The Israeli Defence Force, as Britain’s Col. Richard Kemp stated, is one of the bravest and most ethical militaries on the face of the planet and do all they can to prevent innocent loss of life amongst the Arab populations in all territories that surround them. There is no doubt in my mind about this and it hurts, even though I am neither Israeli or Jewish, when fellow Europeans lambaste the IDF as war criminals and thugs.

My point in showing the video I have come to regard fondly, which shows all of the IDF’s High Command in playful sing-song, highlights in no better way the familiarity of peace seeking and Western minded men and women fighting the same fight we in Britain are battling. They are fathers, grandfathers, sons and daughters, who seek peace with their Arab neighbours and do all they can to avoid suffering of civilians of all races and creeds. So much so, they even refrain from killing the most evil of Islamic terrorists if it means civilian lives are put in danger. Indeed, they even call ahead to the Palestinian homes next to their intended targets calling on the occupants to evacuate and thereby letting the terrorists also know, to make their escape.

I can think of very few armies in the world who would go to these lengths. In fact more people are killed on a terrorist to civilian ratio by the British and American forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan than by the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet still, the burden of the world’s blame falls on their shoulders with ferocity and hatred that is not even given to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. I find this unfair and I find this unjust.

So what is the history of the Negev city and who lives there?

Sderot was founded in 1951 and was then just a small town next to the Gevim-Dorot transit camp. Kurdish and Persian refugees made up most of the first batch of settlers who lived in tents and shacks for four years before more permanent buildings were constructed in 1954.

Over the next few years, many more immigrants would arrive, particularly from Morocco and Romania. With the increased population, Sderot was declared as a local council in 1958. During the 1990′s, the town’s size doubled with the arrival of thousands of people from the then Soviet Union. In 1996, Sderot was formally declared as a city.

The city lies just one kilometre from the Gaza Strip border which is the biggest reason why it has borne the brunt of continued Islamic aggression. Since the year 2000, which was the start of the Second Intifada, Sderot has been under constant rocket barrage. Between June 2007 and February 2008, a total of 771 rockets and 857 mortar bombs were hurled at the city and surrounding areas, which is an average of four each and every day.

This unimaginable stress has caused both physical and emotional damage, as well as a population drain. Around 20% of the city’s population, mainly the middle classes, have left. Close to 30% of people suffer from post traumatic stress disorder.

The construction of bomb shelters and the implementation of the “Red Color” alarm system, which warns of incoming missiles, has done much to save lives but it’s still an awful position for any civilian population to be in.

During the ceremony six torches were lit by survivors in recognition of the 6 million Jews who were killed in one of the worst genocides in human history. Two of these survivors were twin sisters who managed to live through the monstrous Auschwitz death camp and experiments by Dr. Joseph Mengele. Speeches were also made as well as low-key musical accompaniments.

However, the memorial was slightly overshadowed by the events in the city of Geneva in Switzerland earlier in the day. The United Nations anti-racism conference saw the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the keynote speaker, being the only head of state to attend. Whilst the conference aims to fight racism in all its forms, it is in fact merely a forum for anti-Semitism and attacks on Israel’s existence.

“The conference opening today in Geneva constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it, and its main speaker is Ahmadinejad, who calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust,” said Israeli President Shimon Peres.

New Prime Minister Binyamin Netnayahu followed by criticising the Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz who had met and shook hands with the Iranian tyrant.

“I turn to you, the Swiss president, and ask you: How can you meet someone who denies the Holocaust and wishes for a new holocaust to occur?”

A number of countries including the United States, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had refused to go to Geneva at all. During the speech, many more delegates walked out minutes after Ahmadinejad began a racist tirade against Zionism and the Jewish State’s very being.

Afterwards, the United States deputy ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said the speech was “inaccurate”, as well as showing disregard towards the UN, and “does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people”.

The French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had said before the conference started that if the meeting was to be a repetition of the intolerance and Jew hatred seen in Durban in 2001, then the French delegates would walk out. They were to do just that.

“The defence of human rights and the fight against all types of racism are too important for the United Nations not to unite against all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message. Faced with attitudes like that which the Iranian president has just adopted, no compromise is possible.” said Kouchner after Ahmadinejad’s speech.

At 10am tomorrow morning a siren will sound across Israel and for two minutes everything will come to a silent stand still as a mark of respect for those who died in the Holocaust.

