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."

The post Douglas Murray has spent 20 years warning Europe about Islam – now he says Israel is the answer appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

He was born 65 years ago in Algeria, to Chaim-Gedalia, a doctor of economics, and Batya-Albertine, a Holocaust survivor. His parents met in France, and after several years of living in Algeria and France they immigrated to Israel in 1972. His grandfather, Ezer Sharki, who was president of Algeria's Zionist Federation, was close to Rabbi David Ashkenazi, Algeria's chief rabbi. The family connection continued in the next generation, with his son Rabbi Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi, "Manitou," one of the catalysts of Jewish revival in France.

In Rabbi Cherki's view, one of the disengagement's fundamental lessons is that Religious Zionism needs to aspire to state leadership. "The moment you say 'I only need a study hall,' – then you're given a study hall, but don't interfere in the state. This was a position adopted by part of the settlers' leadership, and therefore, they were easy prey. We needed to aspire to state leadership, not settle for the religious affairs or education ministries." In the two decades that passed since, he gets the impression, this lesson has already been largely internalized: "Any sociological look shows that Religious Zionism is destined to lead the state. This knowledge today frightens mainly the religious-nationalists themselves, but that's the nature of things – whoever enters a leadership position must also grow culturally and spiritually, and I'm definitely willing to help him with that."

Five months ago, Rabbi Cherki spoke during a rally at Hostages Square. "I spoke there against Hamas, and also spoke about the fact that no one has a monopoly on opinion regarding the hostages. I told them to present me as a cross-sector figure, and that's how I also behaved in the speech." In his view, this involves "a struggle between two values, the collective's value and the individual's value. Both are important, and each side of the dispute emphasizes one over the other. Our work is knowing how to connect these two concerns harmoniously."

"The Israeli nation is the only one whose nationalism isn't expanded egoism. Our destiny is to be a blessing to all families of the earth, without demanding they be like us. Today, the world can absorb our message primarily through religion and individual lifestyle, but in a broader view, the political dimension must also be considered: the Seven Noahide Laws conclude with a commandment to establish courts, and only states are capable of fulfilling this. Ultimately, nations too will be forced to adopt this message. Therefore, I look with hope at people like Argentina's President Javier Milei, who happily received the 'Shulchan Aruch for Noahides' I wrote and was translated into Spanish."

The post 'Jews are the backbone of history' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

From his perspective, Israel's decisive confrontation with evil fulfilled the nation's historic calling to merge strength with moral clarity, establishing itself as a beacon championing justice and righteousness through concrete action rather than empty rhetoric. The Israeli Air Force's precision strikes demonstrated unequivocally to the global community that Israel stands as civilization's protective barrier.

BenLevi has maintained close surveillance of Iranian developments across multiple decades through various professional roles. During his tenure with the IDF's Intelligence Research Division, he concentrated extensively on Iranian affairs, and his English-language book "Cultures of Counterproliferation: The Making of American and Israeli Policy on the Iranian Nuclear Program" was published last year.

This work draws from his doctoral research at Bar-Ilan University and his fellowship at Georgetown University in Washington, where he also studied Persian language and cultural studies. Currently, he serves as a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security while directing the Churchill Program for Statecraft and Security at the Argaman Institute.

"From a historical standpoint," he explained, "this military operation places Israel in the most secure and powerful position it has occupied since achieving statehood. The campaign restored Israel's reputation as a formidable military and technological force possessing exceptional capabilities. Between its founding and 1979, Israel faced an existential threat from Egypt's military, which spearheaded Arab opposition to the Jewish state. Following Egypt's withdrawal from active hostilities, Iran's Islamic revolution transformed the republic into the primary force opposing Israel's existence through constructing the 'ring of fire' and developing proxy networks."

"We're witnessing a complete narrative shift – no longer does America play the role of our great rescuer, but rather an American president who recognized this historic opportunity and understood his obligation to join as our partner in this blessing," BenLevi clarified. "The Book of Esther documents how 'many of the peoples of the land became Jews' following the Purim triumph, and similarly, we can anticipate expanding international interest with Israel's cultural contributions to global civilization.

"While this recent offensive hasn't eliminated all threats facing us, it provides a crucial historical insight. Whenever we seized the initiative against our adversaries, opportunities multiplied and we achieved remarkable success. We witnessed this pattern during our independence declaration, Operation Sinai, Operation Focus during the Six-Day War, our strikes on Iraq and Syria's nuclear reactors, and the First Lebanon War's opening that resulted in the PLO's expulsion to Tunisia within two months. Conversely, each instance of hesitation cost us dearly."

Q: You've criticized the security establishment's prevailing doctrine even before October 7. Does the operation in Iran indicate a fundamental conceptual shift?

"Progress is evident, though caution remains necessary. The defensive mindset inherited from the 1990s and Oslo Accords – emphasizing 'containment' while depending on Iron Dome systems, barrier fencing, and fortifications – became institutionally entrenched and continues influencing many decision-makers. During the war's initial year, I encountered such perspectives, including a document proposing a 'new Israeli strategy' from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an organization housing both colleagues and respected intellectual opponents. Ultimately, they advocated the familiar formula of 'no viable partner exists on the opposing side, requiring our withdrawal and defensive positioning.'

"Some voices in the establishment still characterize October 7 as merely a tactical failure – something adequate tactical alertness could have prevented. They fail to grasp that the fundamental strategic conception, not just alertness levels, demands transformation. Nevertheless, I've rarely encountered such materials more recently, which speaks volumes."

BenLevi contended that the proactive strategy must guide Gaza operations as well. "Israel cannot display any weakness in Gaza now, since hesitation risks undermining the power projection established through Iran's bombardment. This requires unwavering commitment to Hamas's destruction as a governing entity, launching political initiatives to remove Palestinian statehood from international agendas, and pursuing alternative arrangements for local autonomy instead. Israel should reinvigorate efforts enabling Gazans to relocate to destinations including Syria and potentially Iran.

"As Israel consolidates Gaza control, we should expect forcible hostage recoveries, but any Hamas negotiations must be categorically rejected. Successfully completing this campaign would deliver decisive blows to both Islamist variants – Shiite and Sunni – projecting strength across regional regimes, particularly Gulf states and Saudi Arabia seeking Western and Israeli partnerships."

BenLevi advocates for introducing a perspective relatively uncommon among geopolitical specialists – that interstate conflicts derive not exclusively from economic considerations or deterrence calculations. Underneath the veneer of power politics and diplomatic pressure, profound cultural worldviews operate.

Q: Many assume that major powers respond primarily to considerations of strength and economics rather than cultural and ideological motivations.

"In my view, this is a fundamental flaw that characterizes Marxist approaches that reduce human behavior to materialist factors, or liberal theories that minimize cultural distinctions while treating humans as purely rational actors. No 'universal rationality' governs international relations – every culture functions according to its distinct value system and identity. While states certainly react to immediate strategic and economic pressures, the underlying long-term forces remain cultural, ideological, and frequently theological in nature. National policies emerge from foundational beliefs about moral questions of right and wrong, operating alongside military and economic realities. Iranian hostility toward us defies explanation through purely materialist analysis.

"The fundamental differentiation between 'the West' and other global regions depends entirely on cultural and historical foundations. China exemplifies this by viewing Western value penetration as an existential challenge, demonstrating through its brutal 1989 Tiananmen Square suppression exactly how extensively it will act to maintain its authoritarian identity. China's support for Iran's regime is no mere coincidence. Both China and Russia regard Iran as more than a strategic partner – they consider it an ideological partner in resisting American and Western hegemony. Those who reduce everything to statistical data and commercial arrangements fundamentally misunderstand the deeper structures underlying global order."

These observations recall the celebrated intellectual debate from the late 1990s between two preeminent political science scholars – Francis Fukuyama, who interpreted the Soviet Union's collapse as evidence of "history's end" and liberal democracy's universal triumph alongside capitalism, versus Samuel Huntington, who countered through "The Clash of Civilizations" by arguing that major conflicts would persist while transforming their character, with future struggles returning to cultural, religious, and ethnic identity foundations.

Almost 30 years subsequently, amid contemporary global tensions, numerous scholars are revisiting Huntington's arguments and discovering their continued relevance. "Huntington clearly demonstrated greater accuracy than Fukuyama," BenLevi acknowledges, "though reality proves more nuanced than his framework suggested. India exemplifies an ancient, distinct civilization that embraced and absorbed Western principles, consequently gravitating decisively toward Western partnerships after decades of attempting neutrality across competing blocs. Similar patterns emerge throughout the Muslim world – moderate Sunni nations including the UAE and recently Saudi Arabia pursue closer Western relationships while selectively adopting Western values. These evolutionary developments render Huntington's thesis considerably more sophisticated and fluid."

The roots of isolationism

Israeli and American policy formation regarding Iran's nuclear challenge also demonstrates, according to BenLevi's analysis, manifestations of deeper ideological foundations. His scholarly work illustrates how divergent political philosophies generated different responses to Iranian nuclear threats across both nations. "Security policies develop not merely through strategic limitations," he emphasized, "but equally through political cultural contexts and historical visions embraced by governing elites."

The essential distinction separates two fundamental foreign policy approaches – idealistic versus realistic frameworks. "Idealistic thinkers," BenLevi elaborated, "conceptualize the international arena as a cooperative environment where armed conflict represents an aberration and peaceful coexistence constitutes the standard operating procedure. They maintain absolute confidence that every international actor functions according to identical logic – pursuing economic prosperity and material advancement – believing that presenting appropriate diplomatic proposals will inevitably generate reciprocal cooperation.

However, when confronting regimes such as Iran or Hamas, which operate through entirely different moral frameworks and frequently pursue theological-revolutionary objectives incompatible with compromise, this worldview can manifest as perilously delusional thinking. Realists proceed from alternative foundational premises – they readily acknowledge hierarchical relationships between different cultures, recognizing that power competitions form integral components of human and political existence, that peaceful intervals represent historical anomalies, and that strength – whether military, economic, or technological – are essential to survival."

Using this analytical framework, he categorizes various leaders accordingly. "Within American leadership," he specifies, "Carter, Clinton, and Obama exemplify the idealistic paradigm, while Reagan and Bush embody realistic approaches. Regarding Israeli politics, Shimon Peres gravitated toward pronounced idealism, whereas Netanyahu distinctly represents realistic thinking. Nevertheless, given the region's extraordinary complexity, Middle Eastern realities prevent Israeli leaders from maintaining purely idealistic perspectives comparable to Carter's approach.

"Remarkably, a distinctive pattern emerged here – numerous military officers who demonstrated fierce combat effectiveness during their security service transformed into idealists following their transition to political leadership. Throughout the Oslo period, many became convinced that peace was literally around the corner, requiring only proper diplomatic frameworks to resolve all conflicts. This assessment proved catastrophically misguided. My evaluation suggests this stems from psychological difficulty to accept that employing force against evil represents genuinely moral action. Consequently, when these former combatants assume leadership responsibilities, they abandon realistic perspectives through apparent attempts to compensate for their use of violence."

The dynamics in America also betray simplistic categorization. "I encountered senior officials from Obama administration service who participated in the negotiations with Iran. They reported believing that John Kerry, serving as secretary of state, demonstrated excessive enthusiasm for reaching an agreements while accepting compromises they considered extensive. This revelation surprised me considerably."

Q: In Israel it's commonly said that Americans are naive in their dealings with the Middle East. Do you endorse this assessment? 

"First of all, America contains individuals who comprehend Middle Eastern dynamics very well. Numerous officers with Iraq and Afghanistan combat experience understand precisely their adversaries' nature and harbor no illusions. However, some cultural elements lead to blindness. The majority of Americans live in homogeneous, English-speaking environments, remaining isolated from exposure to other cultures and languages. Unlike typical Israelis or most Europeans, countless Americans never experience significant cross-cultural interaction, never learned another language and never travelled outside of America.

"This gap manifests itself within the diplomatic and political leadership. Consider Vice President JD Vance's background – he has not lived abroad aside for several months of service as military correspondent in Iraq, yet currently represents the voice of restraint toward the action against Iran. Another pattern is seen throughout lower administrative levels – American professional diplomats are incentivized to study Arabic as the secure pathway toward embassy positions across the Arab world. They are trained at universities' Middle Eastern studies departments, some receiving Qatari funding while promoting Edward Said's 'Orientalism' worldview that denies regional populations agency over their futures while blaming all problems on imperialistic influences.

"These factors collectively impair American understanding of distinct ideological adversaries – who hate Americans because of who they are - not their specific actions. Saddam Hussein operated as a brutal dictator but was not an  ideological Islamist. The Iranian regime, on the other hand, despises America not for particular policies but for the fundamental values it represents. Many American diplomats have difficulty accepting this, believing that deep down, the regime officials are 'just like us' and seek a higher material quality of life. This is a persistent error rooted in cultural blindness. Democratic leaders including Obama embrace this misconception, though Republican figures like George Bush share it substantially."

Contemporary American concern regarding President Trump's recent actions in Iran reflects profound cultural and historical influences beyond immediate policy concerns. "First of all, the failure of Iraq constitutes a formative event for this generation of policy-makers. However, this perspective rests upon America's deeply embedded isolationist heritage, predating Tucker Carlson. George Washington's presidential farewell address explicitly cautioned against foreign entanglements. The Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s formally declared American non-interference in European and Asian affairs while demanding reciprocal non-intervention throughout the American hemisphere. Following World War I, Americans retreated from global engagement for an extended period. Only through the necessity after World War II did America transform into a superpower maintaining worldwide military presence. Nevertheless, isolationist sentiment remains integral to American political culture."

BenLevi differentiates between contemporary Republican isolationist approaches. "Extreme isolationists may even see defending Taiwan as contrary to American interests, naturally opposing intervention supporting Israel. However, most embrace a more moderate position, prioritizing China as the paramount challenge while relegating other concerns to secondary status. Most in this camp are not anti-Israel but rather expect allies around the world to bear the burden of their security needs, be it Israel, Gulf states, or NATO allies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby represents prominent 'China first' advocacy. It seems that while not opposing Israeli strikes against Iran, he believes American involvement must be avoided to prevent distraction from higher priority theaters of conflict.

"I believe that Trump joined the offensive not due to an inability on Israel's part, but because he saw the operation's extraordinary success and did not want to remain on the sidelines in a supporting role but instead preferred to actively participation and share in the credit. This does not contradict his electoral commitments, as he has clearly taken the position that he would prevent a nuclear Iran by force if necessary. Having given ample opportunity for diplomacy, he had justified moving to military tools. Additionally, by striking Iran he also sent a clear message to China, demonstrating his willingness to take action when required, which strengthened deterrence against any Chinese moves on Taiwan."

The new man

Raphael BenLevi (41) resides in central Israel with wife, Lital, and four children. His grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household in Toronto, arriving in Israel in September 2001 for a study-volunteer program – one week before 9/11 and amid the Second Intifada in Israel. "This experience clarified that Jewish history is being written here in Israel, while living in the diaspora relegates Jews to the sidelines. Upon internalizing this understanding, I determined to become an active participant by immigrating," he explained.

Following two years of university study in Canada, BenLevi immigrated to Israel, continuing his studies at the Technion, and entering the IDF upon completion of his bachelor's degree. He served as an officer in the Israeli Air Force responsible for F-16 and F-15 jet engine maintenance policy. Finding himself pulled to the realms of strategy, he pursued an MA in in government, diplomacy, and strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (currently Reichman University) while transferring to the IDF's Intelligence Research Division. This professional evolution coincided with encountering Rabbi Uri Cherki's teachings and personality. "He provided primarily intellectual permission to think creatively. Beyond instruction, he encourages his student toward independence and action. Through him I internalized that the Torah contains messages with universal relevance, but that Israel must also be strong geopolitically to have its ideas taken seriously."

BenLevi directs the Churchill Program at Argaman Institute, which aims to train policy professionals grounded in moral realism, who can integrate power with ethics, culture with strategy, and Jewish identity with foreign policy. According to him, the program is designed to fill the void left by the disappearance of the realist approach from academia.
"Our goal is to cultivate leaders who are committed to a national vision while recognizing the harshness of the international arena, and who understand that moral strength is not a paradox—that it is, in fact, the answer to a hollow moralism that ends up abandoning the weak to tyranny."

Q: What, in your view, is the message or contribution of the State of Israel in the context of the global cultural clash taking place today?

"I see the root of today's global struggle as a return to an ancient conflict between idolatry, which gave rise to totalitarian political models, and the Biblical message of human freedom. The Bible challenges political systems in which flesh-and-blood kings make themselves into gods, and its foundational assumptions are what shaped the West. The idea that man is created in the image of God provides the moral basis for freedom and for the democratic system, in which citizens participate in shaping the government, as well as for a world order built on nation-states, which allow peoples to express their unique cultures."

Q: Is Israel part of the West?

"Yes and no. On the one hand, the West drew from us Biblical concepts, but it also incorporates some pagan values of Rome and Greece. So, at our core, we are a civilization that predates the West and stands apart from it.

"In contrast to the West," BenLevi continues, "stands the axis of dictatorships—Iran, China, and North Korea—alongside the radical vision of leftist progressivism, both of which demand blind submission to an elite that claims to possess a single, absolute truth, and seek to subjugate the individual to a messianic, power-driven ideology. This has produced a universalist project that champions the 'here and now'—from the Chinese version of Leninism, through Khomeinist theology that turned Shi'ite tradition on its head by making religious scholars not passive waiters for the return of the 'Hidden Imam' but architects of an active messianic regime, to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Nazis in Germany, and the French Revolution during the Reign of Terror.

"What unites them all," he says, "is a utopian belief that the old world must be destroyed to create a perfect society and a 'new man'. And at the top of each stands a domineering figure—the Duce, the Führer, the Rahbar (the Supreme Leader in Persian)—who denies individual freedom and assumes a godlike status, like the god-kings of the ancient world."

Q: By the way, you speak of China as aspiring to realize Marxism "here and now." Is that truly a living ideology, or just an empty slogan?

"Just like the West is blind to Iran and radical Islam, many also miss the big picture with China: in the end, communism is its religion. True, they no longer implement the doctrine exactly as they did in the 1950s and '60s, but in party congresses, a giant portrait of Karl Marx still hangs on the wall. He is the guiding star by which they navigate.

