I believe that one of the reasons why there's been an ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinians for so long is precisely because the international community and others keep on making Israel fight to a draw. Never is Israel allowed to win. I think that's intolerable and I think it makes for perpetual conflict. I think conflicts mainly finish when one side wins and one side loses and the side that loses knows that it's lost.

It is 10:45 on Tuesday, November 28th here in New York City. It is 5:45 AM on Wednesday, November 29th in Israel, as Israelis get ready to begin their day. Today, 10 Israeli hostages were released, as well as two Thai nationals. The Israelis were all women and children, and all of the Israelis released today were from kibbutz Niroz. Kibbutz Niroz is in Southern Israel, right by the Gaza border, actually 1.6 kilometers from the border fence. Kibbutz Niroz was one of the hardest hit kibbutzim. From Niroz alone, 77 of the residents were taken hostage, originally 49 remain. If you add up the number of people either taken hostage or killed from kibbutz near Oz, about half of its 400 residents fell into one of those two categories after October seventh, murdered or taken hostage. Now, again, just to put this in context, geographic proximity, this kibbutz is 1.6 kilometers from Hamas-Ran, Gaza. When people like me and others say Israel has to do everything it can to convince and guarantee to its citizens as much as it can guarantee anything that this massacre will not happen again, imagine a community like kibbutz near Oz, which is just right there on the border, where about half of its residents were either wiped out or taken hostage and released or taken hostage and their future is uncertain.

Since October seventh on this podcast, I've been trying to talk to as many Israelis as possible from different perspectives on what is going on and where things are headed. But there's one non-Israeli voice that I have been eager to have. That's Douglas Murray. Douglas is a UK national who splits his time basically between the UK and New York City. And he's been in Israel for about a month covering this story as a reporter and as an astute analyst. Douglas's voice from the pages of The New York Post, The Sun and The Spectator in the UK to his live debates with British news anchors have been indispensable. Just when you think you're losing your mind, Douglas provides some clarity and response to some of the biggest lies out there. Even if you don't always agree with Douglas or the positions he takes, he is chock-full of insight and knowledge about history that brings some badly needed balance to the way the war in Israel is being covered. He sometimes makes a point that gets me thinking, like in a recent conversation I had with him, not on a podcast, where he asked, Why is it only Israel that doesn't get to win wars?

Most countries, when a war is launched against them, they are expected to try to win that defensive war. But somehow Israel is always expected or pressured to just fight to a draw. This is just one of the points that got me thinking that it would be good to run my running list of big lies past Douglas. Yes, I do keep a running list of the big lies. The big lies I keep hearing about being repeated on social media, on television, in protests, in casual conversations. I'm not going to address all of these big lies with Douglas today, but we hit five of them. Maybe I'll have to have them come back on in the future to continue working through my list, although I don't think we'll ever be done because the list keeps growing. A little background on Douglas Murray. He is a prolific author. He wrote his first book, published his first book while he was a student at Oxford. He has since written numerous books. His most recent one is the international bestseller, The War on the West, in which he asks the provocative question that if conventional wisdom is to lead us to believe that the history of humankind is a history of slavery, conquest, prejudice, genocide, and exploitation, why are only Western nations taking the blame for it?

His book before The War on the West was The Madness of crowds, and then also a couple of years before that, The death of Europe, immigration, identity, Islam. I can go on and on with all of Douglas's books. He's published many, but you should also subscribe to his podcast called Uncancelled History, which you can get wherever you subscribe to podcasts. One housekeeping note, on Tuesday, December fifth in New York City, I'll be having a conversation with Rabbi Angela Bookdahl at Central Synagogue. We'll be talking about our new book, The genius of Israel, the surprising resilience of a divided nation in a turbulent world. Angela and I will also be discussing recent events in Israel's war with Hamas and where it is going. That is Tuesday, December fifth at 6:30 PM, please go to the Central Synagogue website to register. Now to Douglas Murray, debunking five lies about Israel. This has called me back.

I'm.

Pleased to welcome to this podcast for the first time, my longtime friend, bestselling author, columnist, and public commentator Douglas Murray, who I normally speak to or see in the UK, but has been in Israel for the last four weeks or so, doing some extraordinary work and joins us today from Israel. Douglas, thanks for being here.

It's a great pleasure to be with you and your listeners.

Thank you for being in Israel. I know it's been difficult, but your observations and analysis and your responding to some rather inane questions from the media for all of us to watch and marvel at has been a real public service. Before I get into the specific topics and subtopics I want to hit with you today, can you just give us a snapshot of you're in Israel during this traumatic time, and then just when you think it couldn't be more of an emotional roller coaster, you're there for the return of these hostages, which you've been covering quite closely. What's the mood? How does it feel to you?