The father of the modern political Zionist movement is considered to be Theodor Herzl, the Austro-Hungarian journalist who was born in the city of Pest in modern day Hungary. However, the actual term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by the writer and Jewish thinker, Nathan Birnbaum.

The modern Zionist movement was mainly constructed by secular Jews largely as a response to anti-Semitism in Europe and also in the Muslim-Arab World. For many ordinary Jews, the return to Zion had a long and deeply rooted religious aspect. In Jewish literature, sayings, prayers and songs, the links to Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel are everywhere. The Jewish festivals, calenders, traditions and religious laws all have as their basis, the seasons and conditions of the Holy Land. Every Passover, Jews pray towards Jerusalem.

The Land of Israel was and is the only place that a Jewish homeland can be built. Here too, was a place where Jews could gain a sense of self-determination, self-defence and rejuvenate their language and culture.

The first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, which also marked the birth of the World Zionist Organization. There the members officially called for the restoration of the Jewish national home in Palestine for the first time. As Theodoe Herzl, the organiser of the meeting would later write in his diary:

“If I were to sum up the Congress in a word – which I shall take care not to publish – it would be this: At Basle I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”

There are a number of different strands of Zionism including Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Christian Zionism and Reform Zionism, but all hold vital the original Zionist values.

In the year 2000, Douglas Murray became the youngest ever published biographer with his widely acclaimed ‘Bosie: A Biography of Lord Alfred Douglas‘. However, it is probably his most recent book ‘Neoconservatism: Why We Need It‘ that has seen his reputation and popularity soar. He’s also written articles for numerous newspapers and magazines across the globe including The Sunday Times and The New York Sun whilst his lectures, broadcasts and discussions have been featured on BBC radio and television, Sky and Fox, to name just a few. He is the director of the think-tank The Centre for Social Cohesion.

Edward – Mr. Murray, first of all thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to answer some of my questions. Your time and insight are very much appreciated. I’d like this interview to focus on what Neoconservatism really is, with the hope of sparking interest in our reader’s minds to research further and perhaps indeed, purchase your book.

I personally had the great pleasure of reading your book on Neoconservatism; however for our readers who have not, would you please give a brief synopsis and your main reasons for writing the book?

Douglas Murray – Well it’s really my attempt to provide what I hope is a coherent and unified explanation of how I and other people broadly defined as ‘neoconservatives’ view the world. I give a history of neoconservatism’s origins and antecedents. Then an explanation of how this point of view moved from the academy into politics. This is really the ‘what neoconservatism is’ section.

Then in the second half of the book I try to demonstrate why the neoconservative impulse is vital at this moment in history, concluding with a kind of manifesto for British (and in the US edition American) neoconservatism. That’s the structure. But the drive of the book is really an attempt to put down a marker. Having observed the allegedly ‘anti-war’ left sink into what became in large part a pro-war, but pro-the-other-side-winning stance it seemed to me that a philosophical and practical explanation had to be attempted which identified not only the jihadist enemy, but also the disastrous relativistic bent of our time which has given that enemy some of its oxygen. Relativism has deeply damaged my own generation and greatly hindered our chances of defeating this or any future enemy.

The notion of being open to the idea that you or your society might be wrong seems to have transformed into the notion that we and our society could never be right or that anyone who assaults us must have a point. It seems to me that to deny the obvious supremacy of liberal-democratic values over the morals of, say, the Taliban, is a demonstration not of cultural generosity, but of nihilism. The book is an attempt to hit back at that, and an attempt to show that such nihilism is more than indulgent: it is suicidal.

Edward – You mention in your book that a room full of Neoconservatives would be as likely to argue amongst each other as agree, except for a few basic but important points. What are these fundamental beliefs of “Neoconservatism”?

Douglas Murray – Broadly, neoconservatives would agree on the fact that liberal, democratic values constitute the most desirable end-point of human political striving – that accountability of the government to the people is not a luxury but something to be fought for. Much of this we would share with contemporary liberals. What differentiates the neocon from the modern-day liberal is the unanimously-held neoconservative belief that force can be used for the good, and that force should be used, where appropriate, to stand up for liberal-democratic values. Many conservatives agree with the occasional necessity of the use of force, but don’t agree with neoconservatives on using force to carry out regime-change or intervene in situations where a government is abusing its people. So neoconservatives stand at a curious place in the middle of the political debate – not to the far-sides of it as is often alleged, but rather in the middle, making common cause with lots of people for often differing reasons. The term ‘muscular-liberals’ has a slightly embarrassing and self-aggrandizing quality, but it might sum up the tendency best if we agree on using the term ‘liberal’ in the classical sense.

