The Left's crisis: Socialism and Antisemitism

As most readers may be aware, the last few weeks have seen most of the mainstream media centre on Andy Burnham’s campaign to become leader of the Labour party. His ‘manifesto’ was particularly interesting, as it focused on massive regional devolution, public control of utilities and a substantial increase in social housing. More particularly, his broad platform emphasised ‘business-friendly’ socialism while maintaining fiscal discipline.

Now this made me smile because it sounds like old-fashioned Labour, but if you dig deeper, you’ll realise it’s simply a ‘word salad’ that means nothing. For example, ‘business-friendly’ and ‘socialism are essentially contradictory, because the essence of socialism is it advocates for a democratically run society where the means of production – businesses, industries and resources are socially, or collectively managed and ultimately replace capitalism through democratic and electoral processes.

Similarly, ‘fiscal discipline’ isn’t a socialist concept, as it’s more associated with ‘fiscal conservativism’ and ‘economic liberalism’.

All very interesting, but I want to concentrate on something more disturbing; something visible on both sides of the pond, and it’s what has happened to the progressive Left? Radicalism once meant fighting against poverty and for action on worker’s rights and climate change. But over the years this has been replaced by an obsessive hatred of Israel, and “Zionism”; their rhetoric sounding indistinguishable from the fascists they once fought. Today, these ‘socialists’, use virulent antisemitic tropes that would have once stood perfectly alongside hate-ridden articles in Der Sturmer in the 1930s.Take for example the July 1934 edition warning of a Jewish program for world domination. The article—titled “Who is the Enemy?”—blamed Jews for destroying social order and claimed Jews wanted war, while the rest of the world wanted peace. Compare this to a New Left Review headline comparing Zionism to imperialism and arguing Zionists are colonialists seeking war and domination of the Middle East.

So, what’s changed? Or has it always been this way? Has practical socialism always had an antisemitic side that’s finally come out of the woodwork? To understand this, it’s essential to first understand the mind of an antizionist.

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

It’s not Jews, we keep being told, it’s Israel. If only they didn’t “overact”, there would be no antisemitism; if only American or British Jews repudiated Israel, they would be left alone, because those we call antisemites are responding to unbearable provocations. 

But let me be perfectly clear - everything about this is a lie, and it’ll destroy the West - see how the Left reacted when Israel responded to the appalling tragedy on October 7^th and how they reacted when the Gaza War followed, not forgetting how before the first shots were fired, Israel made it clear there would be no war if the 256 hostages were returned immediately.

But the lies continued unabated on social media, rotting the minds of ill-informed people, warping their critical faculties and chasing away the Jewish diaspora.

With a social media campaign heavily funded by Iran and Qatar, it was inevitable ‘socialist’ activists would embrace antizionism, particularly as many were already hostile to Israel once the declaration was announced Jerusalem was, is and always will be the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

In a feeble attempt to disguise left antisemitism, they started to spelt ‘antizionism’ without a hyphen, or capital ‘Z’ to distinguish it from the traditional pre-1948 variety. But let’s be clear, it’s simply a specific, modernised hate ideology targeting Jews and Israel and comes with an entire, warped analytical framework. In effect, it’s the new antisemitism for our times.

Notably, these same “antizionists” are indifferent to the plight of Muslims; they only care about conflicts involving Jews. None of the 23 countries with Islam as state religion or the 53 majority-Muslim countries, or Christians or other nations or “ethno-states” are targeted: just the only Jewish state, seen as the purest embodiment of Western evil.

“From the river to the sea” is no more than ethnic cleansing, at best, and genocidal extermination at worst. The antizionists tell Jews to “go home”, but deny anywhere is their home, and do their best to ensure they never have one. So, Jews are redefined, not as refugees (often from Arab lands) but, in an act of gross inversion, as “white settler colonisers”. Jews, in their eyes, are genocidal oppressors and can never be victims. One doesn’t need to prove this; asserting it is sufficient.

The “genocide of Palestinians” banalises the genocidal behaviour of Islamist countries. It redefines normal military practices as illegitimate, making self-defence impossible and rewards Hamas’s monstrous human shield strategy; it rationalises terrorism as freedom-fighting.

 

The Democratic Party

The party was founded on January 8^th, 1828, emerging from the supporters of Andrew Jackson but didn’t show signs of Left leanings until the 1930s with the arrival of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Further left leanings were cemented in with Lyndon B. Johnson’s support for the Civil Rights Movement but, even then the party fought against adopting a socialist agenda and remained true to a liberal/ religious tradition first started in the early days of the twentieth century.

By the 1960s, progressives had fused parts of cultural liberalism with economic left-leaning traditions, as well as drawing robustly on Keynesian economics, left-wing populism, and democratic socialism, particularly through Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. While there are differences between the historical progressivism of Johnson’s era and today’s progressive movement, both share a belief that free markets lead to economic inequalities and must be aggressively regulated with broad economic and social rights legislation to protect the working class.