I'd say the mood in general is apprehensive. The hostage deal is, as all hostage deals involving Israel are wildly traumatic and unfair and unequal and filled with mixed emotions. All Israelis want the hostages back. I spend a lot of time with the families, and indeed the whole nation knows about the families now. Every billboard, every illuminated sign that would have an advert for beer or something in the past or a new type of washing powder has the photos of the hostages. And we've had weeks of hearing from the families, hearing from the parents, in particular, of the missing children and abducted children, the stolen children. Everybody wants some home. There's enormous trepidation, of course, and a great fear about the state that some of them are in. Indeed, if all 240 hostages, how many of them are alive? Which is a conversation people have in private but don't like having in public. Then there's the whole issue of, yes, if I want some home, but look at the price. The price, for instance, is three terrorists, criminals from Israeli jails released for every Jewish child. Not the worst deal the Israelis have ever done in terms of person-to-person swapping.

But there's one other thing I should stress this point, which is that there's an awful lot of added trepidation because in perhaps the most unequal swap of all time, the Gidead Shahleet swap more than a decade ago, more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners inside Israel were swapped for, of course, one Israeli soldier, Gidead Shahleet. And one of the people swapped out was Sinoir, who is the Hamas leader in the West Bank, Inda in the Gaza now, who planned the October the seventh massacre. So it's not like the Israelis are releasing from prison, shoplifters or something. They're releasing the people who could be the next Sinoir. And this is just... Yeah, it's a horrible mixture of emotions. As you mentioned, I've been around many of the kibbutz in the massacre sites since I've been here. And I know personally some of the families and I know their stories. And as I say, we all do. But when I was at the Children's Hospital on Friday night for the first children to be helicopter in from the Swap in the south of the Swap in the south of Brazil and then Egypt and then Flondrin, Israeli base and from there to the hospital.

The whole of Central Tel Aviv shut down, all the streets around the Children's Hospital. And you know, the crowds, people just got out of their cars on the streets and started singing and just showing support for the children as they came back home. And it's extremely hard, I think, for most Israelis as it is. I mean, it's hard just for somebody to watch it. But the mixture of emotions because it's this, yes, every one of these lives is priceless that Israel is getting back, but they know the price is going to be huge.

Is there a sense? I mean, some Israeli journalists and officials I've spoken to believe that, yes, the price is potentially huge on the one hand. On the other hand, because of the strength of the Israeli response since October seventh, it's because of that that they've been able to get these hostages back, that Sinwa had to really start negotiating because of the pressure Hamas was under. This is not how Hamas would have wanted to get a pause implemented from the IDF might being unleashed on Israel by hand.

I don't know about that. I mean, there's one that's a positive spin on it. A more negative view might be, Well, of course, this is exactly what Sinwa must have expected. He must have expected off the scale of the battalion-sized attack on Israel on October the seventh, he must have known the Israelis would respond. I actually think there's among many problems, I don't want to be an armed terrorist about this, but I mean, the aim of Israel, as expressed by Benjamin Netanyahu, is to destroy Hamas. Simultaneously, they have to negotiate with Hamas. I see these two aims as being obviously at some levels contradictory. Why would Hamas give back all the hostages if they know that the hostages are their golden tickets to survive? I mean, why would Israel not go in even harder? The point of clearing the north of Gaza, making sure that civilians all moved south, instructing civilians to move south, was to have fights with Hamas. And that happened. But the Hamas leadership moved south and the hostages had clearly moved south. So the war continues south. And I think most people are also aware that Hamas is playing not just the Israelis, but the international media and international opinion.

They eke out these offerings of now maybe 15 people a day. They didn't abide by the agreement yesterday on the day we're speaking. They delayed. It looked like they might again tonight. They haven't. But they haven't stuck to their side of the bargain. There were children they were meant to release with their mothers and they haven't done that. They're deliberately splitting up families and making sure the hostages who come back have a family member still in captivity in order to ensure the hostages can't speak once freed with any freedom, or at least will probably almost certainly feel they can't speak negatively about their captors. So there's a lot of things going on and a lot of concern that Hamaz is controlling the thing.

Yeah. Okay. There is this sense that Sinyar and Dave, the architects of October seventh, seem to have gotten at least some control, if not total control, back of the clock before the that the IDF had control of the clock. And now if they can drivel out hostage releases, it gives them some control of.

The clock. Yeah. And at this rate, they could keep extending the ceasefire for weeks, if not months.

Yeah. Unless the IDF says.

I mean.

