At a debate held 13 years ago at the University of Cambridge, three speakers took the stage – three representatives of the British elite, a journalist, an academic, and a diplomat. All three explained that Iran's nuclear program was not a threat to the United Kingdom, but rather in its interest. The power given to the ayatollahs' regime, they argued, "would restrain Israel" and "restore balance to the Middle East." But then came the turn of a young journalist, who, in an eloquent and sharp speech, turned the tables. His predecessors' words, he argued, not only exposed ignorance of Middle Eastern affairs and the Islamic Republic, but above all revealed the moral and geopolitical weakness of Britain and all of Europe. "When Israel is forced to act alone against the Iranian threat – and it will do so," he stressed, "Europe's leaders will surely condemn it publicly, but in their hearts will thank God that it did what they themselves were too afraid to do." Years later, during Operation Rising Lion, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed the prediction heard in that Cambridge hall, "Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us," he acknowledged publicly.
That young journalist, Douglas Murray, has since become one of the prominent voices of the European conservative camp in the culture wars taking place in the West, and since October 7 also one of the most determined defenders of Israel's right to fight those who seek its destruction. He knows what happens in Israel well and up close, and not just as an observer from the outside. His concern for the wellbeing of IDF soldiers, his familiarity with local public discourse ("Air Force officers who said before October 7 they wouldn't report for service? An inconceivable phenomenon, when you think about it in hindsight"), the grief in his eyes when he speaks about families of the fallen, the joy when he mentions "the almost miraculous event" of the hostages' return, and even the barbs he sent at Gideon Levy in a televised confrontation in Canada in June 2024 ("You could fit all your supporters in Israel into one phone booth") – all these indicate that the man is involved and engaged in local issues no less than an average Israeli.
Murray's standing alongside the State of Israel has received recognition and gestures of thanks here. In April 2024 the British journalist received a certificate of appreciation from President Yitzhak Herzog and Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli. Two months later he was awarded the Alexander Hamilton Prize in New York by the conservative Manhattan Institute. In his speech Murray dedicated the prize "to the people of Israel, who chose life in the face of death cults; to people who in the face of horror – stood upright and chose life."
During our conversation Murray sits in his home in New York, his main residence in recent years. He seems particularly relaxed; the man known for his composure, the frozen gaze that accompanies his public confrontations, and also his zeal for privacy now allows himself to smile, laughs occasionally and shares personal anecdotes. The interview is taking place on the occasion of the release of his new book, "Democracies and Death Cults, Israel and the Future of Civilization". This book is the product of numerous and extended visits Murray made to Israel over the past two years, and of his conversations with reservists on the front, with hostage families and with senior Israeli officials, including an interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It contains an attempt to show the face of Israeli society to a "limp and materialistic" Western world, in Murray's words, a world that does not understand the death drive of Islamism, and to the horror has even adopted parts of this drive. According to Murray's approach, Jerusalem will determine the fate of Western culture.
Q: Many in Israel received the ceasefire with relief, but Hamas remains in power, and its defeat is not unequivocal. You yourself have spoken often about the need for "total victory" over the Gaza terror organization. How do you view the war's conclusion at this stage?
"I have great sympathy for those hoping Hamas won't remain in power, and that its leadership won't be able to negotiate anymore. Hamas spokesmen continue appearing in international media, and that's terrible. But when people talk about 'returning to the previous situation,' it's important for me to remind Israelis what happened before the war. Israeli society was tearing itself apart from within in disputes over the judicial reform. It's very important not to return to that state of division and civil war. An Israeli friend told me cynically after October 7, 'Hamas were fools – if they had waited another year, we would have finished each other off ourselves.' Your country simply cannot afford such levels of internal division.
"And regarding the heart of the question – most European leaders and Arab states expected to see the IDF leave the Strip, Gaza rebuilt, Hamas return to power – and the rocket fire resume, and at some point war break out again. This is a failed conception, there's not a shred of hope in it. So when President Donald Trump said it might be necessary to encourage Gaza residents to leave the combat zone during the campaign, or raised other proposals – I supported that. Not because these are perfect solutions, but because any idea for a different paradigm is positive in my view.