Antisemitism/ Anti-Zionism in the Democratic Party

The emergence of antisemitism in the Democratic party goes back to the late 1960s, largely driven by ideological shifts within the New Left. During this period, segments of the movement began to adopt an increasingly anti-Zionist platform, which at times bled into overt antisemitism. Following the 1967 war, a segment of the Left in the Democratic party shifted away from their historical support for the relatively new state of Israel and instead framed the country as a colonialist power. This rhetoric frequently crossed the line from criticism of Israeli government policy into antisemitic tropes, such as accusing Jewish supporters of dual loyalty

By the early 1970’s deep fractures were visible, forcing many to navigate a worrying wedge between anti-Zionism and antisemitism so, by the 1980s, the division lines were so heavily blurred that in 1984, Senator Jesse Jackson, while standing as a Democratic presidential candidate caused significant controversy by referring to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown."

More recently, there have been a number of cases of Holocaust inversion within the party  and, in particular, we have seen how, during the 2014 Gaza War, the party leadership often accused Israel of carrying out “genocidal attacks” on Arabs it confined in, what they termed:  “its Gaza concentration camp” (you can read more on how progressives, aided by Bernie Sanders and others fought for recognition of Palestine here - Left-Wing Antisemitism in the United States: Past and Present | INSS )

The extent of racism against Jews became fully visible during House votes on resolutions condemning antisemitism. In December 2023, over 100 Democrat representatives voted "present" or "no" on a GOP-led resolution formally equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

All this led many, including blogger John Podhoretz to argue “If I’d told you in 2015 that the focal point of antisemitic sentiment in the U.S. in 2026 would be inside the Democratic Party, you would have thought I was insane. Hell, I would have thought I was insane, and I’d spent decades warning about creeping anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment on the left.” (You can read the full article here - Why Antisemitism Is a Bigger Problem on the Left )

The Labour party

The sad truth of both the Labour party and the trade union movement is their history of hatred against Jews goes back to before the party was even founded. In 1900, the Trade Union Congress, which played an instrumental part in founding the Labour party, passed a resolution arguing the Boer War was being fought “to secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews, most of whom had no patriotism and no country”. A claim later shown to be completely preposterous.

Nonetheless, the British Labour Party was created in 1900 under its original name of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) and officially adopted the name "Labour Party" in 1906. Its key founding members included Keir Hardie (elected Chairman) and Ramsay MacDonald (elected Secretary). Other early members included antisemites, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who joined the fledgling party in 1914.

Right from its birth the Labour party and trade union movement relied on antisemitic tropes associating new immigrant Jewish worker with undesirable living conditions and parasitical finance legitimising calls for controls to reduce Jewish immigration. In 1889, the TUC was arguing “it was the duty of the trades to keep the matter of Jewish migration under close consideration”.

But it was founder, Keir Hardy who was the most outspoken Labour antisemite, even as early as the Boer war when he argued Jewish financial houses were part of a secretive imperialist cabal promoting the war. Later, when referring to one of London’s wealthiest areas, he attacked “men living in Park Lane, some of whom are unable to speak the English tongue” who were enriching themselves – he was, of course referring to Jews.

The Labour Leader newspaper, of which Hardie was both editor and publisher, exhibited even more rabidly antisemitic language. “Wherever there is trouble in Europe,” he wrote, “wherever rumours of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbances.”

Henry Hyndman, blamed "Jewish capitalists" for starting the Boer War

Ian Hermon, once argued the roots of Labour antisemitism stem from a “populist pursuit of power, bigotry, ignorance or a twisted understanding of history and socialist ideals.”

Despite a deeply rooted history of anti-Jewish feeling many early socialists fought vociferously to achieve the Zionist ideal of a Jewish state. But antisemitism has never been far from the surface and with the likes of Beatrice Webb describing Zionism as hypocritical nonsense, it established roots that many years later, Corbyn was able to reach out and use.

 Of course, those on the left argued their comments were not antisemitic, but legitimate opposition to Israeli government policy and actions. The evidence demonstrated a very different view:

1. Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor was suspended from the Labour party after saying Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s – The EHRC found “Ken Livingstone’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity, which, whether viewed individually or together with other relevant acts of Labour Party agents, had the effect of harassing Labour Party members”;
2.  Naz Shah, the ex-Labour MP, urged her supporters to vote in an online poll about Israeli military action and claimed "the Jews are rallying" to skew the results;
3. Again Naz Shah, in a 2014 Facebook graphic showed the outline of Israel superimposed over the United States with the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States" and the comment "Problem solved";
4. Chris Williamson signed and shared an online petition supporting jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, who was accused of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Later, he booked a room in Parliament for a screening of a film about Jackie Walker, a party activist suspended over alleged antisemitic comments.
5. Councillor Pat Bromley was reported to the Labour Party over allegedly antisemitic Facebook posts, suspended but then reinstated into the party.