Not to digress down this topic, but it sounds to me like at the cabinet meeting when the security apparate, the security leadership was briefing the cabinet, the war council, the security cabinet, and the full cabinet the other night, they argued that a four or five-day pause or even maybe a few days longer won't really set the military effort back that much, which was persuasive to most members of the cabinet, the question is, is there a limit to which the security apparatus could make that argument? Is there a limit where they say, look, five, six, seven days is one thing, but many weeks is an entirely different thing? They were just wouldn't hold up. That's not undermining the overall effort to eradicate Hamas.

We'll see. I mean, as I say, it feels already like the momentum of the operation is being lost.

Okay. You write a lot about history. You've covered events in this region and specifically Israel for a long time, and you have been sparring with many members of the mainstream media, particularly from your country, from the UK, over the last number of weeks. I want to go through with you, as I mentioned, mentioned to you before we recorded this, a few of the most common canards out there about how we got into this mess. They're basically what I see, the list of lies is what I call them.

Okay.

The first one that I hear all the time is the war against Israel by Hamas is the inevitable response to colonization, that Israel is part of an extension of the Jews in Israel are part of an extension of colonization. And what on Earth do you expect the Palestinians to do in response?

Yeah, that is, of course, just the laying over of a form of social justice theory that has infected the minds of many Americans, most of whom, I'm afraid to say, know nothing about history in general, let alone the history of this region, who simply have this interpretation, which is colonized, colonizers, oppressed, oppressor, indigenous peoples, interlopers. They've got everything upside down. Even if it was a useful paradigm, which to look at everything in the world, which it isn't. Of course, there's no colonization in Gaza other than by Hamas. All of Gaza was given over by the Israelis in 2005. I was speaking to a commander in the middle of Gaza the other day who I said to him, and a commander in the IDF, I said to him, Have you been here before? He said, Yes. I said, When were you last here? He said, In 2005, tearing out family, friends from their homes so that there wouldn't be any Jews in Gaza and we could hand it over to the Palestinians. 18 years later, here I am back. It's true that Gaza has been colonized, but it's colonized by Hamas. Admittedly, they were voted in by the Palestinians.

And so to that extent, of course, the Palestinians in Gaza do have some responsibility for Hamas. But no, the idea that there's a word colonization only really works. And the people who use that terminology really mean all of Israel. And if you believe that all of Israel is colonized by these usurping Jews who weirdly have colonized a land of people whose religion was invented several millennia after Judaism came about, then you haven't gotten history right. But plenty of people talk that language. And as I say, it's like just something that doesn't fit here. The whole idea of colonize are colonized. I mean-.

Well, what about that point, though, that Israel leave God's out of it, that Israel is a colonized state, was created by colonizers.

Yeah. I mean, to believe that you basically have to agree that everything in the world is colonized. By the way, if people want to care about indigenous people, first of all, the Jews are the oldest continuous group of people who lived in these lands. The Palestinians as a people weren't even mentioned until some decades ago. There was a recent invention as a people. If you went back a couple hundred years and said Palestinian, nobody knew what you're talking about particularly, whereas if you said Jewish, they certainly would. And by the way, you can tell the recentness of it because if you ask people name of the famous Palestinian, including Palestinians, they can usually come up with Yassarifat and then they draw a blank. That's not the case with Jews. You'll notice that you can name an awful lot of Jews in history and in the present, in the recent past. So the Palestinian claims are pretty thin. But by the way, if people do want to do the whole indigenous peoples thing, then at least don't be selective about it. Talk about the indigenous rights of the British. Or the French. Go on, try it.

If you want to play that game, play it everywhere. Don't play it in selective places.

Well, when the UN was formed, when the UN charter 1945, there were, I think, something like 50-52 countries. 30 years later, there were 170 countries today, 192, 193 countries. So, presumably the majority of those countries after 1945 were just made out of thin air. I mean, they were just created.

It's.

Interesting that everyone's focused on Israel's.

In general, the idea that Israel lacks legitimacy despite coming about by a vote at the United Nations, the idea that anyone is still having this debate seems to me to be like having a debate about the most basic mathematical theorems. Pakistan was created within the same year as Israel, and nobody that I know talks about, not even the most fervent Indian nationists, says that Pakistan should be abolished or the peoples of Pakistan should just be moved out because they have no right to be there because they're a colonial construct, which by the way, Pakistan was.

And Pakistan has territorial disputes.

Pakistan is accused of oppression.

I mean, it has all these frames that are applied to Israel yet no one's.

Suggesting- You could do it on any country. When you and I were growing up, if you wanted to signal some virtue in the international arena, you would do Free to Bet. Does anyone remember Free to Bet? To bet remains doggedly because it turns out the Chinese Communist Party doesn't give much of a damn about a sandal wearer in Brooklyn trying to signal decency. But unfortunately, when you're dealing with the world's democracies like Israel, they do actually listen to international opinion and international pressure and they don't like being misrepresented. And so, yeah, but I mean, the colonize a colonized thing is I'm afraid an invention of a particularly stupid form of American pseudo academia from the last few decades, which is mainly done by people who do social studies. Everything has studies after it, which, of course, means it's not a study of any kind.