Edward – Many people who claim to know what Neoconservatism is have never read the works of the German-born American political philosopher, Leo Strauss. How important is he to understanding what it means to be a Neoconservative?

Douglas Murray – Both important and not terribly important. To those of us who like to trace intellectual lineages, Strauss’ impact is fascinating. But I feel sorry for those who think that ‘Natural Right’ or ‘On Tyranny’ constitute some kind of invader’s handbook. Strauss’ writing is enormously esoteric and in my reading has very little in it which can be applied directly by those interested in governance. So on the one hand his impact is obscure. On the other, though, Strauss laid out a quite extraordinarily detailed refutation of twentieth-century relativism and his works stand like monoliths against the worst elements of contemporary philosophy. That was Strauss’ area. Strauss was a philosopher’s philosopher, not some wild Machiavellian (in the vulgar derogatory sense) interested in world domination. As I have often said, his political vision, if he had one, was simply to make the world safe. It is the ultimate expression of his Athenian pre-occupation. If people are interested in his impact then they would be best to go to his disciple (for once the term is apposite) Allen Bloom. Bloom extended the Straussian critique and made it applicable to the academy and indeed – through his teaching and writing – to Washington.

All this is fascinating to me, and I believe helps to explain how one strand of neoconservative thought found intellectual weight. But the reason I say that Strauss is also not terribly important is simply that most people who I would describe as neocon-ish have never read him and didn’t need to in order to arrive at their position. Most neocons arrive at their outlook through a process of being, as Irving Kristol famously put it, ‘mugged by reality’. This is how they will continue to emerge. Neocons will exist as long as people experience Damascene moments when they realize that liberalism as such is not enough, and that liberalism sometimes has to fight to defend itself if it is to be more than a mono-generational phenomenon. I can’t imagine today that many people will come to this point of view because they read Strauss first. For my part, I went to Strauss to find antecedents for views I already intimated.

Edward – Shadia Drury, the prominent Canadian critic of Leo Strauss, labeled the Straussian ideology as a ‘cult’ and one that needs to be exposed to the world. What are your views on her work and why do those averse to Neoconservatism constantly bring up the ‘noble lie’?

Douglas Murray – She is a ludicrous figure, hardly worth the attention. If she didn’t have a chair at a university she would be a Brian Haw-style figure, squatting on some street-corner, wearing sandwich-boards covered with conspiracy theories, selling pencils from a cup. Her fleeting popularity is merely a reminder of the desire of a sadly perennial fringe to identify cliques and cults which run world-affairs from some secret control-room. For Drury it is Straussians who do this. Others follow the Bilderberger angle. Some pursue the lizards line. What they all have in common is an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy. It’s a first attempt by inadequates to imagine how the world works – with sinister and secretive sub-groups fitting in nicely to a world-view so ludicrous that it cannot be disproved to the satisfaction of the holder. As Swift once said, it is useless to attempt to reason someone out of an attitude which they were never reasoned into.

Edward – I’m sure many readers, including myself, would like to know more about your personal political development. Are you a former “Liberal” ‘mugged by reality’ or have you always been seated in the Conservative camp?

Douglas Murray – Well it’s not easy to say. I find it much easier to analyze other peoples’ journeys than I do my own. I’ve never been a party-political man if that’s a key. I’m not tribal as it were. I’d say that I’m both a liberal and a conservative. I’d certainly identify as being on the liberal side of the spectrum in the American culture-wars (ie. pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights etc). But I’m also conservative in small ‘c’ ways. I’m in favour of a very small state, am a low-tax type etc. I suppose the key is that I want government to do very few things, and what I want it to do least is to believe that it can make many choices for me better than I could have made them for myself. However, those things that only the state can do (police, raise armies etc) I think it should be good at.

I think I was on the left for a while, and said it, as well as felt it. But it wasn’t a long-standing menage. I was very much in favour of the intervention in Kosovo whilst I was at university, and remember arguing its merits furiously to slightly bemused friends. I’m almost certain that I had a period before leaving university (and mercifully without going into print on the matter) in which I thought that the International Court and so on could answer most of our problems.