"China understood that it had to open its economy and create the appearance of a free market, but it has not abandoned the Leninist model, where the Party is the driving force behind a global revolution. The major corporations there are neither free nor private. This is a totalitarian regime equipped with 21st-century technologies."

A purge campaign

Even within the global Left, says BenLevi, one can identify a tendency to centralization and totalitarian power, in the attempt to shape a world governed by supranational institutions like the UN and the European Union, and by a discourse in which any challenge to prevailing beliefs is immediately denounced as heresy.

"It's the same model: one absolute truth, a small group of enlightened elites who believe they possess it, and anyone who disagrees is seen as an obstacle. This isn't politics of compromise — it's a campaign of purification and a declaration of war against the forces of 'reaction,' driven by a longing for redemption through the erasure of the present.

This isn't progress — it's radical utopianism. And it doesn't matter whether the flag is waved by the representative of the 'Hidden Imam' or by the prophets of political correctness."

Q: But Judaism also believes in active messianism and a call for redemption.

"True, but it is based on an entirely different principle: only God is sovereign — neither man, nor king, nor state holds ultimate authority. Unlike totalitarian regimes that demand blind submission to an elite, the Jewish tradition calls for humility and a recognition that human understanding of truth is always partial, and that man must act within a moral framework that is subject to a power greater than himself.

This is the root of the profound conflict with the Iranian regime and others like it — not only over nuclear weapons, but over the relationship between God and man, and the very concept of freedom.

This idea, in my view, is encapsulated in the concept of the Temple in our tradition. The Temple symbolizes the possibility of encountering God not just as an abstract idea, but as a living experience, here in this world — not through submission or subjugation, but through joy.

The Temple embodies the constant and fruitful tension in the dialogue between man and God, between a lofty ideal of perfection and an imperfect, concrete reality, and between universality and nationality. It is a model in which the people of Israel convey a message to all humanity — one that is not erased or crushed, but uplifted: 'For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.'" (Isiah, 56:7).

Q: Some might say that talk about the Temple evokes fears of establishing a theocratic regime in Israel, like in Iran.

"I'm not necessarily talking about building the Temple tomorrow morning. The point is the idea: the Torah is not opposed to human flourishing and freedom—rather it is their foundation. God is not humanity's enemy, but rather the guarantor that human beings will not become slaves to one another.

We have no vision of a theocracy ruled by clerics, but rather of freedom that stems from a covenant with the Creator, who, in Jewish belief, has limited Himself to make room for human free will and dialogue. This is a moral foundation not aimed at establishing a halachic state, but a Jewish state that integrates tradition, science, progress, and economic prosperity, all rooted in a deep identity.

"In my view, this is also a message for the Muslim world, which, out of fear of modernity, has frozen into anti-modern conservatism—and also for parts of the West, which, in the name of progress, seek to abandon the anchors of human identity like family, nation, and tradition.

The Jewish message is: both — strength and morality. That is our message, and it depends first and foremost on defeating the evil of Khomeinism."

The post 'The protective wall of all civilization' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Hammer, 36, holds the position of senior editor-at-large at the distinguished weekly Newsweek, functions as a syndicated columnist for major publications including the Los Angeles Times, serves as a research fellow with the conservative Edmund Burke Foundation, and hosts "The Josh Hammer Show." His regular participation in conferences and public debates has established him as a representative voice for conservative positions in America's ongoing culture wars. These activities have elevated him to prominence as one of the most influential Jewish voices in contemporary American conservatism.

Hammer currently visits Israel, with plans to appear Sunday for a book discussion at Jerusalem's Center for Israeli Liberty offices. His religious commitment and its outward manifestations are immediately apparent. Multiple chains adorn his neck, including a small gold Star of David purchased in Safed, a "Shaddai" pendant inherited from his wife's grandfather, and an Israeli military dog tag. His Florida office desk displays stones collected from Treblinka and Auschwitz concentration camps alongside a bottle containing soil from Jerusalem's City of David, positioned near copies of his latest work, "Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West."

The book documents his personal evolution toward conservative ideology and fervent Zionist philosophy, advocates for strengthening Jewish-Christian partnerships, and establishes Israel as both ideological foundation and moral compass for Western civilization's trajectory. His recent public appearances featuring a black kippah reflect the religious awakening he has experienced over recent years.

"I was planning on writing a totally unrelated book, kind of like a young conservative manifesto type thing, and then October 7th happened and I decided to switch course," Hammer explained. "This moment was bigger than me in my professional career, this moment is fundamentally a time that Jews are going to have to start coming out not just with their rifles as all the heroic members of the IDF are doing on a day-to-day basis but with the pen as well, and to defend that which has made our civilization great and frankly in many ways just to defend the Jewish people and Judaism itself."

Hammer's observations resonate with widespread Western concerns regarding cultural decline. National identities face erosion, excessive individualism prevails, immigration challenges intensify, and demographic trends show declining birth rates. October 7's aftermath revealed troubling campus dynamics as elite university students demonstrated clear solidarity with Islamist organizations. Hammer attempts to identify these threats while proposing alternative directions.

Confronting three primary forces endangering Western civilization – Islamism, nihilistic secularism, and radical progressive leftist movements – requires renewed commitment to the biblical covenant and Jewish moral principles that originally constructed Western cultural foundations.

Equality's foundation

"As a lawyer, I like to define terms," Hammer says at the opening of our conversation. The West is not just a geographical location or lifestyle, he explained. "Everything that we call the West today begins with God's world-altering revelation to Moses and the Israelites assembled at Mount Sinai."

Young people growing up today in the West don't understand how the Bible relates to the fundamental values of the society they live in, but this is the basis of so many things taken for granted in our culture.

"Take, for example, Genesis 1:27 – this is the single foundational ethical moral imperative for all of Western civilization. "So God created mankind in his own image," – the entire basis of genuine moral human equality under law and politics can be traced to Genesis 1:27," he explained, a principle that also appears at the beginning of the American Declaration of Independence. "But the relevant question is, are Jefferson and Locke actually just making this up in a vacuum? Well, they're obviously getting this from somewhere; they're getting it from Genesis 1:27."

He also points to the moral foundations taught in secular education. "When I went to public school growing up, in kindergarten, the big thing I was taught was the golden rule: treat others as you like to be treated. Well, where does that come from? It's right there in the book of Leviticus: 'Treat your fellow as yourself.'

"When he was a child, this was still considered a basic moral principle. But today, when the West is losing the source context of its own values, it ultimately also loses the values themselves and the ability to defend them, and what remains is a vacuum filled by extremists.

"Jews and Christians alike need to look back to the origins of our civilization if we're going to muster the fortitude, the courage, and the skill to ward off the very real and very serious threats that we face today."

Q: Leo Strauss called Athens and Jerusalem "the two pillars of the West". Some might argue that you've overlooked ancient Greece as a key foundation of the West.

"Leo Strauss famously did argue that Western civilization is a kind of DNA-like strand of reason and revelation. I'm not downplaying reason. What I am saying is that without something else, reason is counterproductive, bordering on potentially catastrophic. Unless you are tethering reason to something, unless you have an exogenous worldview, a predetermined worldview, and then you use reason as an analytical tool within that structure," Hammer replied.

He gestures toward the small stones from Auschwitz and Treblinka. "The perpetrators of those very atrocities thought that they were acting according to reason... acting according to the prevailing eugenicist doctrines and dogmas of the day. They thought that this was all rational and reasonable. Some of the most brutal, horrific atrocities in human history have been done in the name of untrammeled reason...there's a lot of other examples in history, from the Enlightenment and French Revolution to Communism.

"Political and moral discourse cannot be conducted in a vacuum. Look at some of the forces seeking to overthrow Western civilization – there is 'wokeism', there is Islamism, simply kind of resorting to saying 'just use reason' is not going to work," he stated. Instead, confronting these threats requires a more substantial foundation. "You actually need something substantive to stand on in order to ward back, and I cannot think of anything that is better suited than the very substance that founded this entire civilization in the first place." His solution is clear: "It's to double down on the Bible because it's actually all in there." This approach, he contended, also explains the crucial importance of the partnership between Jews and Christians, and why only people who believe in the Bible as a sacred text can preserve Western culture.

Hammer cites Maimonides as exemplifying proper reason-faith balance within Jewish tradition. "In his 'Guide for the Perplexed,' Maimonides is not saying we go to this Rawlsian veil of ignorance... reason can be used within a construct. What is that construct? The Bible." This approach recognizes that reason requires a normative framework and anchor, which the Bible and the revelation at Sinai provide.

Q: Contemporary conservatives frequently warn that Western survival necessitates religious renewal and Christian restoration, yet you additionally argue that they must acknowledge the Jewish foundations from which Christianity emerged. What drives this emphasis?

"We live in interesting political times. Here in the United States, the Republican party has been in kind of a state of flux for a long time now, especially in the aftermath of Donald Trump. A lot of conservatives have been grappling for a long time with how to reconcile individual dignity with this notion of the common good. A lot of people, even on the purported nominal rights, had gone too far down the rabbit hole for decades of exalting individualism at the expense of any notion of the union of the general welfare of the common good," Hammer explained.

"There is so much in [the Talmud] that should be a template for how we think about these matters today. Think about the revelation at Mount Sinai. God [wasn't saying] I will make each and every one of you individually holy, you're going to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. He's talking here about this idea of the collective."

Hammer provides specific Talmudic examples. "In tractate Shabbat [it says] if there is a moral sin that is going to be done in your community, and you individually have the power to stop it and you do not act, then you will be held responsible for the sin. That is a very different reconciliation of individual dignity with the common good than John Stuart Mill, the enlightenment thinker, with his well-known so-called 'harm theory' which essentially says that if I don't physically harm you, it's not my business.

"At the same time, Jewish ethics are not communist. They respect private property and personal freedom. Socialism would violate at least two of the ten commandments – 'thou shalt not steal', 'thou shalt not covet.' Therefore, I argue that if the Western right seeks renewed equilibrium, it must reconnect with biblical teachings and reexamine Jewish tradition alongside the ethical foundations underlying halakhic reasoning."

Confronting the Twin Towers' devastation

Josh Hammer's upbringing lacked conservative influences. The Twin Towers' destruction on September 11, 2001, became pivotal in forming his worldview. "I was 12 years old when September 11th happened, and I grew up on the Hudson River, 25 miles or so north of New York City. It was a formative moment in my life, a very real concrete visual realization that evil exists. Once you accept the reality that there is this moral dichotomy, that there is evil and there is good, you're basically a conservative before you know it because you've already rejected the liberal utopianism, the notion 'let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya," he recounted.

A subsequent transformative experience occurred eight years later during his Birthright Israel journey. "I remember standing there in Sderot looking out into Gaza, and I remember thinking, 'wow, this is the exact same fight that America has been fighting against al-Qaida.'"

This past year, Hammer returned to Jerusalem as a featured speaker at the Sovereignty Movement conference, addressing "A Gaza Wake-Up Call – Terminating the Two-State Paradigm." His presentation highlighted disengagement failures while advocating Gush Katif reestablishment. "Although the chance that Israel will return to settle in Gaza in the near term is slim, there is always room for hope," he notes in his book.

Hammer's upbringing occurred within a secular Jewish household in suburban New Jersey. "We lit Hanukkah candles, but without any deep knowledge. I don't think I had a Shabbat dinner until I was well into my teenage years. It wasn't complete disconnection from Judaism, but certainly Judaism emptied of content."

Subsequently, exposure to conservative intellectuals, including Edmund Burke and Roger Scruton, prompted a deeper examination of his Jewish heritage. "If this idea of intergenerational passing down tradition is so important, what is my tradition? I mean, I come from the oldest continually existing people on this earth. All the other nations that existed in the time of the patriarchs are all gone."

These contemplations initiated a transformative journey toward religious observance and Orthodox Jewish identity adoption. Currently wearing a black kippah, he selected "Matityahu" as his Hebrew middle name, honoring the Hasmonean commander. He perceives the Maccabees beyond historical context as exemplars of spiritual leadership and Jewish engagement. In his view, Hanukkah represents a call for every Jew to become a modern Maccabee and defend the Jewish people against hostile accusations. He is married to an Israeli woman and recently became a father. "We had our first daughter three months ago, her name is Esther," he shared, noting the fitting timing as they celebrated their daughter's first Purim holiday.

During campus visits and student interactions, Hammer confronts intense Israeli opposition absent a decade earlier. He attributes this shift partly to younger Americans, particularly Generation Z, lacking the September 11 experience. "They don't remember the smoke from the towers and don't understand the magnitude of the threat against us. Many see our support for Israel as part of the failed foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were indeed misguided attempts from the start to build nations from scratch and spread democracy in the Arab world.

But this represents gross distortion, according to Hammer's analysis. He argues that Israel functions as America's strategic partner rather than a military adventure in the Middle East. In his view, Israel prevents American conflicts rather than creating them. He contends that Israel repeatedly performs difficult tasks for America, including eliminating terrorists, exposing nuclear programs, and stopping weapons convoys, with Western intelligence agencies learning from these operations.

When Israel acts against Iran, Hamas, or the Houthis, Hammer argues it effectively defends American soldiers and interests while supporting the Western order against jihadist chaos. He emphasizes that Israel remains the region's only democracy with authentic Western value connections and nearly complete interest alignment with the West.

Unapologetic nationalism

Israel's significance extends beyond geopolitical dimensions, Hammer continued. "Take, for example, your unapologetic nationalism – modern Israel continues to preserve an ancient element from biblical times: the idea of the nation-state. Unlike the West, where national identity is increasingly dissolving, in Israel, it is still alive and present, through mandatory military service in the IDF that connects different sectors; memorial days when the entire state stops; the language, the calendar, and the importance of family. To you, as Israelis, this may seem obvious, but people in the West live without all of this. These are not just symbols but what is needed to keep a nation alive – elements that many Western countries have simply forgotten."

Israeli birth rates are approaching three children per woman, nearly double American figures. "While religion and family weaken in the West, Israel presents a unique model of Western democracy with a living national-religious identity, and that's exactly what we need."

Q: Your book criticizes church-state separation concepts in both Israel and America, advocating that Israel should incorporate additional halakhic principles into civil legislation. Such messages may generate anxiety among secular Israelis.

"Israel is a Jewish state, and the law should reflect this practically as much as possible. The modern separation between religion and state doesn't exist in Scripture. The idea that God and politics are separate is ridiculous to me. This is a liberal myth that many American Jews sanctify as part of their 'civic religion,' but if we return to the Bibl,e it has no roots there. On the contrary, the entire biblical political system is built on God's sovereignty as stated at Mount Sinai, 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'"

Q: Your enthusiastic judicial reform support sparked profound Israeli controversy, including debates with Professor Alan Dershowitz. Following nearly two years of war and internal divisions, should Israel continue pursuing judicial system modifications?

"It would be a disaster if Israel abandons the changes proposed in the reform. I've told numerous members of the Knesset – the moment the war ends, the issue must not be buried. Israel cannot continue to function as a 'juristocracy.' It's completely unreasonable that elected officials make decisions, and then any citizen can petition the High Court even without standing, and cancel them. As an American constitutional law guy, who keeps his constitution right here on the desk, as someone who clerked on a federal court of appeals, I've spoken at Harvard Law School, at Yale Law School, and I'm telling you your system is absolutely bonkers. A sovereign state must govern, not be subordinate to an unelected judicial elite."

Refusing silence

Approximately one month ago, Mike Huckabee assumed America's Israeli ambassadorial position. Huckabee, an Oklahoma Baptist minister, demonstrates unwavering Israeli support, frequently expressing belief in Genesis 12:3: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse." Hammer said he believes that Huckabee is "on firm ground for that, not just because it's the word of God that says so, but because history plays this out. I literally cannot think of a single instance in human history where a society that has cursed or discriminated against the Jews has been better off because of that. Antisemitism or hatred of Jews is symptomatic of a broader societal, cultural, and civilizational rot."

Q: Huckabee represents older evangelical Christian generations whose Israeli support seemed automatic. However, recent polling indicates declining support among younger Americans, including evangelicals. Does this concern you?

"Absolutely," Hammer responded. He emphasized the critical importance of maintaining the Jewish-Christian alliance. "We're called to be a light unto the nations, it means to try our best to fulfill the terms of the reciprocal two-way covenant with God, by making him king, by fulfilling the mitzvot. But we're also called to be a light unto the nations in a slightly more abstract way because Western civilization starts with the Jews. If you are a Jew who cares about Western civilization, you care more broadly about the entire tradition that our people have given the world; you have an obligation to do that.

"I'm not saying that Jews should go about trying actively to persuade non-Jews to convert, but we do have an obligation to explain what our tradition is and what our religion is at a time when that religion is under such siege. Only the truth can prevail over these lies and falsehoods. Just sitting back and taking it, that's never worked out particularly well."

Hammer actively engages in these battles. Since October 7, he monitors concerning developments beyond leftist antisemitism, including disturbing American right-wing trends. His book targets two primary figures – television host Tucker Carlson, a recently Fox News network's prominent star commanding millions of social media followers; and Candace Owens, a conservative network influencer expressing harsh Israeli opposition.

"I used to be a big fan of Tucker Carlson's. I was a former guest on his Fox News show. I usually said that he's not antisemitic, that he just happens to not care about the Middle East. I was obviously wrong. The cat has been fully let out of the bag since Tucker Carlson got fired by Fox News and since he went independent. He does play his hand much closer to the vest. He hides his hand a little bit better than Candace Owens does."

Owens advanced significantly further, disseminating traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories. "Candace Owens is out there liking tweets promoting the medieval blood libel that Jews used the blood of Christians to bake their Passover matzah."

Q: Your book labels this phenomenon "the Nietzschean right." What precisely does this characterize?

"There's been the rise of this whole influencer cabal on the right that fundamentally rejects the Bible, they reject the idea that we all have genuine moral equal dignity in favor of some neopagan ideas, that we can tell someone's capacity not by his ideas or his intellect, but by brute strength a concept which is completely rejected out of hand in the book of psalms, where it very clearly says that you are not judged by your strength. They're trying to resuscitate a lot of these pre-biblical or anti-biblical ideas."

Q: From the Jewish side, many would hesitate to align too closely with Christians, given historical tensions between the faiths and concerns about blurred religious boundaries.