The October seventh attack was a...

So the.

Next lie or canard goes, the October seventh attack was a response to genocide.

Well, of course, if there was a genocide in Gaza, it would be the only genocide in history in which the population massively bloomed. I mean, most genocide involve an attempt to eradicate a race of people and the population of Gaza has boomed in the last 18 years. So if you say there has been a genocide, either you've got to say there has been an attempted genocide and the Jews are no good at committing genocide. There would be genocideists, but they're just really bad at the job. Or more likely you're trying to wound the Jews. That's all that's happening. Notice that all of the accusations against Israel, all the most of these vicious accusations involve attempts to draw a parallel between the behavior of the Israelis and the behavior of Nazi Germany. Genocide, concentration camp, ghetto, like the Warsaw ghetto, like the concentration camps, et cetera, et cetera, Hitler-like behavior. Now, there are several ways you can interpret this. You could say, Well, that's the response of having a public culture in America and the wider West that knows nothing of history in general and only knows one bad thing from history, and that's the Nazis.

Therefore, whenever you reach for any historical analogy, you will always reach for the Nazi analogy, whereas plenty of analogies historically could be much more relevant. You could say that, Actually, I think it's worse than that. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to wound and hurt choose. But moving on from that, when people talk in this language about genocide and ghettoos and concentration camps, the gas was a concentration camp, by the way, unlike concentration camps from Nazi Germany, you'll notice that there are shopping malls in gas, beaches, relative freedom of movement- Office buildings. Yeah, I don't.

Remember- Billions of dollars being sent in from the Sunni Gulf?

Yeah, I don't remember the Jews in Ausfort being given billions of dollars in aid by the international community to do with what they will and then deciding just to enrich themselves and then go to the beach. So it's again, only the product of people who either are fantastically ignorant or just want to wound Jews. And as for the ghetto comparison, to proclaim that the seventh of October Massacre were a result of intolerable, Warsaw, ghetto-like conditions within Gaza, you would have to, first of all, not know that the Egyptians have a border with Gaza as well and have kept it doggedly closed.

So that just for our listeners, so that's the border on the other side of Gaza. So there's the Israel-Gaza border, and then there's the Gaza-Egypian border that no one ever really talks about.

I mean, the Kibbutzim around Gaza were, of course, hiring, and there was meant to be an increase in the hiring of and the movement of passage of Palestinian workers from Gaza into Israel until the seventh of October massacre, when we discovered that many of the Garzans who were working inside the kibbutz were actually feeding back the information of door to door of how to kill who and the people from Hamas who were found dead and alive had maps on their bodies, which showed that the the Garzan workers who these mainly peace-nick left-wing Israelis were employing were actually acting as spies who led to the direct murder and massacre of the people who are trying to help them. But let's put that aside again for a moment and just restate the fact that, again, if it was a ghetto-like condition in Gaza, you would have to live under the impression, if you had this as a justification in your head, that the Warsaw ghetto was filled with Jews who were oppressed and who, when they broke out just immediately helped themselves to some rape and beheading. Does anyone know that that happened or think that happened or imagine that happened?

Of course not. What a sinister and sick argument that is. The Palestinians couldn't help themselves. They broke out and immediately, inevitably, went to a music party of young people where they gunned people down, raped women and shot them in the head and continued raping them. It's how all oppressed people behave.

The population size, just to put a sharper point on it, when Israel took over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, there were something like one million Palestinians. Today there were over five million Palestinians. So to your point, if it was a genocide, it was the.

Least effective genocide in history.

-perhaps the most bumbled, right, most bumbled genocide in history. I want to stay on this point for a moment because the speed with which October seventh happens, and there was maybe a day, a day, I'll give it a day at most, two days before there was this blowback in all these major cities, not all these many major cities in Europe, in the United States, certainly in college campuses, going right for genocide. The outrage wasn't being directed at Hamas. The outrage was being directed at Jews for objecting to being slaughtered. Again, the outrage was directed at Jews who objected to genocide. The speed with which so many people in our most elite institutions, in our most cosmopolitan geographies in the world, geographic centers in the world, went right to Israeli genocide. Oh, yeah. This is Israeli genocide. I mean, you wrote a lot about this in your last book, but I'm still... Sometimes these things are so in excess that we become numb to them. Yeah. Me too. I'm just used to Jews being accused of genocide on October eighth or October ninth, as opposed to saying, Whoa, what?