I suppose I do feel like I have been ‘mugged’. And I can identify a number of such muggings – mostly obvious. The first one was the realization that a genocide could go on in mainland Europe in the 1990s and that the world would do nothing to stop it. It was deeply shocking growing up in that period and realizing how hollow ‘never-again’ rang from then on. The inability of European countries to get to grips with the problem and the eventual saving-grace of American hard-power certainly made a great impression on me.

After that the main mugging I experienced was not so much the 9/11 attacks themselves, but the reactions of so-called liberals to those attacks – the desire to reach for justifications which were never asked for and provide excuses which were never requested. That was the period when – like a lot of the people who are now my comrades – I found myself falling out with my ‘liberal’ friends and allies. (Something I don’t mind, by the way. I’d rather not associate with apologists for clerical fascism.)

But perhaps more shocking to me, and genuinely and personally affecting were the twin-murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (in 2002 and 2004 respectively) and the gradual surrender as I see it of a Dutch tolerance which I have much admired and which I think that country will lose. It is from Holland more than any other country that I learnt the sad truth that history can go backwards. Progress does not necessarily possess a pull like gravity.

Edward – You were born in 1979. Critics could be forgiven for wondering whether your relatively young years might be an indication of youthful political idealism without the weathered experience of reality that older commentators could claim to hold. Could this be true? Have you found that your age has been held against you?

Douglas Murray – Yes it has been. But what can I do about it? I’m sure if I were 80 people would find a reason to criticize me as well.

For what it’s worth, far more than the allegation of youthful idealism I am told that I am world-weary, cynical and rather more burnt than 28-year olds are meant to be. I’m certainly fairly pessimistic about certain innate characteristics of human nature which I believe have to be contained. So no, I don’t think I’ve got much of a rose-tint on my spectacles. Of course I think I’m a realist, but then everybody does. And of course on some things I am idealistic. But then what am I idealistic about?

The right of all people – irrespective of race, religion, origin, creed or sex – to have possession of, and a say in the determination of, their own lives? The fact that I hold human-rights and liberal-rights to be universal?  The fact that in a battle between a dark-ages religious barbarism and every attainment of the modern state I don’t mind saying which side I’d like to win? If these things make me an idealist then I’m not sorry to be one.

Edward – Like yourself, I have been asked about my heritage and religion when it comes to my support of Israel and certain American foreign policy. Plus there have been the slurs about ‘Jewish cabals’ at the heart of the so-called Neocon agenda. Do you think a lot of the hostility to Neoconservatism is connected to anti-Semitism?

Douglas Murray – A part of it certainly is. There are some prejudices that seem so able to transmogrify that it makes you fear that they might be perennial. If you’d told me ten years ago that we’d again hear some of the sub-Der Sturmer stuff we’ve heard played in a just slightly different key with a new twist of emphasis these last few years I don’t think I’d have believed you. But there it all is.

Mearshimer-Walt, the New Statesman covers, Independent-newspaper cartoons daily opinion-filth from the Guardian et al. And before you know it, there we are again with perfectly open explanations – in its 60th birthday year – for why the Jewish state won’t long be with us. It’s sickening, but we should call people out on it every time. Relentlessly. And pardon me if I question peoples motives by noticing that of all the injustices in the world somebody decides to single out only those actions which they believe are attributable to the one Jewish state. I know what such double-standards demonstrate. It is not equality: it is prejudice and racism.

Personally I am perfectly pleased when somebody asks if I am Jewish. Not just because I don’t think that it is an insult, but because I know how much more people give away than they mean to when they ask me the question. Many of them just can’t quite believe that anyone who isn’t Jewish would support the state of Israel’s right to exist. That’s their sickness not mine, but it’s interesting who gets more flack for their stance. What it must be like being one of these ‘critics’ of Israel, eternally filling up the acres of newspaper comments-pages with the self-pitying ‘critics of Israel are being silenced’ stuff. Do they have any idea how ridiculous they look? Or how definitively they contradict themselves every time they take to the airwaves or do a book-tour saying that nobody will listen to them. It takes a heart of stone not to laugh.

Edward – In a recent interview with historian Michael Burleigh, he said “Terrorism as a tactic is, bound to fail.” Do you agree?

Douglas Murray – No I don’t. Terrorism is bound to fail when those being subjected to the terrorism are resolute and determined. Terrorism is bound to fail when the terrorists are identified, singled out, isolated and told in no uncertain terms that if they are determined to wage war on us then we will wage it back on them – and they will be the ones who lose. But I don’t think that is happening at the moment. As Jean-Francois Revel, among others, said, liberal democracies are the first societies in human history which, when attacked, ask what they did wrong.

