A week-long vigil for Gilad Shalit began outside Downing Street today. It has been arranged by the FZY, who deserve a massive round of applause for this and other initiatives for Gilad. It was great to be there today, and to see so many positive reactions from passers-by. People stopped to take a leaflet, to sign the petition and to express their support for Gilad. I spotted Nick Clegg pacing down the road and I managed to pass a leaflet through his throng of advisers and into his hands.

Here is a photograph of us demonstrating for Gilad today.

This Friday marks the fourth anniversary of Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping. The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York has set up a webpage through which you can write a personal message to Gilad which will be delivered to the International Red Cross. Copies of each message will also be sent to Gilad’s parents, Noam and Aviva. You can send a message here.

There are events being held in various countries around the world to mark the anniversary, including quite a few in Israel and America. In Switzerland some cathedrals will be switching off their lights in solidarity with Gilad. True, such events won’t change the world overnight but every little does help – and I’d imagine news of such gestures means a lot to Gilad’s parents.

Here in Britain none of the main Jewish or Zionist organisations seem to have arranged anything. This is a shame. There has to be more to this movement than endless backslapping concerts. As a Facebook friend of mine – she is a Holocaust survivor – asked: “Why no demonstrations for Gilad Shalit in Western countries at least once a week? Why is the world silent? Why?”

There are things we can do individually, including writing to our MPs and telling friends about Gilad’s plight. So let’s remember Gilad this week and also the other Israeli soldiers who are MIAs (Missing In Action). Last year I attended a ‘tekes’ for Gilad in north London. Here is a prayer from that night, which might be of interest or use to you.

During a discussion on one of my blog posts last week, the brilliant Israelinurse wrote:

“Let’s keep in sight the fact that there are things more important than PR, even if sometimes it appears to be the biggest thing. Israel didn’t board those ships in order to enhance its image in the world. We did so because we have no choice. The minute that blockade is seen to be passable we will get a whole bunch of Karin A style vessels transporting state of the art weapons from Iran into Gaza.”

She’s absolutely right, of course. Her views are echoed by many of my Israeli friends. Not for them the hand-wringing concern about their public image. They are – as ever – most concerned about security and survival. I suppose the counter-argument might be that improved Israeli PR could lead to an improvement in Israel’s security. But it is easy to take the latter stance from the safety of our British homes. We’ve never had to sprint, children in our arms, into bomb shelters under rocket attack. Nor have we faced suicide bombings on the relentless scale that Israelis have.

Evidence of this experiential divide was clear in an article about the blockade by the often-brilliant Nick Cohen in yesterday’s Observer. The article concluded:

“Israelis are not being irrational. The same fears persuade the Egyptian government to blockade Gaza from the south, although we rarely hear about that. But the way to handle hypocrites is not to say as Israelis do that “the world will condemn us whatever policy we follow” but to call their bluff. If Israel were to relax the import restrictions and Hamas were to rearm, reasonable opinion, including reasonable Palestinian opinion, would see it for what it would be: a declaration of war.”

Those are easy words to type in north London, but they would not roll so freely in Sderot. The reality of Hamas re-arming would be a resumption of terrorism unleashed on the population of southern Israel and maybe beyond. We all know what the result of that would be. One wonders how many dead Israelis would be worth some ‘good PR’.

As the ship named after Rachel Corrie arrives in Ashdod port, you might like to read about some other Rachels who died in the Middle East but about whom no plays are written, nor ships named. Read about ‘The Forgotten Rachels’ here.

Also, Charles Krauthammer has written a superb article in The Washington Post in which he reminds us that: “In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: imposing a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.”

He shows how every method of defence Israel uses is delegitimized and concludes: “The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million – that number again – hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide.”

You can read it all here.

Finally, looking at my traffic stats I seem to have picked up a lot of new readers this week. Welcome to you all. If you’re wondering why I blog about Israel you can find out here.

Tomorrow night I will be giving a presentation as part of Israel Connect’s five-week Talk For Israel course. I will be speaking about effective blogging and online campaigning. I feel genuinely honoured to be asked to do this and I hope my presentation will be of help and interest.

I think Frankie Boyle is perhaps Britain’s most talented comedian. I’ve seen him live and he was outrageous, hilarious and sharp all night.  I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he made jokes about Israel, because he also managed to be offensive on other topics, including Islamic terrorism, so I assumed he had no agenda other than to universally shock.

However, after the BBC Trust recently apologised about two of Boyle’s Israel jokes he has lashed out with a ludicrous open letter:

‘I think the problem here is that the show’s producers will have thought that Israel, an aggressive, terrorist state with a nuclear arsenal was an appropriate target for satire.’

Aggressive? Terrorist? He shows no evidence for these outrageous descriptions. Like many of Israel’s critics he believes that if he throws around enough inflammatory adjectives that nobody will notice he has no evidence.

His next thoughts are – pardon the pun – a complete joke.

‘The Trust’s ruling is essentially a note from their line managers. It says that if you imagine that a state busily going about the destruction of an entire people is fair game, you are mistaken. Israel is out of bounds.’

So let’s get this straight. Israel is, according to Boyle, intent on the destruction of an entire people. But he has also told us it is an aggressive, nuclear-armed terrorist state. So why hasn’t it managed to destroy that entire people?

Why, in fact, has the opposite happened with, for instance, life expectancy increasing in the West Bank since the Israeli ‘occupation’ began? Why does Israel – at huge risk to its doctors – treat sick Gazans in Israeli hospitals? The destruction of an entire people? Don’t be so ridiculous.

Then we begin to see his true colours.

‘The BBC refused to broadcast a humanitarian appeal in 2009 to help residents of Gaza rebuild their homes. It’s tragic for such a great institution but it is now cravenly afraid of giving offence and vulnerable to any kind of well drilled lobbying.’

Ah, the old ‘lobby’ chestnut.

‘The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate.’

‘Seems to be’ indeed. Again, there is no evidence backing up his claim about the apartheid ‘thing’ applying to Israel. He then turns to a film he once watched including a scene in a Palestinian hospital involving a ‘UN dignitary of some kind’ which made him cry. It’s all very vague and he doesn’t seem to have quite understood what he saw or what factors contributed to the situation portrayed in the scene.

The lazy, ill-informed approach Boyle has taken to forming his views on the Middle East is clear throughout his open letter. So I hold my hands up: I was wrong to assume Boyle had no agenda with his Israel jokes.