"The arrangement that was formulated is probably the best that could be hoped for at this stage. If a setup is found where Arab states take responsibility for areas like security, stability and proper governance in Gaza, and in other words, ensure Hamas can't continue shooting those Palestinians who oppose its rule, as it did in recent weeks; and if some international body is found – and I don't know who, because everyone has failed so far – that can guarantee the next generation of Gaza children isn't educated for jihad and intifada, but to be productive citizens building their society, rather than trying to destroy the one living beside them; if all this happens, I would of course support it."
Q: It seems the international community will never accept an Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria, and won't settle for less than complete withdrawal. On the other hand, the Israeli right is trying to act to apply sovereignty in these areas. What in your opinion could be the solution to this issue?
"This is a very complex and extremely sensitive topic, and you don't need me to tell you that. I've spent considerable time in Judea and Samaria – in Arab areas, Jewish areas and mixed areas – and I think I understand the positions of most sides. I interviewed Tzipi Livni years ago, and she said then, when she had a vision of partition, it would be 'the ugliest border in the world.' The complexity stems from the fact that the situation continues to develop. I understand Jews who emphasize that the prophets didn't walk in Tel Aviv, they walked in the Judean and Samarian hills, and therefore there's something strange about the Jewish state being re-established just near there. But of course there's a counterargument – the state rose according to a UN decision, and there's no point taking steps that would undermine its legitimacy in the world's eyes. It's especially unwise in my view for Israeli leaders to act directly against Trump, who said he wouldn't agree to such a step, after all his help to Israel – though it's of course a sovereign state, and can make its steps and its mistakes."
He repeats and explains that the desire to apply Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is very understandable to him. "I don't know another conflict in the world where one side tried again and again to destroy its neighbor, lost, and then expected everything to return to what it was before the war. Throughout history this was always self-evident – if you start a war and are defeated, you lose territory. That's how it was after World War I, when the Treaty of Trianon dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was devastating for it, but that was the price of war. The situation in Judea and Samaria is exceptional, because there are so many possibilities that didn't happen. Jordan for example is a Palestinian state in every sense except the name, but the Jordanians themselves don't really care about the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. As with the Gaza issue, there are those who throw up their hands, say this will simply continue forever as a permanent security and political problem. I would prefer to see fresh thinking on the subject, solutions that won't leave this problem for generations.
"It needs to reach a point where no Israeli soldier risks his life in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria. It's hard for me to accept the idea that young soldiers will always have to patrol these areas, and be under constant threat of violence that could erupt at any moment. I don't know what the solution is, but one thing is clear to me – if the world continues pushing solutions that don't work, like the two-state idea, the situation will continue to deteriorate."
Reading to disagree
It's hard to think of an intellectual with such presence in so many places as Douglas Kier Murray. At age 46 he writes regular columns for the New York Post, the British weekly Spectator and the American website Free Press, and until recently also for the British Telegraph. At the same time he regularly contributes from his pen to additional journals, and frequently appears on news channels and podcasts around the world. And above all, he writes books that spark sharp discourse in the West.
He was born in Hammersmith in west London to an English mother who worked in education and a Scottish father who was a public servant. In an interview with the Scottish Herald he told that his parents "encouraged good discussions around the dinner table," but "both weren't political people." In his youth he studied in public schools, and later won a scholarship to Eton College, one of the most prestigious institutions in Britain. From there he continued to Oxford University, and completed a degree in English literature.
At age 19, while a second-year student at Oxford, Murray published his first book – a biography of Alfred Douglas, Oscar Wilde's lover. The book, considered an exceptional achievement for the author's age, garnered enthusiastic praise and earned Murray a prestigious prize. Upon completing his studies he wrote the play "Downfall," dedicated to the figure of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, a Righteous Among the Nations who saved Jews from deportation to Nazi concentration and extermination camps in World War II – an early hint at Murray's engagement with antisemitism and its consequences. On many occasions he noted that one of his great teachers was conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, who ran an underground education network in Eastern Europe under Communist rule. From him Murray received inspiration to develop independent and courageous conservative thought.
In 2006 he published the book that heralded his entry into the political storm zone, "Neoconservatism, Why We Need It". Murray defended the neoconservative current in it, and insisted on the need for moral and determined foreign policy after the September 11 attacks. The book sparked extensive echoes worldwide, and positioned its author as one of the prominent young voices in Britain's political discourse. His book "Bloody Sunday" (2011) dealt with the affair of 14 Irish Catholics killed by British soldiers in January 1972, and earned him a prize for his contribution to reconciliation between Britain and Ireland. He then published the online essay "Islamophilia," which criticized Western culture for its capitulation to radical Islam in the name of "tolerance."
