Hamas propaganda always gets you in the end. This is the dark conclusion that emerges from the new trend for some conservatives to abandon their support for the Middle East’s only democracy.
Last week, the Tory MP Mark Pritchard made a speech in the House of Commons that seemed almost designed to appeal to social media. “I’ve been in this House for 20 years,” he began. “I have supported Israel pretty much at all costs, frankly. But today, I want to say that I got it wrong and I condemn Israel.” While acknowledging the country’s right to exist and the need for the hostages to be freed – thanks for that! – he made no bones about his new position: “I’d like to withdraw my support right now.”
This statement is perhaps best assessed by considering it through the eyes of the people it directly concerns. Firstly, let’s look at it through the eyes of ordinary Gazans, with whom the MP would likely profess to be most concerned. On Friday, a contact in the Strip sent me a string of expletive-filled messages about Hamas after they issued a public threat to anybody who helped the Americans deliver aid. This morning, when I sent him Pritchard’s speech on WhatsApp, he replied in a scathing voice-note.
“He can come also to live in Gaza. He will change his mind, you know?” He added his concern that such high-profile swivels of international support may inadvertently embolden Hamas, causing them to harden their position in ceasefire negotiations and bringing further suffering on ordinary Palestinians like himself.
I imagine the jihadis of Hamas would be cackling. They would be unlikely to have heard of the MP for The Wrekin, but from their point of view, every win’s a win. Pritchard was obviously not supporting the terrorists, but in the bigger picture, that is likely how they would see it. After all, he was withdrawing support from the very country that Hamas has sworn to destroy, which is the whole point of their propaganda campaign.
For months – no, years – we have been aware of the pernicious falsity of Hamas propaganda. Whether falsifying casualty figures, exaggerating reports of famine or censoring footage so that it looks as if Israel is only targeting civilians, the methods have hardly been a secret. Sadly, however, they take their toll in the end.
Seen through the eyes of Jerusalem, Pritchard’s posturing will hardly cause sleepless nights. In the final analysis, Israel has an obligation to defend itself, whatever British MPs may think. As Ze’ev Jabotinsky, one of the fathers of modern Israel, put it: “We are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.” No tears, in other words, are likely to be shed over a speech made by a parliamentarian whose reputation does not extend far beyond Westminster.
Yet he is only one of several. Last week, Kit Malthouse abandoned his reputation for compromise by rousing a group of Conservatives from both chambers to further damage Tory electability by signing a letter to the Prime Minister pledging their support for the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State. The letter was leaked to the Guardian. Amusingly, Sir Keir just ignored them.
This is a trend that goes beyond Parliament to the drawing rooms of the conservative elites. Take Matthew Parris. Is he still a Tory? It’s hard to know them from the Lib Dems these days. Either way, he has adopted the same line as the FT and the Economist, who both put the boot in to Israel last week.
“How are our successors going to feel when one day British children are taught at school that, in their own century, their own countrymen averted their eyes while Palestinians faced a rain of missiles and bombs, with many tens of thousands dying in the assaults?” he asked in a recent column.
In truth, conservative Arabism is hardly something new, particularly among the upper crust. Lord Cameron has been pretty vocal in support of Gaza since October 7, repeatedly calling on Israel to “pause” while it was in danger of actually winning. He has made a point of backing the two-state solution to the hilt, which at times like these is always a reliable measure of a man who appears to care more about his own self-image than the grim reality on the ground. Though he was quite happy, in his time, to bomb Libya.
Some may suggest that these are patricians with a bit of a Lawrence of Arabia thing going on. They fall in a rich tradition. We can count Sir Mark Sykes, of Sykes-Picot fame, who created all those Middle Eastern states that are flourishing so profusely today. We can count Harry St John Philby, father of the Soviet spy Kim, who persuaded the Saudis to give drilling rights to the Americans rather than Britain and converted to Islam in 1930.
We can count Tories like the late Ian Gilmour of the Spectator, the late MP for Westbury Dennis Walters, and the late diplomat and parliamentarian Anthony Nutting, all of whom held Arabist views that, one might argue, sometimes blinded them to the rights and wrongs of things.
Despite the best efforts of these chaps, however, Israel is doing pretty well. Amid the agonies and tragedies of war, and in the face of the far-Right threat and constitutional crisis, it has eviscerated Hezbollah, humiliated Iran and all but destroyed Hamas.
It has the highest birthrate in the OECD, its GDP per capita surpassed that of Britain – its former colonial ruler – and in 2020, in March, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, bought the Israeli cybersecurity startup Wiz for a record-breaking $32 billion. Moreover, according to the UN, it is the eighth happiest country on Earth, while Britain languishes at twenty-third. Stick that in your Tory hookah and smoke it.
