Matthew Parris, a British voice who sees the Middle East without tourist glasses

Matthew Parris is not just a name on the opinion page. He is a journalist and former politician who left the Conservative Party to become a regular columnist for Fleet Street.

He is a writer who does not repeat the discourse of hegemony, but rather exposes the failure of Western policies and defends the moral position wherever it may be.

Those familiar with his career know that he started out in Parliament, in the ranks of the Conservatives, before becoming a journalist and political commentator, writing with the rigour of someone who knows the ins and outs of decision-making and with an uncompromising moral sense.

Parris is one of the rare British voices that does not read the Arab world superficially, nor does he borrow the glasses of the tourist who sees the conflict as fleeting images on the news screens. He writes with deep understanding and rare courage in exposing the falsehood of Western policies, and with an impartiality that sets him apart from the herd.

Or, as Parris embodies for Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Prospect magazine, an almost Orwellian conception of British identity — here meaning “Orwellian” in the sense proposed by George Orwell in his essay “The Lion and the Unicorn,” not in the dystopian sense of the novel 1984.

In his famous article entitled “Britain has no idea what it is doing in the Middle East”, Parris wrote that Iraq had become nothing more than a killing field for Iraqis, while Bush and Blair promised the Mesopotamian country freedom under the pretext of a war that would bring freedom, according to Donald Rumsfeld’s definition.

“Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt… a record of failure sufficient to understand that we should leave things alone.”

This was not just a reading of a record of mistakes, but a cry of conscience: a policy that does not know what to do should not do anything at all.

READ: Malaysia, Brazil declare support for South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

When he rejected the Iraq War, he was not repeating a romantic anti-war slogan, but was starting from a simple premise: morality cannot be separated from expediency. If there is no capacity to build, the overthrow of regimes by force turns into open ruin. This conclusion, ignored by Tony Blair and George Bush, explains the ruin and political failure that Iraq experienced for decades afterwards.

Today, more than twenty years after that war, Matthew Parris returns in his latest article to write about Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which is displaying arrogance and contempt for international law in its war of extermination in Gaza, saying, “The international community must impose effective sanctions and urge the Israelis to change their corrupt government.”

His language is no less clear than his old language. The principle is the same: an uncompromising moral stance that sees a policy that covers up the crimes of occupation not as a policy, but as complicity.

This consistency is what makes Parris a rare model. He does not simply reject military intervention, but seeks political and civil alternatives. Just as he rejected a war that he knew would open the gates of hell in Baghdad, today he calls for sanctions as a means of pressure on a government that continues to commit flagrant violations. This is not duplicity, but a consistent line of thinking: ethical politics does not mean emotionalism, but adherence to realistic means that uphold humanitarian standards.

But more importantly, Parris reveals to us a truth that we often overlook: the West is not a single bloc of hegemony. At the heart of the British press are sincere voices that clearly state that the Arab world is experiencing destruction not only because of itself, but also because of American and Western interventions that have launched a series of ill-considered wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… names that have become examples of ongoing devastation.

When Parris writes about these tragedies, he does not write as a defender of the Arabs out of external sympathy, but as a human being facing his conscience. This is where his uniqueness lies: he is not a voice that embellishes the discourse of hegemony, but an exception that exposes it from within.

In his latest article, he says, “We who are horrified by this destruction must support effective sanctions and urge the Israelis to change their government.”

Here, Parris transforms shock into concrete political action. He proposes a specific tool—sanctions—as a practical alternative to empty condemnation or military solutions. The choice of the word “effective” is important: not symbolic sanctions, but pressure that makes a difference in the political capacity of the targeted government. This approach places Parris in the camp of Western writers who link moral compass with realistic means.

He also expressed his disappointment that there is no hope for Gaza as long as Netanyahu remains in power.

READ: Hamas agrees to appoint Amjad Al-Shawa to head technocratic committee in Gaza

It is a short phrase, but it carries a comprehensive judgement; it is not merely a criticism of policy, but a conclusion that the government itself is an obstacle to any humanitarian or political solution. Parris proposes a clear civil mechanism — sanctions — instead of a military solution, explaining that morality must accompany realistic action.

This consistent reading of his two articles—rejecting the war of occupation in Iraq and calling for sanctions against Israel and Netanyahu—reveals a single thread: moral standards must be accompanied by political effectiveness. When he rejects a war because its consequences are disastrous, he does not reject any pressure on any state; rather, he calls for effective civil pressure.

Parris’ calls do not come in a vacuum. In 2025, we witnessed actual measures taken by some Western governments against Israeli figures accused of inciting genocide while the horrific violations in Gaza continued, such as travel bans on some ministers and leaders. This shows that the debate on “sanctions as a political tool” is beginning to shift from an idea to a policy. Linking the press call to practical diplomatic action reinforces our argument: there are voices in the West that are not only critical, but also exert pressure on the political decision-making arena.

His latest article sparked widespread debate, because a former conservative writer calling for tough sanctions disrupts the traditional discourse. The shift in Western public opinion could open up avenues for real diplomatic pressure on the Israeli government’s brutal policies that are destroying civilian life.

Why should we, as Arab readers and followers, care about Matthew Parris? Because he exemplifies two lessons: the West is not a monolith; there are sincere voices of criticism from within. Genuine criticism links ethics to mechanisms; it does not merely condemn.

When Parris calls for “effective” sanctions against an Israeli government that the international community views as the cause of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, he offers internal testimony of strategic and moral value. We must read this testimony seriously and search their discourse for tools that can be translated into international action that alleviates the suffering of civilians.

Ultimately, Matthew Parris is not a hero, but he is an honest witness. And because testimony in times of political chaos becomes an act of moral excellence, his voice deserves to be read in Arabic. Not as a mere Western writer, but as a friend in the battle for truth.

READ: Southeast Asian nations back Trump’s Gaza plan, urge ‘durable peace’

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.