My loyal readers have told me I should end my uncharacteristic silence on the war in Gaza. They are right. You may not know it, but I have been a staunch supporter of Israel for a long time. In fact, I can remember my first discussion on Israel in what must have been around 1948 when I was eight although, knowing me, it was more likely to have been an argument, because I usually have arguments rather than discussions and my interlocutor was one of my schoolteachers; we all know that teachers have always had what you might call a nuanced attitude towards Israel. In any event, I have always been on Israel’s side. Thus, from the beginning, I had a romantic attraction for the kibbutz and stood amazed as Israel turned the desert into a new Garden of Eden. I was also thrilled, as the Cold War was well under way by then, that Israel had established a vibrant and prosperous democracy, something we should celebrate even more today as the number of democracies shrinks.

When it came to taking sides on contentious political issues, the first challenge was the way the Arabs greeted the establishment of the two-state solution for Palestine. It is ironic that although the fashionable cry today is for a two-state solution, as if it were some blindingly new revelation vouchsafed only to visionaries like Penny Wong, we actually had a two-state solution which was created in 1948 by the UN in Resolution 181 which created ‘Independent Arab and Jewish States’.It failed, because Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt and of course the Palestinian Arabs, invaded Israel, showing what they thought of the two-state solution. I supported Israel because it was and is a democratic state entitled to defend itself and prepared to fight.

I also supported Israel in the 1967 war, the Yom Kippur war of 1973, the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, parts of Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the defensive actions of Israel in all of those regions, because Israel did not start those conflicts and the conduct of the Arab states and internal Palestinian aggression showed that Israel can only survive and its citizens protected by armed stand-off and the maintenance of a buffer zone to deter invaders. Anything else would be a suicide note.

And I also support Israel in the current war, where Israel has been the only side expected to act according to the absurd principle of proportionality against its enemies who know and observe no such principle. I also add that I support the destruction of any building, in Gaza or anywhere else, that is used by Hamas’ terrorists.

But it has not always been plain sailing in my agreeing with Israel. Some of us warned that the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was a dangerous step, which it turned out to be, resulting only in strengthening Hezbollah. We also warned against the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza in 2005 which produced the inevitable rise of Hamas and the notorious butchery of 7 October 2023. And now, I regret that another disagreement has come to the fore. I profoundly disagree with the ready agreement of Israel to the temporary truce, the terms under which it is taking place and the mechanics for the exchange of hostages and prisoners.

First, Israel should never have agreed to the temporary ceasefire. A ceasefire means you are losing and had better cut a deal. The deal shows weakness and is an admission that Hamas and its proxies, if they have not won, have achieved enough that Israel has been forced into a truce. At the very least, Israel must have been close to victory and being able to show it to the world. Instead, it decided to show the world that it had fallen short and was prepared to negotiate and settle with the enemy. Secondly, the temporary truce means that Israel will find it virtually impossible not to extend it, because it will be under immense pressure, especially from Trump, to do so; then Israel really will have lost, because it will have been manoeuvered into a false peace with the enemy that wants to destroy it and will keep on trying to do so. Thirdly, there is the prisoner exchange now under way. At the time of writing, 13 Israeli hostages have been released and the deal is on track to release 1,904 Palestinian prisoners convicted of the most hideous crimes and under life sentences. So, Israel has bargained away the asset of hundreds of its sworn enemies who should stay in prison, in return for a much smaller number of its own innocent citizens who should never have been in captivity. If a permanent truce is made, Hamas will remain the permanent enemy. There was obviously a lot of pressure on Israel to agree to the prisoner swap, but Israel should never had agreed to it. Even to suggest that the life of a hostage is something for which there can be a bargain on any terms is discreditable. This is a failing of course, not only by Israel but the whole so-called international community, especially the United Nations, who should be taking the strongest possible action against the monstrous conduct of terrorists in killing civilians and taking hostages and letting them get away with it. Finally, there are the mechanics of implementing the deal. Israel should never have agreed to having its own citizens paraded in front of and humiliated and manhandled by masked terrorists, armed to the teeth and obviously ready and apparently able to continue the war. Apart from anything else, it shows that Hamas, at short notice, could muster an intimidating and effective force, casting very real doubt on whether it has been defeated. It was foolish of Israel to allow this to be shown so brazenly.

In summary, it is with dismay that I have watched Israel weakening its resolve and I only hope it can regain it. There, dear readers, now you have it, warts and all.