"There's probably a slight difference here between an American and an Israeli mentality. I am an American, I'm a student of the American founding, and you go back and you look at what some of the American founders had to say about the Jewish people, whether it's George Washington, John Adams, or Alexander Hamilton, they were just genuine admirers of the Jewish people. Hamilton basically has this quote that the proof of God's existence is that the Jewish people are still alive today. John Adams says that the Jews are the most magnificent civilization that has ever existed.

"Are there large theological differences between Judaism and Christianity? Obviously. But we have a lot of overlap. More than 50% of their Bible is also our Bible. The other point is that we are the two religions that are in the crosshairs of the exact same enemies: Wokeism, Islamism, and global neoliberalism. The enemies of the Jews are never actually ultimately interested in coming after the Jews; it's a stepping stone towards something greater than that. Hamas itself would be a good example. Hamas is pretty clear in its founding charter from 1987: they're interested in all of whom they describe as 'infidels.' The Iranian regime is not just chanting 'death to Israel', they're chanting 'death to America' because America is this great moral Christian beacon in Western civilization.

"Therefore, I say – it doesn't matter how many differences there are between us – in practice, we're in the same boat fighting the same demons. One can argue whether the expression 'Jewish-Christian tradition' is accurate; for me, it's a useful term and it works. The covenant between us is a condition for the West's survival."

The post Conservative author's urgent warning: West needs Israel to survive appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"Occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing – are detached from their context and directed specifically against the Jewish state," Natasha Hausdorff, an expert in international law, stated. "The issue of Judea and Samaria goes beyond any question of political opinion. It's time to stop the rewriting of history and confront the cynical use of international law against the State of Israel. Israel is repeatedly accused of violating international law, but in practice, it doesn't violate even a single resolution of the UN Charter or Security Council under Chapter 7, which are the only legally binding ones. We cannot afford to abandon this arena. What I'm trying to do is simply return the legal discussion to real law."

Across from her sits Israel Ganz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council. The legal arguments are familiar to him, but when asked to speak about the right of Israelis to live in Judea and Samaria and Israel's right to apply sovereignty in this area, he uses different language.

"Those who live here know these are the roots of our identity," Ganz said. "What the world tries to place outside the boundaries of legitimacy is, in my eyes, the beating heart of Jewish-Israeli identity. Every hill here tells our story. We're sitting near Maaleh Michmash, a settlement with a biblical name. Not far from my home is an ancient mikveh where people immersed themselves on their way to the Temple. After 2,000 years of exile, even the international community recognized our right to return and establish a state here. Visitors from around the world – researchers, tourists, diplomats – stand amazed before the archaeological remains. They see pottery, sites, and tangible traces of Jewish presence. This moves them no less than it moves us. That's the critical point in my view."

Israel Ganz (47) is married and a father of seven. Since 2007, he has been a member of the Binyamin Council, and six years ago was elected council head. He will soon complete his first year as chairman of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of all the local authorities in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. These roles have positioned him as one of the prominent voices in the discussion about applying sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

Attorney Natasha Hausdorff, a London resident, was born in Britain to an Israeli father and German mother. She studied law at Oxford and Tel Aviv, interned at Israel's Supreme Court, and for the past decade has volunteered with "UK Lawyers for Israel." Her name isn't particularly well-known to the Israeli public, but around the world, the articulate lawyer with the refined British accent is one of the most sought-after speakers in discussions about our region's conflict.

In interviews with the BBC, in parliamentary discussions, high-profile academic debates, and popular podcasts, she repeatedly stands up to defend Israel. When I asked if her wave of media appearances since the war began has made her a celebrity, she became embarrassed. "I try to concentrate on my 'mission,'" she emphasized the word in Hebrew. "To defend the State of Israel against the lies and distortions hurled at it."

She recently arrived for a brief visit to Israel to participate in the International Conference on Combating Antisemitism held in Jerusalem. Her schedule is tight: before our conversation, she met in Tel Aviv with representatives of the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and immediately afterward was invited to Channel 7. Despite the busy schedule, she willingly accepted our invitation to come to Sha'ar Binyamin for a joint interview with the head of the Yesha Council – a collaboration that isn't taken for granted, even among staunch pro-Israel speakers.

In recent years, both have been working, each from their position, with decision-makers, diplomats, and influential figures in the international arena, in an effort to convince them that the State of Israel is not an "occupier" anywhere between the river and the sea. Ganz does this in his capacity as a public figure. He recently met in Washington with senior Trump administration officials and even made a historic visit to the United Arab Emirates. Hausdorff operates in the legal and media arenas, speaking about norms, conventions, and precedents.

In our conversation with them together, we sought to understand whether it's possible to change the global discourse on Judea and Samaria, which often slides into denying Israel's right to exist. "Right now, Israel needs not only to defend its presence in Judea and Samaria but to create a historic turning point," Ganz said. "We are in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the status of Judea and Samaria in the international arena, and to initiate a move toward applying Israeli sovereignty. We must not miss this moment; otherwise, we are likely to pay a diplomatic price for generations," he determined.

The realization of the vision of applying sovereignty largely depends on Washington's position, and there, attitudes toward Ganz and what he represents have changed dramatically since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The head of the Binyamin Council, who was previously considered persona non grata in the corridors of the administration, has become a welcome guest. The sharp change can also be seen in a new bill in Congress that seeks to enshrine the term "Judea and Samaria" as the official name for the region in federal documents, as well as in public statements by key figures such as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who spoke at a congressional hearing about "Israel's biblical right to Judea and Samaria," and openly identifies with the positions of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Alongside these developments, we should note the personal connections Ganz has cultivated over the years. During tours he conducted for foreign visitors, he met many Republican officials who now hold key positions, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, and the designated Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. The current composition of the administration in Washington sounds like a dream come true for the Yesha Council.

"With all due respect for American support, the responsibility to embark on a historic move of applying Israeli sovereignty lies first and foremost with us," Ganz tempered the enthusiasm. "This move must come from Jerusalem, not Washington. That's why my demands are directed primarily at Netanyahu."

"I agree with Mr. Ganz: this is indeed a historic opportunity to change direction," Hausdorff said. "I remember how Obama, during his presidency, called the settlements 'an obstacle to peace.' That was a foolish move that created a destructive effect. Of course, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] declared, 'How can I be less Palestinian than the American president?' The result was paralysis in the discourse. By contrast, Trump's people learned from the experience of previous administrations and understood that this line only strengthens the real obstacles to peace, like Abu Mazen himself. This should be a message both to the administration in Washington and to the international community: when you automatically embrace Palestinian positions, you set a bar that the Palestinians themselves cannot lower."

"From my conversations with Trump's people, it's clear to me that this time there are level-headed people in Washington," Ganz said. "They understand what many in Israel didn't internalize until October 7: there's a deep religious conflict here, between a culture of life and a culture of death. Today, the White House knows very well who is on the right side of history, who chose a path of peace and building, and who chose terrorism and cruelty."

When microphones are off

Behind Ganz's phrasing lies criticism of the Biden administration, especially regarding the gap between the "pure evil" speech, in which the then-president referred to the massacre in the Gaza border region, and steps taken in the following months: imposing personal sanctions on settlers from Judea and Samaria, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's official declaration that the settlements are illegal.

"I tried repeatedly to meet with the previous American ambassador, Jack Lew," Gantz recounted. "He kept telling me: 'Washington forbids me from meeting with you.' I asked him: How will you provide an accurate report if you're not even willing to listen? You travel to Ramallah, I'm on your way! At one point, I even suggested a cover story: say your car broke down and I happened to stop to help you," he smiled. "But nothing helped – the previous administration simply boycotted us."

Hausdorff can hardly hide her astonishment at hearing this: "A political directive that prevented US representatives from meeting with the head of the Yesha Council, while they were meeting with senior officials of the Palestinian Authority? That's incomprehensible," she said. "Exactly," Ganz replied. "The ambassador was allowed to meet with terrorists in Jenin and Bethlehem, but not with me."

The same diplomatic resistance that Ganz faced during the Biden administration is what Hausdorff encounters today in other settings, though often disguised behind polite diplomatic language when meeting with officials behind closed doors. "In my meetings with government officials or members of parliament, I clarify that there is no situation of 'occupation' in Judea and Samaria. Many times, once the microphones are turned off, they admit to me: 'We use this term for political reasons.' And that's exactly the point. These are legal terms whose cynical use has serious consequences for Israel."

Q: How do you deal with claims of illegal occupation?

"The first thing to know is that this claim doesn't stand up to the most basic test of international law," Hausdorff explained. "Contrary to common assumptions in the discussion, the issue of the status of the West Bank doesn't begin in '67, but in '48: a fundamental principle in international law, called 'uti possidetis juris' (the principle of possession in law), determines that at the moment of declaration of independence, a state automatically 'adopts' the borders of the entity that preceded it. In Israel's case, these are the borders of the British Mandate, which therefore included Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem. When the State of Israel was established, this territory legally belonged to it; it never belonged to the Kingdom of Jordan, which responded to the establishment of the state with a declaration of war. The implication is that in '67, Israel didn't conquer foreign territory, but returned to territory that had been hers from her first day. The partition plan, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly, has no legal significance; it's a recommendation that wasn't implemented because it was rejected by the Arabs."

"Take Ukraine as an example. If it were to recapture the Crimean Peninsula from Russia, no one would claim that the territory is 'occupied.' And Ukraine's borders were determined by exactly the same principle. For years, I've been asking my colleagues in the legal academy why this principle doesn't apply in the Israeli case, and to this day, I haven't received a single serious answer," Hausdorff said. "I argue that there's a political use of legal terms that are taken out of context and applied in reverse, directed specifically against the victim. And so, instead of international law being a tool for stability, it becomes a propaganda battlefield. This is, in my opinion, one of the deepest sources of perpetuating the conflict."

Ganz added, "I encountered the hypocrisy in international law accidentally last week. I was driving through the heart of Area C, and to my surprise, I saw a new row of Palestinian buildings, each displaying a sign: 'Donated by Belgium,' 'Donated by Britain,' 'Donation of the European Union.' This is an area under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, yet illegal buildings are being erected there, funded by foreign governments. You can't talk seriously about 'international law' when countries openly violate it and create new facts on the ground, without permission and without agreement. Where's the respect for the rule of law?"

Hausdorff responded, "I'm very familiar with this phenomenon. The European Union proudly declares its contribution to buildings, even though each such project violates the Oslo understandings and is a unilateral attempt to establish facts on the ground. Those who support a diplomatic process cannot promote such steps."

Q: If international law has become a cover for political interests, what's the point of Israel continuing to play by its rules?

"I don't accept this approach," Hausdorff said. "Most countries obey most rules, most of the time. International law creates a framework that allows diplomacy to exist, and therefore, it has value. The problem isn't with the law itself, but with how it's used."

"It's not a 'bank'"

Q: Even without legal arguments, the world sees the transfer of this territory to Palestinian control as the key to peace and stability in the region. How can one explain that the result could be disastrous?

"October 7 shuffled the cards, and level-headed people around the world now understand that Israel relinquishing this territory would be national suicide," Ganz responded. "I spoke this week with the commander of the IDF's Central Command, and heard from him that since the beginning of the war, 1,300 terrorists have been eliminated here, and over 15,000 have been arrested. These inconceivable numbers reflect Hamas' hold on the Palestinian population. According to the polls I'm familiar with, 86% of Palestinians express support for the organization.

"In conversations with diplomats, I emphasize not only our historical right, but also the strategic importance of the territory," Ganz added. "When they talk to me about the 'West Bank,' I always ask them to draw the border. They immediately understand that it's impossible: it's not a 'bank.' We're talking about a quarter of Israel's territory, a ridge that overlooks both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the populations here are intertwined, and the distance to the sea is 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). I explain to diplomats that you can run this in an hour and a half. Abba Eban was right when he spoke of the Auschwitz borders. These are borders that cannot be defended."

Hausdorff said, "When Israel is required to evacuate settlements, it's usually a means to continue the war against it. When settlements are defined as 'obstacles to peace,' it means cleansing Judea and Samaria of Jews, as happened in 1948, and also in today's Areas A and B. We've seen this before: Jordan cleansed these areas of Jews. On our way here, we saw a red sign warning Israelis not to enter Area A, but everyone knows it refers to Jews, because it's less likely that an Arab Israeli would be harmed there. We need to expose the double standard of international institutions, and the immediate danger this poses to Israel."

Q: How do you explain this double standard?

"Throughout history, antisemitism has often operated through projection. That is, attributing to the Jewish people the sins of others," Hausdorff explained. "What we see today is a modern incarnation of the same pattern: accusing Jews of crimes committed against them. What the Jordanians did in Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem – occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews – is presented as Israeli behavior toward Palestinians. The expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries has also been erased from the discourse. Terms like 'colonialism,' 'apartheid,' and 'ethnic cleansing,' which were born to describe other injustices, are detached from their context and directed specifically against the Jewish state."

Sometimes, she added, this reversal crosses the boundaries of even the cruelest imagination. "I recently encountered the delusional claim of 'Israeli cannibalism.' This is especially absurd when we remember the lynch in Ramallah in 2000, when two reserve soldiers mistakenly entered the city, and the Palestinian mob not only murdered them brutally but also desecrated their bodies in a shocking manner. There were reports then of acts of cannibalism on the bodies. And now, it's Israel that's being accused of such acts. This isn't just a distortion of facts; it's propaganda based on a complete rewriting of reality."

Q: When looking at the demonstrations against Israel in the Western world, there's an impression that the attempt to stop this murky wave is almost hopeless.

"That's why I take care to emphasize to decision-makers and audiences around the world: if you're indifferent to what's happening here, it won't stop within Israel's borders. History proves that persecution of Jews never ends there. When international law is cynically and distortedly used to attack Israel – which is truly the front line of defense for the West, not just as a slogan – it's a real and tangible danger to the fundamental principles of the entire free world."

Q: Israel's main friends today – India, American evangelicals, and even the Abraham Accords countries – have a common denominator: these are fundamentally religious populations, which often look suspiciously at international institutions. Perhaps Israel should adopt a more religious line of argument, even at the cost of distancing itself from the liberal West?

"I'm not a religious person, but in my eyes, these are perspectives that don't contradict each other," Hausdorff said. "When you properly study international law, you understand that it doesn't negate Israel's right to this region, but strengthens it."

Q: On the other hand, is it possible that the warm embrace Israel receives from evangelical communities in the US is just another form of missionary activity?

Ganz responded, "I don't see a reason for such concern. We know how to distinguish between those who act out of respect for the people of Israel and their right to this land, and those who try to impose their faith on us. I can say with certainty: the people I meet, especially from evangelical circles in the US, have no missionary agenda. They believe we belong here, that it's written in the Bible, and that the establishment of the State of Israel is part of the fulfillment of prophecies. In my eyes, this is a partnership that strengthens us."

"As long as you hesitate, everything is stuck"

Last month, Ganz participated in an unprecedented event in Middle Eastern history: he, the chairman of the Yesha Council, walked in the heart of Abu Dhabi as an official guest of senior government officials in the United Arab Emirates, along with the head of the Har Hebron Regional Council Eliram Azoulay and Yesha Council CEO Omer Rahami. The three settlement representatives were invited by Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, one of the leading figures behind the Abraham Accords, and they were hosted in government corridors and at a festive Iftar meal during the month of Ramadan. The symbolism of the gesture was clear – the settlement leaders do not represent a geopolitical "problem"; they are potential partners for a promising regional future.

Q: How does the issue of Judea and Samaria look from the perspective of Abu Dhabi's palaces?

Ganz said, "I was surprised by the strength of support we received there. They approach these discussions with seriousness and openness, viewing Israel as an ally. In their eyes, the Abraham Accords are not just a diplomatic move, but a new beginning. There is a genuine desire for change, for partnership. During the visit, I addressed government officials, entrepreneurs, and businesspeople, and when I spoke about Judea and Samaria, I saw that they don't view the issue as a threat, but as potential. I told them: if you truly want stability, invest here. Let's establish an area of innovation and hope. And they listened, asked questions, and wanted to understand. I believe that, as with the Abraham Accords, here too the way forward is through dialogue, openness, and partnership. This is the future."

Q: According to several reports, the continuation of the Abraham Accords process will come at the expense of applying sovereignty in the West Bank. This is apparently a demand being made by the Saudis.

"Not necessarily. It's important to understand that the Gulf states aren't looking for slogans; they're asking what the future of the territory will be tomorrow morning. They've poured billions into Gaza and seen exactly where that went. If there's stability and clarity in Israel, and if they see that we're taking responsibility, applying sovereignty to the territory, and standing behind the move, they'll ask how the situation in the West Bank can be improved. They told me explicitly: 'Say it's yours – and we'll adapt. But as long as you hesitate, everything is stuck.' Their reluctance stems mainly from the fact that they don't identify political clarity in Israel. If we apply the law and invest in infrastructure – everyone will benefit, Jews and Arabs. This is a condition for any real solution. It's important to understand, others won't fight our battles."

Hausdorff added, "I've previously visited Ramallah with a delegation of legal experts from around the world and met Palestinian entrepreneurs who are establishing startups and trying to build a future. That's a direction that gives hope. But instead of supporting such initiatives, there are those in the West who continue to channel funds to mechanisms that reward terrorism. Look at what's happening in Britain: the Labour government led by Keir Starmer has restored funding to UNRWA, despite this organization's direct involvement in the October 7 massacre and in holding hostages, including Emily Damari, who is a British citizen. This isn't just blindness – it's a moral injustice. We must emphasize that Palestinian society will only progress through civic partnership and the development of a middle class that is fed up with the path of terrorism."

When I ask Ganz to dispel the fog surrounding the term "annexation" in the context of Judea and Samaria, Hausdorff is quick to correct me: "The use of this concept has already caused enormous damage to Israel. Area C is under full Israeli control, as established in the Oslo Accords. Applying Israeli law here is not an 'annexation' of foreign territory, but an administrative step aimed at regulating an existing reality. Annexation is an action that applies to occupied territory, while Judea and Samaria were never conquered by a sovereign state. Nevertheless, every time Israel has raised the possibility of applying the law, there has been an unnecessary uproar based on incorrect terms and creating artificial drama. This distorted discourse harms first and foremost the people who live here, Jews and Arabs alike."

