There is a chilling scene in the film Body Snatchers, in which one of the ’snatched’ characters warns one of the few remaining human beings that his time is nearly up. “Where you gonna go, where you gonna run, where you gonna hide?” she asks him. “Nowhere… cos there’s no one like you left.” I think a lot of us who defend Israel can relate to that sense of isolation. In the wake of the reaction to the flotilla incident I’ve felt an unprecedented sense of despair that when it comes to these sorts of issues the world is abandoning reason.

So, in truth, it was with a slight sense of trepidation that I turned to Melanie Phillips’ new book The World Turned Upside Down. Although I am a fan of much of Phillips’ writing, I personally sometimes find her tendency to conclude her blog posts on such doom-laden notes a touch de-motivating. Not that I necessarily doubt the accuracy of her conclusions, nor the importance of her publishing them. Indeed, I feel she shows significant courage in putting her cause far ahead of her wish for personal popularity.

Phillips’ dissection of anti-Israel prejudice is so calm, consistent and forensic that she has become a thorn in the side of those who promote this and other bigotries. How, they ask themselves in the face of her arguments, do you solve a problem like Melanie? Their answer has been to vilify her to a degree that is so personal, furious and vicious that it unwittingly serves as powerful evidence of her underlying thesis: that these people are unreasonable brutes who are terrified of debate or dissent.

Well, more fool them. In The World Turned Upside Down, Phillips is on irresistible, adrenalin-rousing form as she adroitly dismantles the mistaken, slanderous and vindictive ways of Israel-bashers and others who have abandoned sanity.

She begins by examining in turn several controversial issues ‘in which evidence, reason and logic have been exiled in favour of irrationality, ideology and prejudice’. Among these are the misrepresentation of Israel, the climate change debate and the Iraq War. So powerfully and closely argued are these chapters that they are worth the entrance money alone. Having examined these specific issues and others she then convincingly finds the common threads that underpin the loss of reason when it comes to public debate of them.

At the heart of this is what she identifies as the ‘curiously singular target’ of so many of those who have abandoned reason, including anti-Americans, environmentalists and secular ideologues: the precepts of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people. She does not suggest that their approach to these issues constitutes a wilful plot to harm the Jews. Instead she convincingly puts in context the common themes of these movements. Indeed, throughout the book her effort to be entirely fair in her assessments of the motivations of those who have abandoned reason is admirable.

Not that she pulls her punches. Describing Britain as a “global laundry” for lies about Israel and the Jews, she explains – devoting a full chapter to this question – why this country has become so uniquely gripped by this and related trends. Indeed, it is her writing on Israel and antisemitism throughout the book that I find most compelling. As she argues, “Antisemitism has simply mutated from prejudice against Jews as people to prejudice against Jews as a people. First, theological antisemitism wanted the Jewish religion to disappear; then racial antisemitism wanted the Jews themselves to disappear; now the latest mutation wants the Jewish state to disappear.”

There is so much great stuff in this book, but there is a sense that no praise for Phillips can be complete without a disclaimer to the effect that the admirer does not agree with everything she writes. Well, I would have thought that would go without saying for any such writer’s work. All the same, I should say that I was surprised – perhaps even mildly disappointed! – at how little of her book I disagreed with. For instance, I couldn’t fault her approach to issues surrounding homosexuality, though I did flinch at a few of her sentences about the policing of rape and domestic violence.

But for much of this book I found myself nodding heartily in agreement with her views and gasping in admiration at how well she argues them. “It is not an exaggeration to say that the position an individual takes on the conflict between Israel and the Arabs is a near-infallible guide to their general view of the world,” she writes. I heartily agree, and by this criteria it is no wonder that her view is generally so sound.

Perhaps most surprising is that this book did not leave me with any sense of despair. Phillips’ diagnosis is certainly distressing, but so eloquently does she understand and argue her point that I was left with a feeling of enormous hope. As far as any writer can be, she is at the forefront of the battle for good, and in writing this book she has made a powerful contribution to that battle. By helping make sense of where things have gone wrong, she takes the reader a significant step closer to helping us back to the correct path.

For that reason I strongly urge you to read and circulate her book.

UK readers can buy The World Turned Upside Down here, US readers can buy it here. You can read Melanie’s blog here.

