Bernard Spiegal

The architecture of suppression has been well constructed, narrowing the legal and physical space within which public protest can find expression. And the primary, present target for curtailment and suppression is pro-Palestinian, Israel-critical demonstration.

In Kettled: The control and shrinking of democratic space I set out some of the legislative measures – those in place, those coming down the road, and at speed – enabling the contraction of democratic expression. That process is continuing at pace.

No holds are barred, no low practice avoided, in pursuit of the singular project to undermine the public expression of pro-Palestine sentiment.  This amply demonstrated by the defamatory claims made by Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Mark Rowley, in an interview with The Times on 1 May. Rowley said the Palestine Coalition wanted to route the march past a synagogue which the Commissioner claimed “feels like antisemitism”. At the same time, in an interview with ITV, he said, “They [Palestine Coalition] set out with an intent to march near synagogues, etc., and every single time that we put conditions on to prevent that.” This was a falsehood. No such route was planned, has ever been planned.

The march organisers have instructed the law firm Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors LLP to send the Police Commissioner a formal letter of complaint, and requesting a formal retraction of these comments.

Quite apart from the outrageousness of the comment, Rowley deployed an interesting, and worrying, form of justification in support of his ‘assessment’. In essence, he appealed to his subjective feelings – ‘’feels like antisemitism”.

People’s purported feelings are much in evidence in pursuit of the objective of silencing Palestinian advocacy.

Someone who one hoped was immune to succumbing to emotion and subjective musings when purportedly offering professional, objective judgement is Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s Adviser on Terrorism and State Threats Legislation. 

Hall said [April 2026] it “pains me to say this” but “we may have reached a point where we need to have a moratorium on the sorts of marches that have been happening,” adding that it is “clearly impossible at the moment for any of these pro-Palestine marches not to incubate within them some sort of antisemitic or demonising language.” He described the situation as a “massive national security emergency.”

 To assert, as Hall does, that it is “clearly impossible [my emphasis] at the moment for any of these pro-Palestine marches not [my emphasis] to incubate within them some sort [my emphasis] of antisemitic or demonising language’ is a direct accusation to the effect that the marches definitely do ‘incubate’ antisemitic or demonising language. As he says, it is impossible to think otherwise.

That a police commissioner should utterly falsely, and a KC rely on what amounts to – ill-informed – supposition as a basis of formulating public policy in an area of the highest significance must be, at the very least, a source of concern and perhaps an indication of a corrupted public realm.

Underpinning the now much-repeated assertion that antisemitism is on the rise, is data based on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a deeply flawed document much criticised by scholars, Jewish and non-Jewish. I’ll not list them in this piece, but you can find them here.

Attached to the ‘definition’ are some examples of behaviour that it is claimed may be antisemitic. This is where the IHRA starts playing the game of ‘Gotcha’.  For some of the examples are of such a nature that one can hardly cough without being captured by at least one of the categories.

Here are some of the examples:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour;
• Applying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The logic of the examples is directed at securing a pre-determined, particular outcome, namely that antisemitism is a growing phenomenon and criticism of Israel is an indicator of this. For, as suggested above, one can hardly cough without falling under one or more of the examples.

Thus, I assert that Israel is a racist endeavour, and that, sadly, shockingly, Israel in some key features can be compared to the Nazis. Look at Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem for evidence. Am I now an antisemite?

Notwithstanding the obvious flaws in the IHRA definition and examples, it is the basis on which the Community Security Trust (CST and the Metropolitan police, base their assertions that antisemitism is on the rise. The CST is much lauded as experts in this area. However, given the centrality of the IHRA to its worldview, along with its enthusiasm for relying on the highly tendentious examples of antisemitism listed above, one is bound to question the degree to which they obscure, rather than illuminate, an understanding of antisemitism.

In fact, the IHRA definition has infected vast swathes of territory, including, but not limited to, NHS England, local councils, Universities and the Labour Party to name but a few.  What has been created is a device to generate the data that inevitably, by the logic of its own construction, ‘proves’ antisemitism is (a) a major problem and (b) it is on the rise. 

The UK public, shocked, sickened, and perhaps surprised by Israel’s descent into a moral quagmire of its own creation, is increasingly critical of Israel. At which point the IHRA definition and examples lock-in creating a ‘Gotcha’ moment: criticise Israel, and you offend under one of the examples. So there, you’re an antisemite now, and you didn’t even know.

As a political tactic, this conflating of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is proving highly effective in providing Israel advocates tools for stifling critique and criticism.

The other side of this coin is that the examples, because of the frame of reference they create, may well exaggerate the incidence of antisemitism, and therefore exacerbate fear of it.  This is not to downplay or minimise in any way the very real fear UK Jews may feel in the wake of the attacks on synagogues, schools, Jewish institutions, and of course attacks on Jewish persons.  But this does not permit us to close our eyes to what may be unwelcome considerations.

It is a false opposition to suggest that sensitivity to Jewish anxieties is incompatible with concern for, and support of, the Palestinian cause. The large Jewish Bloc, festooned with banners proclaiming their Jewishness, that attend every national pro-Palestine march should be sufficient evidence that the marches have nothing to do with antisemitism.

At this stage we do not know the motives behind the attacks on obviously Jewish institutions and against identifiable Jewish persons. Though certainly one set of incidents was perpetrated by a man with a severe mental disorder.

It may be, indeed it is likely, that part of the motivation was hatred of what Israel has done and is doing in respect of Palestine, and now Lebanon and Iran. This is distinct from historical motivations for Jew-hate.

That the attackers conflate Israel – a state self-defined as explicitly and exclusively Jewish – with Jews as a whole, is hardly surprising given that the Jewish establishment persistently retails the impression that all Jews support Israel, implying that Jews constitute a single monolith. This of course avoids the truth that the Zionist lobby dare not speak: that thousands of Jews actively oppose Israel.

Now it is clearer than ever that the British state, along with the Jewish establishment, are embarked on a concerted campaign to vilify and curtail pro-Palestinian advocacy. This is not new, but appears to mark an intensification of pre-existing positions.

Whatever strategies are devised to counter the onslaught, Israel-critical, anti-Zionist Jews have a particular responsibility to act to reverse the tide. For by virtue of our self-identification with the Palestinian cause, we give lie to the central assertion of the Zionist lobby: that opposing Israel and its foul deeds equates to antisemitism.

The question then is: are we doing enough?