Ganz said, "Why is applying sovereignty necessary? Here's a simple example: Jordanian law stipulates that only Jordanian citizens can purchase land here. This means there's no real real-estate market, and this also affects government investments. When I talk to the prime minister and ministers about road or electricity infrastructure in the West Bank, they ask: 'Why should we invest if it's not legally regulated at all?' As long as the State of Israel doesn't apply its sovereignty, it has no real commitment to this place. If we implement Israeli law here, we can invest in infrastructure, healthcare, and education, develop industrial zones, and everyone will benefit. It's not a matter of ideology, but of normal life. Everyone who lives here, Jewish or Arab, should live with dignity. The current situation only weakens us all. Applying sovereignty is the only way to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would be a huge security threat to the entire State of Israel."

"I want to clarify the legal 'mish-mash' that's happening here today," Hausdorff said, incorporating Hebrew slang into her English sentence. "Since 1967, the territories of Judea and Samaria have been managed based on a chaotic legal mosaic of Ottoman, Jordanian, Mandatory, and Israeli laws. This is an impossible situation. Applying Israeli sovereignty will finally allow for a clear legal order, for the benefit of everyone who lives here. And regarding the two-state idea," she added, "not only is it unrealistic, but it also blocks any discourse on alternatives. The issue is typically presented as if there are only two options: one state or two states. But today, there already exists a Palestinian autonomy, with de facto self-government, which also negates the false claims of 'apartheid' supposedly existing here.

"Even if one recognizes Palestinian identity, it's important to understand that the right to self-determination doesn't automatically grant the right to a state. If that were the case, we would have hundreds of additional states in the world. There's a very well-known ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which dealt with the question of Quebec's separation. The judges there clearly determined: peoples have the right to self-determination within existing frameworks, while maintaining their territorial integrity. In our case, the territorial integrity of the State of Israel is critical. When taking all this into account, and when seeing how much damage has been caused by the fixation and blind devotion to the illusion of two states, we understand that we need to focus now on what truly matters: improving the quality of life – both for Palestinians and Israelis. Partnership based on civic life and stopping funding for supporters of terrorism is the right way."

Since his renewed entry into the White House, Trump has managed to create another turning point in regional discourse: his plan for the Gaza Strip has put on the table the possibility of encouraging Palestinian emigration. In the Arab world, sharp criticism was heard, but according to reports from recent days, Egypt is considering absorbing hundreds of thousands of residents from the Gaza Strip. I asked Ganz if a similar solution might be put on the table regarding Judea and Samaria.

"Definitely," he answered. "Since the beginning of the war, I've been talking about the need to present an alternative horizon for Judea and Samaria as well. The reality is that most Palestinians here support Hamas. Those who don't want to be part of this culture, and want a different future for themselves and their children – we need to open this possibility for them. In my view, putting this idea on the table is already progress. Today, except for North Korea, Gaza is the only place in the world you can't leave. Hamas doesn't allow people to leave."

"What's amazing is that not only is Hamas responsible for this, the international community also prevents exit from Gaza," Hausdorff said. "Egypt regularly closes the border, contrary to its obligations under international law and the African Union's Refugee Convention. Until today, almost no criticism has been directed at this. I've been saying these things almost alone since October 2023, and only now are we finally beginning to see initial reports on the subject. International pressure should be directed there as well."

Q: The world defines the idea raised by the US president as "ethnic cleansing."

"I've carefully followed Trump's wording, and saw that from the first moment, his plan was misrepresented to the public. Trump never spoke about expulsion or forced departure. The proposal was to allow Palestinians to voluntarily leave an area of severe and prolonged war. The stubborn opposition to this, as mentioned, not only from Hamas but also from international actors, stems from the desire to use the civilian population as political hostages. In my view, offering a humane and moral exit to people who want it is our duty. This is true for Gaza, and it could also be true for Judea and Samaria."

"No Arab village is surrounded by a fence"

The international opposition to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria is often based on the words of Israeli journalists and academics. Historian Yuval Noah Harari, for example, said in a November 2022 interview that Jewish society in Israel aspires to a state of "Jewish supremacy," where Arabs would have no rights. The statements received countless citations worldwide, especially on anti-Israeli channels. The same happened after The New York Times published an extensive investigation by Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti, who claimed that "extremists took over the state through fifty years of Jewish violence in the West Bank," and that the problem lies not only with "hilltop rioters," but with the legitimacy that the establishment system grants them. The article won the prestigious George Polk Award, given for reports with global impact.

My previous interview with Hausdorff took place just before her confrontation with the Israeli left: a few days later, she flew to Toronto, Canada, to participate in a publicized debate titled "Is Antisemitism Anti-Zionism?" Standing beside her was pro-Israel British author Douglas Murray, and opposing them were British-Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan from Al Jazeera and Gideon Levy from Haaretz newspaper. At the end of that evening, a vote was held among the audience, and Hausdorff and Murray were declared the winners by a significant margin.

"Douglas told Gideon Levy there that all his supporters in Israel could fit into a public phone booth," Hausdorff now recounted. "Levy, to his credit, didn't deny it. He knows he represents an extreme part of Israeli society, but the world media and international legal bodies treat him as a legitimate Israeli voice. In such a situation, it's very difficult to convince the world of the truth."

Q: How do you see the role of the Israeli left in promoting the occupation narrative and the delegitimization of settlements in the West Bank?

"When Israelis promote the idea of 'occupation' abroad, they create misinformation and make it difficult to present the truth to the international community. In lectures around the world, I often hear responses like 'but there are Jews who say otherwise, there are Israelis who say otherwise.' Unfortunately, to those who don't know the facts on the ground or international law, this can sound convincing."

Q: Another term that has returned to prominence in Israeli public and media discourse is "settler violence." Does this affect our standing in the world?

Ganz responded, "I was waiting for this question. This is a false, antisemitic, and fabricated propaganda campaign designed to blacken the settlements and pressure the American administration and the European Union to impose sanctions on us. It's no different from blood libels about matzah soaked in the blood of Christian children. Our public has been living under murderous terrorism for fifty years; none of us can count anymore the funerals of friends murdered in attacks."

Q: Yet, the images of masked people attacking Palestinian villages are increasing.

"One needs to understand the proportions. We experience between 5,000 and 6,000 Palestinian attacks against Jews living here annually – shootings, Molotov cocktails, explosives. On the other side, they take a few cases of violence and talk about 'extremists on both sides.' This is fraud. The reports of 'settler violence' are often based on false reports by Palestinians, or on cases of graffiti spraying. The simple truth is that there's actually a decrease in incidents from our side.

"On October 7, even before we understood what was happening in the south, I ordered emergency fences to be erected around the settlements. We feared an Arab mob would break through. I always emphasize to our guests that no Arab village is surrounded by a fence. That says it all."

According to Ganz, in a comprehensive study by Dr. Michael Wolfowicz from the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, it was revealed that UN data on "settler violence" is partly based on incorrect and misleading reports: he stated that about 30% of the events defined as such actually occurred in Jerusalem, and many refer to Jews and tourists entering the Temple Mount – an act classified as trespassing and even "Jewish terrorism."

"For me, these aren't just numbers," Ganz adds. "I've seen severe cases with my own eyes. At a gas station near Eli, there was an attack in which four Israelis were murdered, and eight months later, there was another attack at the same place, in which two were murdered. I was the first to arrive at the scene and saw a friend from the settlement, a person who bought a house from me, bleeding on the ground. So don't present us with false campaigns."

"Critics both inside and outside Israel have mischaracterized the judicial reform debate," Hausdorff said, noting that this misrepresentation has damaged Israel's international standing. "There's no doubt that this harms Israel's image. It's especially painful because before the elections, there was a fairly broad political consensus regarding the need for reforms in the judicial system. This issue was hijacked to delegitimize the government, and this served Israel's defamers around the world. But I'm optimistic, and hope that perhaps from the difficulties and divisions, a new hope will grow in the people of Israel."

Q: Is there also room for optimism regarding the status of Judea and Samaria?

Gantz responded, "We're working hard to create an opportunity to apply Israeli sovereignty here. I truly believe that this is achievable, and we have real partners in the world who support it. Yes, we're living in an ongoing war – I say this also as a father to a combat soldier – and there are quite a few challenges. But I'm a believer, and I see the light in all of this. I wish that next year we'll sit here again, with Natasha, and be able to say: this is behind us."

The post Law and justice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"We have much to learn from you," Indian intellectual Professor Makarand Paranjape said during our conversation at the end of his first visit to Israel. "For example, the sense of community and national pride that brings commitment and responsibility to the collective. The identity and collective responsibility aren't sufficiently developed in India. Indians are very individualistic by nature. Hinduism in the past mainly dealt with personal liberation, but today, we understand that we need to think in terms of collective redemption as well. We need in India a story of collective liberation similar to your 'Exodus' from Egypt."

To Israelis, Professor Paranjape's name doesn't resonate much, but in India, he is considered a prominent intellectual figure in the nationalist right camp. He holds a doctorate in English literature from Stanford University and served as head of the Center for English Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi (JNU), considered the country's leading university in humanities. The boycotts and harassment he experienced from colleagues who labeled him an "Indian nationalist" – a label he strongly rejects – led him to leave the position after 25 years. Following this incident, he wrote a book that stirred considerable controversy in the country about the conquest of Indian academia by radical leftists.

Paranjape frequently expresses his views in public discussions about India's future and cultural standing. His writings cover diverse topics, including Hindu cultural studies, criticism of Western hegemony, and the aspiration to return to Indian philosophical principles. He has published books examining the philosophy of Indian spiritual leader Sri Aurobindo and Mahatma Gandhi's political legacy.

He came to Israel as part of the first Indian delegation of its kind, including intellectuals, journalists, military personnel, and former politicians. Behind the delegation stands the organization "Sharaka" ("partnership" in Arabic), established during the Abraham Accords to promote cooperation and deepen ties between Israel and Muslim countries, now expanding its activities to India. The delegation conducted a five-day tour in Israel that included visiting Gaza border communities, meeting with Nova festival survivors, and discussions with figures like Knesset Member Amit Halevi and Dr. Einat Wilf.

"The State of Israel is one of the most extraordinary creations, political creations in modern times, or maybe for thousands of years," Paranjape believes. "The way it was created and what you've accomplished today is so out of this world, so special, that every day I see new proofs, new evidence of this. Look at how you dealt with Hezbollah, how you blew up their pagers. It's hard to imagine the level of intelligence, efficiency, creativity, dynamism, and determination required for that. If India had even a fraction of these capabilities, our enemies would fear us, too. We have homework to do."

Paranjape also recognizes the challenges and obstacles facing Israeli society. "I've seen how people are frustrated with the ultra-Orthodox who don't serve in the military and don't defend the country yet still want to enjoy all its benefits. Nevertheless, from what I've seen, this doesn't reflect the majority of society. The sense of responsibility is evident even in small things, not just in civilian mobilization during wartime. I boarded the light rail in Jerusalem this morning, and when the ticket inspector came through, there wasn't a single person on the train who hadn't paid. For an Indian, this isn't self-evident. Sometimes, I feel we need a national service like in Israel to educate people about involvement. We can also learn efficiency and creativity from you, the way you solve problems. I see in Israel not just innovation but resourcefulness. You have a water shortage problem? You find a solution. Food? Your food technologies are very advanced. I could list hundreds of things. This approach to innovation is somewhat lacking for us.

"On the other hand, being here has also made me appreciate India more. I'm usually impatient with my country, wanting it to progress faster and fulfill its potential. But when I arrived here, I realized how fortunate we are in India – geographically, we have a beautiful country with natural protections on all sides. We have vast territory with abundant resources, and our population is large, creating tremendous human capital. Indians are among the most intelligent populations in the world, just like Jews."

They wanted to enlist in the fight against Hamas

Paranjape's enthusiastic support for Israel is not unusual in the subcontinent. On October 7, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed clear support for Israel, and since then, his government has continued this approach, blocking anti-Israeli decisions in international forums and abstaining from UN votes against Israel. The October 7 attack even prompted many Indians to offer to enlist in the IDF and assist in the war, until former Israeli Ambassador to India, Naor Gilon, wrote on social media, thanking them for their support but explaining that Israel would not be able to accept their help on the battlefield.

Indian support for Israel has historical roots. "In every war we've fought against Pakistan, we received critical support from Israel, whether officially or beneath the surface. Previous Indian governments weren't always transparent about this support, but since Modi came to power, the partnership with Israel has been completely clear, and it's also separate from our relations with Arab countries. We want good relations with Arab countries, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, while simultaneously maintaining excellent relations with Israel. We've already crossed that obstacle. There was much anger about the atrocities Hamas committed, and this anger, together with the perception that this is a small country that has always helped us, led to widespread support.

"Support for Israel also stemmed from a deep identification of Hindus with Jews who were attacked by Muslims. During the partition with Muslim Pakistan, Hindus developed an understanding that when Islamic extremists confront those they see as 'infidels' or enemies – the use of torture, rape, and murder of women or hostages is part of their strategy. Many Indians, including a large segment of the liberal intellectual elite, understand that radical Islam is an existential threat to Hindu civilization."

However, Paranjape clarifies that the Indian mood regarding Israel has changed significantly since the war began. "The support has waned, and now that almost one and a half years or more have gone by, the other narrative has become strong, and the balance of force has also tipped, and the numbers of 45,000 or 40,000 dead on the other side has now brought down that level of tremendously enthusiastic support.

Relations between Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent are part of a long and complex history, beginning with the arrival of Islam to the region in the 7th century and continuing in the 15th century with the rule of Muslim empires like the Mughal Empire, which Hindus viewed as a colonialist invasion. Over the years, religious, political, and cultural tensions developed between the populations. A key milestone was the 1947 partition of India and the establishment of Muslim Pakistan, which led to direct war over Kashmir and many outbreaks of violence. Since then, the tension between the groups hasn't disappeared, and interfaith violence occurs periodically. According to various estimates, about 14% of India's population is Muslim. As of 2021, this means approximately 200 million Muslims, making India the country with the largest number of Muslims after Indonesia and Pakistan.

Q: As in Israel, the number of Muslims in India is not one that can be ignored. What do you think about the future possibility of lasting peace between Muslims and non-Muslims in India?

"I believe in peace, and it will be possible only when believing Muslims denounce and publicly condemn the ideology of radical Islam, jihad, rape of women, and murder of innocents that occur around the world in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, even Muslims who disagree with this violence don't have the courage to say so openly. Slowly they're beginning to come out and speak, but it's a long process. I see secular Muslims in India who openly oppose jihadism and consequently suffer disrespect in their community, and there are also important voices from former Muslims who courageously criticize aspects of Islam. It's worth remembering that compared to the Middle East, Hindu-Muslim relations have been good throughout history."

Q: The problem is that Islam itself will need to undergo a radical reform. Can you see that happening in your lifetime?

"I have Muslim friends who say the solution will only come when the Quran is re-edited. Changing the verses themselves is obviously impossible, so as a first step, I suggest that Muslim religious scholars reformulate interpretations in a more liberal way and lead the next generation toward a more moral and tolerant approach. I believe humanity's future depends on a deep change in consciousness. As Sri Aurobindo said, war will become psychologically impossible only when human consciousness changes."

Fascinated with death

Last May, Paranjape published an article discussing pro-Palestinian protests and the alliance formed between the progressive left and Islamists on elite American university campuses. One of his conclusions was that "the writing on the wall is clear – a Jewish-Hindu alliance needs to be formed in academic and intellectual circles."

Q: What is the purpose of such an alliance?

"We need to address a puzzle – why are the leftists who are atheists, who have no use for religion, aligning with Islamists and radicals on US campuses and elsewhere in India, in Bangladesh? And it's, I think, a kind of worship of death; it's very interesting. Historically, we know the outcome of such alliances. When a coup occurred in Bangladesh in 1971, and the Islamists of the Jamaat-e-Islami party [a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] seized power, the first people they killed weren't just Hindus, but also the leftists who helped them carry out the coup."

Q: Just like in the Iranian Revolution in 1979, when Khomeini killed the Iranian leftists who helped him in the revolution against the Shah.

"Yes, the same with Afghanistan. When the Taliban came to power, they eliminated all the leftists."

Q: What's the solution to this puzzle?

"The answer to me is unfortunately or fortunately a psychological and spiritual answer, it's not a political answer. I think they worship death, if not worship – I don't want to offend anybody – but they love the cult of death, whereas we love the cult of life. We want life, we want to enjoy life, we believe in life, but they are so negative. I feel that they are always going like a spanner in the works, they want to destroy, they're counter-systemic. So the counter-systemic forces get together."

Q: And against this alliance, you call for forming a counter-alliance between Hindus and Jews.

"It's very difficult because many Hindus are leftists, just as many Jews are leftists, especially in the west. So first of all, they are a divided lot from both sides. That's why we have to identify the slightly more conservative elements in both the Hindu as well as the Jewish intelligentsia in the diaspora, because Hindu diaspora is very powerful like the Jewish diaspora. So it needs a two-prong strategy – India-Israel, and then the diaspora, largely in the US because it's very prosperous and now powerful. So these two-prong strategies have to be worked out carefully. I'm always interested not just in talk but in alliances based on – I don't want to call them contracts – but on compacts, on common interests, as well as on a lot of discussion and debate, which is a part of the Jewish tradition and also to a large extent a part of the Hindu tradition. I like it to be deeply thought out. I just don't want trendy things happening just for the moment. So it's a long-term prospect for the next not 50-100, for the next thousand years. So it must be thought out very carefully."

When I point out a common denominator between Jewish and Hindu cultures, which both combine tradition and modernity, Paranjape responds enthusiastically. "In India, especially among Hindus, there was a renaissance in the 18th and 19th centuries that focused on questions of how to deal with modernity and what modernity actually is. Gandhi wrote that Western modernity as we know it is suicidal. It releases enormous technological power but lacks the spiritual awakening to balance it, resulting in self-destruction – excessive consumption, obsession with medicine and drugs, weapons of mass destruction, and global warming. In the West, after the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, rationality became the driving force of progress. But in Hindu culture, spiritual wisdom, enlightenment, and intuition are seen as superior to rationality, which should be a servant, not a master. Modern Hindu thinkers have managed to combine the two, while in modern Islam there's a tendency to reject rationality and science and return to the authority of scripture, which harms progress. If you compare education levels, innovation, and technological openness between Hindus and Muslims in India, you see the big difference. You Jews have gone a similar way."