In Britain we have a Home Secretary who has asked us to refer to Islamist terrorism as ‘anti-Islamic’ activity. And across the Western world our leaders, political and spiritual often seem to have spent the last seven years denying the root of the problem more busily than they have been tackling it.

It took one set of bombs to change the government of Spain. When the next big attack happens here in Britain, will the British people turn on their enemies and say: that stops right now, we don’t care for any ifs or buts, that won’t happen here. Will they say that even if, as I do not think is the case, this is all caused by our foreign policy, we will not allow terrorists to dictate our foreign policy?  Or will they decide it was all our fault, that we must have ‘provoked’ them, that it would never have happened if we forced Israel to cede the West Bank or Spain to give its bottom-half away or France to reverse the headscarf ban?  I’m not confident that I know which way we would go.  Terrorists fail when they try lacerating a society which is tough and resolute. But what about when they attack societies so riven with relativism that they’re willing to out-source their self-harm? That’s what worries me most. But it’s something we can sort out. It’s easier to cure ourselves than to get rid of the enemy. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do both.

Edward – Finally, what does the future hold for neoconservatism in both America and Britain?

Douglas Murray – For left and right, neoconservatism has laid down the case which needs answering. Ideologically it has few competitors and there is no school that unifies people from such a wide range of the political spectrum. That said, we might have to avoid flaunting the term around for a while. There’s no doubt that the willful misrepresentations and misunderstanding of what neoconservatism is, as well as the desire to pin the strategic mistakes made in Iraq on the neocons have combined to blacken the term. But it doesn’t really matter what we call it. There’s never much point in arguing over nomenclature. What matters is that the case for democracy and universal rights as well as the refutation of the lies and misunderstandings of our enemies – at home and broad – continues. Most people who engage in this will not call themselves neoconservatives. Many of them will not realize that is what they are. That is fine. What matters is that the case is made – unashamedly, unapologetically and by as many people as possible.

Edward – Douglas Murray, your expertise is much appreciated. Thank you.

See also: Douglas Murray’s website

After the operation “Defensive Wall”, first attempts were made to use the Israeli and international court systems to indict IDF officers in “war crimes”. One of the widest known cases is the dodged arrest by General (reserve) Doron Almog, the former Commander of IDF’s Southern Command, responsible – among others – for Gaza Strip area. London police had allowed Almog to leave back for Israel without leaving the aircraft, fearing shoot-out between Almog and armed El Al guards.

One setback is nothing for European Arabs and “human rights groups” – and they keep on pressing forward. Latest decision by a Madrid court to grand motion by Palestinian Center for Human Rights (apparently – only
Palestinians’ human rights) is probably the first among many upcoming others such motions against Israeli officials and IDF officers. The PCHR wishes Madrid’s legal system to investigate allegations of crimes against humanity during the assassination of a Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh. Shehadeh – to remind you – was responsible, among others, for planning and executing the attack against IDF’s “Africa” outpost, resulting in murder of four IDF soldiers, and an attack on high-school students in Atzmona settlement, resulting in murder of another five students. By all standards, Shehadeh was no angel.

Not so for Europeans, however, and politically correct media. The Reuters news agency, for example, doesn’t even use the word “terrorist”, explaining that Reuters does not “use emotive words when labelling someone”, according to David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global managing editor. The Associated Press, for example, labels Al Qaeda as a “terror network”, while Hamas is a mere “militant group”. While the IDF is being labelled as committing crimes against humanity by most in the media and in Europe, Hamas’ tactics and attack are being mostly disregarded. Yes, that’s right: according to the UN, 25% of those killed in Gaza were civilians – which makes it fine to criticize Israel for crimes against humanity and breach of international law. Hamas, however, whose casualties – according to statistics for years 2001 to 2003 – were specifically targeting civilian population – are just fine and are simply a “militant group”. Yes, fighting for freedom. Yes, killing civilians. Yes, their own too.

We are soon to see if the European court system would allow itself to be used by terrorists and their supporters to create yet another battlefield against Israel. Yet, after you pour over USD 7 bln. into the Palestinian cause, it probably won’t be easy to halt the support.

This is a guest post by Jonathan Boyko.