While the exact number of upheld complaints in the Labour Party remains unknown, disciplinary reports indicate hundreds of accusations were upheld, resulting in sanctions ranging from formal warnings to expulsions.

 

Political Comment

I find it interesting the way people argue both the Democratic party and the UK Labour Party are socialist, when all evidence demonstrates they are nothing of the sort. The Democratic party may be left leaning but firstly, they have no formal ties to the trade union movement, and secondly, they maintain an adherence to market driven economic solutions over nationalisation. There are many other distinctions, but in short, they bear none of the markers associated with a socialist political party.

The UK Labour party is an interesting case and if you look at the original Clause lV of its constitution as written by Sidney Webb, it would be reasonable to argue its socialist origins:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

However, all this changed in April 1995 when the party rejected nationalisation and rewrote the clause to argue how Labour now:

“… believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”

In effect, the Labour Party walked away from its socialist roots.

Furthermore, the essence of socialism rejects all forms of racism and encourages an internationalist perspective – and with a history of antisemitism in both parties it is difficult to argue the Labour party or the Democratic party are socialist.

It seems the political right are simply using the term as an unsubstantiated term of abuse with little basis in reality. In this respect it is a very unhealthy way to deal with political differences and implies ta lack of political education suggesting the political right lack a credible understanding of political ideology.

It makes me fear for our political future.

Why Americans Need to Get Much Angrier About Donald Trump.

Over the months and years, I’ve watched America transition from a tolerant, bastion of free speech, to a divided nation where intolerance abounds and the only permitted political comments are those lauded towards their new Caesar, President Donald J. Trump. Looking back, it was an inevitable love affair. On the international scene, presidential indecision had, by 2017 left the US looking weaker than at any other time in history. America hasn’t won a major sustained war on its own since Word War 2, though there have been a few ‘successes’ if you include smaller interventions.

In 1983, the US swiftly invaded Grenada (with an estimated population, then 110,000) and overthrow the Marxist military government. Similarly, in 1990, in Operation Just Cause, they quickly ousted dictator Manuel Noriega and installed a democratically elected government. I do not include the Gulf War as this broadly successful conflict involved a 35-nation coalition, of which the US was only a part.

Prosperity on the Home Front

On the home front, US citizens were at their most affluent (if defined by how easily a single wage earner could buy a home, raise a family and buy a car) under Dwight  Eisenhower, while they were able to save the most under Nixon and Carter;

although, unemployment was high under Reagan and Ford, but healthcare arrangements were improved the most for the elderly and low-income populations under Lyndon B. Johnson, though I’m sure some readers would argue in providing cover to over 30 million Americans,  Obama’s Affordable Care Act deserves mention.

Against this, Trump has referred to his own presidency as a “very beautiful and romantic time”, and after his first term, “our country was thriving, we were just beating everyone,” but is this true?

International markers during both Trump eras show that, if we examine the Happy Planet Index (a tool created by the New Economic Foundation to measure national well-being, we see Costa Rica is top, the UK comes in at 34^th, while the US is way behind at 108^th. Equally, if we look at the Human Development Index, an UN-inspired economic tool to measure economic opportunity and capability, Norway is top, the US 13^th and the UK close behind at 14^th. Finally, using the OECDs Better Lives Index, a tool identifying 11 facets essential to well-being (housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance), Norway, Finland and Denmark come top and the US is far behind in 15th place.

Similarly, if we explore the rate of inflation over the last twenty years, the U.S. has averaged roughly 2.5% to 3.0% annually, marked by a period of historic stability between 2006–2020, followed by a massive 40-year peak of 9.1% under Trump in 2022 due to pandemic-era factors, and more recently, we see a volatile run back up to 4.25% due to recent energy price shocks following the Iran war.

Given this why I fail to see anything beautiful or romantic about Trump’s two presidencies, especially when you remember unemployment went to its highest during his first term at 14.7%. Now you might accuse me of being unfair given this was during the Covid lockdown, but comparatively during the same era, Japan kept unemployment to between 2.8 and 3.3%, Germany averaged 3.8% and the UK averaged 4.9%. So clearly something went badly wrong with Trump’s economic policy.

Taking the honesty test

Although a very bitter pill to swallow, it might be possible to forgive him if he was honest, but what is widely known and has been proven beyond doubt is the level of his dishonesty resulting in a criminal grand jury indicting him on one count of making “false statements and representations”. This related  specifically to hiding subpoenaed classified documents from his attorney, who was trying to return them to the government. And let’s not forget his 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the first degree.

By now, “true defenders” will argue Trump is frequently maligned and these prosecutions should never have happened because they were either errors or, at worst, business matters with no bearing on his political acumen or integrity.