Disgusting Bliss: The Brass Eye of Chris Morris by Lucian Randall

As a fan of The Day Today – me and a flatmate once spent the best part of a summer watching and re-watching it until for an agonising while we could only communicate via its catchphrases – I’d been waiting with mounting excitement for this book about the genius behind the shows, Chris Morris. So I was quadraspazzed with joy to discover that it’s a gripping read that comfortably does justice to the man and his work.

The chapters about Morris’s early life in local radio are particularly glorious. From the off Morris was a cheeky genius wreaking havoc and playing pranks, to the horror of some of his pompous colleagues. But he was also shrewdly observing and absorbing – frequently with some disgust – the ways of news broadcasting. These observations would be channelled into On The Hour, the hilarious radio forerunner of The Day Today.  The narrative of Disgusting Bliss then follows him and his gang all the way to the Brass Eye, the controversies it sparked and beyond.

The story is authoritatively stitched together by an author with an entertaining style and a cracking turn of phrase: one interviewees’ recollections are described as “entertainingly gnomic”, Morris’s curly hair “bobbled around on his head in a way that was mesmerizingly independent of his own movements”; there is talk of “groaning puns” and during the creation of the Day Today theme the musical team “roamed around the news music landscape, picking over the major beasts of the genre”. Occasionally the technical detail is tad too dense, but only slightly so and there is always another laugh or eyebrow-raising insight just round the corner.

Randall interviewed scores of people and gets to the heart of the story. The recollections of the key players, together with the author’s scrupulous research takes the reader behind the scenes of Morris’s work as well as painting a vivid portrait of the man himself. I hadn’t expected that portrait to be as strangely touching as it is. Amid his subversive genius and madness Morris nonetheless comes across at times as a gentle and thoughtful character. One interviewee even recounts a tale that suggests, he says, Morris is “in touch with his feminine side” and another remembers how sweet he was when she fell ill. The account of how he conducts himself during ideas meetings is also interesting.

The wit of some of today’s mirth-makers is far exceeded by their lust for fame and attention. For Morris the opposite is true: he is a genius who genuinely shies from publicity. But this book shines an intelligent, informing light onto this mysterious and meticulous man. Disgusting Bliss is packed with new information and insights but happily combines the familiar with the fresh. So, of course, you will find yourself cackling in recognition at the reminders of the greatest scenes and lines from The Day Today and Brass Eye. I strongly recommend this excellent book.

Disgusting Bliss: The Brass Eye of Chris Morris by Lucian Randall has been described as “impeccably researched and fluently written” by The Observer, “detailed and utterly absorbing” by Metro and was Time Out’s book of the week. You can buy it here.

I went to hear Martin Amis (my favourite writer) speak at a Sunday Times Literary Festival event in Oxford yesterday. He was on great form and entertained us throughout the talk despite the efforts of an atrociously bad chairman. I don’t know what the chairman’s name was as he (perhaps wisely) didn’t introduce himself.

Mr Amis signed books afterwards and I was impressed by how unhurried and friendly he was with each person in the queue. I got him to sign a copy of his memoir Experience and also his latest novel The Pregnant Widow. He noted that my copy of the latter book was missing its dust-jacket. I explained I had lost it in Tel Aviv last month. “Tel Aviv?” he said, impressed. “That takes some doing.”

Ah, Israel banter with my favourite author. That’s a nice way to pass time. Not that the joy was confined to that. The woman sitting next to me during the talk had earlier asked me: “So are you reading English at Oxford?” Dear reader, I am 36 years old without a degree to my name. So I am quite happy for people to mistake me for an Oxbridge undergraduate.

Here is part two of my interview with Jeremy Havardi, author of  The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy, which you can buy now.

‘Turning to Jewish issues, Churchill has been accused of antisemitism. Is this true?

In general, Churchill had a genial attitude towards Jewish people and Jewish causes throughout his life. He admired the Old Testament and its Jewish ethical values, which he viewed as the foundation of Western civilisation. He also recognised the many contributions made by British Jews to their country. More to the point, he condemned antisemitism forcefully throughout his life, reflecting his strong aversion to tyranny in all its forms.

There was one occasion when he did pander to antisemitic sentiment and that was in 1920. He wrote a newspaper article in which he condemned ‘international Jews’ who he claimed were behind the Bolshevik movement. He loathed this movement with all his might and after noting that many of the most important Bolsheviks were Jews, called its leaders ‘these semitic conspirators.’ This was paranoid language beloved of today’s far right (and far left). But while heaping scorn on Jewish ultra leftists, he praised Jews in the same article as ‘most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.’