Pretend openness

Criticism of academic leftists didn't emerge for Paranjape only following pro-Palestinian demonstrations on American campuses; it started much earlier. Over the years, Paranjape has criticized the dominance of radical leftist ideas in Indian academia and expressed concern that their influence harms freedom of thought and the ability to conduct open academic discussion. He expressed these claims in his book "The JNU: A Critique," published in 2019, which attracted considerable attention.

"I see myself as someone who holds a nationalist and liberal view, despite the false propaganda of the left that claims any nationalist person is necessarily a fascist or Nazi. Fortunately, the world has changed, and 'nationalism' is no longer a dirty word. Nationalist ideology doesn't necessarily express intolerance or chauvinism. Although I'm a conservative, I respect people with different opinions and other religions. However, I'm not willing to accept something just out of blind conformism. I advocate for free and creative thinking and believe the way forward is a combination of creativity and critical thinking. I always say the left marches in packs – not just like sheep in a herd, going together without independent thought, but like wolves that hunt in packs. They claim to be open, but today's 'liberal-progressive' leftists express antagonism toward new ideas.

"Because I dared to question them, they saw me and my questions as too dangerous a rivalry and realized they needed to get rid of me. Again and again, I experienced boycotts and negative labeling from my colleagues. When that didn't work, they tried to harass and intimidate me, and finally to completely isolate me. It reached a point where students didn't want me to supervise their doctorates because they knew any connection with me could harm their future academic lives. All this happened because I refused to be 'woke,' because I'm simply not part of their consensus. They made my experience at the university unbearable until I left."

"Academia is closed today to people who challenge the supremacy of radical left ideologies, especially those who dare to point out that leftists don't have strong evidence for their arguments. That's why I was dangerous in their eyes, and it was important for them to get rid of me. Unfortunately, most Indian academics in America are leftists, so I was also blocked and erased from academic institutions in Britain and the US."

Looking at the histories of Israel and India could show similarities between social and political processes that occurred in both countries. "There's an interesting parallel between Israel and India," Paranjape said. "India gained independence in 1947, Israel in 1948, and in the early years, the prime ministers of both countries were socialists, secular, and more cautiously also liberals. Our first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a clear socialist, an admirer of centralized economic planning. India's official ideologies were secularism and socialism. Only after the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991 did other ideologies gradually begin to emerge. In 2014, the Indian People's Party (BJP) led by Modi, the Indian equivalent of Likud, came to power. Today the right-wing transformation is almost complete, and what was once the right-wing margins has become the dominant force in Indian politics, and I even think they're going a bit too far. I'm a nationalist person, but it's important for me to say that radical-nationalist Hinduism is also a danger to India's future. Any movement that's too extreme is likely to bring its own problems."

Paranjape complains that "unfortunately, the change that occurred in the political field hasn't translated to the Indian intellectual field. The government appoints university heads, and they've inserted their people everywhere, but they've done so without the necessary intellectual capital. This has created a large intellectual vacuum in India. As director of the 'Indian Institute of Advanced Studies,' I tried to warn about this. I told people in our government: ideology can wait, we need intellectual excellence first – deep thinking, quality publications, real research. But what does the Indian right do? Instead of developing serious research, they just fight the left, ridicule and slander it, and think that's enough. I tell them this isn't the way to go, that they need to write better books and better quality research because no one is listening to you. The Indian right hasn't managed to create an environment of serious intellectual atmosphere, but rather a kind of ideological echo chamber. Everyone repeats what others say, but outside their circle, no one takes them seriously. The intellectual right in India has become a society that worships only power. In Judaism, the role of the prophet, and also of the intellectual, is to speak truth to political power. Unfortunately, we aren't doing that."

A letter to Hitler

One of Professor Paranjape's books deals with the influence of Mahatma Gandhi's figure, even after he was assassinated in 1948 by a Hindu nationalist, against the background of his agreement to partition India with the Muslims. Paranjape examines how Gandhi's image became an ideological and cultural symbol used politically over the years, and how his legacy was distorted and altered by politicians and intellectuals.

In Israel, Gandhi's figure is remembered in a complex way. He supported the Jewish people's right to independence but is also perceived as leaning toward the pro-Arab position. One of his articles is particularly remembered; the day after Kristallnacht, Gandhi addressed the antisemitic events in Germany. "If I were a Jew and were born in Germany," he wrote, "I would challenge him [the German] to shoot me or throw me in a dungeon. I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminatory treatment... If even one Jew or all of them were to accept the prescription I have given, their condition could not be worse than it is now. Suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them strength and joy that no expression of sympathy in the world can provide them."

Q: Besides his advice to Jews on how to deal with Hitler, Gandhi is also remembered in Israel as someone who believed the Zionist leadership shouldn't use violent means against Arabs. Does Gandhi have relevant real-political insights for our world?

"Gandhi is a series of paradoxes. On one hand, he was a very practical man, and on the other, very impractical. He was very calculated, systematic, and precise like a lawyer, and in the same breath incredibly naive. He approached Hitler and wrote to him, 'You're doing terrible things, don't do that.' Hitler didn't bother to answer him, of course. His greatest failure, and he himself admitted it, was that most Indians didn't really understand his idea of non-violent resistance. Today, unfortunately, Gandhi isn't loved by many Hindus, just as many Zionists didn't love him. Martin Buber wrote to him, but they never met. The Hindu right hates Gandhi because they think he weakened the Hindus, as if he tied their hands behind their backs and sent them to fight against cruel enemies.

"We must admit that Gandhi didn't fully understand how dangerous radical Islam is, and that's his greatest failure in my view. The 'Hindutva' people (the Indian nationalist movement) did understand. During India's partition, they saved masses of Hindus from expulsion and rescued kidnapped women. However, in my book I show that in his final days he began to understand this. When Kashmir was conquered, the nationalist Gandhi rose above the pacifist Gandhi. He told Nehru to send soldiers there, and then published an amazing article in the newspaper where he changed his definition of violence when he declared that 'a soldier who defends innocent women and children with his weapon is actually a non-violent person.' Most people who hate Gandhi don't know this side of him. After independence, he entered mosques and told Muslims: 'If you want to belong to India – lay down your weapons. Don't think about Pakistan anymore.'"

For Gandhi, Paranjape, who researched his character said, nonviolence was the power of love. "See, love disarms the violence of the other. Love is a very powerful force if you can truly escalate love, and Gandhi demonstrated it. He would come to a room full of extremely violent people who had just killed a few people, or go to a neighborhood, and he would go unarmed there, and maybe he had the charisma or he had the miraculous strength, we don't know, but when he started talking, when these people came, he could disarm them."

"But here's the paradox – he couldn't disarm one assassin who came to kill him. In my book, I argue that he planned his own assassination, he was a partner to his own assassination because he actually talked about the opportunity that he's going to be assassinated. I think a couple of days before he actually got shot, he even told his grand-niece that if I die of any disease or even as much as a pimple, tell the whole world I'm not a Mahatma, I'm not a great soul, tell them I'm a charlatan and a liar, but if I die with bullets on my chest, then... He didn't say I'm a Mahatma then, he said let people make up their minds."

To conclude our conversation, we return to Paranjape's deep pro-Israeli message: "The Jewish story is the story of all humanity, and therefore the State of Israel is an asset to all humanity. No other people should suffer as the Jewish people suffered in history. Humanity must stand and say: never again."

The post 'Israel is one of the most extraordinary political creations' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Professor Gad Saad didn't need the violent protests by progressive students at elite American universities to become disillusioned. The Jewish-Canadian researcher born in Lebanon, considered a pioneer in evolutionary psychology research, has for years seen himself as a whistleblower against forces trying to "kill the West with a thousand cuts," in his words.

To illustrate this, he tells me about a celebratory dinner that took place 23 years ago, honoring one of his students who had completed his doctorate. "Before the dinner, my student called me anxiously: his partner, who was of course also invited, was a student of postmodernism, gender studies, and social anthropology. He was familiar with my opinions, which were already solid at that time, and wanted to make sure I would welcome her. Although I made sure to tell him that this was indeed 'the holy trinity of bullsh*t,' I reassured him that it was his evening and I would maintain complete silence. In retrospect, I don't know why I promised that," Saad says with a smile.

It turned out he's not made of the material that sits quietly in the face of what he characterizes as "intellectual terrorism," or as he writes in his book, "I am not someone who misses an opportunity to mock those who naturally remove their own brain lobes."

During the evening, Saad politely turned to his guest and asked: "As a postmodernist, do you believe there are no universal truths?" When she replied affirmatively, he continued pressing: "So tell me, among Homo sapiens, who gives birth – women or men?" The woman confidently replied that the mythology of one of the ancient Japanese tribes teaches that men actually gave birth to children, "and when you hint at such generalizations," she concluded her argument, "You're essentially keeping women in the kitchen." Saad tried to recover from her response and examine whether she would at least agree with the statement that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but she replied that the concepts of "sun" and "east" are nothing more than oppressive Western cultural constructs. "And this was in 2002," Saad emphasizes, "when such opinions were still considered extreme. Today, many students at leading universities hold them."

"So anyone with their eyes open," he returns to current events, "didn't really need October 7 to understand that the West is losing its rationality, although the images of transgender individuals joining Islamists across elite American universities indeed illustrated to many what I had been shouting about. Concordia University in Montreal, where I taught for years, was called 'Hamas University'. Already in 2002, they canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu. In my book, I describe the 'parasitic ostrich syndrome' – people who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and not see reality. My book traces the development of these parasitic ideas."

In the eyes of Saad, an evolutionary psychologist currently serving as a visiting professor at Northwood University in Michigan, the main threat to the West lies in "woke" culture, which he says destroys academia and is engaged in the systematic corruption of the two values that led the West to greatness: truth and freedom. Saad's willingness to address controversial topics, combined with his sharp tongue and mocking style toward his opponents, has made him one of the prominent voices in contemporary culture wars; his popular podcast, The Saad Truth, founded in 2017, has garnered over 300,000 followers, and his Twitter account is followed by 1.2 million people.

His bestselling book, published in English in 2020 under the title "The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense," has now been translated into Hebrew with the title, "Parasites: How the West Lost Common Sense," and was published by Shibolet. The book received warm recommendations from Canadian conservative thinker Jordan Peterson, and Elon Musk's enthusiastic endorsement also appears on the cover.

One of Saad's main weapons is his charisma and humor. "Yes, I use cynicism and humor. Some ask me, 'Doesn't that hurt your authority as a professor?' Not at all, quite the opposite! Precisely because I'm confident in myself, I can also fool around and mock the foolish. If I lacked confidence, I would play the 'serious professor,' with a pipe and a condescending look. But I'm a regular person with an academic background, and that's what connects people to me."

Could that be why people from the opposing camp also find it difficult to "cancel you"?

"Exactly, it's hard to hate someone with a warm personality and humor. That doesn't mean I don't have enemies – I have many. But I'm not cold and I'm not bitter. Once someone interviewed me, and at the end said: 'I'm really angry at you, I intended to finish this interview hating you, but I really like you.' Those who really listen to me know there isn't a drop of hatred in me. I attack ideas, not people. Besides, I always make sure to present the facts and not just throw words around. I speak confidently because the evidence is on my side."

His satirical style has often led to genuine misunderstandings. In 2018, one of his tweets on Twitter managed to confuse not only Western media but also Muslim media outlets. The incident began when the noted biologist Richard Dawkins commented on Twitter about Winchester Cathedral's bells, comparing them to calls of Allahu Akbar: "I'm listening to the beautiful bells of Winchester, one of our greatest medieval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive 'Allahu Akbar.' Or is that just my cultural upbringing?" In response, Saad tweeted: "Dear Richard, Arabic is my mother tongue. Properly translated, 'Allahu Akbar' means 'We love all people but hold a special fondness for Jews, women, and homosexuals.' Don't worry. It's a message of love, tolerance, and liberalism."

Not everyone understood the irony. Even the respected Newsweek initially reported that Saad had criticized Dawkins' remarks, only correcting the report later when it became clear it was a joke. But the confusion didn't end there. A popular Pakistani newspaper published a scathing article condemning Dawkins' "Islamophobia," quoting Saad's response as evidence. After the newspaper realized the tweet was satirical, all mention of Saad was deleted from the article.

In Saad's view, postmodernism is "the grandfather of all parasitic ideas that have taken over academia. Its claim is that there are no universal truths except for the one universal truth that there are no universal truths. In other words, it collapses into itself right at the starting point. But why let the logic of an old-fashioned person like me bother anyone? Postmodernism has become 'intellectual terrorism': left is right, men are women, up is down, slavery is freedom, war is peace. Under the guise of intellectual depth, postmodernism promoted nihilism that allowed all the other nonsense we see today to flourish in academia."

Some argue that the use of this concept is mistaken, since postmodernism is an ideology that began in the 1970s and doesn't really have any connection to today's wokeism.

Saad disagrees. "Transgender activism wouldn't thrive without the postmodernist assumption that there is no biological truth determining that there are only two sexes – male and female. No, claim the postmodernists, 'sex is a spectrum.' It's like claiming that the number of our fingers isn't a law of nature because some people are born with 11 fingers. Another parasitic idea originating in postmodernism is the claim that there is no human nature or innate biological drives, only social constructs. Or cultural relativism that asks, 'Who are you to determine what is moral?' You mustn't judge a society that performs female genital mutilation, that would be 'cultural imperialism.'"

"According to postmodernism, there are no moral, stable, or epistemological truths – not even musical ones. If I randomly hit objects," Saad wonders as he drums on the table, "who are you to determine that this isn't brilliant music? Who are you to determine that a blank canvas isn't a sublime work of art? In 1996, I visited the Carnegie Museum, paid to see art, and found myself facing a blank canvas. I demanded to see the museum's curator, but they sent someone else who asked how she could help me. 'Why is there a blank canvas here,' I asked. And she answered: 'It causes us to have a fascinating conversation.' This is exactly the attack on common sense that has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in today."

Saad's frequent use of the term "parasitic" for ideas he considers foolish is not coincidental. Saad is considered a pioneer in applying evolutionary psychology to consumer behavior, arguing that biology shapes not only our bodies but also our thoughts and decisions. From the beginning of his academic career, through his tenure as the Research Chair in Darwinian Consumption and Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences at Concordia University, he has confronted the research consensus that viewed humans as creatures existing outside biological logic.

Evolutionary psychology examines how human thinking mechanisms, emotions, and behaviors were shaped by natural selection. Unlike the view that sees humans as a "blank slate," this approach argues that our consciousness consists of adaptive systems that evolved over many years to cope with survival challenges. The research deals with, among other things, emotions like jealousy and guilt, patterns of mate selection, and the development of social relationships. By combining biology, psychology, and cognition, researchers in this field aim to identify universal patterns and explain them as evolutionary adaptations.

This is precisely what makes Gad Saad a stubborn opponent of radical feminism. According to social construction theory, gender differences – for example, in toy preferences – are not innate but rather the result of education and culture. Parents and society, it is claimed, encourage boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls, which leads to gaps between the sexes even in adulthood. In an effort to appear progressive, the toy industry has partially adopted this perspective. However, Saad presents research evidence that undermines these basic assumptions: infants only a few months old – even before they have had time to internalize social messages – exhibit clear gender preferences for toys. The ratio of finger lengths, which reflects levels of testosterone exposure in the womb, is directly related to the preference for trucks among males. Even chimpanzees show similar preferences, pointing to deep biological roots. Saad formulates his conclusion with characteristic sarcasm: "Social construction supporters might argue that the chauvinistic patriarchy has managed to influence primates as well. Never underestimate the delusions and dogmatic madness of those afflicted with parasitic ostrich syndrome."

"How is it possible that brilliant people – economists, psychologists, behavioral researchers – refuse to acknowledge that biology also shapes human consciousness?" he wonders in our conversation. "This was the first time I understood that completely intelligent people can be infected with parasites of foolishness." According to him, for three decades he has seen how ideologies strangle reason and science. "Neuro-parasitology studies parasites that change the brain of their hosts, a common phenomenon in nature. Unlike a regular parasite, which affects the body, a neuro-parasite takes over the brain and changes its behavioral patterns. There is no more precise explanation for the impact of pathological ideas on our culture."

"Take wood crickets for example," Saad uses his favorite example. "They avoid any contact with water, as they fear drowning. But when a 'hairworm' parasite attaches to them, the parasite needs the cricket to jump into water to complete its reproductive cycle. As a result, the infected cricket undergoes a kind of 'zombification' and leaps into the water voluntarily, thereby sacrificing itself for the benefit of the parasite. This is how I perceive progressive students, radical feminists, and even certain liberal Jews. They internalize foreign ideas that lead them to act against their own interests, and essentially commit suicide. Unfortunately, the source of these ideas is academia."

In his book, Saad presents the political imbalance in American universities: a 2018 study that examined 51 out of the 60 leading humanities colleges in the United States found a ratio of 10.4 Democratic professors to one Republican professor. In fact, without the two "exceptional" military colleges, in twenty institutions the percentage of Republican professors was negligible. Saad says that many conservative professors contact him secretly, thank him for his public work, and confess about the silencing they experience – and always ask that he not reveal their identities. "Ideological Stalinism exists daily in academia in North America," he writes.
There are academics, mainly from the conservative camp, who say that academia is already lost.

In various conversations of yours, I hear a more optimistic echo.

"The university is not dying, because most students and professors want to enrich their knowledge and participate in scientific endeavors. But it doesn't take many to contaminate the system, just as on September 11, only 19 terrorists changed the skyline of New York. The solution is twofold: on the one hand, to establish new institutions with correct values and absolute emphasis on freedom of expression and scientific freedom, and on the other hand, to 'vaccinate' existing universities and restore their logic. I don't think academia is lost; we can still change direction."

Israeli academia is also influenced by progressive ideas, but Saad is impressed that from this aspect, our situation is relatively good. "When you live in such a neighborhood, people are much less likely to fall victim to enormous stupidity. You don't have the luxury to waste time on empty discussions. Your dangerous neighborhood gives you a kind of natural immunity against parasitic ideas. Just as anorexia appears only in societies of abundance, parasitic ideas thrive only when you can afford the luxury. In Israel, when reality requires running to shelters, fewer people fall victim to foolishness."