These are by far from his only dishonest actions. There are plenty more – let’s look at just a few:

1.  “Already, I’ve secured a record-breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States.” It would have been great if it were true, but it was false.

2.  “Our country was being invaded by an army of 25 million people.” Those numbers weren’t even close to being true.

3.  “I was elected in a landslide.” Untrue.

4.  “The price of a Thanksgiving turkey was down 33% compared to Biden last year.” It wasn’t true.

5.  Trump said the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed this year included, among other things, “no tax on Social Security.” Sound nice, but it wasn’t actually part of the package.

6.  “When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years, and some would say in the history of our country.” Trump says this all the time, but as I showed above, it was demonstrably false.

7.  “I’ve … settled eight wars in 10 months.” I get the sense he’s convinced himself this happened, but it hasn’t, no matter how many times he repeats the line.

8.  “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon into much of the country. In some states, it, by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.” This is a weird thing to lie about, since consumers know better, but for the record, this obviously was not true.

9.  “The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly.” Trump would have been even more popular if this were true, but it was a lie.

1.  “I negotiated directly with the drug companies and foreign nations, which were taking advantage of our country for many decades, to slash prices on drugs and pharmaceuticals by as much as 400%, 500% and even 600%.” This whopper came  close to the top spot because of the sheer absurdity of the lie.

1  “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There is no evidence of illegal voting.).

1  “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

1  “After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!” (It never apologized.)

.  “I saved a lot of money on those jets, didn't I? Did I do a good job? More than $725 million on them.” (Many of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)

I could go on, but rather than bore you, I will move on, as many journalists now argue there may be as many as 20,000 – 30,000 other lies I could have included. I am no great follower of either TV, or TV personalities, but I believe there is one celebrity called Judge Judith Sheindlin, who once said a teenager is likely lying simply if "their mouth is moving". It seems this is also true of President Trump.

Trump on the international stage

But it is on foreign policy he has failed the most. During his two terms, he has consistently miscalculated the strength or weakness of other parties, as well as often making promises he was obviously incapable of achieving. Take his much-touted promise to solve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine within 24-hours; a promise that ultimately fell completely flat. This failure, combined with repeated wavering commitments to ⁠NATO has discredited the United States as a dependable security provider and forced many European allies to reconsider their own defence postures. This became apparent when Trump called on NATO countries to support his action in Iran, only to find they all pretty much refused point blank. Or his operation to oust Venezuela's elected (albeit in a highly contentious election) ex-President Nicolas Maduro; a unilateral action to remove a national leader without any discussion with his allies.

It is unlikely they would have disagreed with the operation, but the fact he chose to move without consultation created a lot of global uncertainty, leading experts and senior diplomats to warn this unpredictable approach damaged diplomatic relations and emboldened other competitors. Essentially, his rogue action created an uncertainty where it became unclear where, or how, Trump might act in the future. Could he attack Guatemala, Cambodia or Turkey simply because their leaders came to power in unfair elections? The Maduro kidnap occurred because the US accused him of “narco-terrorism”, but could the same happen to other leaders in Ecuador, Colombis, or Mexico? Outrageous perhaps, but Trump’s foreign policy has lacked finesse and forethought leading many countries to distance themselves.

As for the relationship between the US and Russia, far from easing tensions, it has become a strained dynamic, because while Trump previously sought a close, transactional friendship with Putin to resolve global conflicts, it has shifted to frustration as Moscow’s aggressive actions in Ukraine continue and peace becomes increasingly elusive.

Equally, and just as in Ukraine, the once warm relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has deteriorated into name-calling and anger, but unlike Zelensky, Benjamin Netanyahu has no fear of an American withdrawal and appears to almost welcome to ‘go alone’ and destroy Hezbollah on his own, if necessary.

The Iran Deal

The recent agreement between the Trump administration and Iran has ripped the mask off the so-called “Best Friends Forever” relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. If we explore his history, we can see how Trump tends to favour alliances with political strongmen, often siding with them over traditional friends and allies, but only so long as they serve his personal purpose. However, the moment they outlive their usefulness, or become a personal liability, the friendship evaporates instantly.

For Netanyahu, the writing is now on the wall, and Trump has decided to fly solo while ignoring Netanyahu and the needs of the Israeli people; any fealty to Trump has run its course. The Iran deal is so profoundly detrimental to Israel that what was once a political asset - the bond with Trump—has become a liability.

As for the rest of the world, the Wall Street Journal defined it perfectly in their editorial when they argued: “President Trump is touting his latest ceasefire deal with Iran as peace in our time,” the Journal writes, “but the world is more likely to see it as a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aim.”

