In Britain, and not only Britain, solidarity with the community tends to be post-mortem
December 18, 2025 11:24
For two years, the government and the police have stood by while extremists marched through Britain’s cities chanting "globalise the intifada”.
Police and prosecutorial authorities, who can otherwise be relied upon to take an expansive interpretation of the Public Order Act, were now strict constructionists and would not act against those calling to massacre Jews in the UK and around the world without additional powers.
This put the onus on Parliament, but its hyperactive legislators, not known for their qualms about criminalising speech, couldn’t rouse themselves to put pen to paper and toddle into the division lobbies to ban incitement to violence against Jews in the name of the Palestinian cause.
Suddenly, that’s all changed. The constabulary is to be given more powers and two forces, the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police, say they will use them to act against chants of "globalise the intifada”.
For Jewish groups which have been urging a crackdown on this fashionable call to Jew-murder, the U-turn will be welcome, and the policy shift may even make British Jews feel a little bit more safe. If nothing else, they might be able to stroll down Piccadilly without it sounding like they’ve turned a corner into downtown Nablus.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge progress. However belatedly, those in power have listened. But what’s so wrong with being churlish? The safety and wellbeing of Jews has been, at best, a second-order priority for the authorities in this country. A state eager to burnish its anti-racist credentials with other ethnic and cultural minorities was evidently not as moved by the “lived experience” of British Jews.
Until, that is, Heaton Park and Bondi Beach. It took the intifada being globalised for them to act against calls to do just that. And for this, Jews are supposed to be grateful? Relieved, perhaps, but no gratitude is owed for the state finally deciding that all of its citizens must be protected, not just those who take to the streets and make lots of noise.
In their joint statement announcing the fresh measures, Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and GMP chief constable Sir Stephen Watson tell Jews “we see you, we hear you, and we stand with you”, and just to underscore this they include a seasonal bromide: “Chanukah reminds us that light endures, even in the darkest times.”
The light did not endure on its own. The lamps were kept aflame by the God of Abraham and guarded by the son of Mattathias. The Maccabees had to fight for Jerusalem before they could rededicate the temple. They could not rely on the patronage or protection of civil authorities. For the Jewish people, it’s been that way ever since.
A familiar pattern has taken shape since October 7: Jews warn of a threat, their warning goes unheeded, Jews are killed, and then, and only then, is the threat taken seriously. When Jews raise the alarm, they are deemed alarmist. They have to die before they are taken seriously. It’s easy enough to announce that you stand with Jews, what matters is when you do it. In Britain, and not only Britain, solidarity with Jews tends to be post-mortem.
Now that the law is changing, two questions loom: will it be enforced and will it be effective? On the first question, it will be for Jewish groups and others who monitor extremists to examine the police response to calls for globalising the intifada. If it is to be an arrestable offence, it must be policed with consistency and without regard to the scale of potential offending or the displeasure of any sectional interest. The Met and GMP should prepare for a campaign of intentional law-breaking similar to that seen following the proscription of Palestine Action. No one wants officers to dedicate scarce resources to an endless stream of political activists out to make a statement, but the law must be enforced all the same.
The other consideration, that of effectiveness, is more difficult to gauge. Depending on the terms of any new legislation or statutory powers, it seems obvious that would-be offenders will find another formulation that communicates the same essential meaning without crossing whatever red line the law lays down. This reflects an unpleasant reality that many are still not ready to confront. You cannot arrest your way out of an extremism problem and even if you could it would surely involve sweeping restrictions on expressive liberty. We have more than enough of those in this country.
The reason cries of “globalise the intifada” have become more common in Britain is that Britain is home to ever-increasing numbers of people who are ill-disposed towards Jews, some of them homicidally so. This is a product of cultures where antisemitism is embedded in the national culture, where execrations are pronounced on Israel and Zionism with open bloodlust and some see a religious or tribal obligation to avenge their brothers with the blood of Jews. The continued importation into Britain of Islamists – coupled with the persistent failure to confront their home-grown counterparts – is itself an act of globalising the intifada and until the government faces up to that no police statements will keep Jews safe.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.
