Wednesday, November 11, 2026
Elder of ZiyonSave the Children UK has a documented problem with antisemitism among its staff. In March 2025, an independent review commissioned by the charity found that antisemitic and anti-Muslim slurs had persisted in the organization, contributing to employees leaving. Jewish employees reported feeling unsafe, while leadership had failed to adequately address offensive behavior.
An independent review recommended that Save the Children adopt a recognized definition of antisemitism, suggesting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition. It also recommended particular care with Nazi and Holocaust comparisons and warned against using "Zionist" as a euphemism for Jew.
But according to the Jewish Chronicle, Save the Children has decided not to adopt IHRA. Instead, it says:
Following the consultation with staff equality networks, Save the Children's leadership agreed we will use the Equality Act and Acas guidance on race and religion or belief discrimination.
Refusing to use IHRA as a guideline for what is antisemitic is problematic, since there is nothing in Acas guidance that describes how antisemitism is fundamentally different from other bigotries and therefore discrimination based on antisemitism might be invisible to an employer that relies on Acas.
Looking at the Acas guidance, I noticed something that could be especially useful to Jews facing workplace discrimination, and potentially to Zionists who aren't Jewish at all.
The law protects philosophical beliefs, not just religions and ethnic groups. And Zionism should qualify.
It gives three examples of beliefs that employment tribunals have recognized as protected:
Ethical veganism: the moral conviction that animals should not be exploited or mistreated.
Environmentalism: beliefs concerning the need to address climate change and protect the environment.
Gender-critical beliefs: the conviction that a person cannot change their sex.
This means that a meat-eater is free to disagree with a vegan and discuss how much he loves hamburgers. But an employer cannot simply declare that vegans are morally misguided and refuse to hire them because of their protected belief.
Similarly, people who believe that sex is immutable and those who hold opposing convictions about gender identity may have fundamentally incompatible worldviews. Both can receive legal protection, subject to the applicable legal criteria. The law does not require them to agree with one another.
The same principle applies to religious convictions about abortion and philosophical commitments to reproductive autonomy. Whether a particular belief qualifies for protection is a separate legal question from whether someone else considers that belief morally objectionable.
The point of protecting philosophical beliefs is precisely that people can hold opposing convictions without being entitled to discriminate against one another.
Is Zionism a protected belief?
Acas sets out five requirements for a protected philosophical belief. It must be genuinely held, be more than an opinion based on currently available information, concern a significant aspect of human life, possess seriousness and coherence, and be compatible with respect for fundamental rights in a democratic society.
Zionism, understood as the belief that the Jewish people have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, should satisfy all five. It is a deeply held conviction for many people, grounded in principles of national identity, collective rights, historical continuity and self-determination. It is hardly a passing political opinion. Its adherents can articulate a coherent philosophy, and the underlying principle does not require denying fundamental rights to anyone else (despite others insisting it does.)
Acas does exclude mere loyalty to a country from protection. But Zionism is not simply loyalty to the State of Israel, much less support for whatever government happens to be in power. A Zionist can oppose Israeli government policies, demand territorial compromises or support Palestinian self-determination while remaining a Zionist.
Indeed, Acas explicitly notes that political beliefs can qualify when they satisfy the criteria for philosophical beliefs.
And British courts have already ruled that anti-Zionism is a protected philosophical belief!
In 2024, an employment tribunal ruled that David Miller, the former University of Bristol professor dismissed over his statements about Zionism and Jewish students, held a protected philosophical belief. Miller believes that political Zionism was inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and therefore ought to be opposed.
In August 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the protected status of his anti-Zionist beliefs, although it also distinguished his protected beliefs from comments concerning Jewish students and student organizations that the original tribunal had considered objectionable.
I strongly disagree with this ruling. In my view, Miller's public statements and conduct reveal hostility toward Zionists that goes well beyond abstract political opposition. The tribunal nevertheless separated his stated philosophical belief from some of his conduct toward Jewish students, recognizing the former as protected while accepting that the latter could constitute misconduct. Miller's actual actions and words, in my opinion, go way beyond his carefully crafted statement to the tribunal about his supposed philosophical beliefs.
But, bad or not, the ruling exists. And if the belief that Zionism is inherently racist can receive protection as a philosophical belief, then certainly the belief that Jews possess the same right to national self-determination as other peoples should also receive protection.
The law does not automatically recognize one belief merely because its opposite is protected. Each must satisfy the legal criteria independently. The Miller judgment establishes that a political philosophy concerning Zionism can qualify.
And Acas explicitly recognizes that opposing beliefs may coexist in the same workplace. Its guidance on preventing discrimination states explicitly, "Most organisations will have employees with different or opposing beliefs." It goes on to say that employees may hold beliefs others find offensive, but employers must ensure that expressions of those beliefs do not become discriminatory conduct.
That principle should apply to Zionism and anti-Zionism just as it applies to other competing philosophical convictions.
An anti-Zionist should be free to argue that Zionism is racism. Once Zionism is recognized as a protected philosophical belief, Zionists would have the same statutory protection against discrimination on that ground as people holding other protected philosophical beliefs. Calling a protected belief racist does not automatically give an employer permission to discriminate against people who hold it.
This provides a much easier path to protect Jewish Zionists (and other Zionists) from workplace discrimination than relying on defining Zionism as a religious belief. Like it or not, the existence of anti-Zionist Jews has made it more difficult for non-Jewish reviewers to rule consistently that Zionism fits under religion or ethnicity anti-discrimination rules.
But if Zionism is defined as a protected philosophical belief, then Zionists should automatically qualify for the same protection as vegans or socialists. Discrimination against them would not rely on additional arguments about the relationship between Zionism and Judaism.
It is unclear whether the independent review identified any specifically anti-Zionist discrimination at Save the Children UK. The review reported that Jewish employees felt intimidated and that some had been afraid to speak, but it didn't specify why. Recognizing Zionism as a protected belief could give employees an additional avenue of protection where hostility was directed at their Zionist convictions rather than explicitly at their Jewish identity.
Nothing about this proposal makes IHRA unnecessary as a tool for recognizing antisemitism. it is an additional tool.
This approach could also provide a model for other jurisdictions that recognize philosophical or political beliefs as protected characteristics, although many countries do not have laws equivalent to Britain's.
Save the Children pointed to Acas as its alternative to adopting IHRA. It may have inadvertently pointed to a legal principle that offers Zionists a more direct form of workplace protection than arguments based solely on Jewish identity.
This would be a very good test case for any remaining Zionists working at Amnesty in the UK.