Well, on October the eighth, as you know, I live in New York, in America most of the time. On October the eighth, I went down to Times Square to the Palestinian protest there. Why were they protesting on October the eighth? Israel hadn't done anything yet, hadn't retaliated. Well, some of them were there to celebrate the massacre. There was a woman in a hijab waving a placard celebrating the massacre 24 hours earlier, then Times Square. Americans who think this is someone else's problem should first of all realize that the people who hurt the rape, massacre, beheading, and burning of Jews are right in your midst in America and have no fear at all from the authorities or anyone else of showing themselves up in public like that straight away. The second point that needs to be made is I've seen this before, as you did. I remember very much that when they were still trying to identify bodies in the rubble of the Twin Towers in 2001, there were people like the sickly academic in the UK, Mary Beard, who wrote in the London Review of Books that it was impossible to keep out of one's mind the fact that to some extent, she said, To some extent, we all feel the same thing, which is that America had this coming.

Now, how many Americans want to be talked to in that way? How many Americans, within days, if not hours of a massacre of 3,000 Americans want to hear people telling you you had it coming? I wouldn't like to be talked about or to in that tone of voice, but the Israelis are expected to put up with it. You've got to understand the contextcontext. The context. As if there's a context to going to a music festival and gunning down lots of people in their 20s and tying the women to trees and raping them.

And putting live babies in ovens.

As if there's a context to going into Bayree and near Oz and kibbutz after kibbutz of left-wing peace nicks in the main. As I've seen myself door after door, ruined house after ruined house, people in their shelters, bomb shelters because they were used to bomb shelters because they have to be used to the bombs because they come over so used so often. But they didn't know that people would come door to door, 4,000 people from Gaza with Kalashnikovs and RPGs and much more door to door so the safe rooms don't lock. I spoke to one man whose grandchildren were in their house on their own because their mother was out when the Hamas death squads came and he was on the phone trying to tell the boys, I think they were 13 and 15, how to hold the safe room door shut when the grown men of Hamaz on the other side were pushing it to open the door the other way. They were abducted. They were stolen. They were stolen. They were kidnapped because they couldn't hold out, not against grown men. You see the safe room doors in these kibbutz, you know the ones where it was an even worse ending because you see the bullet holes all around the handles because that was a faster way in for Hamas.

Now, if anyone wants to tell me that this is a legitimate answer to oppression, I say you are sick in the head beyond comprehension, and you should not presume that the Palestinian peoples are all necessarily and must be for all time as sick as you think they are.

It seems that lots of critics of Israel's response argue that Israel has a right to self-defense. The ones that are not as.

On.

The surface, as extreme as the ones we're seeing marching in major American cities and European cities and college campuses, the ones that aren't as extreme but still critical of Israel. They argue, look, Israel has a right to self-defense, but must be more mindful, more thoughtful in terms of how it wages its war and must be careful not to hit civilian areas. That feels to me like a contradiction.

When people say Israel has the right to self-defense, it's always followed by a bot. I don't know why. I don't know any other people who it's always a but. But there's a reason for that, which is the people who say that what they really mean is Israel is allowed to do something rather tokenistic and then it must settle for a draw. I believe that one of the reasons why there's been an ongoing war for so long between Israel and the Palestinians is precisely because the international community and others keep on making Israel fight to a draw. Never is Israel allowed to win. What would winning be? Winning would be, in this case, for instance, with Hamas, destroying Hamas and making sure that no Hamas-like organization exists in the Gaza again, that no rocket ever again fires out of Gaza into Israel. That would be winning. Everything else is a draw. I have very little sympathy for the putative supporters of the Palestinian peoples who, first of all, think that Hamas is the necessary spokes group of the Palestinian peoples when they completely ignore that when Hamas was voted in, they promptly made sure there was never another election and killed all of their fatire and other Palestinian opponents.

By the way, the people who doubt that should even look at very anti-Israel organizations like Amnesty International, who nine years ago in 2014 said that the Shifah Hospital in Gaza was the Hamas headquarters and what's more, was the main place where Hamas brought Palestinian prisoners and tortured them and killed them. It was known as the interrogation center and torture chamber of Hamas in Gaza. Anyhow, this is what Hamas do, this is what they're like. But if you want to pretend that the Palestinians should live under that, then be my guest. There is no reason why the Israelis should continue to have to live beside a place where endlessly rockets will be fired to the extent that every house is used to them, to the extent that every house has to have a bomb shelter.

I mean, to say that Israel has to learn to live with that threat is to say Israel, right? It's existential.

I speak to endless people who are refugees from these towns, from Ashcomon and places like that. I speak to a family earlier. Lovely young couple, bombed out of their apartment. They were in the safe room in Ashcomon with their three young children. And the missile hit their apartment and thank God they were okay, but their apartment is destroyed. How can they move back if you're with a missile?

And to be clear, Ashkalan is not even one of the towns that's right on the border with Gaza. I mean, Ashkalan, you're already.