The blindness that liberals and progressives display toward the dangers of Islam is, in Saad's view, one of the most serious manifestations of ignoring facts in favor of ideology. "A Jewish woman, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, contacted me and told me she has a friend, a doctoral student of Islamic thought, who claims to her that 'Islam loves Jews.' Since I grew up in Lebanon and understand the subject, she asked for my opinion. Instead of starting to present her with countless Muslim sources in Arabic, I sent her a video featuring imams from prestigious mosques, Islamic scholars from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, journalists, politicians, writers, and even children from Muslim countries, as they discuss their attitudes toward Jews. It's difficult to watch this content due to the overwhelming antisemitism. There's a segment where an imam shows photographs of Jewish bones from the Holocaust being dragged by bulldozers into mass graves, and laments: 'Allah, why did you give this pleasure to the Nazis and not to us?' A level of evil that's hard to accept exists."

"After she watched the video, the woman wrote to me: 'You are no different in your extremism from them.' From her perspective, the problem was that I shared this video. In her eyes, the fact that I show reality makes me a hater and racist. About a year ago, that same woman sent me an email acknowledging her mistake and writing that she should have listened to me. I've encountered countless cases like this. I believe that if you approach people with the right persuasion strategies, most are willing to listen."

Many Islamic scholars argue that Islam is too diverse to discuss as a single unit, and according to them, the problems of contemporary Islam also stem from Western influences, such as the combination of Marxism with Shiite ideology, a combination that stands behind the rule of the Iranian ayatollahs.

"This is a classic 'No True Scotsman' fallacy (a logical fallacy where one preemptively prevents the refutation of their claim, for example when stating that 'no true Scotsman' would do a certain action, and thus when presented with Scotsmen who do so, they can claim that they are not 'true Scotsmen'; M.H.). According to this approach, we'll always find a way to claim that leading religious figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi from Al-Azhar don't represent 'true' Islam, and instead the homosexual who eats pork, drinks vodka, and studies at a Western university is the one who represents 'true Islam.' Similarly, we're told that Khomeini, the Saudi sheikhs, ISIS, or even Muhammad himself don't represent 'true Islam.' It's nonsense."

In the book, Saad presents an analysis conducted on the three canonical texts of Islam: the Quran, the Hadith, and Sharia. It was found that more than half of them are devoted to jihad and negative descriptions of infidels, and that "hatred of Jews (9.3%) is higher in them than in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'." Saad notes that since September 11, more than 45,000 terrorist attacks have been carried out worldwide in the name of Islam, and mentions the suffering experienced by non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries.

As an evolutionary psychologist, how can you explain the trend of Islamic expansion, which often leads societies to ignorance, poverty, and violence? Seemingly, it's an ideology that makes it difficult to survive.

"One answer is that most religions offer a solution to the problem of death. Islam, unlike Judaism for example, places strong emphasis on eternal life in the hereafter. Therefore, even if this world is difficult, believers see it only as a temporary stage on the way there. From an evolutionary perspective, Islam is built as a highly successful system of ideas. Biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' to describe how ideas spread, and Islam is a very effective memetic system. Unlike Judaism, which is a marketing failure, since it's not missionary and makes conversion difficult, Islam is the most missionary religion in the world. It's enough to declare the 'shahada' before witnesses to become Muslim. That's why there are 125 times more Muslims in the world than Jews."

Saad is a prominent speaker on the dangers of Muslim immigration for the future of Europe, as well as for the future of his country, Canada. We are speaking a few days after an Islamist attack that took place in the city of Villach, Austria, when a Syrian immigrant stabbed to death a 14-year-old boy and wounded five others. The event shocked many, especially because the attacker was documented smiling immediately after the murder. This alongside a recent ramming attack in Munich, and the murder of an anti-Muslim activist in Sweden.

During the riots that took place last summer between Muslims and locals in Britain, you tweeted that in your opinion, a war in Europe with Muslims is already inevitable. What is your opinion now in light of recent developments?

"If European decision-makers continue their current policy toward Islam – it's a 100% certainty. It's like testing the effects of gravity by jumping off a roof. Ideas lead to results, and Islam is a coded system of ideas. When you place Islam in Western conditions, they cannot coexist peacefully over time. True, one can find periods in history when Muslims and non-Muslims lived together, but it was never stable over time. It's like a person before a heart attack; until the moment of the attack, everything seems fine, but in the background, inevitable processes are already developing that lead to collapse. If trends in immigration and Islamic influence continue, Europe will descend into massive violence. And not just Europe, but any place where these processes are occurring. Demographics is a decisive factor; the more Islam there is, the fewer freedoms there are. Either Europeans will wake up or they will become Islamic, like the 56 countries that are part of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation."

Do you think that to stand against the danger of Islam, the West needs to return to religion?

"I don't agree with the view that the only way for people to find purpose, meaning, and comfort is through religion. I understand the tendency to do so, as long as the pursuit of religion doesn't harm the rights of others. My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a harsh critic of radical Islam, left the Muslim world and became an atheist, but when she realized that atheism doesn't provide a unifying glue in the struggle against the Muslim threat to the West, she turned to Christianity. I understand this choice from a pragmatic perspective, but I believe that reason can also connect us, and I call on the West to return to it."

Gad Saad (60) was born in Beirut to a Jewish family that emigrated from Damascus. In the shadow of the bloody civil war that erupted in the country in 1975, his family fled to Montreal, Canada. "We were part of the last group of Jews who remained in Lebanon. Most Jews had already left before us, including my extended family – uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents. Most moved to Israel, some to France, and some to Canada."

How was it growing up in Beirut, which was nicknamed "the Paris of the Middle East"?

Saad is skeptical of this comparison. "Yes, Beirut was called 'the Paris of the Middle East,' but it was always conditional. One day it's a place where Jews can live, and the next day it becomes impossible. It's important to understand that tolerance in the Middle East is not like tolerance in the West. My brother, who was Lebanon's judo champion for years, received 'hints' that it was time for him to retire, because it's 'not appropriate' for a Jew to win competitions all the time. When he wasn't ready to retire, he left for France. My older brother left the country with his wife a year before the civil war, and I, a ten-year-old child, stayed with my parents in Lebanon until it was no longer possible to live there."

What do you remember from your time as a Jewish child in Lebanon?

"Even as a child, I knew that trouble could come at any moment. The first case of antisemitism I remember was in 1970, when I was almost six. Egyptian President Nasser died, and throughout Beirut, there were demonstrations and shouting. The slogan that kept repeating was 'Death to Jews.' I remember being confused and asking my mother why they were shouting 'Death to Jews' because of the death of an Egyptian president."

Saad recalls another incident that occurred shortly before the war. "The teacher asked the students to stand up and tell what they wanted to be when they grew up. One said he wanted to be a firefighter, one a doctor, one a police officer. And then one child stood up and said, 'When I grow up, I want to kill Jews.' The class applauded and laughed. That child knew I was Jewish, and that there was another Jewish child in the class besides me, but that didn't prevent him from saying it. The hatred toward Jews was so common and banal that no one even thought it was something unusual. In the Middle East, Jews are always portrayed as absolute evil. If there are floods – it's because of the Jews; if it doesn't rain – it's because of the Jews. Even when there were shark attacks in Egypt, they said the Israeli Mossad trained the sharks to attack Egyptians. Everything is interpreted through the perception that Jews pull the strings."

How do you feel when you see what's happening in Lebanon today?

"Personally, it causes me great pain. I'm sorry that I will never be able to share my experiences of Lebanon with my children. I can't take them to see my school, the bakery where we bought cakes, the soccer field where I played. It's like a distant memory from another life. The reality is that I will never be able to return there. But beyond that, it also hurts to see Lebanon's current state. It's a failed state not only because of religious and sectarian problems, but also because of inconceivable corruption. People have lost all their savings, they can't withdraw money from the bank. I believe that if the Middle East were to free itself from all this madness, it could be an amazing place. It's the cradle of civilization, a place full of history, beauty, tradition, hospitality, and human warmth. But all of this is trampled by wars, religion, and corrupt politics."

When you talk about religions, you sound like an atheist, but you observe the Sabbath and are careful not to eat pork. How do you define your Jewish identity?

"I'm not hostile to religion, certainly not to Judaism. Religion is a wonderful thing because it creates a shared narrative, and from an evolutionary perspective, it has many functional values. My problem is when religion becomes too arrogant and offers a narrative that contradicts science. So if it's about connecting to Jewish identity, there's no one more Jewish than me. But if it means lighting candles at exactly 4:21 p.m., then no. Judaism is a multi-dimensional structure – a people, a lineage, a shared history. In that sense, I am completely Jewish. Two weeks ago, we celebrated my son's bar mitzvah in a completely traditional way – he read from the Torah and I put on tefillin with him. I live my Judaism much more than most Jews in the world, because I had to put on running shoes and flee from those who tried to behead me. So I've done my part."

Last year, Saad published another book, which has not yet been translated into Hebrew, titled, "The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life." "If you had asked me after I finished writing 'Parasites' what my next book would be, I wouldn't have told you it would be about happiness. This book grew organically."

Perhaps it came as a reaction, you needed to focus on something more optimistic.

"First of all, that's true, the previous book dealt with what happens to consciousness when it's negatively influenced, so it was nice to write a positive book. But it was really born from many people writing to me and asking: 'What's your secret, professor? How do you manage to keep your sense of humor, how are you always smiling, despite the difficulties you've experienced in life and the difficult subjects you deal with?' So I thought, why not write a book that explains these secrets? At first, I hesitated, because this is probably the most written-about topic since the beginning of philosophy until today. The ancient Greeks already wrote a lot about how to live a good life. The question was whether I could write a book that would be truly unique. I want to believe that I can, and that I bring unique insights combined with ancient wisdom and contemporary science, creating something fresh and new."

What do you see as the central factors for achieving happiness in life?

"One of the things I talk about in the book is the two most important decisions in life, those that can bring you the most happiness – or, unfortunately, the most suffering: choosing the right partner, and choosing the right profession. Meaning in life comes mainly through profession. I argue that the more you succeed in realizing your creativity in your work, the more meaning and sense of existential fulfillment you'll receive – which leads to deeper happiness. What does it mean to realize the creative drive? A stand-up comedian, for example, creates new jokes that didn't exist before, hoping they will make the audience happy. A chef creates new dishes, an architect designs buildings, a writer or researcher creates new knowledge. There are countless ways to satisfy our creative drive, and when we do so, we become immersed in meaning and purpose. This doesn't mean we don't need bus drivers or insurance adjusters, and that their lives aren't important. But how many people really wake up in the morning and say 'I am existentially happy because I am an accountant?' For most, it's simply a job that allows them to pursue other interests. But if your work itself can be a kind of laboratory for creation and innovation, then you've truly won."

Isn't happiness also related to having the right genes?

"I mention at the beginning of the book that about half of the differences in people's level of happiness come from genetics, which still leaves half in our hands. It may be that I was born with a tendency toward optimism and you with a tendency toward pessimism, which gives me an advantage over you – but I can make all the wrong decisions and adopt wrong approaches, and you will do the opposite and reach the peak of happiness much faster than me. So it's really not depressing, but rather a message of empowerment."

The post The Saad truth: Wokeism means burying your head in the sand appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"Many people think the United States saves Israel, but the truth is that today Israel's role is to save the United States from itself," this surprising statement by Dr. Michael Doran, an American expert on the Middle East, received thunderous applause from the audience at the "Freedom of Zion" conference, recently held at Binyanei HaUma, organized by the Center for Israeli Freedom, formerly the Tikvah Fund.

When we met a few days later, I asked Doran to elaborate on this statement, which while pleasing to Israeli ears, also raises questions.

"When people talk about 'Israel' in American discourse, it's never 'just about Israel,'" Doran responds. "Behind the scenes of the Israel debate, there's actually a debate between Americans: when progressives on the left criticize Israel and claim Palestinians are suffering under Israeli rule, while evangelical Christians argue that the US should support Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (Doran insists on using 'Judea and Samaria' rather than 'West Bank') – the underlying discussion is about which values should be dominant in American society itself.

"I personally believe that the commitment to Israel reflects the deeper values of the United States. This commitment reminds the US of its role in the world and what it represents. As we can see, this discussion extends beyond America's borders. The attitude toward Israel touches deep chords within European culture, for example. In my view, as long as the West continues to be committed to the traditional values that we all see as the great values of the West, it must support Israel."

Q: Since the war, I've heard conservatives worldwide saying they'd like to see their societies become more like Israeli society as they perceive it: a society mobilized against threats, embracing family values, where religious and national narratives are present. Is that what you're referring to?

"Absolutely yes. Your society wants to continue thriving, while the West is being swept by a great current of nihilism and suicidal aspirations from some of its elites, which also guide our politics. Even if you compare birth rates between secular Israelis and what's common in Western countries, you'll find a big difference. That tells us everything we need to know."

Michael Doran (62) holds a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from Princeton University and is a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, where he directs the "Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East." He previously held senior advisory positions related to US foreign policy in the Middle East – as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, and as a senior advisor to the National Security Council and the US State Department. He enjoys extensive connections with Israeli government leadership; he requested to schedule our interview for early morning hours because "during the day I'm supposed to meet with your prime minister," as he simply remarked.

Speaking excellent Hebrew and understanding it perfectly, many mistakenly assume he has a Jewish background. "I grew up in a Christian-atheist home, but today I'm Catholic," Doran says with a smile. He has visited Israel several times during the recent war, and knows the threats to Israel firsthand. "I was in the north during Hezbollah's rocket attacks, and had to lie down on the street during an alert. I know what we're talking about," he says. Many Israelis know him from his podcast with Gadi Taub, which began during the war, or from his book translated into Hebrew, "Suez Junction: Operation Kadesh and the American Turning Point in the Middle East" (Shibolet, 2023).

Turkish march

The rapid events leading to the Bashar Assad regime's fall surprised even veteran Middle East observers. Doran, who has many connections with Turkish sources, notes that Israel's successful military activity against Hezbollah, Russia's struggles in Ukraine, and the Assad regime's economic distress following US sanctions – provided the background that allowed Recep Tayyip Erdogan to move rebel groups southward and launch an operation to topple the regime.

"When it comes to Syria, one can get lost among the various opposing forces operating there, but in the simplest strategic terms – the regime's fall is a major move by the Turks," he explains. "The two main players among the rebel groups that operated in Syria are Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The first is a semi-independent organization influenced by Turkey and cannot operate without its consent. The Free Syrian Army is already a direct Turkish proxy, under complete Turkish control.

"We need to understand that Turkey operates in Syria with two main interests: The first is to eliminate the autonomous regions controlled by the PKK, an underground Kurdish organization also operating in Turkey, which wants to establish an independent Kurdish state including Turkish territory. Naturally, Turkey sees this as a direct threat to its national security. For the first time in history, the Kurdish separatist organization achieved continuous territorial control across all Kurdish areas in Syria, under the protection of supporting American forces. This obviously provokes Turkish anger. Turkey's second interest is returning the Syrian refugees who arrived in their territory when the civil war broke out, estimated at five million. Erdogan is under significant political pressure regarding their presence in the country. He knows their return will only be possible if Syria achieves basic economic stability allowing them to return home."

Q: It sounds like Erdogan has conflicting interests with the US. How will this work?

"I believe Erdogan is waiting for January 20 to negotiate Syria's future with Donald Trump. First and foremost, Turkey wants to free northeastern Syria from US-backed Kurdish forces. Ankara might pressure the US to withdraw from this region, leaving the territory to Turkish-backed forces. Turkey doesn't necessarily oppose the presence of US forces in Syria, or Kurdish forces it's willing to tolerate, but it won't accept these forces supporting PKK Kurds. The likely scenario, in my view, is that Trump will withdraw all American forces from Syria."

Q: How do you view what happened in Syria in the context of Israeli interests?

"For now at least, the rebels under Abu Mohammad al-Julani have moderated their positions, at least for Western ears. However, his group's roots lie deep in radical Islam, and this could certainly pose a long-term challenge. The Houthis have already publicly approached al-Julani and offered him to 'join the jihad against Israel.' The rebels won't necessarily succeed in stabilizing the country, and internal forces and disputes between different groups within Syria might lead it into chaos like Libya. The internal polarization in Syria makes it impossible to see one force uniting all these groups under one roof. Let's also remember that every Arab state is ultimately controlled by its internal security services. This has been true in Syria for years. Who will build this new apparatus and what will it look like? Syria in its current state is very fragile, and we'll continue to see external forces operating within it through local forces. The structure of the new security services is much more significant than the parliament or any other official governing structure that will exist in Syria."

"Israel has a blind spot regarding partnerships within Syria. I think you're already working more and more with the Druze community in Syria, which is a good direction. If I had to advise Israel, I would say that Israel will have to be more involved in Syria, which will require developing local proxy groups that rely on Israeli support. It can start with the Druze, but later other groups can and should be activated as well. Not to undermine Syrian governance of course, but to maintain Israeli security at the border, and so that Israel has a meaningful say about Syria in the aftermath, whenever that may come."

"In a broader perspective," Doran adds, "We're slightly more than a year after the October 7 attacks, but we can certainly say that the power dynamic between Israel and Iran in the Middle East has changed dramatically in the past year in Israel's favor. The Houthis are still causing trouble, and I wouldn't underestimate Hamas's and especially Hezbollah's ability to reorganize in the foreseeable future. And yet, this is indeed quite a remarkable development."

Q: What are the implications of the damage to the Russian-Iranian alliance in Syria?

"Erdogan didn't just destroy the Russian-Iranian alliance in Syria, but also damaged the Russian-Iranian combination that was dominant in the Ukraine war. We must remember that Turkey prominently supports the Ukrainians. The Turkish military is the second largest in NATO, so Erdogan is in an excellent position to negotiate with Russia and the US simultaneously regarding Syria's future, as well as Ukraine's future. He has significantly strengthened Trump's position against Putin, and now he has cards to play against the Russians too. For example, the Russians signed a 49-year contract with Assad for their naval base in Tartus, which is vital for their Mediterranean fleet, as well as the nearby Khmeimim air base. As of now, the Russians have evacuated it, but what about the long term? Do the Russians want to return there, and if so, under what conditions? Everything is still open."

The enemy of my enemy

Despite the obvious hostility between Israel and Turkey, Doran paints a more complex picture. In his view, Israel should study the new situation and perhaps even benefit from Turkey's strengthening, certainly when it comes at the expense of the collapsing Iranian axis.