In fact, I must ask did he ever have any war aims, beyond destroying their nuclear capability? Sure, he told the Iranian people “help is on its way”, but it never really happened and anyway, it was primarily the Israeli Air Force who attacked and killed Ayatollah Khamenei and eliminated much of the IRGC hierarchy, while US forces concentrated on military and nuclear bases.

Much to Trump’s surprise, Iran did not capitulate – they stood their ground and fired back resulting in a financial cost (according to the Pentagon) of approximately $29 billion, though Sen. Chris Murphy argues the cost may be much higher and could be as much as $60 billion, along with the lives of 13 US military personnel.

With Republicans in Congress increasingly unhappy about the war and mid-terms due in November, Trump panicked and as we saw from the “Agreement”, pretty much capitulated on everything. Even his declaration of the terms of the agreement was hysterical, with him refusing to announce its content until the actual day of signing, while Tehran took the upper hand and were so cock-a-hoop they announced the full contents a full week earlier AND claimed victory in the war.

As Melanie Phillips the political commentator so eloquently stated in her blog:

“He has surrendered America to Iran.

He himself admitted that he stopped the war because of the threat of economic catastrophe if it continued. That was because of the oil shock caused by Iran seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump was therefore signalling that America was powerless to defeat the regime. At a stroke, he turned the United States into a paper tiger, seen to be unwilling to do what it takes to fight a war until victory.

He thus ensured that Tehran would have the upper hand in everything that now follows in the negotiations for a final “deal.” It will be able to run rings round the Americans over the proposed “online blending” of the enriched uranium Trump once pledged to destroy, the destruction of centrifuges, disarmament verification, or anything else.”

After several military disasters over the last few years, the US needed a victory in Iran and with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” banners flying high, he looked to be the man to do it. He had everything in his favour: a strong ally with a highly trained and experienced well-equipped military, a region eager to see Iranian influence shut down, on the home front a nation angry with the Ayatollahs and eager to see justice for the Iranian people, and a powerful US military dedicated to defending democracy and freedom.

Trump should have been unbeatable – but somehow, he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Political Comment

Unquestionably, the United States is full of people who pride themselves on their courage and loyalty; a people who are ever eager to defend the oppressed; and, to their eternal credit, a people who, quite simply, don’t like bullies. I’m not American but I can understand their pride and their patriotism – they have fought hard for it. Occasionally, there are people who superficially say all the right things, sound strong and upright, but beneath the bustle and bravado there is weakness. We have seen it in the UK – in 1939, Neville Chamberlain sucked up to Hitler so heavily, it was frightening and had Lord Halifax become prime minister instead of Winston Churchill, this post would have been written in German.

Despite the bravado and unusual delivery (albeit joyously funny, after all, his presidency will be remembered for his ability to create several new words to the language, including ‘bigly’,’ braggadocios’, ’hamburrderers’, ‘panican’, and my favourite ‘confide’). But despite the humour, let me be clear, Trump is weak and collapses when the conflict is tough. The international media have a nickname for him, calling him “TACO” Trump, an acronym standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Sadly, in the last three months it’s a title he has earned:

21^st March – Trump issued a 48-hour deadline then extended it.

31^st March – He told Iran to make a deal, or US would obliterate energy plants.

1^st April – “We will bomb Iran into the Stone Age.”

5^th April – “open the f****n’ Straits, you crazy b******s or you will be living in hell”.

7^th April – “An entire civilisation will die tonight.”

21^st April – “I expect to be bombing.”

4 – 5^th May - Operation Project Freedom designed to escort ships through the Straits but lasted no more than a day when Iran fired on US military forces.

11^th June – “The US will hit very hard tonight” but cancelled the attack only hours later.

Was it any wonder Iran didn’t believe a single threat Trump made and felt justified in assuming they could go into negotiations with an upper hand.

Make no mistake, despite the “agreement” this war is not over, because Iran believe they are winning and while Trump may be too weak to continue, we all know Israel will not back down and if the US does not finish the job, Israel will do it for them.

Are we about to segregate Jews?

It is possible, in the excitement of today's march in London against antisemitism that you may not be aware that, as of May 2026,  The Ministerial Committee for Legislation in Israel is set to vote on a proposal by Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman that would bar non-Orthodox converts—including those converted by Reform and Conservative movements—from obtaining automatic citizenship under the Law of Return. This proposed legislation aims to reverse a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that mandated recognition of these conversions for citizenship purposes.

For decades, Israel has accepted conversions performed by the Reform and Conservative movements abroad as sufficient for Israeli citizenship, as the Law of Return left the issue of conversions deliberately vague, not specifying if they had to be performed by an Orthodox rabbi.

However, conversions inside Israel had to be performed under Orthodox religious law to be recognized for the purposes of citizenship.

Rothman asserted that changing the language of the law “expresses a return to the principles established by the founders of the state and is necessary for the unity of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the Diaspora.”