Much.

Closer to the center of Israel.

But the main thing about this thing of Israelis not being allowed to win is that I think that's intolerable, and I think it makes for perpetual conflict. I think conflicts mainly finish when one side wins and one side loses. And the side that loses knows that it's lost and the side that wins knows that it's won. But I find this perverse idea that the Israelis... This isn't just with this conflict, but in almost every conflict involving the Arabs and Israel, in fact every conflict from 1948 up to now. What always happens is the Israelis are hit or invaded and they are told by the international community, You can do something in response, but you mustn't win. You mustn't answer a question. I think the Palestinian question is effectively an insoluble question at this point. There is going to be no Palestinian state, partly because Fatah, PA in the West Bank, celebrates the October the seventh massacres. We saw a couple of days ago with a linching of two Palestinians by a crowd, all of them, by the way, recorded on mobile phones. These are the peaceful people of the West Bank as well. There's going to be no Palestinian state because the Palestinians have made sure yet again, there's just no chance.

But I don't see why this insoluble problem of the Palestinians has to be a problem for the Israelis. Giving somebody an insoluble problem and telling them to solve it seems to me to be a unfair and cruel thing to do. Give it to somebody else to solve. Give it to the Egyptians to solve. Give it to the Qataris or the UAE or the Jordanians. Give it to somebody else to solve. Why should it be Israel's insoluble problem? But of course, what happens is effectively that, and it's happening at the moment with Hamas, Hamas is behaving in the way that... The thing that's most similar to it would be if you and I were standing at a bus stop and I punched you in the face for no reason, or for reason I could say went back to some inherited feeling of oppression. Then you turned out to be a jiu-jitsu master and informed me of this fact. I said, Oh, can we just go back to the moment before I hit you? Would you mind? That's the situation Israel is in with Hamas. Hamas wants to go back to October the sixth. Most of the international community wants to go back to October the sixth.

There was a ceasefire of a kind. Hamas broke it. Hamas has to pay the price.

The argument of proportionality, which is a version of what we're just discussing, but I just want to stay on it. Now, there are two versions of proportionality. One is under international law. When you take out a military target according to international law. I'm not weighing in all the various interpretations, but at least according to Matthew Waxman, who we had on this podcast, who's a professor of International Law, Columbia Law School, is that the collateral damage in going after a target has to be proportional to the military gain. Right. Again, I don't want to say that's one interpretation of proportionality. Then there's this media interpretation of proportionality, which is actually not based on the rules of laws of war and the rules of international rules of war. It's a different proportionality. It's like Israel was hit and Israel is now hitting back, quote-unquote, harder, and that's not proportional, as though it's a math game.

First of all, I mean, you should hit back harder if you want to win. When we wanted to win wars in America and Britain, we always hit back harder. Why would you hit back softer? What's the point in the world? You have to hit back harder. If you want to destroy an opponent, you hit them as hard as you can. Now, of course, as is often pointed out, and I've seen it with my own eyes, so I know it's not just an Israeli talking point. The Israelis do everything they can to minimize civilian casualties. Are there civilian casualties? Yes, and it's terrible. I think they're all the responsibility of Hamas for starting a war. But when Hamas spends billions of dollars of international aid from your American taxpayer and from your British taxpayer and great use of our tax dollars, that was, and funnel money to the gas and authorities, the Hamas, you would think they might build bunkers for their people if they think that they're going to start a war. But of course, no, they have built bunkers for the Hamas leadership. And the Hamas leadership has said that themselves on plenty of occasions.

The bunkers, the tunnels, they're for us. The Israelis, of course, do it the other way around. The Israelis use the IDF and the other security agencies to protect the Israeli people. Hamas wanted to kill as many civilians as possible on October the seventh. That's why they chose the softest imaginable targets like a music festival, like small kibbutz and so on. They deliberately target civilians and the Israelis accidentally hit civilians. There's a difference in the world with that. But the proportionality argument is, first of all, there's an argument I made quite early on in this conflict, which was if you do actually believe in this thing of proportionality, which I really only hear about involving wars in Israel, I've covered plenty of wars. I was in Ukraine last year. I hear nobody saying that the Ukrainians have to have a proportionate response to the annexation of major parts of their country. They're just everyone hopes they can take those parts back. But it's always the Israelis you have the discussion of proportionality with. And as I said, if you actually want to follow that through, then proportionality would mean that the Israelis, to the extent they have the right to respond to Hamas's massacres on October seventh, should find precisely the same number of women in Gaza as Hamas found and rape them.

