair, asking the questions of both Davis and his fellow speaker, the American-Jewish writer Peter Beinart. As such, I got to hear his comments in full: I know both their context and tone. The same cannot be said for most of those who have denounced him.

So far, the focus has been entirely on him, some of it viciously personal. Witness Isi Leibler in the Jerusalem Post, slamming Davis for the "sheer arrogance" of sounding off from "his London mansion" and sinking to a new "level of unprecedented vulgarity". In the United States, the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman has kept up the assault in similar vein - backed by some of my colleagues on this page.

Which is why I want to shift the focus - away from Davis and on to his critics. David Aaronovitch rightly wrote last week of "the constant need to slaughter the messenger" that infects any debate about Israel. The Davis affair has revealed a specific aspect of that: the instant assumption of bad faith in anyone who criticises Israeli policy.

So Foxman believes that, when Davis declared that Israel's actions affect him as a Jew, what Davis really meant was that he opposed Israeli decisions because they "socially embarrass him with his friends."

Leibler went further, throwing in a few ethnic assumptions: Davis was speaking out because he didn't like it when "his gentile friends" complain about Israel's behaviour and that he was worried about his "image in non-Jewish circles".

Yet Davis was speaking of no such thing. When he uttered the words that became the JC's front page headline - "When [Israelis] do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it's bad for me" - he was not making some selfish statement about social discomfort in the salons of Hampstead. He was actually speaking about those Jews who are so intensely bound up with Israel that they feel themselves intertwined with its fate: Israel's joys are their joys, its tragedies their tragedies.

Perhaps the UJIA chairman could have expressed himself better. But by ripping those words out of their context, and denuding them of the tone of voice in which they were spoken, Davis's critics have mocked what was actually a declaration of the profound kinship and affinity diaspora Jews like him feel for Israel.

This habit is hardly new among those on the Right. They routinely brand any Jew who criticises Israeli policy - even full-throated, passionate, life-long Zionists - as craven seekers of non-Jewish approval, weak-willed and spineless. So Mick Davis could not possibly have reached in good faith the conclusion that Israeli policy risks inflicting damage on Israel itself. No, he must have "succumbed" to "prejudice," according to my good friend Geoffrey Alderman.

A similar reflex is at work in the refrain that it was wrong for Davis to take such a "political" stance given his communal roles. According to this view, he is entitled to express views as a private citizen but not as a community chieftan.

But when Mick Davis stood in front of thousands in Trafalgar Square to support Israel during Operation Cast Lead, was that not taking a political stance? It certainly looked that way to me - and I criticised him for it in this very slot. But, to the right wing, only criticism of an Israeli government counts as "political"; support is somehow neutral and objective.

Given this climate, it is laughable to suggest, as some have, that there is now no need for any effort within the community to push for the policies that will make a two-state solution achievable. Those siren voices who are saying "Mick has spoken, job done" are wrong. As the Davis debate has proved, this is an argument that is far from won.

Mouth open and foot put in

Geoffrey Alderman — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:04:37 +0000

No one of any intelligence can dispute the right of Mr Mick Davis, as a private individual, to say - in public and within reason- whatever he likes about anything he feels the need to say anything he likes about. But if, in public, Mr Davis - the head of UJIA - chooses to unburden himself of certain prejudices to which he has succumbed concerning the state of Israel, its government and the proceedings of its parliament, he runs certain risks.

Neither he nor his disciples have any right to complain if, as a result of taking these risks, he reveals himself to be a man with a great deal of money but little common sense.

And that, unfortunately, is precisely what Mick Davis has been and gone and done. And he has been and gone and done it not just as a private individual but as a holder of communal office.

Let us first consider some of Mr Davis's actual utterances at the London Jewish Cultural Centre three weeks ago.

He made clear his dislike of some of the policies currently pursued by the elected government of the Jewish state. "I think the government of Israel…" he said, "have to recognise that their actions directly impact me as a Jew living in London… When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it's bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel."

Note the crass phrase "as significant as". The inexorable thrust of this statement is that the policies and actions of the Jewish state are responsible for the anti-Jewish prejudice that Davis apparently encounters as he goes about his business as a resident of the United
Kingdom.

If this is true - as Mr Davis certainly believes it to be - then the inescapable implication is that, in framing its policies, and particularly in developing its defence strategy, the elected government of Israel should have at the very forefront of its mind the preservation of the creature comforts that Mick Davis enjoys in his London home and the desirability of maintaining good relations between Mr Davis and his non-Jewish friends, acquaintances and commercial associates.

Again, anyone - I would have thought - of any intelligence ought to be able to see at once how foolish (to put it mildly) such a policy would be.

Israel is a country whose inhabitants are threatened daily with suicide bombers, rocket attacks and drive-by shootings, to say nothing of nuclear annihilation at the behest of the mad men of Tehran.

The overriding duty of Israel's government is to protect its citizens and the state in which they live, not to frame policies congenial to Mr Davis (living in relative safety in London) or his non-Jewish friends, acquaintances and commercial associates.

The UJIA chairman also took issue with some specific policies currently being pursued by the government of Israel and the elected representatives of the Jewish state. He reportedly spoke about the "moral dilemmas" of settlement building and the "repugnant" loyalty oath for non-Jewish immigrants.

Let me tell him something. The oath proposal has also troubled me - but only because I regard all such declarations (including the declarations now required of all those who wish to become UK citizens) as largely devoid of meaning.

As for the settlement building, these strike me as being in large measure a strategic necessity; their construction is, moreover, perfectly defensible when considered from the point of view of international law.

But to agree or disagree with specifics of Mick Davis's remarks is to miss the point. Davis is the mega-wealthy head of an international conglomerate producing a range of precious metals and minerals including ferrochrome and coking coal.

He is the coking-coal aficionado who currently chairs, not only the UJIA, but also the executive committee of a completely unelected body here in the UK known as the Jewish Leadership Council.

If Mr Davis wishes to enter the arena of Israeli politics, perchance to stand for election to the Knesset and (who knows?) run for office, let him relocate to the Jewish state and take upon himself the rights, obligations and risks of citizenship.

If he does not wish to follow this path, he should tread more carefully on the path - that of UK communal big-shot --- upon which he at present stands.