How does a diplomat from a Western country "strain" relations with Israel? By telling the truth about Israel. That's what French diplomat Daniel Bernard did at a party in London in December 2001. He said it loudly enough for his Jewish hostess to hear (London is badly infested with Jews and has been for some time), who leaked the story to the press directly and then leaked the diplomat's name through roundabout channels. Some Jewish accounts merely imply that Bernard was simply "overheard," as though it could have been anybody who made an international scandal out of a man's honest opinion.
Was Daniel Bernard telling the truth? Of course he was.
Israel fooled the whole world during the 1960s, when it pulled off one of the slickest jobs of misdirection that the field of public relations has ever known. The Zionists used an Arab reaction to their invasion of Palestine to launch their image as a beleagured democracy under siege, as a bastion of freedom surrounded by evil, savage Arab countries. If this world-wide deception may be compared to a birthday cake, it was Abba Edan, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, who applied the icing and the decorations and supplied the box for shipping.
Events since then have proved that Israel's image was and is false. Israel is the source of most of the terrorism in the Middle East; it is not the victim. Israel's existence is the cause for political instability in the Middle East; the reaction of the Arab countries against the presence of the invader is not. Israel launches more wars against its neighbors than vice versa. Israel is, and always has been, in violation of more international laws and UN resolutions than any of its Arab neighbors. Israel has illegally acquired weapons of mass destruction, an aggressive step its Arab neighbors did not take. Accusations made against Arab countries for acquiring WMD's have so far all been proved false; such accusations made against Israel would be true.
The reason antisemitism (which would be better phrased as anti-Jewism) keeps cropping up everywhere is that antisemitic beliefs are usually true beliefs, and antisemitic attitudes are usually attitudes of enlightened self-interest on the part of non-Jews. There should be world-accessible, privately owned media that practices against Jewish opinion THE SAME LEVEL of censorship and spoof that the Jewish-owned media practice against honest antisemitic opinions, just so the world would receive a balanced view of history and current events. Unfortunately, there are no important antisemitic media, so, for want of sufficient contrast, the skewed Zionist view of the world is incorrectly taken as the unbiased, factual view, which results in a continuous worsening of the world's problems with terrorism and oppression, both inside the Middle East and elsewhere.
The only valid exception to an otherwise universally protected right is to prevent the exercise of that right from leading to the extinction of the population doing the protecting. That's the general principle on which the "clear and present danger" prohibition on (falsely) shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is based. The Jews' media monopoly on reaching the public mind leads toward the extinction of the "public" (the national people who recognize and protect free speech rights), and therefore the need to break the Jewish monopoly on reaching the public mind supercedes the Jews' freedom of speech.
Trouble in the world will only worsen, either until Israel is destroyed, or until all cultured civilization on Earth dies.