They should find precisely the same number of babies that Hamas killed on October seventh and behead and kill them. They should find precisely the same number of other people and go door to door and stop only when they've killed exactly the same number of people as Hamas killed on October seventh. Now, some people might say, Well, the population of Israel is about a quarter the size of the population of Israel. Actually, if it's properly proportionate, you would only rape a quarter of the women that Hamas raped and you'd only kill a quarter of the babies. And is that okay? Come on, this is... This is like wildly perverted thinking. Wildly perverted thinking. It's not even thinking.

And by the way, I mean, just look at what the US did to ISIS in Raqqa and Mosul. I mean, the idea of proportionality is, and I supported what we did against ISIS. The idea that we would talk about proportionality was preposterous. We flattened.

These places. When France bom the Côte d'Ivoire in 2003 or '04, the international community didn't say don't do this. You've got to be proportionate. The French just did whatever they want because the French always do. It's only Israel that people care about, and that's because most people don't want Israel to win. I'm saying most people, I mean, a lot of people are decent in the world.

Well, most critics.

Most critics. They just don't want Israel to win. And so they come up with this BS about proportionality.

Hamas is an idea, some say, and no matter what Israel does here, it cannot bomb away an idea, many critics argue. And that your analogy about in this hostage exchange, there may be a future sinwa. Some critics argue, well, in some of the bombed-out civilian areas in North Gaza, there are sinwas in the making who otherwise may go another way. They then get radicalized because of Israel's, quote-unquote, indiscriminate bombing. You will never defeat an idea that will be so attractive to a vulnerable victim of Israeli warfare that becomes radicalized as a result.

Well, it's a very strange argument, isn't it? Because we've destroyed ideas all the time. We destroyed fascism.

Right. So, and Naziism was much more robust both financially, infrastructurally and numerically than.

Hamas is. Hamas is a pushover compared to Nazism. We destroyed communism. I mean, it's true that it still thrives in Berkeley and various American College campuses, but otherwise, communism is a pretty defunct ideology. Even the CCP steps away from some of it now. Japanese imperialism was a very strong idea, and Japanese were almost as dedicated as Hamas and ISIS to dying for that idea. But we so destroyed Japan's infrastructure and leadership and indeed cities. There is no talk these days, no serious talk. There was some discussion about indoctrination in Japanese schools. Sometimes it comes up about the nationalism that some people feel is always nodded to within Japan schools. But I don't think there's any serious movement in Japan that is because we were treated like this, we're going to go back to Japanese imperialism. And that's because we bombed the hell out of them and defeated them because otherwise they would have defeated us. And it's a very good thing, too. Again, I get back to this point. You have to lose. You have to lose. Your enemy has to lose.

And it won't necessarily be we won't necessarily get unconditional surrender. Israel will not necessarily get unconditional surrender from Hamas, but it could get unequivocal defeat of Hamas.

I would like unconditional surrender, but we'll see.

Yeah. Douglas, you wrote this book, The War on the West, which was a New York Times bestseller, very provocative book published long before October seventh. Where does October seventh fit into your thesis?

The War on the West is about the anti-Westernism of our time, whereby every single Western country is treated by this bizarre standard where we're all meant to have original sins and we must atone for them. Of course, no other country in the world has the same thing. Our history has been rewritten in America and Britain and elsewhere as one of terrible oppression. It's all looked at through this lens of negativity and evil and wrongdoing. I mean, to put a very long and scholarly book into simplistic terms, I would say it's very strange that this only happens to the world's Western democracies and it doesn't get done anywhere else. I see no one going to Uganda and saying what's their original sin. Most Uganda would look at you with some confusion if you raised the issue. I don't see people going to Jordan and saying, What's your original sin? By the way, guys, you've never done anything good. It's all been horrible. In fact, there are countries in the world that are much more deserving of such an interpretation. But yes, Israel obviously suffers from this as well. This idiot to American idea of colonization, of first peoples, of oppressed or oppressed and so on.

This has been transplanted onto Israel as it's been transplanted onto every other Western country, Canada, Australia. We've all got versions of the same virus. Yeah, the response to October the seventh in America in particular, in parts of America in particular, is of indication of the fact that this horrible, horrible mind virus has wrecked the minds of young people in particular to the extent that they don't realize that they are being the Nazis. If they got their wish, and I hope to God they never do, for themselves apart from anything else, if they got their wish of the river whose name they don't know, to the sea who they couldn't point to on a map being entirely Eudonryne, which is, of course, the desire not just of Hamas, but of the Palestinian authority who are meant to be the putative next failed Arab state. They would be Hitler. What they're chanting for is the final dream of Hitler. They should know that and wish to God that they never get their chant fulfilled.