"There's no doubt that there's a very strong anti-Israel sentiment in Turkey, which Erdogan shares, but there's no sign that this is part of a revolutionary Islamic foreign policy. Turkish society has actually become less Islamic in the last decade, due to internal rivalry and the 2016 coup attempt, which created a new balance between Erdogan and the security establishment. Today, Erdogan's control over security and foreign policy isn't exclusive. The security establishment plays the largest role, and its approach isn't Islamist but rather realpolitik. And it's based on the view that Kurdish separatists, the PKK, are the number one threat to the republic's existence."

"Erdogan's career itself is an example of realpolitik. He's made sharp political turns and partner changes that can't be explained by commitment to Islamic ideology. If Erdogan is an Islamist, then Islamism is his mistress. His faithful wife is realpolitik. On weekends, when his wife visits her mother, he might visit Islamism and think nostalgically about how the world could have looked if things had worked out differently."

"All Turks hate the PKK, and in fact, most Kurds do too. Israel expresses its hostility to Erdogan and 'Islamic' Syria these days by expressing support for the Kurds – which in this context means supporting the PKK. This isn't wise, because Erdogan is united with the security establishment behind the war against the PKK, just as Israel is united behind the idea of destroying Hamas. A pro-PKK policy from Israel will unite the Turks against Israel. The smarter move is to seek a pragmatic understanding with the Turks in Syria, one where Syria becomes a buffer state, like Jordan. Israel should demand from the new Syrian government that Syrian territory not be used by Iran, neither against Israel nor to strengthen Hezbollah, and that it not be used for attacks against Israel. Such an agreement is easy to achieve with Turkey, but not if Israel supports the 'Kurds.'"

Q: Erdogan is seen here as a clear Muslim Brotherhood figure.

"Erdogan is not a 'Muslim Brother' for a simple reason: he's Turkish, and the Muslim Brotherhood is an Arab organization. Turkish Islamism comes with a strong dose of Ottoman nostalgia, meaning the assumption that Turkey should be the leader of Muslims, and that's already a recipe for conflict between Arabs and Turks. Erdogan comes from an Islamist background, but there's no evidence that he bases his foreign and security policy on an Islamist agenda."

Q: Can you see Israel and Turkey returning to a state of cooperation in the future?

"No, I don't have hopes that Israel and Turkey under Erdogan will work in close cooperation. What I think is possible are quiet understandings regarding Syria's future. This should be the goal of Ankara, Jerusalem, and Washington, and it's achievable."

The empire or the republic

Since October 7, Israel has been dealing not only with growing hostility in the Democratic Party's left wing but also with voices in the Republican camp opposing continued American aid to Israel. The most prominent and popular among them is host Tucker Carlson, formerly of the right-wing Fox News, and currently hosting a daily current affairs program watched by millions on social media. During the war, Carlson sharply criticized President Joe Biden for the aid he sent to Israel, accused Israel of committing war crimes, and raised claims bordering on antisemitism, such as echoing messages that Israel encourages harm to Christians living in its territory. He's part of a growing faction within the Republican Party that's indifferent to Israel or even explicitly opposes Israel and Zionism. Carlson's views could be cause for concern, as he belongs to President-elect Donald Trump's inner circle.

"Personally, I do think Carlson has a problem with the State of Israel and maybe with Jews too, but let's put that aside," says Doran. "His positions toward Israel are shared by some people in Trump's coalition who aren't anti-Israel or antisemitic, but they also wouldn't want the US to remain involved in the Middle East."

Q: Can you explain this position?

"They believe that the 'American Empire,' as they call US involvement in the world, is destroying the 'American Republic,' meaning America's own interests and needs. In their view, going to wars around the world is meant to strengthen and enrich existing American elites. They think these resources should be directed inward. Such voices say: 'Let's just leave the Middle East.'"

Q: If I'm an American citizen, why should I care about a distant place in the Middle East called Israel, with wars that I need to keep funding?

"We should know that such thoughts weren't born yesterday. They have a long history going back to the founding of the American Republic. Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, thought America should be a small country that takes care of its people and isn't involved in foreign interests. I tell those who hold such views that the United States still must strive for a world with a strong American presence, because there's still a critical need for it. The US needs to maintain significant positions in the world – in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and other places – because American freedom depends on it. The real danger to the US comes from rapid and unplanned withdrawal around the world."

"The US today is dealing with the formation of forces – Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – that want to change the entire world order and shape it in their image. Their economic control would severely harm the US and the West in general. If they take control of the Middle East, it's just a small jump to Europe. And if they become dominant in Eurasia, they'll pose an absolute threat to American freedom there. Any American policy must ensure that this group doesn't become dominant or hegemonic. We need to work with Japan, Korea, India, and European allies, and of course with Israel, to prevent Eurasia from being under the shadow of these forces. A world order shaped by China, Russia, and Iran would create a completely different world, regardless of where you live, in the US or outside it."

Q: Which wing is more influential today within the Republican Party?

"I think those people who call for overturning our traditional support for Israel are absolutely in the minority. Many Americans, like me, see Israel as a family member of the US that needs to be protected, and I think we're still the overwhelming majority among Republicans, and among Americans in general. If we look at Trump's appointments to senior positions in his administration, the result is clear: with Marco Rubio as the next Secretary of State, Michael Waltz as National Security Advisor, Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador, and Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel – all undoubtedly strong Israel supporters, it certainly sends a clear message that Trump intends to be very supportive and friendly to Jerusalem."

"I talk to many Israelis, and the feeling is that the world has completely changed between Biden and Trump. Trump and his team will be very pro-Israel. Their opposition to Iran will also be much stronger than Biden's people. Obama's policy, which sought compromise with Iran, led to Iran's rise throughout the region in the last two decades. It became a potential nuclear power, and we haven't seen an effective American response to that. Trump's people won't make such mistakes."

"The only question for me, which I don't have an answer to, is whether Trump will support a military operation against Iran. He came to office against the background of the Ukraine war, with a message that he's not interested in starting major wars. He might decide that the best strategy is attempting to fight Iran but without significant military action, and here a point of friction with Jerusalem might develop."

Q: After Hamas, Hezbollah, and the fall of the Assad regime, many Israelis are marking the next target: Iran. After the previous successful action in Iran, there's thinking here that perhaps Israel can strike Iranian nuclear facilities alone.

"Even if Israel acts alone, it still needs the US. Not just for the Security Council veto, but to prevent Iran from expanding the front. Iran can respond to an attack from Israel by attacking Saudi Arabia or the UAE. They might claim it's proven they're cooperating with Israel in attacks on Iran. In any case, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the US isn't involved at some military level, even if it's just defending other allies."

Q: What would you like to see Trump do in his first year in office?

"Personally, I'd like to see Trump seize the opportunity. I see Iran's rise as the biggest challenge for the United States in the Middle East, and believe Iran is a weak link in this group of forces – Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. I'd like to see him deliver a strong opening blow and attack Iran's nuclear facilities. If at the beginning of his term he launches a significant attack on Iran, I think it will positively affect the deterrence of China, Russia, and North Korea, and of course Israel's security as well."

Q: In the Israeli Right, there are those who dream of annexing part of the Gaza Strip the day after the war ends. Do you think there's a way to sell this to the new administration?

"Listen, I'm not against it. But if I were advising you, the focus should be on the biggest problem for Israel's security, which is defeating Iran. Everything else is secondary."

Q: How should the Trump administration respond to the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant? In the Republican Party, there are those suggesting imposing sanctions on Canada, for example, in response to its support for the court's decision. Are such steps realistic in your view?

"Absolutely yes. I think Congress should impose sanctions on any country that supports this move. I think it should send the clearest possible message that supporting such a move is supporting Iran's attack on the legitimacy of an American ally, and take the strongest possible response. There's no reason not to."

Q: Can the United States lead the West without major support centers that see it as a force driving positive global trends? The dominance of the left and complacency among European elites, as well as their attitude toward Israel, aren't very encouraging in this context.

"Even when the situation sometimes appears discouraging – and I can understand how one might view the West that way today – compared to other countries in the world, like China, which project strength externally, I think it's entirely possible. When I was in high school in the 1970s, and later as a student into the 1980s, it wasn't at all clear to me that the United States was winning the Cold War. When I went to college, I had quite a few Marxist professors. Some believed that the United States was in decline and that international political decisions had to be constrained by the Soviet Union. Today, we all know how the Cold War ended, but at the time, it wasn't clear at all."

"Nevertheless, the United States needs allies. The strategic goal, as I mentioned, is to prevent Iran from becoming dominant in the Middle East, and therefore we need Israel stronger than ever. We need the Europeans to do their part in their corner of the world against the Russian threat, and the Japanese, Koreans, Australians, and Indians strong against the Chinese threat. We must prevent the opposing alliance, with all its conflicting players, from working together and achieving the hegemony they desire. Only the United States has the global influence and vision that can unite all these different players. Yes, we should expect many upheavals in the Middle East over the next decade, and perhaps beyond. It's important that you remain strong."

The post Michael Doran: Israel is making a mistake with Erdogan appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Borrowing from the Israeli discourse after Oct. 7, Jewish-British journalist Melanie Phillips (73) is one of the UK's earliest and most famous "disillusioned" figures: from being a senior left-wing journalist and a "Jew by accident," to becoming a fighter for neo-conservative values in the West and an outspoken pro-Israel voice.

Lebanon, now in the spotlight of both the conflict and media attention, played a crucial role in Phillips' process of leaving the British left. "The first time I was exposed to the hypocrisy towards Israel in the world press was in 1982, when the First Lebanon War began," she recalled. "I hadn't visited Israel before, had no such plans, and didn't know much about the Israeli-Arab conflict. To my shock, the coverage in the British press portrayed Israel as a Nazi state. I'll never forget how Ariel Sharon, then defense minister, was described as a Nazi general and mass murderer. Out of nowhere, and for the first time since the Holocaust, displays of antisemitism towards Jews in Britain began to emerge, claiming that we, British Jews, support a state that is committing 'genocide' against Palestinians in Lebanon.

"At that time, I was a senior writer at The Guardian. I asked my colleagues – educated and wonderful people on a personal level who advocate moral principles – how it was that a shocking tragedy in the Middle East, where the army of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad murdered between 25,000 and 40,000 people in the city of Hama in Syria, received a side headline in our newspaper, while Israeli attacks against Palestinians in Lebanon received front-page headlines and extensive coverage. 'We have a double standard towards Israel,' I told them."

The answer she heard changed her life: "Of course we have a double standard," her colleagues explained. "Israel is a Western country, so we judge you by our morals, while from the Arab world, which wasn't educated on human rights values, we don't have similar expectations. If we made such a comparison, it would be racism on our part." Phillips replied: "What are you talking about? If someone claims that Arabs can't be expected to be as moral as the West, in my eyes, that's racism."

This conversation was a turning point for her: "The left revealed itself as fundamentally racist. This realization stunned me. They weren't the moral knights I thought they were. Although it took me time to part ways with The Guardian and the left, in retrospect, this was the moment when my previous world began to crumble." Beyond the ideological debate, Phillips realized that in her colleagues' eyes, she was a Jew representing Israel, and accordingly, they addressed her with expressions like "you" and "you all."

The series of attacks on the London Underground on July 7, 2005, sent shockwaves through the UK. Four Al-Qaeda terrorists with British citizenship detonated bombs in three train stations, killing about 52 people and injuring about 700. This tragedy catalyzed the publication of Phillips' most famous book in 2006: "Londonistan: How Britain Created a Terror State Within." Despite being published by a small, unknown publishing house, the book quickly became a bestseller in Britain and the US. "The major publishing houses in Britain boycotted me and refused to publish my books," Phillips explained. "'Londonistan' sparked a wide public debate on the integration of Muslim immigrants in Britain and the West's failure to address the internal Muslim threat, not only in terms of terrorism but also on the cultural front."

Q: 18 years after the publication of "Londonistan," how do you view the current attitude of the British elites towards Muslim immigration?

"The situation hasn't improved but worsened, in the sense that they're still in complete denial of the religious component of the attempts to Islamize the West, which is essentially jihad. On the other hand, in the general public, people understand that this is a terrible problem that only gets worse year by year. One can't ignore the fact that in France, there's a phenomenon of churches being deliberately and symbolically burned by Muslims, and that entire communities essentially function as enclaves operating under Sharia law."

"I still hold the same values"

"When asked about my transition from left to right," Phillips said, "I emphasize that I still hold the same values that have always guided me: giving voice to the weak against the centers of power, presenting the truth against lies, and going where the evidence leads me. I'm simply a Jew who believes in tikkun olam [a concept in Judaism about healing the world] and a journalist who believes in telling the truth. In many ways, I haven't changed; I just realized over time that the environment that surrounded me, those I thought were with me 'on the same front,' were never really there."

An example of Phillips' approach in British media can be seen from her appearance in March on the BBC's long-running program, "Question Time." Phillips argued that Israel is not systematically starving Gaza residents as a means of warfare. The audience reacted with astonishment, some even with overt laughter. Panel members and the program's host also expressed opposition to her statements.

Q: At times it seemed like everyone there was against you.

"When you see how a story like the Palestinian narrative, which is entirely based on lies, receives such support in the West, you understand the power of the intellectual and moral degeneration that has struck its elites, in Britain and in general. 'Palestinianism,' the Palestinian ideology aimed at fighting Israel, plays a much more central role today compared to other destructive ideologies: it's a moral cancer at the heart of Western civilization. It has distorted collective logic by paralyzing our ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and has emasculated the West from defending its way of life."

The full interview will be published in Makor Rishon in the coming days.

The post 'British elites are in complete denial about attempts to Islamize the West' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"In my new book, I quote a good friend from Israel, Dr. Eddy Cohen, who was born in Lebanon," says Dr. Matthias Küntzel, a researcher of Muslim antisemitism, speaking to me from his home in Hamburg, Germany. "Eddy has about half a million followers on Twitter, from across the Arab world. Once, I asked him to post a question in Arabic: 'What do you think about Adolf Hitler?' Within minutes, the post received hundreds of responses. He translated the first forty for me, and about half of them expressed very positive sentiments: 'Hero,' 'the bravest man in the world,' 'his only mistake was not killing all the Jews,' and other such statements.

"Imagine a Western country, like France, conducting a public opinion poll where masses of people express strong support for Hitler and what he represents. It would be a global scandal; everyone would talk about it. But because it's the Arab world, it passes without criticism. The immense popularity of Hitler in the Arab street is well-known to anyone familiar with the Middle East."

President Herzog revealed in a BBC interview that IDF soldiers found copies of Mein Kampf in homes in Gaza.

"Unfortunately, the popularity of Mein Kampf is not limited to Gaza. Even in a country like Egypt, which has a peace agreement with Israel, many people have read Mein Kampf. To understand how this happened, we need to recognize that after 1945, there was a double division in the world. On one hand, the world was split by the Cold War, into the Soviet and American blocs. On the other hand, the world was divided over the legacy of Nazism: in most parts of humanity, Nazism became the ultimate symbol of evil, and the name Hitler provoked universal condemnation. In the Arab world, however, he remained an admired and beloved figure. But because the Cold War 'dominated the headlines,' no one noticed that significant parts of the Arab world were still infatuated with Hitler."

Nazis against Zionism

Dr. Matthias Küntzel (69) is often regarded as the foremost scholar on contemporary antisemitism in the Muslim world, particularly the influence of Nazi ideology on Muslim antisemitism in the Middle East and the radical currents of political Islam, including the Muslim Brotherhood. His first book on the subject, written in German in 2002, amidst the global shock of the September 11th attacks, is also the only one translated into Hebrew: Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Nazism, Islamism, and the Roots of 9/11 (Toby Press, 2008). Over the years, Küntzel has published additional books focusing on Germany's responsibility for the development of Iran's nuclear project, German policy towards the Muslim world and Israel, and over a hundred articles exploring the Nazi roots of Muslim antisemitism, all of which can be found on his blog.

His latest book, published this year and currently available in German and English, serves as a kind of summation of thirty years of research: Nazis, Islamic Antisemitism, and the Middle East: The Arab War Against Israel in 1948 and the Responses to World War II.

Many in Israel, especially after October 7th, draw parallels between Hamas and the Nazis. However, there are also those who oppose this comparison, arguing that it is historically unfounded.

"The massacre by Hamas on October 7th, which was an act of ecstatic killing, proves to me that quasi-Nazi antisemitism, which seeks to kill Jews wherever they are, is still flourishing in our world. That being said, you're correct that this connection is not self-evident. The central role of Nazi antisemitism in planning and executing the Holocaust is well known, while its influence on the Middle East remains under-researched. My new book aims to fill this gap. I argue that the Arab armies' assault on the young Jewish state in 1948 can be understood in a new light against the backdrop of the methods the Nazi regime used a decade earlier to successfully spread its unique brand of antisemitism throughout the Middle East, through the Arabic language and culture."

To understand this story, Küntzel explains, one must go back to the 1930s. "In the early years after the Nazis came to power, their foreign policy showed little interest in the Middle East. Their prevailing perception was that the region was deeply rooted under the influence of the British, French, and Italians, and they had no interest in becoming involved. When, in the spring of 1933, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, wanted to collaborate with the Nazis against the Jews, they rejected him.

"In 1937, however, a turning point occurred: the Peel Commission in Britain proposed for the first time the plan to partition the land into two states. The commission recommended the establishment of a very small Jewish state in Palestine, on only 17% of the territory, and a very large Arab-Muslim state. The Jews, of course, were not thrilled with this idea, but they accepted it. The Nazis sought to prevent even this tiny Jewish state at all costs. They believed it might become a kind of 'Jewish Vatican' and interfere with Nazi foreign policy. That same year, they launched a campaign throughout the Arab world to bury the nascent Jewish state plan before it could take root.

"It's important to remember that before the Nazis' intervention, there were still various solutions to the conflict. For example, Abdullah I, King of Jordan, favored the two-state solution. There were significant and influential Arab families in Palestine, such as the Nashashibi family, many of whom supported this solution. It may surprise some readers, but quite a few Arabs in Palestine didn't want the 1948 war. A decade earlier, in 1937, there were even more of them. Many Arabs believed that the two-state solution would be the best option for them and for the region in general."

What were the arguments of the Arabs who supported the establishment of a Jewish state?

