It’s not quite true that 10/7 was Israel’s 9/11. There are stark similarities, to be sure: on both days, jihadists murdered thousands of civilians; both were days of sharp trauma followed by a forgotten national unity in the victim country; both days were “events” in the sense that they seemed to temporarily pause the rhythm and course of civilization before changing it rapidly. But there was one very crucial difference. After 9/11, the Western world was united in its support for the United States in a way it simply was not for Israel following 10/7.
After al-Qaeda’s attack on New York and DC, memorials were erected across the world. Leaders and populations from London to Moscow were united by a common sense that murdering thousands of civilians in the name of God was evil, whatever the sins of their country. The world reacted differently when 1,200 Israelis were murdered two years ago. Within hours of the news breaking, there were demonstrations in London and Berlin expressing solidarity with Hamas. Ivy League professors were “excited” and found the invasion “awesome.” Before there was a national march in support of Israel in Washington, DC (which remains the only such march in which this author has participated), hundreds of thousands gathered in support of Palestine.
Things got worse from there. On college campuses across the country, students engaged in massive and often vitriolic protests. Some protesters were narrowly critical of how Israel conducted the war in Gaza, but many took issue with the state of Israel as such, glorifying Hamas as a valiant resistance movement and revealing an astounding level of antisemitism. “From the river to the sea” was suddenly ubiquitous on college campuses.
Why is it that so much of the West immediately expressed support for Hamas after 10/7? Why, instead of offering unqualified sympathy with Israel, did so many of our citizens—and particularly our students—rush to condemn the Jewish state when the bodies were still being counted? This is the question animating Douglas Murray’s book, On Democracies and Death Cults. It is a deeply personal and (in true Murray fashion) highly combative testimony to the virtues of the Israeli people. More importantly, it is a plea for the West to regain civilizational confidence and the courage to speak again in terms of “good” and “evil.” It is a plea to which I am sympathetic, but Murray’s polemical approach will persuade few who do not already agree with him.
Description
It’s important to note at the outset that Murray’s book is not a historical account of why Westerners have become more sympathetic to Gazan “resistance.” Animated by this question, it never submits a systematic answer. It accepts the premise that Western youth have lost the capacity to identify good and evil in a case that calls for little qualification. Neither is the book an assessment of Israel’s war against Hamas (though Murray is resolutely supportive of the war). Murray cares much more about whether the aims of Israel’s war are just rather than how the war is being executed.
The book is instead a forceful attempt to persuade readers that Israel is a force for good, that it represents and embodies the life-affirming values of civilization as such, and that it is engaged in war against death-worshipping nihilists. Understanding the justness and appropriateness of war against Hamas is crucial for the West, Murray maintains. “The right of Israel to fight and win such a war is vital not just for the sake of that country, but so Britain, America, and every other Western country will be able to fight such a war if—or when—it comes.”
Murray makes no systematic effort to explain how Israel embodies civilization; he treats it as obvious at every level. At the social and political level, Israel is ethnically diverse, economically developed, and proudly democratic despite generations of war. It is a place where the religiously orthodox live side-by-side with secular hippies, gay ravers, and Arab Muslims. Far from being an apartheid state, Israel’s non-Jewish population has mushroomed, enjoys the same political rights as Jews, and is economically vibrant. Gaza, by contrast, is (or was) ruled by a mixture of corrupt authoritarians and religious fanatics who’ve become grossly wealthy while their citizens live in poverty. In Gaza, billions in foreign aid have been diverted from economic development and used instead to invest in military equipment and a now infamous tunnel infrastructure. Where Israelis treasure life, Hamas’s leaders are doggedly obsessed with destroying Israel. The former pays a steep price to save a single hostage; the latter hides weapons in nurseries and supports families of terrorists who’ve “martyred” themselves.
If these broad strokes aren’t enough to convince readers, Murray provides plenty of narrative accounts of Hamas’s barbarism and Israeli heroism. One noteworthy case is that of Tamir Adar, a nephew of the Israeli doctor who saved Yahya Sinwar’s life while the latter was in captivity. Tamir was a farmer who lived in Nir Oz, one of the kibbutzim Hamas attacked on 10/7. Noticing that the Israeli army was not arriving, Tamir secured his family in their safe room and rushed out to fight off the invaders. His body was found in Gaza in January 2024. It turned out that he died in the kibbutz on 10/7, and the terrorists took his body as a bargaining chip. Incidentally, his eighty-five-year-old grandmother, Yaffa Adar, was also kidnapped from her home. Readers may recognize her from the viral photo of an old woman sitting stoically in a golf cart as it drives into Gaza.