Yeah. You wrote in The New York Post, you go back to the 2014 Boko Haram, hostage taking of Christian schoolgirls in Nigeria. You wrote here, and I'm quoting, My mind keeps going back 10 years ago to Nigeria in 2014, as some readers will remember, on the night of April 14th, on the night of April 14th, 2014, 276 mainly Christian schoolgirls were abducted by terrorists from the Boko Haram group. It happened at a school in a town called Chibuk in Bournem State. In some ways it is obvious why there was such international outrage at the incident. After all, this was 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by an Islamic terrorist group, even a world that has seen the Bezlin school siege in 2004 and was starting to see the workings of ISIS still had capacity to be shocked. So you take this very important snapshot, and let's just every celebrity would hold up these signs, #bring... What was it? Bring the girls home.

Bring back our girls.

Bring back our girls, including the first lady, including Michelle Obama. So this was widespread. Again, I'm numb to the reaction now, but post October seventh. But when I read you lay it out like that, it's like, what is going on? It was hip. It was chic. It was in vogue to demand children be returned.

Yeah, it was like free to bed.

Right.

Yeah. It was a cause dujour. Again, it did no good, by the way. I covered the conflict in Northern Nigeria in recent years and was in Bournemouth State. I've been to the places that the Tchibok schoolgirls were taken from. I've covered the massacres of Christians there by Fulani militia and others and know that conflict pretty well. Yeah, it was a cool thing to be on the side of to say bring back our girls. I don't doubt- But.

When you say it had no effect, when you say.

It had no effect- Oh, well, I mean.

The Nigerian- Boko Haram could care less.

Well, first of all, Boko Haram couldn't care less. Our like the Chinese Communist Party not vulnerable to international pressure. It turned out that a hashtag couldn't stop Boko Haram. Who knew? And secondly, though, of course, the school goes largely, some were returned in drips and drabs of returningees. The Nigerian military and government was so incompetent. Again, I saw this in my own eyes. One of the Tibok school girls was only returned in April this year. The international campaign was as often noisy and largely ineffective, but it did put some pressure on the Nigerian government, not least the PAPR agencies to try to cover up the fact of their own inadequacies. But that's another story. I spend a lot of time with the families of the abducted hostages from October the seventh. I try not to say to them what is always on my mind like this, which is where is the international outcry? Where is it? I'm afraid you can only come to the conclusion, as we see with the people, particularly women, it's noticeable for interesting psychological reasons we can't get into, but who ripped down posters of kidnapped Israeli children. One can only come to the conclusion that either internationally people don't care that much about Jews or actively dislike them, or they think that the stealing of Jewish children and the likely death of some of them is just one of the eggs that needs to be broken in order to make the terrific omelet of the Palestinian state.

I think probably most are in that second camp. And all I would say to those people is what George Orwell said to the Stalinist he ran within the 1940s who eventually admitted that, okay, the show trials of 37 may have happened. Okay, the gulag may be there. Okay, there might be no... And eventually Orwell heard him say that fatal phrase, You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. And George Orwell said, Well, where's your omelet? And I would say to the people who say, effectively, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You can't make the Palestinian state or get the cousins free without breaking heads and having not only seen the unedited massacre footage of October the seventh, but having spent too much time in the massacre sites and indeed in the morgues and the places where the bodies are still being identified and the morturies, I would say go to those places, tell me this was worth anything, and then point to your bloody omelet.

Douglas, we will We'll leave it there. Very powerful. If you had one impression from your time in Israel that you would like to break through to people listening to this podcast and others that you feel just people don't get. After having spent a month with the Israelis during this horrific, traumatic nightmare. What would it be?

One of the most powerful, too many powerful things to list, but one of the most powerful conversations I had in recent weeks was at one of the trauma hospitals, where a father who had lost, who would have been in the safe room with his wife, daughter, and son, and they were there for hours, they were smoked out, they burnt down the house. They were all suffering from smoke, inhalation. Then the terrorists of Hamas found the window and threw Grenade after Grenade in and shot into this small room. Father lost both his legs. His wife was killed in front of him, died in front of the children. Then his boy, who had been shot in both sides of his chest, bled out in front of his sister and father. His father said to me, I've been a leftist all my life, all my life. I want nothing but potato fields from here to the sea. I'm afraid that is the feeling a vast number of Israelis now. Hamas killed the possibility of peace. People in Israel know that. The wider world should know that.

Douglas, thank you. Stay safe. Keep doing what you're doing. Hope to get you back on. But until then, I'll be, I think, like many folks listening following your reporting and commentary.

Thank you very much.

That's our show for today. To keep up with Douglas Murray, you can find him on X. That's @douglaskmurray, and he is the number one bestselling author of seven books, including The War on the West, which I talked about at the beginning of this podcast. You can find that book wherever you purchase books. You can also follow his work at The Spectator, at The New York Post, and The Sun. Please subscribe to his podcast, Uncancelled History. Call me back. It's produced by Lam Benitar. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Seyner.