Hamas propaganda always gets you in the end. This is the dark conclusion that emerges from the new trend for some conservatives to abandon their support for the Middle East’s only democracy.
Last week, the Tory MP Mark Pritchard made a speech in the House of Commons that seemed almost designed to appeal to social media. “I’ve been in this House for 20 years,” he began. “I have supported Israel pretty much at all costs, frankly. But today, I want to say that I got it wrong and I condemn Israel.” While acknowledging the country’s right to exist and the need for the hostages to be freed – thanks for that! – he made no bones about his new position: “I’d like to withdraw my support right now.”
This statement is perhaps best assessed by considering it through the eyes of the people it directly concerns. Firstly, let’s look at it through the eyes of ordinary Gazans, with whom the MP would likely profess to be most concerned. On Friday, a contact in the Strip sent me a string of expletive-filled messages about Hamas after they issued a public threat to anybody who helped the Americans deliver aid. This morning, when I sent him Pritchard’s speech on WhatsApp, he replied in a scathing voice-note.
“He can come also to live in Gaza. He will change his mind, you know?” He added his concern that such high-profile swivels of international support may inadvertently embolden Hamas, causing them to harden their position in ceasefire negotiations and bringing further suffering on ordinary Palestinians like himself.
I imagine the jihadis of Hamas would be cackling. They would be unlikely to have heard of the MP for The Wrekin, but from their point of view, every win’s a win. Pritchard was obviously not supporting the terrorists, but in the bigger picture, that is likely how they would see it. After all, he was withdrawing support from the very country that Hamas has sworn to destroy, which is the whole point of their propaganda campaign.
For months – no, years – we have been aware of the pernicious falsity of Hamas propaganda. Whether falsifying casualty figures, exaggerating reports of famine or censoring footage so that it looks as if Israel is only targeting civilians, the methods have hardly been a secret. Sadly, however, they take their toll in the end.
Seen through the eyes of Jerusalem, Pritchard’s posturing will hardly cause sleepless nights. In the final analysis, Israel has an obligation to defend itself, whatever British MPs may think. As Ze’ev Jabotinsky, one of the fathers of modern Israel, put it: “We are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.” No tears, in other words, are likely to be shed over a speech made by a parliamentarian whose reputation does not extend far beyond Westminster.
Yet he is only one of several. Last week, Kit Malthouse abandoned his reputation for compromise by rousing a group of Conservatives from both chambers to further damage Tory electability by signing a letter to the Prime Minister pledging their support for the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State. The letter was leaked to the Guardian. Amusingly, Sir Keir just ignored them.
This is a trend that goes beyond Parliament to the drawing rooms of the conservative elites. Take Matthew Parris. Is he still a Tory? It’s hard to know them from the Lib Dems these days. Either way, he has adopted the same line as the FT and the Economist, who both put the boot in to Israel last week.
“How are our successors going to feel when one day British children are taught at school that, in their own century, their own countrymen averted their eyes while Palestinians faced a rain of missiles and bombs, with many tens of thousands dying in the assaults?” he asked in a recent column.
In truth, conservative Arabism is hardly something new, particularly among the upper crust. Lord Cameron has been pretty vocal in support of Gaza since October 7, repeatedly calling on Israel to “pause” while it was in danger of actually winning. He has made a point of backing the two-state solution to the hilt, which at times like these is always a reliable measure of a man who appears to care more about his own self-image than the grim reality on the ground. Though he was quite happy, in his time, to bomb Libya.
Some may suggest that these are patricians with a bit of a Lawrence of Arabia thing going on. They fall in a rich tradition. We can count Sir Mark Sykes, of Sykes-Picot fame, who created all those Middle Eastern states that are flourishing so profusely today. We can count Harry St John Philby, father of the Soviet spy Kim, who persuaded the Saudis to give drilling rights to the Americans rather than Britain and converted to Islam in 1930.
We can count Tories like the late Ian Gilmour of the Spectator, the late MP for Westbury Dennis Walters, and the late diplomat and parliamentarian Anthony Nutting, all of whom held Arabist views that, one might argue, sometimes blinded them to the rights and wrongs of things.
Despite the best efforts of these chaps, however, Israel is doing pretty well. Amid the agonies and tragedies of war, and in the face of the far-Right threat and constitutional crisis, it has eviscerated Hezbollah, humiliated Iran and all but destroyed Hamas.
It has the highest birthrate in the OECD, its GDP per capita surpassed that of Britain – its former colonial ruler – and in 2020, in March, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, bought the Israeli cybersecurity startup Wiz for a record-breaking $32 billion. Moreover, according to the UN, it is the eighth happiest country on Earth, while Britain languishes at twenty-third. Stick that in your Tory hookah and smoke it.