"This division was primarily around the question of the relationship to modernity: Arabs who sided with modernity generally supported the Jewish presence in Palestine, believing it would help them close the gap with Europe and enjoy a more advanced way of life. The Israeli historian Hillel Cohen wrote an entire book on Arab collaborators with Israel in '48 (Good Arabs, Keter). There were, of course, collaborators who just wanted to get some money from the Jews, but there were also others who did so out of a desire for good neighborliness and a belief that the Jewish presence was good for the region.

"But by that time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who opposed modernity in the name of Islam, had already cooperated with the Nazis and attacked anyone who did not oppose the two-state solution. He even murdered friends and families within the Arab population to scare them away from any positive contact with Jews. The Mufti's actions, which combined an Islamist dimension with Nazi influence, were essentially the beginning of the Arab terrorism that continues in the Land of Israel to this day." In this context, it should be noted that the person who assassinated King Abdullah of Jordan during his visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1951 was a member of the Husseini family. The assassination was carried out due to Abdullah's moderate attitude toward Israel.

Khomeini listened to Radio Berlin

You mentioned that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian branch is Hamas, is steeped in Nazi antisemitism. Can you explain?

"Well, you only need to read Hamas's 1988 charter, and you'll find exactly the same slogans that the Nazis spread during World War II through their Arabic-language radio broadcasts. This is a crucial point," emphasizes Küntzel, describing a historical perspective that is not well-known. "When the Nazi Arabic-language radio station began broadcasting, radio was a very important medium. Since 80% of the population in Arab countries was illiterate, radio was the best way to influence people. The Nazis produced very good radio programs, and it was attractive. Every broadcast began with a verse from the Quran, there were news broadcasts, interviews with well-known figures in the Arab world, and also popular Arabic music, such as songs by Umm Kulthum.

"Millions of Arabs listened every evening, for six years, to Nazi messages wrapped in a pseudo-religious Muslim guise, using the most advanced technology of the time. There is no doubt that this deeply influenced people; it changed something in their consciousness. In my view, the division is very clear: the Middle East before the Nazis' broadcasts to the Arab world, and the Middle East after them."

You note in your book that even the young Khomeini listened to Nazi radio in Iran.

"Yes. The radio broadcasts were indeed in various dialects of Arabic, but they also had versions in Persian, Turkish, and even Hindi. So Khomeini could listen to it in 1938 when he was 40 years old. Every evening, he gathered friends around him to listen to the Nazi radio broadcasts. Khomeini might not have been a fan of Nazi Germany, but he certainly enjoyed the antisemitic content. I believe he later used what he learned through this radio station."

I think this is where we should mention one of the most important figures in the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, Sayyid Qutb.

"Definitely. Qutb was a senior activist and important thinker in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. His book Our Struggle with the Jews, published in 1951, was a significant step towards establishing Nazi antisemitism in the Arab world. The title of the book, of course, echoes Hitler's famous Mein Kampf (My Struggle in German). After the Six-Day War, the book, with generous Saudi funding, reached every corner of the Arab world. It is a foundational text in the history of the Brotherhood and certainly behind the murderous ideology of Hamas."

The Saudi shift

After the attacks on the Twin Towers, you wrote that Saudi Arabia was the primary producer of antisemitism in the Sunni Muslim world. Twenty-two years later, are you surprised by its shift towards Israel?

"No doubt, I was surprised. This is a hopeful change. It shows that perhaps antisemitism in the Arab world is not so deeply rooted in the culture that we cannot see a shift in other places soon."

In this context, Küntzel points to an important difference between Egypt and Saudi Arabia: "With Egypt, Israel has a peace agreement with the government, but the Egyptian people are still largely hostile to Jews. In Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, they have begun to introduce changes in the education system, including towards Judaism. This is a very important development. If you ask me, antisemitism in Christian societies is probably more deeply rooted."

In fact, your argument has an optimistic aspect. If we can moderate the Islamist influences among Arabs, peace relations with Israel could be possible.

"I certainly think so. That's why the Abraham Accords make sense."

Yasmine Mohammed, a former Muslim and international speaker, told me in an interview that one of the mistakes liberals and progressives in the West make about Islam is thinking that all the bad things in Muslim civilization happen because of Western influences. On the contrary, one can definitely quote harsh antisemitic messages from the Quran and Hadith about how Muhammad's army slaughtered Jews, who are described as 'sons of apes and pigs,' long before any Western influence. So maybe the Nazis aren't the only ones to blame here.

"Well, that's certainly a tough question. It's true that the Nazis didn't need to invent anything from scratch, but they did manage to refuel the antisemitism that had existed in Islam for ages, in the same way they did in the Christian world. They built an additional layer of extreme demonization of Jews, presenting them as a dangerous force controlling all negative movements in the world. There are also passages in the Quran that are sympathetic to Jews, which the Nazis did not highlight in their propaganda broadcasts to the Arab world."

Western historians and scholars make a distinction between Islam and radical Islam. Do you accept this division?

"Look, in Islamic history, there were also many currents that called for not taking the Quran's words literally and believed that the Quran's interpretation could and should be adapted to changing times. On the other hand, radical Islamists say that we must adapt modern times to the Quran, not the other way around. This is where the difference between the currents lies. However, radical Islam, Islamism, is deeply rooted in global Islam, and many Muslims see it as a legitimate stream within Islam.

"For example, when ISIS carried out their horrific terrorist attacks, a large conference was held at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most important Sunni Muslim institution in the world, addressing the question 'Should we denounce ISIS and excommunicate them from Islam?' In the end, it was decided that they could not be excommunicated from 'Islam' because they still followed the commandments of the Quran and Islamic law. This is the main problem – you can't fight Islamism as long as such crimes can receive broad religious legitimacy in the Muslim world. For us in the West to fight Islamism, we need to forge an alliance with moderate Muslims and hope that change comes from within. I don't think outsiders can bring about significant change in this religion.

"It's important to understand that Islamism is actually the largest global mass movement that has grown and thrived since the fall of communism. When the Iron Curtain fell, they claimed that they are now the new force rising against the West. They are driven by this consciousness, which still gives them great power today."

Do you see sufficient determination in the West to fight these currents of Islam?

"Right now, I'm not satisfied with the situation. People in the West often don't recognize that mainstream Islam often provides support and cover for Islamist activities. The danger with Islamist movements stems from the fact that, first, they have a very clear common agenda – the Quran as a plan of action. Second, they have a lot of money, and they are well-organized. Third, they are spread all over the world. This is an international movement with immense power, which opposes the free market, liberalism, and all the values that the West supports. That's why we must fight them in every possible way. Unfortunately, Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot of influence over young Muslims living in the West, and we in the West must not ignore this. They are gaining strength not only in Europe but also in the United States."

New York as a Jewish center

Küntzel's worldview regarding political Islam and its dangers is surprising when you consider that he was once firmly aligned with the left wing of German politics. During the 1980s, he served as an advisor to the German Green Party in the Bundestag, was a member of the Communist League, and identified with the "anti-German movement," a fringe group on the German left characterized by its anti-fascism, but also pro-Israel stance and opposition to antisemitism.

"When I wrote a book about the Kosovo War in 2000," Küntzel recalls, "I deliberately avoided any discussion of radical Islam or jihad. As a leftist, I wanted to avoid what could be perceived as racism against Muslims."

The 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers also shattered Küntzel's worldview. "They changed everything for me. I wanted to know why the terrorists did it," he describes. Küntzel was further shocked by reports that the attack was actually planned on German soil, in his own city, Hamburg. Mohamed Atta, the 31-year-old Egyptian who hijacked the Boeing aircraft and crashed it into the North Tower of the Twin Towers, had lived in Germany since 1992 and established the "Hamburg cell" of al-Qaeda, which carried out the attacks in New York.

"The weekend after the Twin Towers fell, I already had on my desk at the University of Hamburg library research books on subjects that had previously been distant from me: the roots of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood, the history of the Middle East, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I immersed myself in this field for a year, and then published my first book on the subject."

Küntzel realized then that many chose to ignore one of the central motifs that motivated the attacks: antisemitism. "During my research, a trial was taking place in Hamburg against one of the aides of the 'Hamburg cell,' Mounir al-Motassadeq. Witnesses in the trial testified that the cell members' mindset was 'like Nazis,' in the sense that the terrorists believed that 'the Jews are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world.' This was the first sign for me that behind the attacks there was a deep antisemitic background that needed to be investigated. What amazes me is that researchers completely ignored this perspective. I am essentially the first scholar to recognize that antisemitism was a primary motivation for the attacks."

Your book on 9/11 begins with a startling anecdote: the first person to conceive of suicide planes crashing into buildings in New York was not Osama bin Laden, but Adolf Hitler.

"This idea was documented in the diaries of Albert Speer, Hitler's personal architect and one of the people closest to him. He describes how Hitler was enthusiastic about the idea of suicide planes crashing into skyscrapers in New York, which the Nazis referred to as the 'world Jewish center.' I thought it was a good opening for the book to show the mindset behind this kind of thinking that originated in Nazism. It's not just about killing another person or winning a battle, but 'cleansing the world of evil.' The Nazis even began building a plane called the 'America bomber' to implement this idea.

"In hindsight, I learned that in the minds of al-Qaeda members, New York was also seen as the 'center of world Jewry.' The terrorists even wanted to target the Jewish neighborhood in New York before deciding to hit the World Trade Center, but this aspect was completely forgotten. Even in the official U.S. report on the motive behind the attacks, Osama bin Laden's worldview was not mentioned. In this context, it's crucial to mention bin Laden's Letter to America, in which he clearly wrote that the Jews are behind every evil in the United States."

This text has recently gained bizarre popularity among progressive youth in the U.S., who praised bin Laden's letter on TikTok as a "spiritual journey" that brought them closer to the Quran.

"It was unbelievable to me because bin Laden explicitly wrote that the problem is not what America does or doesn't do in the Middle East, but the essence of America: the fact that people can vote and choose candidates to manage their political lives. Bin Laden wrote that Americans, along with the entire world, must submit to Sharia law. This is also why Iranian leaders refer to the West as the 'arrogant world' – we are so arrogant that we think we can manage our lives without 'Allah's will.'

"In other al-Qaeda statements, bin Laden clarified that the Muslim nation must punish America for its support of Israel, so the 9/11 attack was also a form of anti-Israelism. The reverse is also true. For them, 'if you destroy Israel, you destroy the West's front post.' We in the West were comfortable ignoring the suicide bombings that happened in Israel, and so we got 9/11 in New York and the terrorist attacks in Western capitals since. Therefore, October 7th should serve as a huge warning for us."

In this regard, your research echoes a message we in Israel have been trying to convey to the West since October 7th: "We are fighting your war."

"That's right. I see the war in Gaza within the framework of the global struggle between Muslim terrorist organizations, supported by Iran, along with the axis of Russia, China, and North Korea, and liberal democracies. That's why it's so important that you win in Gaza."

Ideology over facts

Following Küntzel's conclusions about the dangers of Islam, his friends on the German left expelled him from their ranks. "They reacted to 9/11 in two ways: some were outright gloating over America's downfall, or they saw the attacks as a just response, even if excessive, to what they called 'American imperialism.' In essence, they justified al-Qaeda's actions.

"The left-wing crowd is steeped in ideology, which will always take precedence over facts on the ground. They never bothered to study the foundational texts of al-Qaeda, the Hamas charter, or the thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who repeatedly emphasize that they are not interested in fighting against one American administration or another, but against the West as a whole. The left wants to bury all of this, so they had to ostracize me. The left's thinking in this regard is narrow-minded and one-dimensional, almost primitive, I would say. They don't want to acknowledge the facts, even if they are harsh."

Perhaps this is related to the fact that since Marx, the left has placed great importance on economic solutions over religious ideas.

"I think this is not only a mistake of the left but of Western culture as a whole. The last time the West witnessed a war with a clear religious background was the Thirty Years' War between Catholics and Protestants in the first half of the 17th century. Since then, much water has flowed under the bridge. Therefore, we in the West don't know how to deal with wars that have a clear religious background. Even the German government does not take Hamas's religious background seriously, even though the Quran is quoted no less than 32 times in Hamas's charter.

"People in the West find it difficult to grasp that when the Nukhba operatives launched their attack on the morning of October 7th, from their perspective, it was the fulfillment of a deep divine mission. That's why they appeared so proud and enthusiastic in the videos. When your enemy thinks in terms of a religious mission, no kind of peace can be made with him. He must be utterly defeated, and there is no possibility of compromise with him. Understanding this religious dimension is crucial, and denying it is destructive."

Küntzel experienced the academic establishment's suppression firsthand, under the guise of political correctness. In March 2007, he was supposed to give a lecture at the University of Leeds in England, titled "Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East." The Muslim Students Association at the university complained about the "provocative" title, and the university caved to their demands, agreeing to remove the words "Hitler" and "Islamic," but it was to no avail: aggressive emails received from Muslim students at the university led to the event's cancellation due to "security concerns." At the time, Küntzel said that "my feeling was that this was a form of censorship," and that "the claims that my lectures contain something intentionally against Islam are ridiculous, as I also talk about Christian antisemitism."

The shadow of the father

What initially led you to study antisemitism?

"I am trained as a political scientist, and I always thought that as a German, it is very natural to want to understand what made Auschwitz possible. My understanding of the central role of antisemitism in Nazi ideology was strengthened when I came across Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's famous book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. It was a turning point for me, a kind of eye-opener." Through research and documentation of a German reserve battalion that participated in the murder of Jews in Eastern Europe, Goldhagen argued that a unique form of antisemitism inherent in the German people enabled the Holocaust. The book caused a stir at the time, extending beyond Holocaust research, and predictably, parts of German society did not like its conclusions.

Around the time he was exposed to Goldhagen's book, Küntzel also mustered the courage to confront his family's history anew: "After my father's death in 1996," he writes in his book, "I was able, for the first time in my life, to read the letters he sent from the Western Front in 1945, the letters of a family… that remained loyal to the Nazi regime until the bitter end."

Küntzel and several other German scholars published a book about the German left's reactions to Goldhagen's thesis. "Surprisingly, we found that the left's rejection of the book was identical to that of the German right, where such a reaction might be more expected. In general, it's fair to say that Germans don't like this book, but for me, it allowed the beginning of a difficult but honest confrontation with our history."

After October 7th, we saw a clear display of support from the public and government in Germany. How would you characterize German public opinion regarding the war now?

"After the attack on October 7th, there were expressions of solidarity with Israel among the German public and pro-Israel statements from German politicians, much more so than in the Scandinavian countries, for example. But unfortunately, as the war progressed, the German public's attention has increasingly focused on the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza."

Küntzel shows me a cover of Die Zeit – Germany's most widely circulated weekly newspaper, associated with centrist political views – featuring a photo of a Palestinian family near a destroyed house. "This is typical coverage," he says. "Our TV channels show around-the-clock suffering in the Gaza Strip. Of course, they won't show pictures of the Israeli refugees from the north. Unfortunately, the coverage of the war in Germany is completely one-sided.

"As for the German government, it acts in a self-contradictory manner: ostensibly, it supports Israel, which is reflected in hesitant statements of support from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, but on the other hand, it does everything to tie Israel's hands in the war, for example, when it joined the U.S. administration's demands that Israel not enter Rafah. They are essentially blackmailing Israel: 'If you dare to do what needs to be done seriously to defeat and eliminate Hamas, we will stop supporting you.' How can the German government make such demands of Israel without showing them how to get rid of Hamas without entering Rafah, Khan Younis, or other areas in the Strip? Israel has no real alternative. The unspoken conclusion from Israel's 'friends' is that Hamas must be accepted as a reality in the day after, rather than defeated. This is a very mistaken position."

Küntzel is critical of Germany's Middle East policy in general. "To me, it was a real scandal when German President Steinmeier traveled to Ankara to strengthen ties with Turkey without mentioning Erdogan's support for Hamas. Erdogan himself emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement. When Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood member who managed to become Egypt's president, died during his trial in Egypt, symbolic gestures of solidarity with the 'oppressed' Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were made in Turkey. So, when a country like Germany meets with Erdogan to strengthen ties and economy, it's another victory for Islamism in Europe."

Some in Israel believe we should be more open to the possibility of ties with right-wing parties in Europe, particularly in Germany, given the shared opposition to Islamist movements. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is often mentioned in this context.

"I disagree. Today, the AfD is a genuinely fascist party. In the first two or three years of its existence, there were also standard conservative right-wingers in it, but that's over; the fascist wing has taken over this party. Even Le Pen in France distances herself from the AfD in Germany because there are people there with a clearly fascist ideology. Their immigration policy is extremely radical: they seek to get rid of anyone who is not a 'typical German,' for example, any German citizen of Turkish origin. In the Jewish-Israeli context, it's important to know that they deny the necessity of remembering what happened in Germany during the Nazi period, instead calling for emphasis only on the positive sides of German history. These are two major points of failure in my view."

Deterrence won't work

Küntzel is a member of the advisory board of UANI, "United Against Nuclear Iran," an American organization that enjoys bipartisan support in the U.S. and focuses on research and public relations around the Iranian nuclear threat.

Assuming there won't be a significant Israeli attack with U.S. support in the near future, Israel might have to live alongside a nuclear Iran.

"In my view, this situation is nothing short of terrible. We've already seen a Cold War where both superpowers had nuclear weapons. Ultimately, neither attacked the other because despite the ideological struggle, what the Soviets and Americans had in common was a love of life, allowing for mutual deterrence. However, the slogan of the Islamists is 'You love life, we love death.' So this kind of mutual deterrence simply won't work this time.

"When Iran says seriously and persistently that they want to 'wipe Israel off the map,' we in the West need to take it seriously, not just as a form of verbal bluster or 'anti-Israel rhetoric.' The main lesson from October 7th is that we must take the Islamists' declarations seriously. If we in the West again display laziness in analyzing their ideological goals, another catastrophe could occur in Israel. Therefore, I think you need to use military means to prevent this bomb from being realized."

Do you see an American administration attacking nuclear facilities on Iranian soil together with us?

"I wouldn't rule it out. Don't forget that no nuclear power wants there to be more nuclear powers in the world. Even China and Russia, despite their cooperation with Iran, are not enthusiastic about the possibility of Iran getting the bomb. So we must fight until the last second to prevent this situation. I believe it's still possible."

The post Between Gaza and Berlin appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.