Is it true that Churchill neglected Europe’s Jews during the Second World War?

Before answering this directly, we need to ask what the anti fascist governments of the world could have done to rescue Jews from the clutches of an implacable dictator intent on destroying them. Their room for manoeuvre was somewhat limited, even if it also true that the Allied governments did not prioritise Jewish suffering for various reasons.

But as soon as Churchill received reports of the Nazis’ mass killings, he vociferously condemned what he called a ‘satanic policy’. When Anglo-Jewry organized a huge demonstration at the Albert Hall to condemn the mass extermination of European Jewry, Churchill sent a message protesting ‘against Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews.’ He also endorsed a policy of retribution in which it was made clear that the perpetrators of the Holocaust would face justice as soon as the war was over. This led to the Moscow Declaration of 1943 in which the Allies declared that they would pursue ‘the ranks of the guilty to the uttermost ends of the earth.’ Churchill could never have been indifferent to tyranny.

Was this just words for words sake?

No, he offered much more than words of condemnation and there were some examples of direct intervention which I cite in the book. In 1942 Churchill approved a request from the Jewish Agency to allow 4,500 Bulgarian Jews (mainly children) to enter Palestine. Sadly this came to the attention of the Germans and the Bulgarian government closed its border with Turkey.

Another notable example is his instruction for the RAF to bomb Auschwitz in 1944 following a request from the Jewish Agency. It was mulled over and passed to the Americans who then rejected it on logistical grounds. Though unsuccessful in these cases, Churchill was at least prepared to act for what he saw as a moral cause.

On another occasion, he insisted to the Spanish Ambassador to Britain that his country open its border with France to fleeing Jewish refugees, a request that was later granted. He also issued a warning to Romania’s leader, Ion Antonescu, that he would be held to account after the war unless he reined in the Iron Guard who were carrying out atrocities against the country’s Jews. These cases show very clearly that Churchill was prepared to intervene when he could to alleviate the suffering of Europe’s Jews.

What was Churchill’s attitude towards Zionism?

He supported Zionism and Jewish statehood for most of his political career, even if it was largely a peripheral concern. He recognised that Jews had a legitimate claim to the Holy Land based on their long standing connection to the territory and its centrality in Jewish religious life. He would often defend Zionism in the most romantic terms, particularly in Parliament where he had to face down his many Arabist detractors.

In the 1920s, as Colonial Secretary, he made a number of decisions that would prove crucial to the future of the Middle East, including the formation of a unitary Iraqi state. Some of his decisions, such as cutting off three quarters of mandate Palestine to form Transjordan, were not welcomed by Zionist leaders and he received criticism from some quarters. Nonetheless he continued to champion Jewish statehood before and after 1948. Indeed he even warmed to the idea of Israel joining the British Commonwealth in the 1950s. He also saw Israel as a useful strategic ally in the Cold War and supported their stance against Nasser during the 1956 Suez campaign.

Did he ever meet an Israeli Prime Minister?

Yes, towards the end of his life, he met David Ben-Gurion, a man he much admired (the admiration was mutual). Churchill described Ben-Gurion as ‘a brave leader of a great nation.’ Many years earlier, he had struck up a friendship with Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President.

Is it true that Churchill regarded Moses as the Greatest Jew?

He did. In one of his books called Thoughts and Adventures he wrote an admiring essay on the great Jewish lawgiver and paid tribute to Judaism’s ethical monotheism. When he met Ben-Gurion in 1961, the two men exchanged their ideas on who was the greatest Jew. Churchill nominated Moses, Ben-Gurion Jesus.

Are you writing another book?

I am currently working on a study of British war films and how they reflect changing perceptions of English national identity. It should hopefully be finished by the end of this year. I am afraid that I am not quite as prolific as you just yet!

What do you do when you aren’t writing books?

I am a freelance journalist and publish articles in the Jewish News and the religious affairs section of the Guardian. I also teach history and philosophy at an independent school and when time allows, enjoy amateur dramatics, table tennis, philately and radio broadcasting.

Which radio show do you present?

It is called jnetradio.com, an internet radio show with a Jewish point of view. I help to present the politics show on a Thursday evening (9pm to midnight) with my fellow presenters, Tony Honickberg, Richard Millett and Eliot Heilpern. It is a lot of fun and I urge all your readers to tune in. The web address is www.jnetradio.com and listeners should click on ‘Listen Live.’