Committee approval is only the start of a long process and it remains uncertain if enough time remains before the election, and if it is enough of a coalition priority, for the bill to pass under the current Knesset.

Should the Ministerial Committee for Legislation back the bill, it will be added to the legislative agenda and advance to a preliminary reading in the Knesset, after which it will be assigned to a committee for further discussion ahead of the three readings necessary for it to be passed into law.

Sorry here we are in a world where violent antisemitic attacks are taking place, where shuls are being fire bombed, and where Jews no longer feel safe to wear kippot or Star of David pendants and decent people are fleeing for safety. Yet at the same time, the ultra-orthodox, in the safety of their Jerusalem homes are now saying if you were born into a Reform or Conservative home, or if you converted to one of these groups, Israel may not grant you the right of return or sanctuary. The eternal home of the Jewish people will not keep you safe if you aren't a good enough Jew!

But they will take the money you donate every month to Israeli charities, they will encourage you to fight for, and defend Israel on social media - but they will not let you make Aliyah because a few rabbis have decided you aren't a good enough Jew!

So, my question to my chaverim  on this committee is this simple - if ever antisemitism became so bad that Reform and Liberal Jews feared another Shoah - would you turn them away? Would you leave them to die simply because they lacked an orthodox pedigree?

I've loved, supported and worked for Israel most of my life, I've publicly defended governments I have privately opposed, I have publicly spoken in support of legislation that I have privately despised - but this is too much.

Am Israel chai isn't just a nice saying, it is a declaration that we are one nation, a people and we are united as one and cannot, and will not be divided.

There is no such thing as a better Jew - we are one - and no committee will ever divide us.

So to my Reform, Liberal and Conservative brothers and sisters I say this - we will not and must not ever forsake you. You are part of us and your link to Israel is absolute and must always be protected.

And the beat just goes on and on - how Jew-hate on campus goes unabated 50 years on

A BBC documentary has caught a considerable number of students on US campuses still celebrating the 7 October Hamas attacks on innocent civilians and chanting support for what they referred to as “the resistance”, and using the antisemitic comparison that Zionism is the same as Nazism.

The second episode of Speechless, recently broadcast as part of the BBC Storyville series examined how the war has reverberated across American universities, focusing on protests, encampments and, in particular the documentary centred on clashes between pro-Israel and pro-"Palestinian" students.

The documentary demonstrated how, in less than 24 hours of the 7 October attacks, a joint statement by Harvard student groups declared: “We… hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence ... the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.”

Pro-Palestinian protest at Cornell University, as featured in Speechless: Part 2 – The Pendulum, with demonstrators holding anti-Zionism banners and Palestinian flags. Credit: BBC Storyville / Good Soup Productions

In footage from on campus demonstrations, activists were heard chanting: “Glory to the martyrs. Glory to the resistance. We will liberate the land. By any means necessary.”

In further footage in the documentary, one protester, addressed the rabble and asked: “Do you guys remember the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the Nazi border?” before describing 7 October as producing “joyful and powerful images”.

Another "student" tried to defend the use of Nazi imagery associated with the attacks, saying: “We are so horrible for showing a paraglider. What about their jets? Israeli jets have killed thousands and thousands of Palestinians, but that’s okay?”

At one point, the documentary showed how a message was distributed throughout the campus encampment advising students that a documentary crew was on site and telling them to “be wary of what you say” and describing the director as a “Zionist”.

The film later showed how the crew were prevented from accessing the illegal student encampment.

In the documentary a Jewish student who called herself "Maya", described being confronted by other students after she identified herself as a Zionist.

"The term “intifada” is debated within the film, with one student described it as “the breaking off of chains”, while another says the phrase “intifada revolution” constitutes “a genocidal chant”.

The documentary also highlighted the experiences of Jewish students on campus. One student says: “There is a defence of everyone’s rights but Jewish people’s rights,” while another added: “I’ve had much more difficulty being Jewish than I have trans.”

Bienstock, the director of the documentary who is Jewish, reflected on the reaction to 7 October, saying: “Watching 7 October described as ‘exhilarating’ was hard to process”. Indeed, when students at Cornell University learn Bienstock is Jewish, they brand her a Zionist without engaging with her to learn her views. Later, many of them shy away from her altogether. 

Regrettably in some ways, rather than centering on the Jewish experience of campus life, it argues that while antisemitism on campus is a genuine concern, it has become intertwined with wider ideological and political battles over free speech, protest and academic freedom - in effect minimising the Jewish student experience of hate, bullying, direct antisemitism and pro-Pally intimidation.

Political comment

About fifty years ago I returned to university, first as a student then later as an academic member of staff. Prior to my arrival, I would have described myself as largely Jewish in name only - I didn't attend shul and my knowledge of Jewish history and culture was little more than perfunctory, but that was all about to change.