His major breakthrough came following his 2017 book "The Strange Death of Europe," which was translated into many languages and became a global bestseller (published in Hebrew by Selah Meir's "Shibbolet," as were his subsequent books). In this book, combining personal essay, investigative journalism and philosophical writing, Murray described how the continent is losing faith in itself, erasing its identity under the waves of immigration reaching it, and surrendering to self-accusation about the sins of colonialism. Four years later he continued this line in the book "The Madness of Crowds" which examined identity politics, feminism and the LGBT movement as additional expressions of the West's culture crisis. The book "The War on the West" completes a kind of ideological trilogy – Murray describes in it how the media, academia and political systems in the Western world have opened a battle against the foundations of their own culture – against the history, heroes and values that gave the West its freedom and power. This book cemented Murray's status as one of the leading thinkers of the new conservative current, and as an influential figure in global discourse.
When I ask him how he manages to continue renewing himself intellectually at the frenetic pace of the current era, Murray smiles. "Anyone dealing with what I deal with must make sure his intellectual streams don't dry up," he says. "I think I'm able to identify a writer who has stopped renewing himself. I myself make sure to read, listen, drink in new ideas and surround myself with inspiring people. I also deliberately read people I don't agree with."
Q: For example?
"The French writer Édouard Louis. He writes wonderfully, partly because he has particularly interesting psychological issues. You must listen also to voices you oppose. Scruton used to avidly read the writings of the left. The left, of course, never read him. Only talked about him."
Fighting from the armchair
The conversation with Murray is an opportunity to look anew at the continent he foretold the "strange death" of eight years ago. His claims about Europe's surrender to Islam were considered provocative at the time by parts of the mainstream media, and some stuck him with the label "Islamophobe." Others, mainly from conservative quarters around the world, saw him as a lone and courageous voice daring to say what everyone thinks but doesn't dare voice aloud. At the "For the Freedom of Zion" conference, held in November 2024 at the Nation's Buildings in Jerusalem, Murray told that he received the most important response to his book from his friend Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. "He quoted to me in an email the verse from Ezekiel, 'And they, whether they listen or refuse to listen – for they are a rebellious house – will know that a prophet has been among them,'" Murray told in a trembling voice – as mentioned, a rare sight from him. "That was very moving. The sad thing is that on the continent I come from no one listened to me. After everything I said for 20 years, they only made the situation worse."
In hindsight, Murray's warnings seem almost moderate. On the other hand, his ideas have managed to seep into the heart of public debate, and today many join his warnings about cultural and demographic change threatening the continent's future. British historian David Starkey, for example, recently warned that immigration and multicultural policies could lead to an actual civil war in Britain – a forecast that sparked stormy public discussion. Murray says this is a likely scenario. "There are many reasons for this, foremost among them the massive immigration from Muslim countries, which also imported the conflicts and culture of those countries. Just two days ago groups of masked Muslims marched in London, clearly seeking to ignite violence.
"Europeans currently have no long memory regarding their culture. Before the era of nation-states Europe experienced prolonged religious wars; I've been arguing for years that we're witnessing the return of the religious wars era, but this time not between Catholics and Protestants, but between Islam and modern European identity. The demographics, culture, spirit in Europe – all these are changing profoundly. I hope we won't reach this, but when I see Islamist thugs marching in London's streets, it definitely worries me. It seems they really want to push the country into such a state. To this has been added in recent years growing extremism from the radical left."
The problem, he says, extends beyond Britain and Europe. "This is happening in the United States too. The radical left decided the Palestinians are its new pet project. Before October 7 it was the green agenda, or 'the non-binary trans Black woman.' Each time they have a new god that's supposed to fill their lives with meaning. Now it's Israel – not from genuine sympathy for Palestinians, and not from support for a two-state solution, but from a desire to erase the world's only Jewish state. They truly believe if Israel disappears, the world will return to being paradise. This is a very destructive idea for the West, if you can even call it an 'idea.'"
In the context of support for Palestinians, I tell Murray, people often talk about "Israel's hasbara problem." I think for example of British journalist Piers Morgan, who in my view embodies the Western point of view, and isn't a progressive leftist. At the war's beginning he supported Israel without reservation, while in recent months he has become a sharp critic of the fighting in Gaza. Is it even possible to tell the story such that a person like him won't eventually turn against us?
