Parliament’s moral posturing on Israel is delusional

What’s the point of parliament’s foreign affairs committee holding mock-trial style hearings about Israel’s defensive war against Iranian-backed terror groups? Do its members genuinely believe that such performative enquiries contribute to peace in the Middle East?

One wonders how Britain might respond if the Israeli Knesset held public hearings into British issues – on Muslim rape gangs, on two-tier policing, or on the stifling of political speech through Orwellian ‘non-crime hate incidents’. The UK would howl in protest. Yet it presumes the right to dissect Israel’s wartime conduct as if from a position of moral superiority, devoid of historical context and strategic understanding.

Some seemed more intent on using me as a proxy for Israel

Yesterday, I gave evidence before the committee in its inquiry into the UK’s role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. What should have been a serious exchange about Britain’s foreign policy took on the tone of a political pageant – designed less for insight than for spectacle.

Chairing the session, Emily Thornberry set the tone early. Her manner toward the previous witness, Natasha Hausdorff, was dismissive and aggressively combative – so much so that Hausdorff, quite understandably, left immediately after delivering her evidence. Thornberry offered an awkward thank you for ‘fighting back’ – as if her own rudeness had been sport, not a breach of basic decorum.

I was asked an assortment of low-level questions – some thoughtful but simplistic, others clearly designed as traps. At one point, Thornberry fixed her gaze on me in theatrical silence, perhaps a pathetic, ill-judged attempt to intimidate, or perhaps an externalised moment of internal disgust after I asked if she shared Israel’s aim of opposing a genocidal ideology, the murder of Jews, and the continued radicalisation and hostage-taking by jihadist groups. This was not a matter of ideology, but of decency, after she seemed to dismiss Israel’s concerns in the way I had described them. Her reaction made it clear: witnesses are to be interrogated, not to pose moral questions of their own.

Thornberry skipped over complex questions of confidence-building, security needs, or existential threats, and instead asked what I thought Israel and the Palestinians might look like in ten years’ time – a question more suited to a ditzy contestant on the 1990s light entertainment show Blind Date, or a ‘tough’ interview episode of The Apprentice, than to a British parliamentary committee enquiry. ‘What does Gaza look like in 10 years?’ she pressed, as though I were there to pitch fantasy business plans, rather than analyse the present threat of jihadist terror and Iran’s genocidal anti-Semitic ambitions.

More concerning than the tone was the committee’s evident dismissal of documented evidence. When I cited Impact-SE’s meticulous work on Palestinian Authority textbooks, which expose systematic incitement, Thornberry brushed it off with a sort of experiential arrogance: 

We’ve done better than that. Nearly everybody on this committee has had the benefit of being able to visit the ‘disputed area’, as you call it, and be able to meet people and to talk to them and to work out for ourselves whether or not they have been radicalised.

It echoed a kind of Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan vibe: if you haven’t smelled it, you can’t understand it. But I have been there. Many times. And I maintain that rigorous investigative analysis – especially when submitted directly to the committee – is not invalidated by a brief field visit. Experience matters. But so does evidence.

In conversations with Israelis, Palestinians, analysts and diplomats, a consistent, tragic picture emerges: that Palestinian identity, as reinforced by its leadership, remains structured around rejectionism. As Mahmoud Abbas openly stated in his now infamous 2011 New York Times op-ed, his goal was to ‘internationalise’ the conflict – not to resolve it. In other words: prolong it, not end it.

One of the few committee members who appeared genuinely interested in understanding was the Tory MP Aphra Brandreth. Though she didn’t put questions to me directly, her approach toward other witnesses was measured, thoughtful, and constructive – standing in contrast to what followed.

Another member, the Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed – recently denied entry to Israel – pressed me with aggressively framed questions about ‘Israeli rejectionism’ and settlements. I explained that these complex issues are not simply moral binaries. Israel has, on numerous occasions, offered land for peace – perhaps most notably under the mediation of US President Bill Clinton, who recently reiterated how generous that offer was. It was rejected by Palestinian leaders. Yet to Mohamed, rejection by Palestinians is apparently unworthy of mention; Israeli reluctance to surrender land following a brutal invasion not even two years ago, by contrast, must be pathologised.

But her questions weren’t just simplistic – they were ideological, attempting to cast me as a cartoon villain: the ‘pro-settlement’ stooge, ripe for rebuke by her online audience. Yet I am not a settler. Nor am I the Israeli state. I was there as an analyst, not a target. And once she’d had her moment, she left the hearing before it even ended.

Let’s recall: Mohamed wasn’t turned away from Israel for who she is, but for what she’s supported. As reported by UnHerd, she accepted an award from Al-Arab UK – whose director praised Hamas and justified the 7 October atrocities as ‘resistance’. She endorsed a speaker banned from the UK for supporting Hamas, and spoke at a dinner for the Muslim Council of Britain – an organisation disavowed by both Labour and the Conservatives due to extremist ties. And yet she was questioning my moral judgement?

Throughout the session, some MPs chatted, giggled, or postured, even as serious experts attempted to answer the very questions they’d been asked. I hadn’t come to showboat. I’d come to contribute to a serious discussion about British foreign policy. But instead of engaging, some seemed more intent on using me as a proxy for Israel – venting their personal grievances in lieu of honest discussion.

This is not how mature democracies navigate complex international issues. Thornberry, as chair, ultimately bears responsibility. Her long-standing hostility to Israel is no secret. But a parliamentary hearing should not be a stage for scoring ideological points; it should be a forum for credible policy formation.

If Britain wishes to contribute constructively to the Middle East, it must begin with truth – about the nature of Islamic terrorism, the political aims of Palestinian leadership, and the importance of its alliance with Israel. Israel is not flawless – no nation is – but it is the only liberal democracy in a region dominated by tyranny, repression, and religious fanaticism.

To act as if Britain can impose moral tutelage on such a partner – while ignoring the ideological poison and genocidal intent that defines its enemies – is not just unhelpful. It is delusional. And delusion is no more a basis for foreign policy than cynical, political pearl-clutching.