As the conflagration between Israel and Iran adds to the instability of the Middle East, I have noticed friends making comments condemning Keir Starmer for ordering jets to be moved to the Middle East in case the UK’s support is required to back Israel. But although I hate war and violence, I don’t feel the same. I feel that it is our moral duty to back Israel.
Israel is putting its money where its mouth is. Western democracies have tutted about the various human rights abuses spilling out of Iran since the Ayatollah Khomeini replaced the Shah in 1979. And yet furrowed brows and brisk head shakes have not translated into action. We have watched as tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered in the most heinous ways, simply for peacefully holding different political views, or being gay, or, for women, daring to show a hair on their heads. We have observed and done little as Iran has armed Hezbollah and helped Hamas, funded terrorism all around the world, even tried to harm British citizens of Iranian origin in Britain who have the temerity to voice their views about their country of origin on radio programmes. And of course, the other target of Iranian terrorists in Britain are the Jews.
Earlier today I was searching the Internet for a photo of my dad to post on facebook for Father’s Day. As my search yielded results further and further from the subject of my father, a disturbing document turned up. It listed the names of many thousands of Iranian citizens murdered by the theocratic regime. It included people from every walk of life. Physicians had been murdered for supporting the Mojahedin, a protest group that railed against the brutal autocracy of the Shah (although life in Iran was infinitely easier before the revolution, this was strictly on condition that people never criticised the corrupt regime.) Women had been murdered for simply protesting against the murder of their children. The list of names was mind-boggling. Since I was born there, I searched for my own surname, and there it was, twice: two Sanais were murdered in the ‘80s. I don’t know if these two people were related to me or simply happened to have the same surname. But I do remember in the years after the revolution, my parents talking with concern about what was happening as they had their dinner parties in London and we three kids nicked gifted chocolates from the kitchen cupboard where they had been stashed. Every so often we would hear hushed tones exclaiming shock and horror at news of some or other old colleague or friend meeting a terrible demise.
I looked in that list for my mother’s maiden name. It was there too. So possibly relatives on my mother’s side. My dad’s dad was a watchmaker and carpet salesman, my mother’s dad was a judge in the secular days. Both my parents had large families. Thankfully, most of them escaped to the US, France, or the UK. But the poor people who stayed risked their lives. The methods used were barbaric, firing squad or hanging.
We have grown used to seeing photographs of journalists or would-be democratic politicians looking cadaverous, gripping the rails of their prison cell. Or hearing about young protesters murdered for daring to resist the misogynistic decree for women to cover up. British Iranian citizens have been imprisoned in inhumane conditions for years.
The Middle East has, unfortunately, regressed in terms of progress over the last half century. When my parents were young, Lebanon and Iraq were swish holiday destinations for modern middle-class families. They have become less secular, as has Syria. Of course it’s good news that the murdererous Assad and Saddam Hussein have been vanquished, but what kind of regime has taken their place? The new Syrian leader has a radical Islamist past and it has just been decreed that women have to wear burkinis to swim. Erdogan has also pushed Turkey further from secularity. And Islamist factions are active in Pakistan.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of terrorist acts that have been perpetuated in the West in the last 25 years have been Islamist in origin. There is no rationalising with people brainwashed into believing that those with differing views on freedom of speech and rights for women and gays must die. This is why I roll my eyes when I see far leftists unthinkingly supporting Islam, whether it be Democrats on the Women’s March after Hilary Clinton’s defeat, wearing pink pussy hats and rainbow flags marching arm in arm with women in hijabs - what exactly do they imagine an Islamist regime would do to outspoken feminists and gays? - or Pride flags held aloft adjacent to Palestinian flags and posters calling for Hamas and Hezbollah to be taken off the terrorist list. Unthinking white saviours who would never put up with anything less than democracy and absolute freedom of speech (and freedom to march in revolting hats) patronise and insult when they insist that theocracy is good enough for foreigners, because - gushingly - “it’s their *culture*”
Of course Iran pushes a different form of Islam to Saudi, where human rights abuses are also rife. But whether it’s Shia or Wahhabi Sunni, any country that forbids freedom of speech and murders its own citizens for simply living their private lives peaceably is not treating its citizens with justice. And although the West can’t always be the policeman of the world, when those rogue states threaten the security of democratic countries, as Iran has been doing with its buildup of nuclear and its arming of terrorism, the world has to take action.
I don’t want to say much about the Israel - Gaza War, but any country that has had an atrocity visited on it, as Israel did on Oct 7th 2023 with the appalling pogrom in which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered, raped, tortured, maimed, or kidnapped, has the right to defend itself. And of course the subsequent killing of citizens on both sides is a tragedy, but why do those railing against Israel’s retaliation not ask why Hamas won’t protect its own people by releasing the remaining hostages, and by giving up its habit of stealing billions in aid and using it to buy arms, which it stores in the basement of hospitals and schools in civilian areas, thus using its own people as human shields? Despite the best efforts of the IDF to evacuate civilians before bombing, it is sadly not always possible. Of course, those politicians on the far right in Israel who believe that all of Gaza and the West Bank - or Judea and Samaria, as some insist - should become part of Israel will not agree with those of us who have long believed in a two-state solution (even though the events of the last couple of years have made most of us realise that a two state solution would never work.) Of course the continuing building of settlements on the West Bank will be a thorn in the side of those looking for compromise. Yes, some of the settlers hold racist views against Arabs - but then, many Arabs hold racist views about Jews. Even the most egregious plan, Trump’s Gaza vision, with the Arab dwellers of Gaza and the West Bank taken in by neighbouring countries (good luck with that) and Gaza turned into a gaudy Trump hotel and casino strip, does not propose *murdering* the Arab occupants of Gaza and the West Bank. Unfortunately, Hamas’s manifesto does pledge the murder of all Jews. How can you negotiate with such people?
Iran has been fuelling the situation by arming Hamas and Hezbollah. So Israel is trying to kill the root of the problem. As Iran cries out for an Islamic army to be formed from the union of its armed forces with those of other Islamist countries in the region, it reassures me that Trump - and I loathe much about him, especially his treatment of Zelensky - is standing with Israel. It is incumbent on Britain to do the same. It is the only ethical choice.
Thank you.
Very reasonable and very interesting. I know you touched on this, but one of the more bizarre and incredibly stupid elements to spring from the predictable leftist-liberal support of 'the underdog' is the dewy-eyed, stupidly naive 'Queers for Palestine' movement. Have they ANY idea?
But the main thrust of this - Iran - I do agree with you. And I know that you speak from experience and from a point of reasonableness.
1979 has a LOT to answer for, doesn't it?