At the mention of Morgan's name, Murray grimaces. "I don't think Piers Morgan represents the average Western person," he states decisively. "He's a special type – hungry for drama, for attention, for headlines. A talented man, yes," Murray says almost necessarily, "but lives off the storm. There are quite a few like him – people who think they can explain to Israel how to conduct war without having seen a battlefield in their lives. The phrase 'armchair warriors' wasn't born by chance.
"And to your question, I think such people would have continued supporting Israel only if it had done almost nothing. Perhaps if it hadn't responded forcefully to Hamas, more people in the West could have identified with it." He leans back in his chair and raises an eyebrow. "I still offer an open challenge to anyone criticizing Israel – what exactly would you have done if you were in its place on October 7? How would you have fought Hamas and freed the hostages differently than Israel did? To this day I haven't heard one coherent answer.
"People say 'but the hostages were released during the ceasefire.' Do you think Hamas released them out of mercy? It's clear the military pressure did its job. By the way, when they asked me what I thought about the Israeli strike in Qatar, I said – 'two years too late.' Joe Biden should have flown to Qatar already on October 8 and told them explicitly, 'Bring about the release of all the hostages now, or the wrath of the world will fall upon you.' Unfortunately, that didn't happen."
Enemy of my enemy
During Murray's interview a publicized visit to Israel took place by another pro-Israeli British celebrity, Tommy Robinson, invited by Minister Amichai Chikli. Robinson met with ministers and Knesset members, toured Judea and Samaria and even went up to the Temple Mount. The visit sparked extensive echoes in Britain and drew criticism from Jewish organizations in the kingdom, due to claims Robinson was involved in establishing far-right organizations. "There's a difference between inviting a private individual to visit, and giving official legitimacy to political elements," Murray emphasizes when I ask if Israel should strengthen its ties with the European right. "This is a sensitive and complex field, and I'm not sure Israeli politicians are in the most comfortable position to understand it. There are anti-immigration and anti-Islam parties that aren't necessarily pro-Israel, and on the other hand there are pro-Israel parties whose position on immigration is much softer. This is a complicated reality. An Israeli politician once told me, 'Anyone who supports Israel and wants its wellbeing is a friend. But if he supports Israel only because he hates another minority he's not really a friend.' These dilemmas will only become more complex."
Q: Is the criticism of Robinson's invitation to Israel just?
"The official invitation drew criticism not only from the left, but also from serious, educated and knowledgeable people who deal with the issues he talks about. This really is a difficult topic. I argue Robinson is far from the 'far-right man' image they try to stick on him. One of Britain's big questions today is what a person like Robinson is allowed to do. He opposes the destruction in his country. What should his response be? According to most leaders, the answer is nothing. Be silent, absorb and accept your country's decline. I don't agree with that. As long as a person isn't inciting violence, he has every right in the world to defend his civilization."
Q: You often note the loss of faith as one of the deep causes of the West's decline. Will Europe have to undergo a religious revival to win?
"You can't win in such a struggle if you refuse to carry the components of your past. In 'The War on the West' I describe a strange phenomenon – the war against Western history itself. In the United States, almost every national hero – Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln – has been attacked in recent years. In Britain, even its greatest hero, Winston Churchill, became a target – first from the political left, and now also from radical American right.
"So yes, for some people the answer lies in returning to the West's historical faith – Christianity. For others, the meaning is deeper familiarity with cultural roots and with understanding where we came from. The connection can be through tradition, through culture or through a sense of national pride. These aren't separate domains. Catholic-American writer Rusty Reno wrote about 'the return of the strong gods,' and I think that's exactly what will happen. Facing the challenge radical Islam poses, we'll see Europeans, Britons and Americans returning to their 'strong gods' – to the power of their religious faith, to their national identity, and perhaps to both together.
"This is of course complex – you can't force faith on others or on yourself. Europeans learned this the hard way through the generations. And yet, I would like to see a church that truly believes in its gospel, a Christianity that isn't ashamed of its tradition and doesn't flee from it. When you stand before such a cultural challenge, you must enter the intellectual, moral and spiritual battle with your strongest weapon in hand, metaphorically speaking. You must come spiritually equipped. And I think many people are starting to understand this."