This was the era of the rise of the far right in Britain and while they were never to achieve the success of the British Union of Fascists, they were extremely vocal and becoming increasingly popular. What I experienced in those early days at university stunned me and totally changed my life, because I knew to expect antisemitism from declared fascists, but what I had not expected was the bitterness and hatred of 'supposed' leftists and anti-racists.

At a national level, the National Union of Students (NUS) who were responsible for protecting student affairs at a national and local level had an across the board policy of 'no platform for Zionism', which effectively meant no Jewish student society could discuss issues about Israel of invite Zionist speakers. So when I fist approached my local Union president indicating a desire to set up a local Jewish society I was firmly advised that they thought it a bad idea, but if I chose to proceed, I would have to agree to uphold NUS policy.

Now I apologise to American readers for this somewhat long biographical titbit, but I use it to explain a key and extremely important point - In over 50 years and across the world nothing has changed - the oldest hate still festers in our colleges and universities unabated.

In the US, Students for Justice in Palestine continue to hold a large sway in student politics, including intimidating Jewish students unabated. Polls undertaken during the height of the campus protests showed 8% of the entire national student population had participated with 45% supporting them. In response, and in an attempt to protect our Jewish students a substantial number of law suits were filed in an effort to silence the pro-Palestine bullies but most have failed, arguing speech and slogans at the heart of the controversy are protected by the first amendment. But sadly the courts have failed to see the point. If you are Jewish and you need to walk from point A to point B and that means traversing an area filled with dozens, if not hundreds of students calling for a global Intifada, or the death of every Jew in Israel then you are not safe.

Fifty years ago I was told I would be physically hurt if I set up a Jewish society and it is still the same today.

We have failed to support our Jewish students and we continue to do so today - and more importantly, no-one seems to care. So my question is - what will it take for politicians to realise campus antisemitism is rampant and pretty words and investigative committees are no longer enough.

Wake up and smell the coffee - antisemitism is on the rise and our politicians are doing nothing

Since October 7th the world has seen a huge surge in antisemitism reminiscent  of Germany during the early stage of the Nazi regime. In response a number of political leaders across Europe and the United States have called for action to protect Jewish communities from race hate. However despite these efforts, where they exist, the statistics show that far from being a decline, there remains a significant problem.

Today's blog will explore some of these efforts and will argue the majority are fundamentally tokenistic and do little to reduce race crime.

There is nothing new about Situational Crime Prevention. It was originated by Ronald V. Clarke in the 1970s and became a broad policy approach led by the British Home Office Research Unit and exported in various forms abroad. The approach is underpinned by a core belief that offenders, particularly perpetrators of antisemitic crime act rationally, weighing risks (getting caught) against the satisfaction of upsetting or harming the victim.

                                               Ronald V. Clarke

With this theoretical underpinning of crime prevention against Jews as a base, let us dissect the actions taken by several countries and analyse its effectiveness, starting with the US and the efforts of President Trump 

United States

In the United States, President Donald Trump has enacted the following:

• Executive Order 14188 (2025): Shortly after his 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued a new executive order, “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” which vowed to vigorously use legal tools to prosecute and remove perpetrators of antisemitic harassment and violence.
• Federal Funding Pressure: The administration has indicated a willingness to withhold federal funds from universities, such as targetting funding for institutions like Columbia University over the way they handled campus protests.
• Targeting Campus Antisemitism: The administration launched investigations and lawsuits against institutions like Harvard, accusing them of allowing anti-Israel protesters to operate "with impunity" after the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
• Use of IHRA Definition: The Department of Education under Trump has applied the IHRA definition of antisemitism to include anti-Zionism and certain criticisms of Israel as actionable discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• Immigration and Visa Controls: Executive actions in 2025 directed federal agencies to review foreign student visas, allowing for the potential deportation of students who "advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats," which the administration tied to campus antisemitism.

In essence these look like promising moves, albeit a little overstating the significance of campus antisemitism rather than looking at Jew-hate in the wider community. However this may be being unfair because it is action. So how have these approaches panned out in practice?

Well, in fairness, it is early days, but initial indicators from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are not good. According to their research, antisemitic incidents in the US. reached record highs in 2024 and have continue to surge throughout the whole of 2025, driven by post-October 7, tensions. According to ADL data, 2024 saw 9,354 recorded incidents, with 2025 data showing a rising, more brazen trend, particularly in high-density areas, with a 21% rise in physical assaults reported.

Furthermore, by the end of 2025 over 30% of American Jews reported feeling unsafe in professional or social settings and 18% experienced direct physical or verbal threats. Meanwhile, on social media platforms 73% of American Jews experienced antisemitism online during 2025, specifically on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.

The evidence also shows little significant change in the number of hate crimes prosecuted and/ or convictions resulting in over 90% of American Jews feeling unsafe. Consequently and based on data available, early indications are that the Trump initiative isn't working or, if it is the change required to make America safe for Jews is happening too slowly.