Why I Strongly Support Israel

‘To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive.’ – Robert Louis Stevenson

~Introduction
~The Underdog
~Myths & Lies
~Islamic Enmity
~Democracy & Growth
~Conclusions

Introduction

The dictionary definition of ‘to assume’ is defined as ‘to take for granted or without proof; to suppose; to postulate’. It is a natural human trait which has benefited our species but one that has also pitched us into numerous wars and hatreds throughout the various millennia. Everyone has assumptions about this and that, from the meditating Buddhist monk in Vietnam to the Jamaican family enjoying the sun on the beaches in Montego Bay. However, the dangers appear when these assumptions lead to the appearance of bigotry, malevolence and worst of all, loss of life. Unfortunately, the subject people of this essay have probably suffered worse than any other from the corruptive results of wild assertions – those people being the Jews.

Richard Littlejohn, the British broadcaster and journalist, recently noted a peculiar case of assumption here in Britain in his Channel 4 documentary, ‘The War on Britain’s Jews?’. When telling dinner guests, fellow journalists and politicians that he strongly supported Israel, the first question they always asked in return was, ‘Are you Jewish?’ I’ve noticed the very same thing. Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic. I admit, I am exaggerating a little. It depends what company I am in and usually their political persuasions which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. It is certainly no exaggeration, I’m disappointed to say, that the majority of Left leaning individuals I come across do ask these questions.

The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the various reasons why I respect, admire and support the State of Israel. Before I bring my introduction to a close, I think it wise to state my connections with Israel and Judaism, in case of the likely event interested readers will ‘assume’ I am biased because of heritage or religion. Firstly, I am not Jewish and as far as I know have no Jewish ancestry within the last two centuries. Secondly, I am not Israeli, I am British. I’ve never even set foot in Israel. Thirdly, I am non-religious. I’m an atheist who has medium to little interest in the religion of Judaism, let alone any regard for Evangelical Christianity. Fourth and finally, I consider myself to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum which means I’m certainly not a Neo-Con. (I do in fact consider myself a Neo-Con now – edited April 2008)

The Underdog

The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ – whatever their race or country of origin – can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247). Perhaps she and I are being rather big headed in assuming the Anglo-Saxon world is the only arena for such a occurrence, I’m sure it’s not but it does lead on to another reason of mine for supporting Israel and will probably lead to a few people choking on their coffee. I see Israel as the underdog, not the Palestinians.

There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State. Then you have European anti-Semitism which is particularly at home in the Eastern countries such as Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades. In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms. In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society.

This bias against Israel isn’t only confined to a few famous instigators but also parts of the media. I will take Britain as my example. Newspapers, especially The Guardian and The Independent, regularly print articles and news stories that cross the line between fact and fiction, leaving out vital information and only mentioning that which places Israel in a bad light. Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the latter newspaper is notorious for his hatred of the Jewish State and, in his own words, the ‘International Zionist Lobby’. On television, the Channel 4 broadcasters have as good as swallowed Hamas propaganda word for word; it being very rare and incredibly surprising when a positive line is unravelled about Jerusalem politics. However, the most shocking I save for last, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. ‘Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest’ it says in their ‘Purpose and Values’ section but is it?

No, certainly not when it comes to Israel at any rate. Take for instance, the recently released BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston. When first captured, the Palestinian Authority Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti stated, ‘We are apposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause’. The Beeb did not reply nor more importantly rebut, neither has Johnston since his release. In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’. There are literally hundreds of examples I could use of the British Press and its bias against Israel which leads to the conclusion that the Palestinians and Muslim world in general are certainly winning the war of words. Israel is the underdog and the next chapter provides even more reasons why.

Myths and Lies

The majority of British people are not anti-Semitic and what is often construed as so is in fact idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history. For the genuine anti-Semites (edited), no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred.

So what are the common assumptions and myths that people in Britain hold to be true about Israel, Zionism and the Jews but which are in fact lies? Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah? The latter question deserves an essay of its own and that it shall receive but part of the answer lies in the support of the perceived underdog as noted in the preceding chapter, which in itself is a noble engagement, but one that can also be severely misplaced.

One of the major assumptions is that Israel is an Apartheid State similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, where Israeli Arabs fair no better than did the black South Africans. This is a myth, a complete fabrication of the truth. Whilst some Arabs in Israel do suffer from discrimination, which is of course abhorrent, it is in no way similar to Apartheid. Arab citizens of the Jewish State can vote, participate in the government (there are a number of Arab Knesset politicians), they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World. The blacks of South Africa had none of the above. Israeli Arabs can even serve in the Israeli Armed Forces.