His willingness to speak openly about the importance of religion also testifies to the personal journey he underwent. Murray grew up in a Christian-Anglican home, and until his twenties defined himself as a believer, but then began distancing from religion. In several interviews he told he had difficulty continuing to believe in the miraculous birth story of Jesus, and felt scripture was riddled with "repetitions, contradictions and absurdities." He grew close to Jewish atheist writer Christopher Hitchens. Over the years Murray's approach underwent another transformation, and today he defines himself as skeptical on questions of faith, and a "cultural Christian."
Q: If we're talking about Christianity – it sometimes seems the West supports Israel only when it's on the persecuted side. When Jews are killed everyone expresses support, but when Jews defend themselves the support disappears. Do you identify a Christian root of thought here?
"True. Most of what you see in anti-Westernism and anti-Israelism in the West is actually a diseased version of Christianity – a conception seeking to atone for 'ancient imaginary sins.' American students are educated to believe they're the heirs of racist colonialists, of 'white supremacists' and 'genocide perpetrators.' And as I noted in my last book, psychologically it's completely clear what's happening – young people who accused themselves of this original sin seek to rid themselves of guilt through attacking Israel – and cast upon it those exact same sins, this time falsely. Israel has become the projection mechanism for the psychological failures of parts of the West. People need to understand this, and try to fix it. But one can say almost with certainty the process will also require radical change in the West itself."
The verse not written
In a recent conversation with Jordan Peterson, Murray spoke about the core of the cultural battle. "The Islamists understand that if they want to destroy the West, they must start in Jerusalem," he said on Peterson's podcast. He quoted the verse from Isaiah carved on the entrance wall of the UN building, "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore," and recalled what was said in the preceding verse, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob... for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." "You can't accept the message of peace, unless the preceding message comes from Jerusalem," Murray told Peterson – a Bible lesson we wouldn't expect to hear from a non-religious man's mouth.
Q: Those are bold statements that many Israeli leaders might hesitate to make publicly – perhaps to avoid invoking 'chosen people' rhetoric. What do you mean when you say Jerusalem is at the heart of the West's cultural battle?
"Anyone familiar with Western history knows Jerusalem is a foundational pillar of Western culture. Almost every student in the West learned about the Crusades – well, today it's hard to say if students learn anything at all," he smiles bitterly. "Those campaigns, even if they were sometimes cruel and unjust, stemmed partly from a desire to prevent Muslim colonialists from taking control of Jerusalem. Islam had no historical right to this city, but Islam as a religion knows how to rewrite history and claim ownership of everything – even events that preceded it by hundreds of years. You know, the Muslim claim that 'Abraham was Muslim' would certainly have surprised Abraham himself. But the rewriting of history from a Muslim point of view has succeeded fairly well among many in today's ignorant West.
"So yes, the West fought over Jerusalem again and again, and there's a deep reason for this. The West rests on three pillars – Jerusalem, Rome and Athens. The Islamists, alongside additional forces seeking to destroy the West, understand the pillar easiest to topple is Jerusalem. Take for example the recurring claim that Israelis 'are trying to destroy al-Aqsa and build the Third Temple.' This is a completely baseless libel, and yet you can hear it again and again in the Muslim world, and also in certain corners of the American right. All this shows how much Jerusalem carries exceptional significance.
"If someone doubts this, let them ask themselves – if this city were lost, would it be as significant to them as losing Portland or Toronto? Clearly yes. The battle over Jerusalem and over the tradition coming from it stands at the heart of Western identity. This is self-evident to me, but more importantly, it's also very understood by the West's enemies. They wouldn't invest so much effort in pressure on Jerusalem, if they didn't understand how central it is in Western tradition."
Q: You wrote in the book that Israeli society taught you several things through the commandment 'Choose life' from Deuteronomy. What did you mean? The message of Western freedom?
"Not entirely. One of the meanings of choosing life is of course the very freedom to enjoy them, and that's very important. People in the West tend to see this as self-evident, but many in the world have no possibility to live as they wish or enjoy their lives. But when I spoke about Israel, I meant a deeper dimension – because you can also go to the sea in Ibiza or Saint-Tropez. I'm saying consciously or unconsciously, Western people are the heirs of the Torah, of Deuteronomy and of the Psalms, the tradition calling to choose life. Choosing life sounds self-evident, almost like oxygen – it's around us always, and we forget its existence – but throughout history this really wasn't self-evident. Not to the Assyrians, not to the Babylonians, not to Genghis Khan's people. This recalls the Ten Commandments – many think these commandments are self-evident, but until the Commandments appeared, it wasn't at all clear 'thou shalt not murder' or 'thou shalt not steal' were binding laws. Choosing life too is the heart of Jewish tradition, and afterward an inheritance of Western culture."