You can visit Jeremy Havardi’s website here.

Jeremy Havardi is a teacher, journalist and broadcaster. He is also the author of  The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill’s Life and Political Philosophy, which you can buy now. In a wide-ranging interview we discussed Churchill’s life, his influence, plus his attitude to Zionism and Israel among many other topics.

Here is part one of the interview…

What inspired you to write this book on Churchill?
I have long been interested in British political history, especially this nation’s prime ministers. But my passion for Churchill was really ignited by my study of British war films from the 1940s and 1950s. Some of those war classics centred on Britain’s Finest Hour and some were inspired by Churchill’s iconic war speeches. After watching many of them, I decided to examine Churchill’s own contribution to the war in more detail and later his remarkable life in its entirety.

What is so different about this Churchill book?
It is a collection of analytical essays on Churchill’s life and political philosophy rather than a biography. Very few such books have ever been written and this one directly tackles the many controversies in his public career. It is the kind of book that people can just dip into for a few minutes a day rather than reading in one go.

Do you really believe that Churchill was ‘The Greatest Briton?’
Yes, equal with Shakespeare whose genius for understanding human nature is unparalleled. As Britons, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to both.

Do you feel that Churchill’s career has a lot to teach today’s leaders?
I do. One of the reasons I wrote this book was to point out that Churchill had tackled many of the issues with which today’s generation of leaders are still grappling. These include a host of domestic questions concerning tax, trade unions, the welfare state, unemployment, crime and punishment and the democratic process generally. Over a period of 60 years, Churchill also tried to resolve conflicts in places as far apart as South Africa, Iraq, Greece, Ireland and Israel. Many of these problems persist today, making a study of Churchill’s statesmanship immensely valuable.

The last US administration cited Churchill after the 9/11 attacks. Do you think this was fair?
I do. Churchill has long been a source of inspiration to the American people, largely because of his vigourous stand against communism in the post war years. But after 9/11, American politicians needed Churchill’s indomitability and sense of moral purpose in order to maintain public morale. That was why they delved into the Churchillian vernacular in the days after 9/11 and why they sought to apply lessons from Churchill’s WW2 leadership.

Did he not have rather negative feelings towards Islam?
Yes, as a young soldier in Sudan, he witnessed a form of Islamic extremism at first hand. In his book The River War, he wrote that Islam was a ‘militant and proselytising’ faith, that it ‘paralysed’ social development and was a ‘retrograde’ force in the world. He was aware of the intolerance of Saudi Wahhabism and condemned its effect on women. I doubt he would have been surprised by the current spread of radical Islam or its toxic effect on impressionable Muslim minds.

What do you feel was Churchill’s greatest achievement?
His war leadership, in particular the period from May 1940 to June 1941, in which Britain fought a triumvirate of enemies without the back up of a superpower. A lesser man might have bowed to Nazi Germany in 1940 but Churchill remained undaunted and led the nation to victory. Another achievement was his consistent opposition to Nazi Germany in the years preceding the war and his prediction that it was futile to appease Hitler.

He switched political parties twice. Does this make him the supreme opportunist?
Not really. He had ideological reasons for leaving the Conservative party in 1904 (free trade) and leaving the Liberals after the 1922 election defeat (the strength of socialist Labour). It is true that he sensed the tide of fortune was swinging away from those parties but his intellectual stance should be viewed in its own terms and not just as a cynical response to changing political fortunes. He often adopted political positions (supporting Edward VIII in the Abdication Crisis, attacking the Munich agreement) even when they harmed his career.

Did he believe in democracy in the modern sense?
Churchill cherished Parliamentary government in which freely chosen political representatives could debate the great questions of the day. He wanted the legislature to hold the government to account, especially during wartime when there was a tendency towards secretiveness. He also believed in ‘liberal’ democracy; that is, that ordinary people had the right to free expression, open justice, a relatively unfettered media and other fundamental liberties in a civilised society. But he did not believe in what we might call ‘populist politics’ where politicians had to frame their policies according to opinion polls, the news cycle or public opinion.

So he would presumably find much to disapprove of in today’s 24/7 political culture?
Indeed. He would have disliked the relentless use of focus groups and spin doctors and what we might call the ‘Americanisation’ of politics. He didn’t want politicians to live in the temperamental atmosphere of public opinion but to lead that opinion in an informed manner. He would also have been horrified by Parliament’s declining influence over the executive in recent decades.