United Kingdom

But before we start pillorying Trump for doing too little it would be worth comparing US efforts to address endemic antisemitism compared to other nations. Let us take the UK as an initial example. The UK has a long history of Jew hatred that goes back to Hugh of Lincoln in 1200 and the resulting Jewish expulsion in 1290. They did not return until  l 1656 during the Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell. Since then Jews were largely able to go about their daily business in peace, though antisemitic attacks continued.

It was only really after October 7th that attacks became more prevalent, though signs of antisemitic behaviour became more prevalent among the hard  Left when Corbyn became leader of Labour and the EHRC ruling against the party in 2020.

More recently, the Community Security Trust  "Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025", , showed 3,700 instances of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in 2025, the second highest annual total ever, and a 4% rise from the 3,556 antisemitic incidents in 2024, and second only to the 4,298 antisemitic incidents logged in 2023. CST recorded 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, and 2,261 in 2021.

Broadly speaking UK government action against antisemitism appears to lie primarily with providing financial support to the Community Security Trust who have been allocated £28 million in 2025/26 through the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant. This includes additional emergency funding of £10 million. In addition, the government have prioritised interventions in the following areas: 

1. Security: Providing better support to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities. 
2. Education: Tackling antisemitism in schools, colleges, and universities and ensuring that we raise children and young people who embrace people from all backgrounds and faiths.
3. Institutional Action: Tackling antisemitism in key institutions, particularly the NHS, and the culture, sport, and voluntary sectors.

In short, most would agree the UK government have done next to nothing to eradicate antisemitism but Starmer continues to spout meaningless soundbites to appease the Jewish community. Take for example his recent meetings with Birmingham university students who itemised some of the problems associated with being a student on campus. He listened but offered no suggestions as to how a Labour government might help bring change.

France

Meanwhile, in France, Antisemitism has surged dramatically since October 2023, following the Hamas-Israel conflict, with reported incidents increasing by nearly 400% in 2023 to 1,676, compared to 436 in 2022. This includes a spike in physical assaults, school incidents, and acts of vandalism. The sharp rise continues a trend, with 2024 maintaining similarly high levels of anti-Jewish acts.

In response, the government elevated the domestic security alert to the highest possible level (Vigipirate), increasing security around Jewish schools and places of worship. 

President Emmanuel Macron vowed that perpetrators would be punished, prompting a strong crackdown on vandalism and violent attacks. In 2024, the government recorded 9,400 racist crimes and incidents, with the interior ministry emphasizing "total commitment" to tracking down attackers of Jewish individuals and properties.

Noticeably in the immediate period after October 7th over 1,000 antisemitic crimes were recorded but within that same period (post-October 7, 2023), 486 (less than half) were arrested for antisemitic offences in France.

Sadly, most of Europe reveals the same picture with Germany in particular showing a disturbing number of antisemitic crime and a poor conviction rate.

Political comment

The data clearly demonstrates that throughout much of the 'free world' not enough is being done to reduce or even eliminate antisemitism and without a clear strategy to deal with the problem it will continue to grow and prosper - our children will be frightened in their schools, our teenager boys will fear muggings, or girls will be unsafe on our streets, as will our elderly. Going to synagogue will no longer a joy but will become a weekly and dangerous period in our lives.

We cannot allow this to continue.

- and there is an alternative way. All it needs is for government to be willing to invest in our Jewish communities.

In particular:

Legislation - enact a law where antisemitism is viewed as a hate crime and, if convicted in a court of law a perpretrator would receive a custodial sentence of no less than 12-months for a non-violent crime and no less than 5 years for a violent one. Children under 16 would receive a detention and training order of no less than 12 months, or juvenile detention centre in the US,

• A visible and active police presence in local Jewish communities. Demonstatrors attempting to enter Jewish communities or near synagogues will be subject Dispersion orders or Anti-|Social behaviour orders. Police currently have this authority already but must use them far more to protect local residents.
• Holocaust education to become a core part of the curriculum for all schhol children over 13 years of age.
• The USSA, local college student unions, or NUS should be denied authority to require student unions from preventing college/ university Jewish societies from discussing Zionism or Israeli issues. Any attempt to do would be deemed a denial of free speech.
• Any Imam or Muslim from a foreign country who calls for Jihad or globalising the intifada will be subject to immediate repatriation. If the perpetrator is a UK or US national they will face terrorism charges for inciting violence.
• Legislation should be prepared to stipulate Anti-Zionism is racism and that expression of such by a public servant is subject to disciplinary charges,

Now I would be the first to agree there are significant issues with many of these points, but they offer an initial discussion base that could ultimately lead to feeling safer and a substantial decline in race crime

Whatever we do, one thing is transparent - we must do more!