Q: Many Israelis, especially from the secular elite, would prefer to present their state as another modern Western democracy following Europe, and not as a nation with a unique message originating in the Torah. Do you think Israel should present itself differently to the world?
"This isn't my decision, but I can offer one piece of advice – don't fear your complexity. I have enough Jewish friends to know this is a people capable of conducting several arguments simultaneously – sometimes by the same person, at the same Sabbath table. There's no reason this should be too complicated. 'The progressive elements' of Israel, if I may use that problematic term, are important in many senses. They're sometimes used against you, like anything, but they also have value – they reflect diversity, openness and creativity, and also Israel's difference from the space around it. There's nothing wrong with that. At the same time, I wouldn't present only that, just as I wouldn't present only those sitting all day in yeshivas. Israel is a multi-layered state, and all these layers can and should be seen. There's no reason to fear that. One of Israel's great things is that everything happens in it simultaneously, and that's its beauty.
"Hamas, Iran's ayatollahs' regime and other leaders of radical Islam pose a challenge to the world in that they represent a stream of religion devoted to death. They sanctify death, encourage it, celebrate it – to the point of rejoicing over their children's deaths in religion's name. All this reminds us our tradition, the tradition of life's sanctity, is exceptional and not self-evident. Therefore we must cultivate it, preserve it and bequeath it to coming generations."
Q: In presenting the contrast between "Choose life" and "death cult," it seems you're touching a deeper question – about evil itself, almost in its theological sense. Does this mean there is metaphysical evil in the world?
Murray nods. "This is a question I've thought about much. Anyone who saw Hamas's acts on October 7, watched the videos, spoke with survivors or was at the attack sites, knows there's no misunderstanding or social distress here. This is pure evil. The death drive is real, and it exists in the world. And I, as someone who tends toward skepticism in matters of faith, found myself changing following this. I've seen many horrors in my life, but what shocked me this time was the ecstasy in evil, the pleasure in taking lives. It was clear to me this is a dimension beyond politics, beyond geopolitics. This is a dark energy seeking to swallow the light."
He recalls words said by writer and researcher Gitta Sereny, who wrote about Nazi war criminals and serial killers. "She wasn't a religious woman, but at the end of her days she said in an interview she'd reached the conclusion that evil exists in the world, and sometimes 'it descends into it and covers it.' I completely agree with her. And indeed, as religious friends of mine noted – if you deal with evil, you must also ask about its opposite – what is the good."
Murray is silent for a moment, then adds, "I met in Canada the parents of a young Israeli killed at the Nova festival. He was a true hero, defended other young people with his body and saved many. I told them, 'Your son died doing the noblest deed a person can do – he gave his life to grant life.' And this in my view is the deep difference in the world, between the death cult and the life camp, between evil and good – the question whether you're willing to fight for life."
Q: In a recently published interview in Free Press you said since the time you spent in Israel, you turn more to scripture, and that there are now more rabbis in your life than most of your Jewish friends have. Do you see the process you underwent here also as a spiritual experience?
"To some extent. I'm still digesting it. This relates of course to what I saw – so much evil, but also so much good. This changed me in ways I still don't fully understand. But the main thing isn't me, but our broader culture," he smiles awkwardly. "I don't like to deal with myself too much, but I can say watching Israeli society and its coping after October 7 changed me, and even instilled hope in me.
"I saw a viral meme showing a crossroads – on one path it says 'Humiliation, surrender, disintegration,' and on another path 'Standing, awakening, courage.' In Israel I saw the choice of the second path. I saw an entire people, especially a young generation, rise to the historical moment and defend their tradition and way of life. And that made me more optimistic than I've been in years."
Q: You also chose to end your book, which includes difficult descriptions, on an optimistic note.
"That's how I wanted to end, and it's also the truth. The book looks directly at the darkness, but I hope I managed to show there's a way out of it. I saw that way myself, and I want others to see it too. To see that the way to choose life passes through Israel."