He is sometimes described as a warmonger. Is this a fair charge?
Not really. As a young soldier, he had seen the ugly side of war and realised that any major confrontation between the world’s great powers would cause immense suffering and loss. That is why he strove to mitigate the animosity that existed between Germany and Britain before WW1 and why he sought to deter Germany from embarking on territorial expansion before WW2. He also became the earliest exponent of the ‘summit conference’ between the superpowers during the Cold War because he knew that nuclear war would be the end of civilisation. He was far ahead of his time in this sense. Naturally, once war started, he relished the chance for leadership and for applying his strategic vision to the battlefield. But that does not make him a warmonger.

Turning to the Second World War, did Churchill ever contemplate a compromise peace with the Nazis?
No, though others did. Towards the end of May 1940, with British troops facing annihilation at Dunkirk and with France on the verge of defeat, a series of Cabinet meetings were held in which the prospect of a compromise peace was discussed. Halifax and, to a lesser extent, Chamberlain, warmed to the idea and Churchill had to use all of his skills to argue for continuing the fight. As we now know, his view prevailed. Thank heavens that he had the vision, the courage and the resolution that was so lacking in others.

According to one of the great wartime controversies, Churchill allowed Pearl Harbour to be bombed to force the Americans into the war. Is there any truth in this?
This is a myth, and a somewhat pernicious one too. There is no evidence that Churchill knew in advance about Pearl Harbour though he was aware that the Japanese might attack a range of territories in the Far East. In fact, it is unlikely that the US knew either because they had not fully cracked the latest Japanese naval code. Pearl Harbour was in fact a triumph of Japanese secrecy and planning, as I show in one of my essays.

After the war, Churchill championed a ‘united Europe’? Are Eurosceptics wrong to claim him as one of their own?
Churchill had a great deal of experience dealing with European issues from his earliest days as a politician to his triumphant post war statesmanship. He believed in the loosest sense in what we might call a ‘united Europe,’ particularly if that meant a stable and harmonious relationship between France and Germany. But what he meant by European unity was not always clear, nor did he envisage that Britain would be part of any federal arrangement. This was because Britain had other political and economic commitments, both to the United States and to the Commonwealth.

So he might not have been too happy with the current EU set-up then?
Given his profound belief in British sovereignty, Churchill would have been appalled at the judicial, economic and political powers adopted by the EU at the expense of Britain and fellow member states. He could not have accepted laws and regulations being imposed on Britain by a foreign legislature or by unelected Commissioners.

Coming up in part two: Churchill’s attitude to Zionism and his performance with regards to the Jewish people during the Second World War. Plus – who did he regard as the greatest Jew?

You can visit Jeremy Havardi’s website here.

Stuck for something to buy your Mum for Mother’s Day? I have bought my Mum the new book by Diana Craig I Love You Mum. It’s a beautifully-designed compilation of writing that celebrates the art of motherhood including quotes, lists, tips and recipes. Yes, it includes a chapter on the Jewish mumma entitled ‘You Can’t Phone, You Can’t Visit?’ Much recommended.

I did the newspaper review on BBC Radio London again today. If you want to you can hear it here (I come in at 1hr47mins). Among other things I discussed the hotness of Alastair Campbell, what Simon Cowell eats, Cheryl Cole, tooth-grinding and I even found time to reveal that I’m not pregnant.

I should also mention that my biography of Twilight author Stephenie Meyer was published yesterday. There’s a nice review of it in Star magazine, which describes it as “insightful”.

The Windsor branch of Waterstones has put up a shelf of books chosen by me as a local author. I was asked to choose two of my own books and four by other authors.

Of my own titles I chose my Simon Cowell biography and Not In My Name. For the other four I selected The Old Devils by Kingsley Amis, Cheryl by Sean Smith, Israel: A History by Sir Martin Gilbert and The Diary Of A Young Girl by Anne Frank. I had a heavy cold when I made the latter four choices and they certainly constitute an eclectic line-up.

Still, an honour to be asked. I might pop in next week, take a photograph of the shelf and post it here.

Update: here is a photograph of the shelf.

Long-term readers may recall this post of mine about my admiration of Tom Wolfe and my inability to finish his most recent novel I Am Charlotte Simmons.

Well, I can report that I gave the book one last chance during my recent holiday in Amsterdam. I again found it strangely unbreachable, so I left it propped up outside the city centre’s Waterstones branch which sells English-language books. I hope it found a good home.