The gallantry of Tamir and the stoicism of Yaffa stand in stark contrast with the behavior of Hamas soldiers. They engaged in all sorts of heinous acts now well-documented: mass rape, torture, executions, burning families alive. Murray notes on a couple of occasions that, where the Nazis had enough residual decency to hide their war crimes, Hamas and its partners gleefully recorded and disseminated their acts.
With this in mind, Murray maintains, it is pure hysteria to chastise Israel as a force of oppression or imperialism, to say nothing of genocide. So glaring are the holes in critics’ arguments, so eager is the condemnation of Israel that he chalks up the outrage to pure, unadorned antisemitism.
But when speaking of Israel and Palestine, it is irresponsible to ignore that there are those west of the Jordan who deliberately make peace difficult and would settle all the way to the Euphrates if given the chance.
In one of the few passages offering an answer to his guiding question, Murray quotes the Russian novelist Vasily Grossman, who saw antisemitism both as a sign of civilizational decline and as a mirror for diagnosing one’s sins: “Tell me what you accuse the Jews of—I’ll tell you what you’re guilty of.” Cosplay revolutionaries who march against Israel, who call it a “genocidal, apartheid state,” reveal more about themselves than any truth about Israel. The garb of their antisemitism shows they feel guilty about their own societies’ experience with imperialism and genocide that they project onto the Jews. Their desperation is no more than an attempt at atonement for their own misguided shame.
Assessment
The book’s strongest contribution is its collection of stories about Israelis during and after 10/7. Some are simple testimonies, efforts of the writer to make sure that the victims’ story is heard. They are often difficult to read. The reader can sense that Murray felt a passionate urge to give a voice to the victims. As he writes in the introduction, “I decided, in short, not just to work out what happened, but to become a witness.” Murray does a great service in capturing the human toll of 10/7 and should be applauded for doing so.
Other vignettes serve simply to show how impressive Israelis are. Anyone who has spent time in the country knows this. There is a quiet, unassuming courage in the average Israeli’s life, an organic toughness that only necessity can yield. As one kibbutz resident casually said to Murray, “Yeah, okay we have missiles … but it’s a very good place to raise kids.” Murray is right to contrast this with Westerners who, having lived without a real threat for two generations, take their security for granted. In an increasingly combustible world, we could benefit from a touch of Spartan grit.
But on the level of argument, Murray overstates his case, often in glaring ways. A revealing example is when he alleges hypocrisy at leftists who scream of Israel’s crimes but say very little in the face of other atrocities. For example, where was the outrage during Bashar al-Assad’s siege of Aleppo, or the plight of women in Iran, or the horrors in Sudan? He’s right, of course, the outrage against men like al-Assad or Ayatollah Khamenei is muted when compared to anti-Israel sentiments. But then, this is hardly surprising; these men are (or were) authoritarians. Israel, by contrast, is a democracy that enjoys substantial American aid. The fact that the country receives greater scrutiny is expected, and a testimony to the high standards citizens in a democracy expect of their friends.
I am not of the opinion that when speaking of a country, we must be sure to reference all of its sins, to check off the list of injustices, to try and please the jackboots. But when speaking of Israel and Palestine, it is irresponsible to ignore that there are those west of the Jordan who deliberately make peace difficult and would settle all the way to the Euphrates if given the chance. When the justification for this behavior is no more than a willful assertion of divine right, we are far away from civilized behavior.
Murray says nothing about West Bank settlers whose continued (and accelerated) expansion causes the most consternation among young Westerners. This is an amazing omission precisely because Murray will persuade no one who does not already submit to his broad characterization if he doesn’t acknowledge and address the serious problems in Israeli government and society fueling this expansion. He will certainly not persuade any confused, historically ignorant students who think Israel is guilty of imperialism. At a time when we should be engaging in serious, even heartfelt conversations with youth who are confused about a region rife with complexity and historical grievance, Murray opts for red meat.
I share much of Murray’s frustration and think his intention is laudable. Moreover, I admire his unflinching stance against antisemites of all kinds and especially his voiceful opposition to those emerging fringes on the right. Israel is rightfully an ally, one wrongly dragged through the muck at every turn by academics and activists who know little of its history and who have the strategic depth and empathy of a fish.
But if friends of Israel want to counter the youth’s growing aversion to the Jewish state, they must be willing to discuss Israel’s sins head-on. Murray doesn’t do that. He contents himself with showing how the other side is a death cult and rests his case. In the end, his book will make those who uncritically love Israel cheer, and those most in need of a change of heart roll their eyes.