Another assumption is that the ‘Wall’ separating Israel from Palestine is a racist barrier and a Zionist attempt to steal more land. Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations. Why is the barrier necessary? Because of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, nightclubs, restaurants, shops and cafés. In 2002, before the security barrier, 451 Israelis died in terrorist attacks whereas in 2006, when much of the security barrier was in place, 30 Israelis were killed. (Statistics) If any justification is needed for this security fence/wall/barrier, whatever you want to call it, then these startling figures are surely it. Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do.

A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust. This is definitely the most sickening and outrageous slandering of Israel that possibly exists, at least in Western circles. There are no gas chambers in Israel or the disputed territories, nor are there concentration camps, cruel medical experiment laboratories, ghettoes or forced starvation of Arabs by the Israeli military. Where are the millions of dead Arabs if the Jewish State is carrying out a Nazi-like massacre? George Galloway and German Bishop Hanke are still convinced: the latter saying on a visit to the West Bank in March 2007, ‘This morning we saw pictures of the bestial Warsaw Ghetto at Yad Vashem, and in the evening we were in the ghetto of Ramallah’. Such delusions are unfortunately common place but these people should ask some questions. Were the Jews in Europe under the Nazis provided with hospital treatment? The Palestinians are, even those who tried to blow up Israelis in failed suicide attacks. Small Arab children are treated in life saving operations and often get the best treatment available in the whole of the Middle East. Another question, if the Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why would they continue providing electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip despite the numerous rockets and walking bombs originating from this small area? The accusations, in my view, are thoroughly baseless and despicable.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. The Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel will be explored in further detail in the next chapter.

Let me first say this. I am not intending to go into the fascinating history of Israel and Zionism in this particular essay as that would indeed make a book, of which there are already many. I can recommend one specifically, which I’ve read myself, that interested readers can order online and that is ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard M. Sachar.

Islamic Enmity

“The Hour (of the Last Judgment) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Hadith – Volume 4, Book 52, No’ 177; Narrated by Abu Huraira.

From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews. The Jewish tribes, such as the Banu Qaynuqa, were the first to incur the Prophet’s wrath by refusing to submit to the young and militarily successful religion. A Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf also fell victim to Mohammed’s anger due to a succession of supposed insults. ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Mohammed asked his followers (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, book 17, no.4436). The poet was later killed. The ramifications of which still affect us today, for example, last year in the Danish cartoon controversy, the slaying of Theo Van Gogh and also the avoidance of using the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence by frightened British politicians, human rights groups, media heads and writers like Karen Armstrong.

The Koran is full of commands to kill Jews but Islamic apologists constantly refer to one verse, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion …’ (Koran 2:256) which in their eyes clears the Muslim Holy Book of any serious guilt. Unfortunately the rules of abrogation (annulment) are not widely known to the Western World. Abrogation is when verses written later replace earlier verses if they conflict with one another. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically but according to length, in descending order. Therefore it is vitally important to know which are the ‘Meccan’ and which are the ‘Medinan’ verses. The last quote is unfortunately from the Meccan period of time when Islam was against the proverbial ropes and did not have the means to wage war. Later, when Islam grew stronger, this would change as would the nature of Mohammed’s words.

‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?’
(Koran 2:106)

If you don’t believe my words, then read the widely circulated lectures of the respected Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid on the subject.

Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. There are numerous partnerships and groups where Muslims and Jews, along with other religions, come together in art, culture, play and most importantly, peace initiatives. What I am saying however, is that there is a foundation in the Islamic religion for Jew hatred and that those who invoke the killing of Jews to be an Islamic duty, are not in fact misguided but actually correctly following the Koran. Thankfully the majority of Muslims do not intensively study their Holy Book, rather like the majority of Christians don’t their Bible. One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history.

The major problem that results from this Muslim hostility towards the Jews is the modern day media propaganda that is burning furiously across the Islamic world. Anti-Jewish cartoons, media distortions, films and even children’s television programmes incorporate bigoted portrayals of the Jewish blood libel and Zionist world domination myths. Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.

Democracy and Growth

Israel is a parliamentary democracy; the only one in the Middle East. Jerusalem is its capital. What is now Israel was once an Ottoman backwater of desert, swamps and basic farmlands but has since developed into one of the most advanced nations on the planet. All of this through the solid hard work, bravery and persistence of the early Zionist settlers and the many generations that followed them right up to the present day. Tens of thousands of Jews fled from Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, and infamously the Holocaust, to settle in what would become Israel. Through a mixture of need, religious devotion and a desire for national identity and self-reliance/defence, they built and developed a proud, strong and extraordinary little country on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

Nowadays Israel can lay claim to a myriad of achievements and developments that benefit not only its own people but the whole world. This small nation of around 7 million people has advanced science, technology, literature, culture and politics to new levels whilst all the time being under attack from its larger neighbours. Israeli medical engineering has saved and improved millions of lives across the globe with inventions such as: stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; the first fully computerised, radiation-less, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer; the first ingestible video camera that’s so small it fits in a pill, used to discover possible cancers in the intestines; an Ex-Press shunt that provides relief to glaucoma sufferers; a device which directly helps the heart pump blood; a ‘bone glue’ that will heal bones and joints affected by disease and for one final example, a device which restores the use of paralysed hands, providing hope to many victims of strokes and spinal injuries. There are many, many more Israeli inventions connected with science that have helped people from all countries, including the disputed territories.

Most of the latest technology in mobile phones was developed in Israel as was computer voice mail. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world; the third highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world; more museums per capita than any other country in the world; the second highest per capita of books in the world and has been instrumental in designing high tech security systems at airports to prevent bombs getting on board aeroplanes. Again, like with the medical innovations, there are many, many more technological advances originating from Israel.

All of the above plus more and people still hate Israel, excuse the Palestinian suicide attacks, call for boycotts, demand Israel to disband and worst of all, work actively to undermine the most culturally, socially, scientifically and politically advanced nation in the whole of the Middle East.. I can only ask at this point, what the hell have Israel’s neighbours given to the world in the last century, two centuries, three centuries even? Where have the development of human rights been in the Islamic world? Where have the countless genuine peace initiatives been in the Arab World? The harsh questions needed to be asked of those who attack Israel are a hundredfold.

Conclusions

I don’t believe there has been a country in modern history so reviled and misunderstood as Israel is today. It is a nation that has fought unflinchingly for its survival from the very first day of its conception but has nevertheless overcome every obstacle, bullet and bomb that its enemies have thrown against it. The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond. Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left. Centuries old falsities about the Jewish people have been dragged from the swamps of history and subsequently been renamed ‘Anti-Zionism’. Over half a century after the Holocaust, a new label has been found in which to hide their prejudices and has been stamped with approval and justification by the mass anti-Semitic hysteria emanating from the Islamic World. Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides. Yet few ask in return, how can disagreement and outright hostility towards the existence of a successful, democratic, peace seeking and established nation, that happens to be the only Jewish one of its kind, be anything other than anti-Semitism? Remember, ‘Zionism’ in its basic terms is support for a Jewish nation state.

In the 21st Century, Israel faces yet more threats, especially from Iran and its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah. The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma.

Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are. I couldn’t name or even know if that apotheosis of nationhood actually exists. There are negatives to Israeli society and policies that I dislike and question, such as the violent actions of some of the Ultra-Orthodox community against Palestinians, the governmental corruption and the terrible road safety statistics. Despite the minus points however, Israel is in my view, a brave, vastly misunderstood and much hated (unwarranted) living and breathing embodiment of democracy and liberty fighting tyranny and religious despotism. It’s a nation that needs our support, our good will, our understanding and our help because if we refuse, we are in fact permitting large chunks of our own values and ideals of freedom be torn apart by Islamic absolutism. We in Europe, America and the rest of the democratic world are not idle spectators to this ‘regional’ confrontation between Israel and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as it so often might seem; we are on the very same front line! From the Philippines to southern Russia and from the Parisian suburbs to Sudan and Nigeria there lies the same inherent danger that is facing us all, that of Islamic terrorism.

The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people. What has been done in Israel, regarding technology, human rights, living standards and wealth, can also, if peace and reconciliation is achieved, be had in Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. I ask my fellow countrymen and women why they morally attack that which is defending itself against tyranny and the suppression of human freedom, in order to champion the rights of those who bring their suffering upon themselves? Until we step away and rationalize the situation and put our support behind the true victim which fights the very same battle we are fighting, then we will remain in the downward spiral that is sucking away our morality, democracy, freedoms and indeed, our very existence.

I’m proud to call myself a friend of Israel.

Edward – July 2007.

Originally posted on my old blog Beaman’s World.